Evolution Surrenders!

A new criminal class was made yesterday in California. The good people of San Francisco have decided that the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to their citizens. Chicago and Washington D.C. have also done this in the past, and it looks legal by national law to do so. However, state law prohibits municipalities from enacting gun bans, so this will probably be headed to the courts.

If San Franciscans want to ban the sale of fire arms in their city, they should be free to do so. They should not make criminals out of people who did something perfectly legal though. Right now they are making it mandatory that the citizens surrender their hand guns by April, or become criminals. There is no compensation for the legally purchased items being confiscated by the municipal government. There should be a grandfather clause for those items that were legally purchased before the law took effect, and for those that do surrender their weapons there should be some kind of compensation. Wasn't there something in the Constitution about punishing people retro-actively for laws passed?

It also looks like they're wanting to strip the 1st Amendment rights from some others as well. Read the story as reported by The San Jose Mercury News:

Living up to their liberal reputation, San Francisco voters Tuesday gave large margins of approval to two measures that are drawing national attention.

With nearly all of the vote counted, San Franciscans adopted one of the toughest handgun bans in the nation. Proposition H had been placed on the ballot by several members of the Board of Supervisors to try to stem rising gun violence in the city. It is expected to be immediately challenged by gun-owner groups on the grounds that only the state can enact gun-ownership laws.

This has worked very well to curb the homocide rate in Chicago and Washington D.C., and there are unicorns on the moon.

Under San Francisco's measure, residents would have to turn over handguns already in their possession by April. The ban would apply only to residents of the city. Active law enforcement, military members and security guards would be exempt.

The measure also bans the sale, manufacture, distribution and transfer of all firearms and ammunition within city limits.

Voters also embraced Proposition I. Dubbed ``College not Combat,'' the measure asked city voters to back a resolution that opposes the military's recruiting efforts at the city's public schools.

Proposition I was backed by a coalition of anti-war activists and states that the people of San Francisco oppose the presence of U.S. military recruiters in the city's schools.

The non-binding resolution would not actually bar military recruiters from spending time on high school and college campuses.Link

The Constitution isn't a suggestion.

The gist I'm getting is that the recruiters can show up, they just can't try to recruit. Other sources on this subject state that they will alow them on so they don't lose federal funding they get for allowing them there. Sounds like somebody found a loophole.

I don't care wether you're for or against the war, but you can't let this kind of crap happen. This looks to me like a violation of free speech. One side can speak, but not the other? I think people can decide if they want to listen and be persuaded by the recruiters, or ignore them. People don't need a group that thinks it knows what is best for all to make that decision for them by taking away free spreech from the recruiters. If you can stop one group from speaking, don't be surprised when your turn comes up.

I went to protest at a klan rally this past weekend. They had the right to spew their crap, and I had the right to call them what they are, and it should be that way. The San Francisco Anti-War movement who backed this initiative don't agree. If you don't agree with them, they will try to make it illegal to say so.

I hope I'm wrong on this.



For how the 2nd Amendment is understood by the courts read here.

The makers of these initiatives receive todays T.O. Award.