Gun Rights's topics - tribe.net

Don't worry the Government is here to help you

humanafterall — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:15:39 GMT

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

The police state is almost here:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/07/ldt.gov.guns.cnn

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/05/08/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

California AB 2062, anyone?

ohhhkelly — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:50:44 GMT

Hi,

I'm new to this Tribe (thank you for having it!)
and have a lot of learning to do (being a new gun owner and new to the NRA)

but I thought I would go out on a limb to post a little something about us Californians putting a helluva lot of -needed- pressure on the lawmakers in Sacramento...

a small snippet (to whet your appetite :-) )
...
"One of the biggest threats to firearms owners is AB 2062.
Assembly Bill 2062 (De Leon) imposes:
(1) an 'ammunition purchasers' permit requirement for Californians to purchase handgun ammo
(2) a fee for each Handgun ammo purchase
(3) requires a state license to sell ammunition
(4) more unfair restrictions on law-abiding gun owners............."

and some more...

"SITUATION; AB 2062 is a clear and present danger to all firearms owners in California! The NRA has been actively opposing AB 2062. Refer to the following pages for more information:
http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert040108.shtml & http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert040808.shtml .

•AB 2062 is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, May 7th, in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

•Several groups are coordinating active opposition to the overbearing restrictions of AB 2062.

•The NRA realizes that most California gun owners cannot take the time off of work and pay the ever-increasing fuel prices required to personally attend a "Lobby-Day" in the State Capitol in Sacramento.

•The NRA has made our legislative contact resources available to you, the firearms owner, so that you can participate in our statewide coordinated effort to oppose AB 2062....... no matter where you are located.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Tell the Legislators to stop supporting ill-conceived gun control proposals, such as the AB 2062 ammunition sales restriction scheme, by participating in NRA's Virtual Lobby-Day on Tuesday, May 6th.

•RIGHT NOW: Send this message to every gun owner you know. Include all: gun clubs, stores, ranges, RKBA groups, etc. Cross-post this on the Internet - on web sites and firearm-related forums. Email this link http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert042908.shtml to everyone you know.

•RIGHT NOW: On the Internet, go to the California Legislative Contact Page at: http://www.calnra.com/legs.shtml and use our ONE-CLICK email delivery system to contact the Assembly with a single message in opposition to AB 2062. Note: emails will be received in the legislators offices with the "From:" field set to the ORIGINAL SENDER. Remember that you are sending a single Email to several people. You should address your message accordingly. Example: Dear Assembly Member, . (Legislators will not see that they are receiving the same message as the others.)

•TUESDAY, MAY 6TH: Call and Fax the legislature and voice your opposition to more gun control proposals! And make those phone calls/faxes between 9:00AM until 4:00PM. Those firearms owners who can travel to the State Capitol will be visiting the legislative offices at the same time your calls and faxes will be arriving. Please be polite while you get your point across to them! The combination of your calls, faxes, and emails, together with those personal visits, will show the legislators that California's firearms owners strongly opposed AB 2062 and similar legislative proposals.

Contact information, including phone and fax numbers, is listed on the CA Legislative Contact Pages at: http://www.calnra.com/legs/asm.shtml .

Together, our voices will be heard and we can stop the anti-freedom forces and win back our rights!

California Legislative Contact resources:

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com aka http://www.calnra.com

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml

Official NRA-ILA web site:http://www.NRA-ILA.org"
________

I appreciate you all allowing me to post the jist of what came out from the Council....when I read it this afternoon I had a desire to share it with more people who care about gun ownership.

Like us. :-)

Thanks again for letting me post this.

posted in Gun Rights - 2 replies

Scotus overturns DC Ban and affirms individual right to keep and bear arms

Sasquatch — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:49:24 GMT

""In one of the most significant constitutional rulings handed down in many years, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has ruled that individual Americans have a right to protect themselves with a firearm under the 2nd Amendment."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/huge_scotus_victory_for_gun_ri.html

San Fransisco, you're reckoning is come. Taking rights for PC reasons bites.

Posting this in the other gun tribes too.

Sas

posted in Gun Rights - 3 replies

NRA lawyers

Swaz — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:35:23 GMT

I remember hearing/reading about some deal where you paid X-ammount a month to retain NRA council. Anyone hear of this? A few years ago while I was on DUI probation cops siezed all my guns and knives (and some garden tools) I wasn't charged with shit except that I had broken DUI probation by having weapons....I know, don't ask me. No felonies, no assaults, nothing has one to do with another. After three months I got out, contacted a judge and he wrote some memo saying it was cool for me to own. But my guns and knives were history. No hassles since.

Anyone get the skinny on retaining an NRA council?

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

save the cow palace gun show, call mark leno

missadventure — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:08:13 GMT

please call to tell Mark Leno to withdraw his bill: AB2948 Banning Gun Shows at the Cow Palace

So......give him a call, after all a box of 45 acp is $12 at the Cow Palace and $26 at the Chabot Gun Range (also one needs a car for Chabot)

Mark Leno
District Office
455 Golden Gate Ave.
Suite 14300
San Francisco, CA
94102
Phone (415) 557-3013
Fax (415) 557-3015

Capitol Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA
94249-0013
Phone (916) 319-2013
Fax (916) 319-2113

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

Sonoma County

pghickster — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:46:40 GMT

Any advice on getting a CC permit? Do I even really need one? The only time I plan to have a loaded gun with me is when I am back packing in the wilderness and don't imagine a cop going through my backpack. Never owned a gun before.
Thoughts?

posted in Gun Rights - 5 replies

CA Appeals Court finds SF Handgun Ban Illegal

Sasquatch — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:46:50 GMT

CA Appeals Court finds SF Handgun Ban Illegal.

Of course, the nannystatists overseers of San Francisco KNEW that state law trumped their little ordinance from the start so the money they just wasted fighting this appeal could have gone to so many other more useful needs were it not for their Cranial Inversion with regard to an individuals right to possess and carry a firearm.

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=254

Posting this on my other two gun rights tribes as well.

Sas

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

The Embarrassing Second Ammendment

DangerBoy — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:10:43 GMT

The Second Amendment: Citizens really are 'an army of one.'

Date published: 12/6/2005

SANFORD LEVINSON, a distin- guished constitutional law pro- fessor, wrote in the Yale Law Journal that the Second Amendment suffers from a lack of serious scholarship. Few law students envision the Second Amendment as an area of lucrative practice upon graduation. His article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," sent a shock wave through academia by suggesting that the amendment might actually mean what it says.

Issues involving guns have taken center stage in the cultural divide that separates Red and Blue America. Gun-control advocates point to the militia clause of the Second Amendment, arguing that it warrants a collective, rather than an individual, right to keep and bear arms. However, history--buttressed by the Founders' clear understanding--dictates that the amendment guarantees this right to individual Americans.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the Second Amendment since 1939. Then, United States v. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use. This opinion suggests that any demonstrably military weapon should enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has conjured rights from the Constitution that do not exist in the text--while disparaging those rights contained in the document itself--leaving both sides of the gun debate cause for concern in any future rulings.

Oblique references in subsequent cases lend credibility to an individual-rights interpretation. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in a 1990 case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, that the use of "the people" in the Bill of Rights was used not to avoid an "awkward rhetorical redundancy," but rather was chosen as a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution." He noted that the use of "the people" in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments was within the context of protecting that class of persons who are part of the national community.
A guns-and-ammo mandate

When adopted by the states, the Second Amendment generated no controversy. State and federal militia laws required citizens to keep arms and ammunition in their homes. These statutes specified everything from the number of cartridges to the amount of gunpowder that Americans were to keep on hand. Arms and accouterment for militia service were exempted from levy for indebtedness, and failure to have the proper equipment could draw fines.

The greater concern, as articulated by the great orator Patrick Henry, was how to provide guns to those who could not afford them. The bearing of arms was both a right and responsibility of citizenship, with arms being legally denied to those who were not citizens.

The militia--Richard Henry Lee, who put forth the motion to write the Declaration of Independence, described it as "the people themselves"--stood in marked contrast to the hated standing army. Equally despised was a "select militia" that excluded general citizen participation.

The very idea that citizens might be barred from militia membership was itself an indication of tyranny. To the Founders, a "well regulated" militia was capable of being directed in proper military order, serving those functions otherwise performed by a regular army.

The original purpose of the entire Bill of Rights was to prevent federal intrusion into the fundamental liberties of the people. The collective-rights interpretation contends that the militia clause limits the scope of the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteeing only that states can maintain a National Guard. The flaw of this interpretation is clear in the language of the Second Amendment, which secures the rights of the "people," and not the "states," to keep and bear arms.

The right to be armed for personal protection is well recognized by common law and preserved under the Ninth Amendment. The English Bill of Rights had guaranteed--in 1689, only to Protestants--arms for defense of self. William Blackstone wrote in his influential Commentaries that "Self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature so it is not, neither can it be, in fact, taken away by the law of society."
Defend thyself

The U.S. Supreme Court reiterated, in the 2005 case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, that government cannot be held liable for failure to protect the lives of its citizens. Personal self-defense remains an individual responsibility.

The Second Amendment serves two higher callings.

On a practical level, armed citizens provided the ultimate security against enemies and tyrants, without the cost of paid government forces.

On a philosophical level, the Founders knew that our ultimate success depended on the character of the people. George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that "no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue."

Much is assured us by the Bill of Rights--but much is also expected of us.

The ideal citizen was self-determinative and self-reliant, while consciously dedicated to the common good. A willingness to defend self and country, with privately owned arms, was the crucial indicator of character. Citizens possessed of both power and virtue were necessary to continue a republican form of government. Indeed, the American paragon is the Minuteman, typically represented as a yeoman farmer, who goes back to the plow when his martial duty is done.

The Second Amendment guarantees our sacred rights, but also reminds us of our solemn responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin observed that "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."

The Founders meant what they wrote--even if, as professor Levinson indicated, some today may find it "embarrassing."

posted in Gun Rights - 9 replies

NJ GOVERNOR AND NEWARK MAYOR’S ANTI-GUN PLAN ‘AN OUTRAGE’

DangerBoy — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:34:13 GMT

BELLEVUE, WA – Proposals by anti-gun New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker to establish “gun courts” and penalize gun owners who are victimized by burglars and thieves is “an outrage,” the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“Three young people with promising futures are slaughtered, and a fourth one brutally shot in the face by a gang of thugs that allegedly included an illegal alien, and all Gov. Corzine and Mayor Booker can do in response is come up with a multi-level scheme to punish law-abiding gun owners,” observed SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “That’s not simply disappointing, it is reprehensible."

“If there was ever a more clear-cut illustration of the anti-gun mindset among liberal Democrats, I have not seen it,” he continued. “Corzine, Booker and others of their bent will blather all day and night about providing sanctuary to illegal aliens, and the need to crack down on street crime, but who do they invariably target for tough justice? Law-abiding gun owners who had nothing to do with this crime, or any other crime, and the worst part of it is, they know it.”

Among the proposals floated by Corzine and Booker are local ordinances requiring the registration of all firearms in Newark, and the establishment of so-called “gun courts.” Another proposal is to require gun owners, who are themselves victimized when a criminal steals their firearm, to report the gun theft immediately or be held responsible. Booker also wants to ban gun sales in residential areas or near schools, even though there are no licensed firearms dealers in the entire city.

“First Booker plans to spend millions on surveillance cameras so cops can watch crimes being committed, rather than prevent those crimes,” Gottlieb said, “and now he and Corzine want to punish gun owners who are unfortunate enough to become crime victims, themselves, probably as an alternative to actually catching burglars and other real criminals and putting them behind bars. This is not simply an insult to every law-abiding firearms owner in New Jersey, who must already have a license, it is also an insult to the memories of those three young murder victims.

“Instead of using this horrible crime as a foundation for real change,” Gottlieb concluded, “Corzine and Booker are exploiting it to push their personal agenda against gun owners. This is a new low in anti-gun demagoguery.”

I received this email from the 2nd Ammendment Foundation and thought y'all would find it saddening.

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

CALIFORNIA JUDGE DISMISSES SUIT

DangerBoy — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:28:17 GMT

THANKS TO "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"

On Monday, Federal District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins used the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" as the basis for dismissal of a reckless "public-nuisance" lawsuit against firearm manufacturer Glock and distributor RSR. In doing so, Judge Collins became the first judge in the country to use the new law to counter the anti-gun lobby's shameless attempts to hold the lawful firearm industry responsible for the acts of criminals.

The suit sought to blame Glock and RSR for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow's heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted, but did nothing illegal, and RSR never owned, sold, or possessed the firearm.

"It is fitting that this case was the first ever dismissed based on the 'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' because the facts made this case the poster child for passage of common sense legal reform," said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

posted in Gun Rights - 3 replies

SF Gun Ban overturned

Sasquatch — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:31:50 GMT

"(06-12) 16:03 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- An initiative that San Francisco voters approved last November banning residents from owning handguns violated state law, a Superior Court judge ruled today."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/12/MNGQ9JCVC15.DTL

Gee, no-one could see this coming.

Sas

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

Penn and Teller tell it like it is

Sasquatch — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:44:37 GMT

Penn and Teller have made a video on gun rights. I think you'll agree with me when I say these guys are my heroes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5001380249576962921&q=bullshit&pl=true

I'm posting this to the other gun tribes I'm a member of as well.

Sas

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED

Sasquatch — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:19:53 GMT

NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY
BILL INTRODUCED
U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) recently introduced H.R. 4547-a
national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would provide national
reciprocity for state carry licensees. The bill would allow any person with
a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed
firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not
create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to
recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers'
licenses.
For more information on the bill, please visit
www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189

Sas
even San Francisco : )

posted in Gun Rights - 8 replies

Supporting our UK friends

genghis_don — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:39:55 GMT

A poll about relaxing gun laws in the UK:
http://new.edp24.co.uk/default.aspx

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

FSP courts SF libertarians

hellbee — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:47:49 GMT

http://www.nowpublic.com/node/29561

posted in Gun Rights - 3 replies

berkeley is making me nervous

th0rn — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:34:33 GMT

we had a senseless shooting by handgun, and a cache of 50 guns discovered at a pot growers house.

the city is getting ready to have a forum.

my thought i know most Berkeleyites can't handle=

this idiot kid pulls out a gun , fires several shots- theory now, he was aiming at some men and accidentally killed a girl he was friends with. first , i have a feeling this is not true exaclty/ but either way

- a shooter this retarded would be droppped with a quickness had a REAL gunowner been present.

99 out of a hundred BG's see something pointed back at them and they run or die

posted in Gun Rights - 6 replies

Penn & Teller

Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:06:43 GMT

Penn & Teller have a special on Showtime called Bullshit. The show/series unveils the untruths behind many sociological missgivings these days. One of those provided in the 3rd season is on gun control and it has to be one of the best presentations I have ever seen in support of the 2nd Amendment and our rights as Americans concerning guns. I recommend that everyone who supports our constitution watch this episode and support Penn & Teller for giving such an enlightening prospective that totally shoots down any argument from the anti-gun populace.

posted in Gun Rights - 2 replies

Wisconsin Gun Law

Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:05:28 GMT

Recently Wisconsin lawmakers shot down the proposition for a conceal and carry permit. Wisconsin also boasts a very high rate of invasive crimes, such as, home invasions, rape, murder, and armed robbery. I would venture a guess that 80 percent of the time the criminals get away with it because the news reports contain a large amount of "the suspect is still at large" on a regular basis. And those are only the crimes that make the news!
The lawmakers of Wisconsin are to blame for these crimes, or at least those who oppose conceal and carry, for future crimes committed against individuals. It is a proven fact that states which have passed conceal and carry began to see a massive decrease in violent crimes and robbery. But even with the proven statistics the passive-aggressive gentle touch pansies have once again placed the citizens of our state in danger by denying us our right to arm and defend ourselves, family, and friends, when necessary. This in and of itself is a crime!
There is a saying that isnt just cliche, IT'S TRUE! When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will carry guns. As well one of our founding fathers delivered a very powerful message. In 1759, Benjamin Franklin noted, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The right to protect us should not be governed by bureaucrats' who are surrounded by a blanket of personal security forces, but by the people who are living in the real harsh world. You can rest assured that if I am robbed there will be but one outcome. Whoever shoots first wins!

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

To the crux (redux)

Sasquatch — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:58:46 GMT

A friend posted this to another list I'm on and I've posted it in the Rifles and Pistols tribe as well (but it really needs to go on Filthy Bitches Gun Club too) and it goes to the very crux of the second amendment...

"Here's an interesting exchange from 1991 between a writer for Gunweek (Neil Schulman) and
Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California. He's on the English usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

Here's the whole article: http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm

Here's the punch line:

[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited."

Sas

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

New Tribe: Vote No on Prop H

Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:41:43 GMT

Please join up and let's brainstorm ideas!

http://tribes.tribe.net/noproph?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B16c50ef3-eb49-488d-a6e1-ee53da74f5cf%5D&r=10535

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

Vote No on Prop H November 8 in SF

Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:51:31 GMT

Reprinted with permission from Bill Sappington:

(Below sent to every member of the board of supes and the mayor )

Dear Supervisor Daly,

Proposition H, is nothing but pure political grand standing. And justlike the legislature, you carefully exempt all of yourselves from this, to whit:

"Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. _Specifically,
any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including *** but not limited to*** peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et.seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun._ Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns."

( emphasis added by author )

So Mr. Daly, when has your life become more important then mine? By the definition above, you your fellow board members and the mayor can be construed to by city employees "...carrying out the functions of his or her employment..." or for that matter anyone else who is on the city payroll and you guys decide to bless as being worthy of being able to protect their life, property and family.

Your proposal site "176 handgun incidents in San Francisco affected 213 in 1999..." so let me do the math for you:

* Population of San Francisco city and county in 2000 = 776,733

(213 / 776,733) * 100 = .0274 percent.

Yes that is 2 One hundreth's of a percent the population of the entire city of San Francisco was effected by gun violence or expressed _very_ accurately:

0.0274225506 percent.

You further break that down to 176 handgun incidents in San Francisco, so lets look at those number based upon population: (176 / 776,733 ) * 100 = .0226 percent or expressed very accurately:

0.022659009 percent

So based upon those numbers, you intend to deny the right of some 776 thousand people to possess a handgun in their own homes!

Will you take a police officer to the _home_ of Senator Diane Feinstein and _demand_ she hand her handgun over to the officer you brought with you?

You know Mr. Daily, somehow I kind of think she is going to fall into the "...including but not limited to..." clause of your proposition. Mr. Daily, is _her_ life more important then mine?

Will you go to the home of every retired police office who lives in San Francisco and demand any handguns they have? Although the city is not allowed to force handgun owners to register a handgun and therefor you cant get a list and go door to door, I think you can find out where every retired police officer in San Francisco lives because we send them
a check every month.

I was in the military for 10 years, I am quite capable of handling most any kind of weapon ever made competently and with the rules of deadly force uppermost in my mind. And yet, you would deny me a tool to protect myself and my family.

The bans don't work plain and simple. Criminals who want guns will simply continue to buy them out of trunks of cars and nothing will change, all you will have accomplished is to deny law abiding citizens of a tool to protect themselves.

Now personally I think a shotgun is the best home defense tool, but if someone prefers a handgun, it is their business, not yours Mr. Daly.

As history will tell you, the first step of government subjugation of the population is to disarm them. This was true in Germany, The former Soviet Union and elsewhere.

I am a red blooded pretty middle of the road ( politically ) American. I spent 10 years of my life ready to die for my country ( and your young life as well) before you were even in High School, much less a supervisor.

Banning handguns is not the answer to the problem of violence. Making The City more attractive to business and getting better employment is one good way to give people the ability to make a better life for themselves and is a good place to start. Yet sadly the Board of Supervisors enacts law after law that make SF more hostile to business.

Bill Sappington
A Native of SF.

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

hi y'all, found this great sight on conceald carry!

Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:46:54 GMT

check it out, state by state

http://www.packing.org/state/

posted in Gun Rights - 2 replies

sfgunban.com

th0rn — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:27:25 GMT

well they got an action site , against the ban , and might be helpful-
http://www.sfgunban.com/content/sfgb_supervisors.htm

not to metion the 357 bill for the serial number on ammo that is not going to be any fun

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

New Legislation - Anyone know anything?

Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:54:19 GMT

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_98_bill_20050317_amended_asm.html

yikes!

posted in Gun Rights - 2 replies

[General] Protect your guns, teach others to shoot safely

genghis_don — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:31:01 GMT

I'd suggest anyone wanting to protect their gun rights getting trained to teach gun safety classes.

On the fun side, it's REALLY cool to see a new shooter beaming when they've shot safely and pull their target with a nice group.

posted in Gun Rights - 3 replies

Petitioning help

DangerBoy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:34:31 GMT

Anyone know how many signatures I'd need to place a ballot initiative before the City and County of San Francisco?

I'm thinking of something along the lines of "An initiative preventing our Local Government from banning anything allowable under Federal and/or State law."

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

posted in Gun Rights - 2 replies

get busy or lose the right to bear arms in san francisco!

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:58:35 GMT

spread the word:

http://www.gunfacts.info/sfban/

don't let this one go without your input,
love,
marie-angelique

posted in Gun Rights - 9 replies

hey folks, what about photos?

th0rn — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:59:13 GMT

hi there, just discoverd your awesome tribe.

i put a photo in the gallery, this guy
Oleg Volk
makes the awesome posters, i bet many of you have seen some fo them.
his site is also killer, it is posted in the other thread
a Great gun forum-
thehighroad.org
run by Oleg and others.

anyway i got a bunch of those posters in my profile, check them out and use them if you want, Oleg is very cool about sharing these images as long as you don't make money off them.

posted in Gun Rights - 7 replies

NRA-PVF shirt

genghis_don — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:27:50 GMT

Non-NRA members may not know that the organization itself has several components. The main NRA org is an educational org. There's also an Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund.

The PVF has the following shirt for contributors: a HILARIOUS shot of a poodle acting as a pointer, with the slogan "That dog don't hunt."

https://secure.nraila.org/tshirt.aspx

posted in Gun Rights - 5 replies

Halloween Costume

crayonbeam — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 04:33:25 GMT

A friend is having a politically themed Halloween party this year. Interestingly, she had a dead theme in 1999. Others went as Elvis or Garbo. I went as Elizabeth Dole.... dead career and all that.

So, political theme this year! There'll be at least one Monica Lewinsky. I'm thinking of going as the second ammendment. Can't actually you know, carry a gun, but I can still have some fun with it I think.

posted in Gun Rights - 3 replies

U.N. Invasions - what am I missing?

crayonbeam — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:57:26 GMT

So, I've seen threads on other tribes that go something like "Let's say the UN invades tomorrow and all the gun shops are closed. How much ammo do you keep on hand for this possibility?"

I feel like I'm missing something. Is this a typical conspiracy theory, like Jews running Hollywood/global economy? I've always thought of the UN as a fancy-pants student government. Sweet-natured, but mostly impotent. I guess I could Google UN conspiracy theories. I was just curious as to how disliking the UN became linked with gun rights and other traditionally conservative values.

Me, I tend to buy a case, run it out, buy another. So I hope they don't invade right before I order. I'll probably buy extra before November. In fact I'll probably be buying as many goodies as sound spending allows after September 13.

posted in Gun Rights - 6 replies

AW Ban poll

genghis_don — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:22:04 GMT

http://www.kirotv.com/news/3713150/detail.html

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

from a random zine

crayonbeam — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:54:50 GMT

Not making any claims on it's historical accuracy.

You ever wonder why you can't carry guns around the city like it's the Wild West? Leave it up to a corrupt city legislator to create one of the first gun possession laws right here in New York, circa 1911. "Big Tim" Sullivan was a fabled gangster from the infamous 5 Points section of the Lower East Side and a major figure in the legendary scandal-ridden Tammany Hall political machine. He got the City to pass his new gun law to disarm his opponents vying for control of the NYC rackets. The “Sullivan Law” required a police permit for both owning and carrying a pistol. It was rumored that he penned the legislation as a favor to his associates who ran criminal gangs in the Red Hook section of Brooklyn and because too many city folk walked around armed, lowering the profits of Sullivan’s gangs. “Big Tim” would basically issue firearm permits to his Tammany friends, and discriminate against the other gangs (politicians). Soon, gun control evolved as a method to pacify the newly arrived southern and eastern European immigrants, especially Jews and Italians who were often regarded as racially inferior and religiously suspect. Many foreign-born citizens found it impossible to obtain gun permits under Sullivan’s laws.

One would assume that a law founded on such criminal and blatantly amoral foundations would have been modified or completely done away with. However, fast-forward almost a century and little has changed. The Sullivan law still exists and it still discriminates against those without the right “connections,” or affiliations. Just as “Big Tim” was able to decide who would receive gun permits without explanation, the NYPD is able to exercise that same discretion. This leads to a potential for abuse since the law requires no explanation when a permit is denied. And this holds true for obtaining the most basic possession permit. To get hold of the coveted “carry and conceal” license like Robert De Niro, and other rich and famous people have, you better expect to pay much more in legal fees trying to convince the NYPD that you have proper cause. Money and clout exponentially increase the chance that you have such proper cause.

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies

8/20 is Ask Day - How are you preparing?

crayonbeam — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:47:48 GMT

http://www.saveourguns.com/ask001.htm

I'm not sure how wide-spread this campaign is, but apparently 8/20 is Ask Day ... ask your neighbors if they have guns so that you can justify your paranoia and keep your kids away.

I'll probably look up a few facts to hold in my head and pocket in case I run into anyone who mentions it.

posted in Gun Rights - 1 reply

[General] - being "out" as a gun owner

genghis_don — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:06:13 GMT

I *love* living in Washington state.

In most of the other places I've lived, people would get squirelly when people talked about guns. Today I wore a Makarov shirt to work ahd had 3 gun owners I didn't know about (there are 4-5 others that I did) strike up a conversation about it...

posted in Gun Rights - 2 replies

Favorite gun rights online sources

genghis_don — Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:19:37 GMT

Here's a good one:
http://www.rkba.org/

posted in Gun Rights - 3 replies

[USA - federal] Ugly Gun ban's sunset

genghis_don — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:25:56 GMT

http://www.awbansunset.com

Here's a good web site, counting down to the sunset of the 1994 Ugly Gun ban.

posted in Gun Rights - 0 replies