If San Francisco's new gun law stays on the books, it will enter into competition with Washington and Chicago for the dubious distinction of being the crime capital of the country.
Many folks have several reasons for not wanting to live in San Francisco. City voters there have just added another — they have just voted to ban handguns and require that they be turned in.
This is a good law to disobey. After all, the city gun ban violates the state preemption law, not to mention the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the new law is illegal. It is an act of lawlessness.
San Franciscans have shown just how detached from reality is their socialist world view. Their vote to disarm themselves follows on the heels of the lesson that even Bill O'Reilly learned from Katrina. The popular Fox TV host, no gunslinger he, seems to have had an epiphany in the lawlessness (official and otherwise) in New Orleans.
"Once I saw what happened in Hurricane Katrina," O'Reilly opined. "I said every American household should have a firearm. If there's a tremendous earthquake in San Francisco and looting, you don't want your family protected? You don't want a firearm in your house? You're living in the world of Oz."
It may be asking too much of San Francisco voters, but did they notice the helplessness of the average Frenchman in the face of the French government's refusal to deal with rioters? The mostly disarmed citizenry could do nothing but watch their cities burn while Muslim thugs chanted, "Allahu Akhbar!"Â
Of course, I may be missing the key factor here. San Franciscans may be visualizing that no natural disaster will take place there — such as an earthquake. Will they call 911 at such a time?Â
Actually, try calling 911 anytime you are being attacked. If you can make the call, you may get to leave a recording of your victimization. Then,  when the police come, all they will have to do is clean up the mess.Â
Will they ever "get it?" Or will they continue to overlook Katrina, Paris, and the lawlessness that terrorizes the residents of Washington, DC and Chicago? They banned guns in those cities, too. If San Francisco's law stays on the books — and it probably will not — they will enter into competition with Washington and Chicago for the dubious distinction of being the crime capital of the country.
Â
Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a
national gun lobby with over 300,000 members.
ldpratt@gunowners.org
http://www.gunowners.org
Read more articles by Larry Pratt
Well, this law would be effective if not for one detail. CRIMINALS DON'T GET THEIR
GUNS LEGALLY. THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS. Now the only people without
guns are the law abiding citizens who use them for protection. Why do you think D.C. has
such a high murder rate?
Comment by Schwartzenheimer | December 31, 2005
How can Chicago have and enforce a anti-gun law? It's against the Constitution. On what legal grounds can that pass and stand? ("Regular" laws do not apply to DC because it is not a state, no?).
Comment by Suttner | January 2, 2006
My understanding is that the applicability of the Second Amendment to the States has never been tested in the Supreme Court. Additionally, the existence of conflicting case law (U. S. v Miller [1939], and U. S. v Emerson [2001]) renders this a dangerous area for both sides.
Comment by Rivertrader | January 2, 2006