James,
The NRA unfortunately has a poor record of endorsing Libertarians for office against opponents who are more anti-gun. We would certainly like to see them become more uncompromising in the fight to defend the right to keep and bear arms, because unquestionably they have the size and resources that other gun groups lack. If they were invited to be the lead organization in this campaign, could they pledge to run a hard-hitting, no-compromise fight? Would they be willing to commit significant resources to the fight, and share those resources with allies like the Libertarians and Pink Pistols so that our opponents won't be able to tar this as just an effort of the "big, evil NRA?"
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
From:James Grant [mailto:covolo@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:32 PM
To: Mike Denny
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] SF gun ban - random thoughts on organizing against itThe NRA is VERY interested in the legislation.
This is a VERY scary ordinance.
The Pink Pistols and NRA Members Councils both
have a shared interest in seeing this legislation defeated.
I know the NRA is as interested in protecting the rights of
Libertarians, as it is any other political group or social class.
So it begs the question. Do you see any reason the lead
national group should not be the National Rifle Association?
-James Grant
From:Mike Denny
To:James Grant
Sent:Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject:FW: [lpsf-discuss] SF gun ban - random thoughts on organizing against it
Hello James,
Here’s a post from a gay Libertarian organizer for the Bay Area. I personally don’t think the NRA can have any influence in the dialogue. Do you have any ideas?
Best
Mike
<image.tiff>
From:Richard Newell [mailto:richard@newell.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:15 PM
To: SF-PinkPistols@yahoogroups.com; lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com; OutrightSF@yahoogroups.com; pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] SF gun ban - random thoughts on organizing against itHi all,
For those that haven't seen it yet, below my signature is the text of the proposed SF ordinance, courtesy of Mike Denny, former Libertarian candidate for Mayor of SF. My apologies to those on the LPSF-discuss list that have seen Mike's post already.
I have been monitoring the reaction to this on several email lists including that of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco and various local and national Pink Pistols lists. Needless to say, within these particular groups the idea of being forcibly disarmed is not very popular.
This needs to be fought in a big way. Not to discourage independent action by any individuals or groups, I think that there needs to be a central point for organization by the opposition. In my opinion, this should be spearheaded by one of the main RKBA groups, hopefully one of national stature with full-time employees, permanent office and phone; with additional support from many smaller local groups. This effort will require a web site, lots of fundraising, advertising, and etc.
Does anyone know if any group has already taken the lead in the effort to defeat this initiative ordinance? I am not as tuned in to the national RKBA groups as I should be. Does anyone on the lists copied here know who might be the right people to contact within these national organizations in order to get the ball rolling?
I am confident that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, the Outright Libertarians of the SF Bay Area, and the newly formed SF chapter of the Pink Pistols would be interested in supporting such a coalition, as well as more traditional RKBA groups. Nearby local, state and national affiliates of these groups might also pitch in support in one form or another (people, press releases, cross-postings and mailings, and the like).
I am sure that there are some business interests that are interested in defeating this initiative, as well.
Once a lead organization is identified, some face-to-face meetings should be organized.
A press release very soon would be a good idea. I could help draft or distribute this (as I have been doing for the Libertarian Party of California) if asked. But, first, I think there needs to be some initial organizational structure put in place.
My apologies for rambling, and for my ignorance if an organized effort is already well underway.
Rich
======================================
G. Richard Newell
Vice-Chair
Outright Libertarians of the San Francisco Bay Area
richard@newell.org
+1 (408) 882-4785
<image.tiff>
Initiative ordinanceInitiative ordinanceprohibiting the sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms in the City and County of San Francisco, and limiting the possession of handguns in the City and County of San Francisco.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
Section 1. Findings
The people of the City and County of San Francisco hereby find and declare:
1. Handgun violence is a serious problem in San Francisco. According to a San Francisco Department of Public Health report published in 2002, 176 handgun incidents in San Francisco affected 213 victims in 1999, the last year for which data is available. Only 26.8% of firearms were recovered. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death, 67% were handguns.
2. San Franciscans have a right to live in a safe and secure City. The presence of handguns poses a significant threat to the safety of San Franciscans.
3. It is not the intent of the people of the City and County of San Francisco to affect any resident of other jurisdictions with regard to handgun possession, including those who may temporarily be within the boundaries of the City and County.
4. Article XI of the California Constitution provides Charter created counties with the “home rule” power. This power allows counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent. San Francisco adopted its most recent comprehensive Charter revision in 1996.
5. Since it is not the intent of the people of the City and County of San Francisco to impose an undue burden on inter-county commerce and transit, the provisions of Section 3 apply exclusively to residents of the City and County of San Francisco.
Section 2. Ban on Sale, Manufacture, Transfer or Distribution of Firearms in the City and County of San Francisco
Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.
Section 3. Limiting Handgun Possession in the City and County of San Francisco
Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. Specifically, any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et.seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun. Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns. Within 90 days from the effective date of this section, any resident of the City and County of San Francisco may surrender his or her handgun at any district station of the San Francisco Police Department, or to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department without penalty under this section.
Section 4. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective January 1, 2006.
Section 5. Penalties
Within 90 days of the effective date of this section, the Board of Supervisors shall enact penalties for violations of this ordinance. The Mayor, after consultation with the District Attorney, Sheriff and Chief of Police shall, within 30 days from the effective date, provide recommendations about penalties to the Board.
Section 6. State Law
Nothing in this ordinance is designed to duplicate or conflict with California state law. Accordingly, any person currently denied the privilege of possessing a handgun under state law shall not be covered by this ordinance, but shall be covered by the California state law which denies that privilege. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to create or require any local license or registration for any firearm, or create an additional class of citizens who must seek licensing or registration.
Section 7. Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications or this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed severable.
Section 8. Amendment
By a two-thirds vote and upon making findings, the Board of Supervisors may amend this ordinance in the furtherance of reducing handgun violence.
<image.tiff>