Steyr Club Forums banner

San Francisco Voters Approve Handgun Ban

2745 Views 13 Replies 7 Participants Last post by  alagator
I can't believe this passed: ... 4422.story

It still boggles my mind that Americans can let one of thier rights be taken away so easily. Everything this country stands for is the complete opposite of what has happened in San Fran in this case. If they are so scared of firearms then they need to move to a european country where it is illegal to own one and the state makes all your decisions for you anyway.

I don't understand why people in the PRK are so ready to disarm themselves and let the state gov walk all over their 2A rights.

Any other thoughts?

1 - 14 of 14 Posts
<BEST Kang and Kodos VOICE>

Soon my brother, soon they will be ripe for the plucking

muah ha ha haaaaa

jimmythesaint said:
<BEST Kang and Kodos VOICE>

Soon my brother, soon they will be ripe for the plucking

muah ha ha haaaaa

He he... "Bring us your CLIN-TON!"

Serriously though, any other thoughts on this?


thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard how can they just take our rights from us i can tell you that i would not give up any of my guns without a fight :evil: i agree who in their right mind would just vote to give up their rights
A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to challenge the initiative in court, arguing that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under California law.
I would like to see how this plays out before vowing to never enter CA again.

Working in the environment that I do, I get to see on a daily basis, just how f'd up this world is! I'm thankful that I live in the country that I do, and I have the rights and opportunities that I do. I can't believe that people would voluntarily just give up their rights.

This is especially disturbing seeing this post the day before Veteran's Day. I have a large poster in my garage of my grandfather and his crew taken during WWII that reminds me on a DAILY BASIS that our forefathers fought and died to ensure we have the rights we do, and it pisses me off to see people in this country pissing all over this fact. In fact I'm getting quite pissed right now just typing this!

You know this is a free country, which means people are allowed to think and feel how they want without fear of repression. It also means that if you don't like it, YOU'RE FREE TO LEAVE.
i'm sure there's going to be a big line of criminals just itching to surrender their weapons. they'll be busy in april cause they also have to pay taxes on all their "earnings".

hate to say it, but maybe we'll observe a spike in crime that will force prk residents to reconsider. maybe if the mayor gets carjacked he'll see that it's not the nice guys with guns who are trouble. it is criminals who pose danger.

i think we should ban crime. oh wait a minute, we did. and convicted criminals aren't allowed to have guns right? but they do. so ban the guns?, or harsher punishment for criminals? my gun isn't hurting anyone that isn't hurting me.

so when someone attacks me i'm supposed to call the police. why? because they have guns and authority to tell the attacker to stop. but i'm not allowed to thwart an attack, beause i'm just a lowly civilian. garbage.

allegheny county has the highest number of ccw permits in the country, and we don't have much trouble. the drug dealers have even stopped carrying guns (atleast when they're actually dealing) because it's now a fedreal crime to use a gun during a drug deal. that's effective legislation.

banning the ability to keep a gun in your house is unconstitutional. handgun, shotgun, machine gun (with class III of course) doesn't matter. amend. 1 says i have the right to free speech which is constantly upheld in this country. amend 2 says i have the right to bear arms, which is constantly under attack in this country. what's up with that?

you've infiringed my right to life, liberty and happiness if i must live in fear of not being able to defend myself from the attack of someone who is allready a criminal and won't be handing over any guns in april.

bans on guns are every bit as effective as bans on drugs and booze.
See less See more
bigtaco said:
so when someone attacks me i'm supposed to call the police. why? because they have guns and authority to tell the attacker to stop.
The average citizen doesn't understand this like those of us that take our personal protection seriously. They actually belive that.

"American citizens simply cannot count on the police to protect them from assault. Almost always, the only thing the police can do is show up after the fact and sort things out. Laws are not written to prevent crime; they are written to give society the means to punish the criminal after he has committed his misdeed. In short, when crunch time comes, you are on your own,"

writes columnist Michael Bowers:

This was taken from another forum on what I would consider a related topic. Please take what you will from it, I just felt that it was some what appropriate within this particular topic.

Baby Gorilla said:
Sort of religious, sort of worldly debate here.

When I was pursuing law enforcement, I believed "the law was the law" and all that jazz.

When I went to law school, I learned the finer points of "what really is the law" and how to determine what "law" applies and is valid. I also, to my dismay, learned that the whole legal system is essentially bought and paid for before most of us were ever born....imposing the will of a few on the masses by deceit, abuse, and manipulation.

So, how do you all deal with the issue? I'll paint an obvious debate going on in our nation....

Driving, is it a RIGHT or a PRIVILEDGE?

Only RULE for this debate (if one develops). You must back your position with FACTS, not OPINIONS. Your facts must be based on tangible EVIDENCE.

The Federal Courts have ruled....

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313"

There is much more than this, but sufficient to say that multiple states and Federal courts recognize that travel (by motorized vehicle) on the public roads for PERSONAL affairs cannot be denied or regulated by the issuing or requirement of a "driver's license."

Other court rulings affirm the licensing and regulation IS permitted when a person makes their living off the roads (commercial drivers).

It is established that this is so because the right of locomotion by the means of the day is an inalienable right.

By definition, "inalienable" means the government cannot restrict, pass laws regulating, etc. because the rights of the people are not subject to government regulation.

So, how does it come to pass that all of us have a driver's license?

Well, here's the basic way it happens.

You cannot be regulated where an inalienable right is concerned. You can, however, freely CONTRACT to exchange your right for a conditional prviledge.


I'd guess none of you were told that. When I was trained as a deputy, nobody told me anything more about the law then what they wanted me to enforce. The clerks at the DMV clearly don't know anything beyond what they are told to tell the customers. So, who are you trusting to tell you what the "law" is? Do you have a duty to obey the "law" if you discover that what they claim the law is really is a fraud?

I find this interesting because cops I've known who are avid gun rights people not only don't support gun control laws, but they tend to horde weapons and ammo and will not hesitate to shoot a fellow officer if that day comes that the government orders that all civilian-owned guns are illegal. Interesting position from someone who is sworn to uphold the law. However, what I've noticed is that because these people have an interest in that area of law, they've read more than what they were taught at the academy or their training personnel and find out that the hierarchy of law (Sovereign Citizens, Constitution, primary sources of law, secondary sources of law, etc.) establish that the right to own a weapon is superior to the many laws illicitly pushed upon the people.

I've learned that just because they put it in a law book doesn't make it valid law. The problem with most people (not just law enforcement types) is that they think law=valid. That's not true. The government cannot pass laws on many issues, but they do, and they get away with it because the legal system is not only corrupt but very expensive if you want to try and fight the "law" to have the correct rule of law asserted.


When I was disgusted in law school with how the legal system was owned by the super rich for their own benefit, I asked a pastor how do you deal with a law you don't agree with.

His reply was, "You obey the law unless it contradicts God's law."

The problem is, the world has basically two forms of government. Government that rules by consent of the governed, or thugs with guns...people who hold power solely by threat of violence.

America is supposed to be a government created by the Sovereign State Citizens...given sufficient power to manage finite enumerated affairs.

Is that what you see anymore? Where is the "social contract" between me as a Sovereign and the state? Every time I deal with the state, they are calling all the shots, ready to impose fines and imprisonment upon me if I don't do thing THEIR way. I read the law and find that the state takes power left and right illegally, but because they have the guns, they seem to get no resistance.


I point all this out for a reason.

Some people (Christian and non-Christian) are bucking the system. Refusing to follow laws they know are illicitly imposed....after doing the research to establish the fact that the current "law" was imposed by force or by fraud. Some go the whole route of not paying taxes, not having a driver's license, and for a large part, the state leaves them alone.

Working in a law office, I see that there is no justice in the court system....a cop says the defendant did it, no evidence to support the alleged crime, and the judge and prosecutor want to send him to prison for something they can't prove. The man's defense attorney is given no resources and hardly any money to defend him, and juries are conditioned to think that if you are called before the court, you MUST have done something wrong. We've gone from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt.

Appeal a conviction? The appeals courts would just as soon let you rot in jail. By time we might get one man's conviction overturned he will already have served his sentence.

If the true "law" that can be established by the records of what is the "law" say you don't owe taxes, don't need a driver's license, can't be searched without a warrant, cannot be held without due process, what duty do we owe (as Christians) to abide by "laws" that work to the contrary? Should any police officer (especially a Christian one) enforce laws that are based upon a special interest group's effort to impose their will on the many in total disregard for that the law really says?


Something to think about next time a cop, government clerk, lawyer, or even a "judge" tells you the law says one thing or another. All of them are trained in the law only so far as their teachers want them to have knowledge.

Just so you know, if you want to know how to establish that you don't legally have to pay taxes, it's in the IRS code. Of course, the truth is concealled under thousands of pages of regulations. The IRS would say you are a "taxpayer." The truth is, if you really dig for what the IRS defines as a "taxpayer" in their own rules, you are not a taxpayer. What gets you every April 15 are three factors: (1) You believe their lie and file a return and pay the extortion; (2) You fear the power they have to seize and prosecute you if you don't pay what they claim you owe; and (3) When you file a tax return, you are stating UNDER OATH that you owe what the return claims you owe....negating any claim that you don't owe the taxes except for the defenses of fraud and duress.

How much of our "law" is imposed on us by means of lies and threat of violence? Do we owe a duty to laws imposed that way?
Taken from CSBA Forum
Paying taxes is like donating to an ethnic businessmans' association (paying protection to the Mafia) or asserting property rights to the NKVD. Yeah, you can say you don't owe it but they will murder your family and send the survivors off to the gulag. In the end you don't have enough money, power, or ammo to prevail over the army of cops, shysters, and bureaucrats they will send against you. Unfortunately, the Power structure has managed to usurp and traduce the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and there's nothing the peons can do about it. Waco and Ruby Ridge were demonstrations of what happens to those who refuse to kow-tow.
Re: the SF gun ban- The Demokratik Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia has dysvolved into West New Jersey. They are groveling socialists, and I will experience no guilt over the Schadenfreude I feel when they are inundated by violence and affray. We must be ready to capitalize on the situation when it inevitably occurs and point out the failure to the rest of the country.
Just want to point out that SF is banning handguns and not all firearms. While I disagree with this ban I wanted to point out it is not the total disarming of the law abiding population. A good shotgun is hard to beat for home defense.

If I though the people of SF wanted my assistance, I'd take time from work to go there and fight against this (legaly), but this is by their own choice. Honestly, I hope the remaining gun owners in SF resist and force a showdown. Authorities will have to choose to either not enforce the law or take them by force. If it comes to force I will migrate to the front lines.

Not to spout off like some sort of wanna-be tough guy, but if this came to my town they'd better call in an air strike because there will be heavy casualties if they think there walking up the driveway.
All this ban does is say that people who are residents of San Francisco may not posses handguns within the city limits ... if you live outside of San Francisco you can own and posses a handgun within the city limits.

pretty silly eh?
If I am awakened by a bump in the night, I have my S-9 and a Surefire by the bed, and I get up on my hind legs and go downstairs to serve as a greeting comittee. A few nights ago, my girlfriend in England heard something, and just pulled the covers over her head and hoped it wasn't an intruder, and if so, hoped they would't come upstairs. The nearest constable is one village over, about 20 minutes if the cows aren't in the road. Police don't usually stop a crime in progress, they investigate after the crime, and if everything works, eventually that criminal is off the streets for a few months or years. If he comes into my house, he will be off the streets forever. If they take all my registered guns, then I will use the unregistered ones. or a compound bow (talk about a mess!!)
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.