San Fran. bans handguns, clamps down on military recruitment

[Rogue 9]

link

SF Voters Pass Gun Ban; Oust Military Recruiters

POSTED: 3:56 pm PST November 8, 2005
UPDATED: 12:49 am PST November 9, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO -- Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters Tuesday.

With 100 percent of San Francisco precincts reporting, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.

Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

Only two other major U.S. cities -- Washington and Chicago -- have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said the victory showed that "San Francisco voters support sensible gun control."

Citing statistics that show most homicides in the city involve handguns, Daly said "every life that's saved with Proposition H is a big win."

Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.

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.

Davey Jones, chairman of the Committee to Oppose Handgun Ban, said a recent wave of gun violence in the city may have hurt his campaign, but opponents believe the right to possess handguns is necessary for self-defense.

"We focused our message to seniors and to women and to the gay community," Jones said. "Of course we're disappointed. We believe that we did not get the message out."

The military recruitment initiative also won with 60 percent in favor and 40 percent against.

Measure I, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.

Instead, Proposition I encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.

"We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it's definitely a valuable asset to have in our corner," said Bob Matthews, a College Not Combat activist, adding that the victory would help put pressure on the government to someday institute an actual ban on campus military recruiting.

[Josh]

*shrugs* Live like pussies.

[frigidmagi]

Only two other major U.S. cities -- Washington and Chicago -- have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

I don't got the rates for Chicago right now, but isn't Washigton one of the more crime ridden cities in the Union?

[Josh]

Only two other major U.S. cities -- Washington and Chicago -- have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

I don't got the rates for Chicago right now, but isn't Washigton one of the more crime ridden cities in the Union?

Firearm availability is demonstrably not tied to crime.

My position is simpler, though. Police do not prevent crime. As a general rule they show up after the fact.

The person who can prevent crime most ably is the first person on the scene of the crime, the intended victim.

Depriving people of handguns, the most effective means of defense against predations against their person and their families, is criminal in and of itself. But if the people of San Francisco are content to be disarmed prey, that's their choice.

[Cynical Cat]

When illegal guns can easily be obtained outside the city and brought in, I doubt the measure will have much affect. That San Francisco is a fairly livable city and not a wreck like Detroit has much more influence on violent crime rates.

[Mayabird]

I'm not understanding why they want a ban on college military recruiting. Do they have any actual reasons (as in, something that people who aren't them wouldn't find stupid) for wanting to ban it? Would that also extend to eliminating college ROTC programs, too?

[Rogue 9]

The anti-recruitment movement has been growing for about a year now; it's most visible action was the mob of students who ran recruiters at a Seattle community college out on a rail. Recruitment booths at job fairs in Berkeley have been picketed so no one could get to them; the administration gave student anti-war groups tables at these same job fairs to hand out anti-recruitment material. If they have reasons beyond "dur, the military is bad," they aren't sharing.

[Rogue 9]

The anti-recruitment movement has been growing for about a year now; it's most visible action was the mob of students who ran recruiters at a Seattle community college out on a rail. Recruitment booths at job fairs in Berkeley have been picketed so no one could get to them; the administration gave student anti-war groups tables at these same job fairs to hand out anti-recruitment material. If they have reasons beyond "dur, the military is bad," they aren't sharing.

Actually, now that I think about it, that isn't quite fair. Some groups are in it to protest the don't ask, don't tell policy, but others just don't like the Army, much like the situation at Kent State when students went to burn down the ROTC building. (That's the part they don't tell you in the rock 'n' roll version.)

Anywho: "Say no to recruitment so we can have a draft! - Then we'll have something else to bitch about!"