Wednesday, November 28, 2012

San Francisco Gun Control Laws Upheld - Another Defeat for the NRA

Local news reports
San Francisco is claiming a legal victory over the National Rifle Association, but an attorney for the group says its fight against local gun control laws is just beginning.

A 2007 city law — strengthened by then-Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi in 2011 — compels gun owners to “safely store” firearms in their homes and generally requires them to use trigger locks. A 1994 ordinance outlawed possession of “particularly dangerous ammunition” such as fragmenting bullets and expanding bullets with “no sporting purpose.”

The NRA first went after the restrictions in 2009, but on Monday, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the group’s lawyers had failed to prove the restrictions inhibit constitutional rights to bear arms. As a result, an injunction sought by the NRA was not granted.

The NRA is having a bad year. They couldn't pick a winner in the big election, now this.

What's your opinion? Isn't it a little weird to claim constitutional protection for certain kinds of bullets and the right to NOT safely store your guns?  What's wrong with these people?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Mikeb, once again, you show your ignorance. Hollow point bullets are safer, since they have less tendency to go through the target and on into something or someone else. San Francisco has actually mandated more dangerous ammunition.

    Those so-called safe storage laws are aimed at making a gun unavailable when the good citizen needs it. Gun control freaks can't stand it when a good citizen uses a gun for self-defense. Your side doesn't want to lose any supporters.

    But wait for the appeal.

  2. Exactly right. The ammunition silliness is a perfect example of the left legislating from emotion instead of reason.

    "What? They have bullets that expand upon impact? That is so cruel - there is no need for that kind of butchery! Let's ban them."

    Nevermind the fact that many (perhaps even most) gunshot victims die from blood loss which is significantly greater at the exit wound. Nevermind that the person firing the shot is responsible for the round even when it passes completely through the intended target. Nevermind the facts. Let's ban the bullet with the scary sounding description.

  3. sorry theirs really no excuse against arming people with heat seeking bullets.

  4. Problem, the ammunition that you say is so good has been illegal to use in warfare. While incorrectly attributed to the Geneva conventions, The 1868 Declaration of St Petersburg banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams. Declaration III of the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body, giving as example a bullet with a jacket with incisions or one that does not fully cover the core.

    Hence military rounds are made with a full metal jacket.

    So, it's not those bleeding heart liberals who find these bullets barbaric. They are illegal to use in combat.

    We could get into how a bullet actually kills as well, which is why they are illegal for warfare.

    1. Gee Laci,

      It would seem to me that a battlefield is much different environment than a self defense situation. Would you agree that there are different factors to consider? Perhaps when shooting across enemy lines, one is not quite as concerned about what may lie behind the target. What do you think?

      Further (and I am just relying the information you provided here) - exploding rounds and expanding rounds are two separate things. So the 1868 Declaration of St Petersburg seems to be irrelevant.

      Also, a lot has changed in the way of medicine, and specifically, battlefield medicine since 1899. But I seriously doubt the major players of warfare (i.e. nations) care very much to change the rules. Because when you are talking about small weapons rounds in a combat situation - you want lots of them and you want them cheap. You also want them to feed reliably in the worst types of environments. So I doubt there is a lot of pressure to reconsider whether the reasons behind the prohibitions are still applicable.

      Ball ammo would still be the round of choice for those reasons. It's just not the round of choice for defense in urban environments.

    2. Since you want to run through the facts, why don't you point out that the United States is not a signatory to the treaty in question. We generally use full-metal jacket ammunition in warfare to play nice with others, although I've heard that in operations against terrorists, that doesn't apply. But police departments throughout the nation use hollow point rounds because they're safer for innocents. Hollow point ammunition is legal in most places.

      And yes, the people who put together the treaty were bunch of bleeding heart types.

    3. Yet again, I don't think he is interested in looking at the actual facts and he won't have the intellectual honest to admit that he was wrong to your points or mine.

  5. Laci, have you ever heard the saying, “a wounded solider is a bigger burden to the enemy than a dead one”?

    A 1994 ordinance outlawed possession of “particularly dangerous ammunition” such as fragmenting bullets and expanding bullets with “no sporting purpose.”

    Huh? Expanding bullets specifically have a “sporting purpose”. You don’t hunt dear with ball ammo. But to correct another case of bad gun related reporting- the law doesn’t ban possession, just sale- probably part of why this was upheld.

    Do you really care about the safe-storage part? State law already makes it a crime if a child gains access to an unsecured gun. SF takes it a step further and allows for arrests even if no child touched it or even lives there. It seems you guys are always out to arrest more gun owners which is my biggest beef with you.

    By the way, did you all catch the nod to the total gun ban that Jadegold likes to say never happened?

    The NRA won a $380,000 settlement from The City in 2009 over a voter-approved gun ownership ban for anyone but law enforcement officers and certain security guards.