SF gets a lesson on the 2nd Amendment
The Real Republican has returned from a little vacation and I'm ready to get fired up. Or should I say, I'm ready to get others fired up. So whatever your passions might be, I have tons and tons of material ready for dissection, so let the ranting begin.
A story came out yesterday that I'm sure most of you were unaware of because of it's lack of national media attention. A state trial judge sided Monday with the NRA in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.
When you first see this is a regional "city" story, it might make sense the MSM avoided it. But the truth is, this story goes well beyond the steep streets of SF and right to the core of liberal thought that doesn't believe in your constitutional right to bear arms. This is a story that should have caught more attention the moment the ordinance went into affect and should have every law-abiding citizen protesting this egregious and despicable form of social bigotry. I'm stoked this trial judge ruled fairly in this case, but unfortunately, the city has already appealed.
Here's my problem with San Francisco, city management and the basis of this ordinance and appeal. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment II reads: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This ordinance completely disregarded the Constitution and took away rights from American citizens. What part of the second amendment does the city of SF not understand?
Now, we know how chummy the left is with the ACLU. We know how quickly they'll denounce Bush and the NSA for wiretapping terrorists, because wiretapping terrorists is somehow infringing on their civil rights. And we know how mad they got when the CIA began profiling foreign nationals entering our country. But when it comes to your rights, as an American, their strange social agenda seems to ignore our civil liberties for the advancement of ideology that is not only wrong, but dangerous.
In this case, the city of San Francisco saw all-time highs for violent crimes in 2005. They saw a dramatic increase of their homicide rate and gun violence hitting an all-time high. So rather than take a serious look at where the problem is coming from, they decided the problem was you. Yes, you, the law-abiding citizen who would only buy a gun for protection.
The high homicide rates couldn't possibly be coming from poor Police funding, strict regulation prohibiting affective law enforcement, low officer moral or the general lack of man power. All of these issues would imply poor city leadership and mismanagement. So to the whacky SF supervisors, (nutjob Chris Daly sponsored the bill) the key was to take licensed gun protection away from you. That, of course, is the answer to getting all of those illegal weapons off the street.
The good news is, the Constitution will always win out. While San Francisco has hopes and dreams of being their own organized republic (without a military I might add), they still remain a city of the United States of America. And while their citizens were silly enough to get duped by a blatant breech of their freedoms, the crime stats will continue to tell the whole truth. Crimes with a hand-gun in San Francisco continued to rise despite six months of this absurd ordinance.
And if the gun ban story doesn't make you shake your head, the following will leave your jaw on the keyboard. SF voters said okay to giving up their rights, but turned down police funding. If you can figure these people out, let me know...
Another SF Violent Night; Voters Reject Crime Measure
SAN FRANCISCO -- Even as there was another violent night on San Francisco's streets, local voters have narrowly defeated an anti-crime measure that would have pumped $10 million annually into police efforts to stem the city's homicide and violent crime rate.
The Chron, surprisingly, opposed the gun ban. Read their column San Francisco Gun Ban A Losing Proposition