Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Violating two Bill of Rights amendments at once in San Francisco

More gun laws proposed in San Francisco? Yawn.

OK--the fact that Mayor Gavin Newsom is proposing more gun legislation is hardly news. Still, one of his proposed laws caught my eye. It's a "lock up your safety" law that would require gun owners to store their guns disabled with a trigger lock, or sequestered in a locked box--you know--so gun owners can't actually save their lives or the lives of their families with it. The "justification" given for this proposed law is a bit . . . peculiar.

Authorities said lock boxes would help to keep legal guns from being stolen and then later used illegally.
Because a thief just wouldn't dare steal the whole box, and get into it at his leisure. If the victim were home (and effectively disarmed by the law), the criminal certainly wouldn't use his own weapon (or superior size/strength, or force of numbers, etc.) to force the homeowner to open the box for him.

The truly chilling part of this article is in a quote from District Attorney Kamala Harris.
The idea, she contends, is to remind legal gun owners how to behave.

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," Harris said.
For the sake of argument, let's set the Second Amendment aside--this is San Francisco, after all, which seems to have some kind of immunity from that particular Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right. Still, I figured the Fourth Amendment still had some relevance, even there--Ms. Harris apparently disagrees.

I think it's (past) time for gun owners to remind her how to behave. A good reminder might be showing her what happens to a home invader who "walk[s] into" a gun owner's locked home.

This demonstration will not involve a locked-up gun.

9 comments:

opaww said...

That is San commiecisco for ya

too_many_hypocrites said...

Hey look at this website. Seems this person feels exactly the opposite from you on gun rights.

http://non-violentplanetnewspage.blogspot.com/

dwlawson said...

http://non-violentplanetnewspage.blogspot.com/

I especially have no use for bloggers without the stones to accept comments.

45superman said...

She certainly has some . . . interesting ideas. I find that I can't really take her seriously enough to be interested in debating with her, anyway.

JR said...

Non-violence is great. I am a non-violent person. I am a considerate driver and I strive to not offend anyone by my actions. I do my best to avoid situations that may result in violence.

Threaten me or mine, and you will know violence like you never imagined. I may feel bad after, but my life, and the lives I am responsible for, are valuable.

Now. back to the topic at hand. For a DA to say "Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," indicates a very serious flaw in the system. Even the most liberal of libs should be appalled by statements such as this.

straightarrow said...

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," indicates a very serious flaw in the system. Even the most liberal of libs should be appalled by statements such as this."

I once was threatened with something similar. My reply was very simple. "You better send somebody you don't like."

They didn't send anybody.

hairy hobbit said...

I posted this on WOG too, but figure it won't see much attention down so far.

can we just admit the constitution has been done away with already and start figured out what to DO about it?

there are at least two sets of rules the ones they use for them and the ones they use for us. We don't get to say "I have a problem and I'm sorry" and go into "rehab" we go straight to jail. They get to shit on the constitution and laws and we get lethal injections.when the hell do we hold them to the same standards?

A law holding them to MUCH higher standards is LONG overdue in this nation. Public servants should get 5 times the penalty as "civilians." Anyone helping cover up a crime gets double the perps penalty. They all lose ALL benefits for themselves and family, including any government protections. And finally their offices need to be streamed online 24x7. They have to be completely transparent in their dealings. Mandated database of audio at all times. Tampering with it gets them life.

45superman said...

Well, you've talked me into it, HH, but I'm the easy one.

hairy hobbit said...

Well, if I were more versed in legaleze I'd write me something up and try to go the grassroot way.

AFter all the "culture of coruption" NEEDS to go.

Anyone know a lawyer willing to make himself a name?