I’ve previously argued for a very historic interpretation of the Second Amendment. That being said, although the San Francisco proposal which would all but eviscerate it (banning handguns) isn’t a done deal, it still strikes me as overwhelming disregard for the constitution of United States. Need I remind the good folks in SanFran of Article 6, which reads:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (emphasis, mine)
Simply put, the municipal legislators have no authority to enact legislation that would necessarily trump the constitution. Second Amendment aside, the forced turnover of privately held property to a municipality seems like it would also be a violation of the “takings” clause and of the “due process” clause, but, well, we don’t really care about rights much these days.
I hate to invoke this tired argument, and I sincerely wish I didn’t need to, but “If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have guns.” How can I, afterall, resist tidbits like this:
“Residents would have 90 days to relinquish their handguns.”
There is no grandfather clause, although exceptions are made for law-enforcement types. So, after the expiration of 90 days, any previously law-abiding person who remained in posession of a handgun would be instantly criminalized. I cannot emphasize the absurdity of this logic enough – people currently in posession of illegal handguns will not turn their handguns in. Why not?
Because. They’re. Already. Criminals.
The enactment of a new law doesn’t change this fact, nor will it make them any more of a criminal. This sort of legislation does two things: It deprives law-abiding citizens of a constitutionally protected right, and it makes criminals of those who would not give up that right.
“It’s turning firearms into a scapegoat for failed city policies,” [Los Angeles attorney Chuck] Michel said. “Criminals are never going to have any kind of problem getting the kind of guns they want.”
Criminals will continue to get their weapons on the “Black Market,” or, and this might be even easier – just get in your whip and cruise on over to a neighboring city that hasn’t enacted such draconian measures. That I even need to point out the painfully obvious is absolutely infuriating.
More info here, and more via SFgate, here
This goes as I say all along, the only people gun control laws affect are law abiding citizens. No legislature on earth understand shte fact that criminals dont follow these laws and therefore that their laws do nothing. Look it up the states with the msot strict gun control laws hae the most violent crime, the states with the fewest gun control laws on the books have the lowest violent crime. Coincedence, I think not. Its time for america to open its eyes and realize that guns are not bad, bad people with guns are bad.
[...] aside the fact that prohibition only works on law-abiding citizens, it has been nearly 70 years since any substantive rulings on the Second [...]