The Brazilian national referendum on whether or not hand guns should be
illegal in Brazil was defeated over the weekend 2-1. This comes after
initial polls months ago showed the referendum passing by the same
margin. It appears that as soon as Brazil's scandal plagued president
came out in favor of it, its popularity plummeted like a stone.
Mike
Thanks for the news about the Brazilian referendum, Mike. As a
Brazilian, with friends and relatives in Brazil, I can attest that
crime is of concern in Brazil. It appears that Brazilians knew better
than to believe that a gun ban would solve the problem. I hope San
Franciscans will come to the same conclusion. I find it interesting
that the Police Officers Association is OPPOSED to Phop H; their
reasons below:
Marcy
POA Opposes Proposition H:
San Francisco's Gun Ban InitiativeOctober 2005
By Michael Nevin, Jr.
Southern Station
The San Francisco Gun Ban Initiative (Proposition H) will appear on
the next election ballot in November. Several supervisors have touted
the ban as a step in curbing violence and increasing public safety.
The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA), representing men
and women dedicated to a life of service to public safety, must
evaluate any legislative effort affecting its membership. After
careful review and analysis, the POA does not support the proposed
ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city
residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes.
The Handgun Ban
The proposed ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents from
possessing any handgun, and they would have 90 days to relinquish
their property. The sale, manufacture, and distribution of firearms
would be prohibited. Visitors to the city would not be subject to the
ban if they are in compliance with applicable laws. Police officers
and members of the military would also be exempt while "carrying out
the functions of his or her government employment." And it should be
noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or
other law enforcement agencies is stated in the proposal.
The role members of the police department, represented by the POA,
will play in any door-to-door gun confiscation scheme is cause for
concern.
Nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased by residents since 1996,
according to the state attorney general's office.[1] But there is no
way to determine how many total guns exist because local governments
are forbidden under state law from requiring firearms to be registered
or licensed.
It is unclear what database the city would utilize to track San
Franciscans who have lawfully purchased handguns.
National Statistics and Studies Do Not Favor the Handgun Ban Argument
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted from
1993 through 2001, violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence was
down 59%, and firearm violence decreased by 63%.[2]
A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control released in 2003
found no proof to support the claim that gun-control laws are
effective in preventing violence. The task force found firearms-
related injuries declined since 1993 despite approximately 4.5 million
new firearms sold each year.[3]
In December of 2004, the National Academy of Sciences released the
findings of a study: "Firearms and Violence: A Critical
Review." "Current research and data on firearms and violent crime are
too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various
measures to prevent and control gun violence," according to the panel.
[4]
Guns are used defensively, according to some estimates, more than 2
million times annually four times more than the estimated use of a
gun in commission of a crime.[5]
Case StudyWashington D.C.
Washington D.C. provides a glimpse into gun prohibition after it
banned handguns in 1976. How successful has our nation's capital been
in reducing violence? D.C. has consistently been dubbed "Murder
Capital U.S.A.," dating back to the early 1990s. The Department of
Justice found that guns accounted for 80 percent of Washington D.C.'s
homicides between 1985 and 1994.[6] With a murder rate nearly 8 times
the national rate, it is clear that something is not working. [7]
Washington D.C. had a homicide rate of 44.2 per 100,000 population in
2003, while San Francisco had a homicide rate of 8.9 per 100,000 in
2003.
D.C. had more than double the overall violent crime rate when compared
to San Francisco in 2003.[8]
FBI Uniform Crime Report San Francisco
In 1995 San Francisco had a population of 738,371. There were 99
homicides and 10,903 violent crimes.
In 2003 San Francisco had a population of 772,065. There were 69
homicides and 5,725 violent crimes.
From 1995 through 2003, the homicide rate decreased by 33.3% and the
violent crime rate decreased by 49.8% in San Francisco.
Although San Francisco had an unusual number of homicides, 88, in
2004, the city has averaged 71 homicides each year over the past
decade. 63 of the homicides in 2004 involved a firearm.[9]
Societal Problem Not a Gun Problem
We need to look no further than across the bay in Oakland to find
anecdotal evidence highlighting the need for citizens to have
lifesaving options when facing violent encounters. Patrick McCullough
has spent a decade reporting drug dealers to police. He is the face of
the law-abiding citizen who lives with urban terror. When McCullough
shot and wounded someone he believed was posing a threat to him, the
Alameda County D.A.'s office found that McCullough acted in self-
defense.[10] McCullough may not live in a gated community or be able
to afford armed bodyguards, but he has an inalienable right to defend
himself and his family.
Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, who happened to be a retired
police officer, before stealing his guns and going on a killing spree
on the Red Lake Indian reservation in Minnesota. "Everything that kid
did that day, practically from the moment he walked out of his
bedroom, was a felony," said Joe Olson, a Hamline University law
professor and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.
Olson concluded, "I don't think any gun-control laws would have made a
difference."[11]
To believe that the proposed handgun ban would have an impact on
handgun violence, one would have to assume that criminals would
actually abide by the new law. After all, criminals are undoubtedly
responsible for the high crime rates and firearm violence. Considering
the very definition of a criminal, it would be hard to imagine that
such enlightenment would occur. In fact, both reason and empirical
research suggest that most criminals are attracted to places where
they meet less resistance.
Guns and ViolenceA Law Enforcement Approach The proposed handgun ban
initiative states: "The presence of handguns poses a significant
threat to the safety of San Franciscans." In reality, the presence of
criminals in possession of any firearm poses a significant threat to
the safety of all Americans. Guns are nothing more than a tool that if
in the wrong hands will hurt innocent people. 9/11, the worst
terrorist attack on American soil, proved that box cutters and deadly
intentions could be as dangerous as almost any weapon in a military
arsenal.
Proactive law enforcement targeting crime-infested neighborhoods has
been the most effective method in curbing the violence. The S.F.P.D.,
in conjunction with federal authorities, has established a gun task
force known as "Triggerlock II." A police department bulletin
explains: "`Triggerlock II' is committed to disarming violent
criminals and reducing gun violence by identifying the most dangerous
offenders and referring them for prosecution under state and federal
firearm violations."[12]
When homicides in San Francisco surged in the first half of 2004, the
Gang Task Force and other specialized units of the police department
stepped up and cut the homicide rate by 40 percent in the second half
of the year. According to an article in the San Francisco
Chronicle: "The most important factor in the decline, police say, is
authorities' attempt to take those they consider the most violent,
incorrigible criminals off the streets with the help of the
federal `Triggerlock' law, which provides for prison terms of 10 years
or more for felons who are caught with a gun."[13]
A targeted response to violent crime coupled with tough state
legislation such as "Three Strikes" ensures that predators are not in
a position to wreak havoc on society. The District Attorney has made
it clear that she will aggressively prosecute anyone using firearms in
the commission of a crime and/or found to be in unlawful possession of
a firearm.
Cities across the nation that employ a "zero tolerance" approach to
violent crime are reaping the benefits. New York City, which leads the
way in policing tactics such as CompStat, saw its peak of 2,245
murders in 1990 drop to 571 in 2004. Chicago, the nation's murder
capital in 2003 with 598 homicides and a city that banned handguns in
1982, watched as homicides in 2004 fell to 447. Police in the Windy
City credited the Targeted Response Unit that saturates areas known
for gang violence.[14]
While the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing the
Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural issues
of crime and violence. Random or targeted acts of violence personally
affect the law enforcement community. Those dedicated to public
service understand that we need to support any reasonable effort to
stem the tide of violent encounters threatening citizens and law
enforcement alike. However, good intentions don't necessarily make
good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
Guns and Civil Liberties
The Pink Pistols, the largest national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and
Transgender organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible
use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community, has
a San Francisco chapter and is outraged by the proposed handgun
ban. "The idea is to make the people better, so they don't commit the
crimes, or if you can't do that, at least stop them when they do. A
gun is the law-abiding citizen's best tool to stop the criminal in his
tracks," states Gwen Patton, International Media Spokesperson for the
Pink Pistols.[15]
San Francisco has a storied reputation as a stronghold of personal
liberty. The Bill of Rights explicitly refers to rights of
individuals, not rights of government. And most San Franciscans are
not in favor of allowing government to be in the business of
abrogating civil liberties.
No Constitutional Right to Police Protection In DeShaney v. Winnebago
County Dept. of Social Services (1989), the United States Supreme
Court held that the state has no constitutional obligation to protect
citizens from private violence.[16]
California Government Code section 845 states, in part: "Neither a
public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish
a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service
or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide
sufficient police protection service."
Since even the fastest calls for service (9-1-1) are measured in
minutes rather than seconds, how does a law enforcement agency explain
to victims of violent crime that the agency sup-ported efforts denying
them reasonable means of self-defense? That's a tall order.
Conclusion
Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt
while "carrying out the functions of his or her government
employment." But does this mean that San Francisco police officers or
F.B.I. agents living in San Francisco would be forced to leave their
weapons at the office upon the completion of their shift? The danger
associated with that scenario is unfathomable. And it should be noted
that no exemption for retired members of our association or other law
enforcement is stated in the proposal.
Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in 1764: "The laws that
forbid the carrying of arms
disarm only those who are neither inclined
nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the
assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[17] Doesn't this
ring true today?
When we disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, we contribute to
empowering criminals and endangering society-at-large. The San
Francisco Police Officers Association supports the right of our
members (active and retired), neighbors, and law-abiding citizens in
this city to choose reasonable means of self-defense while in their
homes or businesses. We oppose Proposition H, the S.F. Gun Ban
Initiative.
[1] Curtis, Kim, "San Francisco, frustrated by rising homicides, tries
handgun ban," Associated Press, 1/19/05
[2] "Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001," National Crime
Victimization Survey, U.S. Department of Justice
[ 3 ] Wa shing ton Times, E d itor ia l, 10/7/03
[4] "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academy of
Sciences, 12/16/04
[5] Lott, John, "Lottery Numbers: Why don't media cover the good-news
stories," Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/1/03 (Note: estimates are as high
as 2.5 million times annually for defensive uses based on research by
Gary Kleck, Criminologist)
[6] Ryan, Joan, "Guns are a bad idea, but so is ban," San Francisco
Chronicle, 12/23/04
[7] Crime in the States, 2003, Federal Bureau of Investigation
[8] Ibid
[9] Curtis
[10] Lee, Henry, "DA's office clears man who shot teen neighbor," San
Francisco Chronicle, 3/17/05
[11] Diaz, Kevin, "Red Lake shootings ignite scant debate," Sacramento
Bee, 4/4/05
[12] S.F.P.D. Department Bulletin 05- 017, 2/7/05
[13] Van Derbeken, Jaxon, "Heading off homicide," San Francisco
Chronicle, 12/23/04
[14] Bone, James, "US murder rate sinks as zero tolerance puts gangs
on run," Times Online, 1/3/05
[15] "Pink Pistols Angered, but Not Surprised, by SF Gun Ban Plans,"
Pink Pistols Press Release, 1/3/05
[16] SCOTUS: DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep. of Social Services, 489
U.S. 189 (1989)
[17] Polsby, Daniel and Dennis Breenen, "Taking at Gun Control,"
Heartland Policy Study, 10/30/95
The Brazilian national referendum on whether or not hand guns should
be
That's two pieces of good news! Fitting that the gun ban in Brazil was shot down by a criminal -- though I hope the Brazilians would have defeated it even without the endorsement of an unpopular politician.
And I'm likewise delighted that the SF POA has lent its name to such a strong argument against Prop. H, even mentioning the Pink Pistols. I never would have expected it. This will be a terrific document to cite in the event that any SF police groups come out in favor of gun control now or in the future.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Thanks for the news about the Brazilian referendum, Mike. As a
Brazilian, with friends and relatives in Brazil, I can attest that
crime is of concern in Brazil. It appears that Brazilians knew better
than to believe that a gun ban would solve the problem. I hope San
Franciscans will come to the same conclusion. I find it interesting
that the Police Officers Association is OPPOSED to Prop H; their
reasons below:Marcy
POA Opposes Proposition H:
San Francisco's Gun Ban InitiativeOctober 2005By Michael Nevin, Jr.
Southern StationThe San Francisco Gun Ban Initiative (Proposition H) will appear on
the next election ballot in November. Several supervisors have touted
the ban as a step in curbing violence and increasing public safety.
The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA), representing men
and women dedicated to a life of service to public safety, must
evaluate any legislative effort affecting its membership. After
careful review and analysis, the POA does not support the proposed
ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city
residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes.The Handgun Ban
The proposed ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents from
possessing any handgun, and they would have 90 days to relinquish
their property. The sale, manufacture, and distribution of firearms
would be prohibited. Visitors to the city would not be subject to the
ban if they are in compliance with applicable laws. Police officers
and members of the military would also be exempt while "carrying out
the functions of his or her government employment." And it should be
noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or
other law enforcement agencies is stated in the proposal.The role members of the police department, represented by the POA,
will play in any door-to-door gun confiscation scheme is cause for
concern.Nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased by residents since 1996,
according to the state attorney general's office.[1] But there is no
way to determine how many total guns exist because local governments
are forbidden under state law from requiring firearms to be registered
or licensed.
It is unclear what database the city would utilize to track San
Franciscans who have lawfully purchased handguns.National Statistics and Studies Do Not Favor the Handgun Ban Argument
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted from
1993 through 2001, violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence was
down 59%, and firearm violence decreased by 63%.[2]
A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control released in 2003
found no proof to support the claim that gun-control laws are
effective in preventing violence. The task force found firearms-
related injuries declined since 1993 despite approximately 4.5 million
new firearms sold each year.[3]
In December of 2004, the National Academy of Sciences released the
findings of a study: "Firearms and Violence: A Critical
Review." "Current research and data on firearms and violent crime are
too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various
measures to prevent and control gun violence," according to the panel.
[4]
Guns are used defensively, according to some estimates, more than 2
million times annually – four times more than the estimated use of a
gun in commission of a crime.[5]
Case Study—Washington D.C.Washington D.C. provides a glimpse into gun prohibition after it
banned handguns in 1976. How successful has our nation's capital been
in reducing violence? D.C. has consistently been dubbed "Murder
Capital U.S.A.," dating back to the early 1990s. The Department of
Justice found that guns accounted for 80 percent of Washington D.C.'s
homicides between 1985 and 1994.[6] With a murder rate nearly 8 times
the national rate, it is clear that something is not working. [7]
Washington D.C. had a homicide rate of 44.2 per 100,000 population in
2003, while San Francisco had a homicide rate of 8.9 per 100,000 in
2003.
D.C. had more than double the overall violent crime rate when compared
to San Francisco in 2003.[8]
FBI Uniform Crime Report— San FranciscoIn 1995 San Francisco had a population of 738,371. There were 99
homicides and 10,903 violent crimes.
In 2003 San Francisco had a population of 772,065. There were 69
homicides and 5,725 violent crimes.
From 1995 through 2003, the homicide rate decreased by 33.3% and the
violent crime rate decreased by 49.8% in San Francisco.
Although San Francisco had an unusual number of homicides, 88, in
2004, the city has averaged 71 homicides each year over the past
decade. 63 of the homicides in 2004 involved a firearm.[9]
Societal Problem Not a Gun Problem
We need to look no further than across the bay in Oakland to find
anecdotal evidence highlighting the need for citizens to have
lifesaving options when facing violent encounters. Patrick McCullough
has spent a decade reporting drug dealers to police. He is the face of
the law-abiding citizen who lives with urban terror. When McCullough
shot and wounded someone he believed was posing a threat to him, the
Alameda County D.A.'s office found that McCullough acted in self-
defense.[10] McCullough may not live in a gated community or be able
to afford armed bodyguards, but he has an inalienable right to defend
himself and his family.Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, who happened to be a retired
police officer, before stealing his guns and going on a killing spree
on the Red Lake Indian reservation in Minnesota. "Everything that kid
did that day, practically from the moment he walked out of his
bedroom, was a felony," said Joe Olson, a Hamline University law
professor and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.Olson concluded, "I don't think any gun-control laws would have made a
difference."[11]To believe that the proposed handgun ban would have an impact on
handgun violence, one would have to assume that criminals would
actually abide by the new law. After all, criminals are undoubtedly
responsible for the high crime rates and firearm violence. Considering
the very definition of a criminal, it would be hard to imagine that
such enlightenment would occur. In fact, both reason and empirical
research suggest that most criminals are attracted to places where
they meet less resistance.Guns and Violence—A Law Enforcement Approach The proposed handgun ban
initiative states: "The presence of handguns poses a significant
threat to the safety of San Franciscans." In reality, the presence of
criminals in possession of any firearm poses a significant threat to
the safety of all Americans. Guns are nothing more than a tool that if
in the wrong hands will hurt innocent people. 9/11, the worst
terrorist attack on American soil, proved that box cutters and deadly
intentions could be as dangerous as almost any weapon in a military
arsenal.Proactive law enforcement targeting crime-infested neighborhoods has
been the most effective method in curbing the violence. The S.F.P.D.,
in conjunction with federal authorities, has established a gun task
force known as "Triggerlock II." A police department bulletin
explains: "`Triggerlock II' is committed to disarming violent
criminals and reducing gun violence by identifying the most dangerous
offenders and referring them for prosecution under state and federal
firearm violations."[12]When homicides in San Francisco surged in the first half of 2004, the
Gang Task Force and other specialized units of the police department
stepped up and cut the homicide rate by 40 percent in the second half
of the year. According to an article in the San Francisco
Chronicle: "The most important factor in the decline, police say, is
authorities' attempt to take those they consider the most violent,
incorrigible criminals off the streets with the help of the
federal `Triggerlock' law, which provides for prison terms of 10 years
or more for felons who are caught with a gun."[13]A targeted response to violent crime coupled with tough state
legislation such as "Three Strikes" ensures that predators are not in
a position to wreak havoc on society. The District Attorney has made
it clear that she will aggressively prosecute anyone using firearms in
the commission of a crime and/or found to be in unlawful possession of
a firearm.Cities across the nation that employ a "zero tolerance" approach to
violent crime are reaping the benefits. New York City, which leads the
way in policing tactics such as CompStat, saw its peak of 2,245
murders in 1990 drop to 571 in 2004. Chicago, the nation's murder
capital in 2003 with 598 homicides and a city that banned handguns in
1982, watched as homicides in 2004 fell to 447. Police in the Windy
City credited the Targeted Response Unit that saturates areas known
for gang violence.[14]While the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing the
Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural issues
of crime and violence. Random or targeted acts of violence personally
affect the law enforcement community. Those dedicated to public
service understand that we need to support any reasonable effort to
stem the tide of violent encounters threatening citizens and law
enforcement alike. However, good intentions don't necessarily make
good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer.Guns and Civil Liberties
The Pink Pistols, the largest national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and
Transgender organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible
use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community, has
a San Francisco chapter and is outraged by the proposed handgun
ban. "The idea is to make the people better, so they don't commit the
crimes, or if you can't do that, at least stop them when they do. A
gun is the law-abiding citizen's best tool to stop the criminal in his
tracks," states Gwen Patton, International Media Spokesperson for the
Pink Pistols.[15]San Francisco has a storied reputation as a stronghold of personal
liberty. The Bill of Rights explicitly refers to rights of
individuals, not rights of government. And most San Franciscans are
not in favor of allowing government to be in the business of
abrogating civil liberties.No Constitutional Right to Police Protection In DeShaney v. Winnebago
County Dept. of Social Services (1989), the United States Supreme
Court held that the state has no constitutional obligation to protect
citizens from private violence.[16]California Government Code section 845 states, in part: "Neither a
public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish
a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service
or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide
sufficient police protection service."Since even the fastest calls for service (9-1-1) are measured in
minutes rather than seconds, how does a law enforcement agency explain
to victims of violent crime that the agency sup-ported efforts denying
them reasonable means of self-defense? That's a tall order.Conclusion
Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt
while "carrying out the functions of his or her government
employment." But does this mean that San Francisco police officers or
F.B.I. agents living in San Francisco would be forced to leave their
weapons at the office upon the completion of their shift? The danger
associated with that scenario is unfathomable. And it should be noted
that no exemption for retired members of our association or other law
enforcement is stated in the proposal.Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in 1764: "The laws that
forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined
nor determined to commit crimes. …Such laws make things worse for the
assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[17] Doesn't this
ring true today?When we disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, we contribute to
empowering criminals and endangering society-at-large. The San
Francisco Police Officers Association supports the right of our
members (active and retired), neighbors, and law-abiding citizens in
this city to choose reasonable means of self-defense while in their
homes or businesses. We oppose Proposition H, the S.F. Gun Ban
Initiative.[1] Curtis, Kim, "San Francisco, frustrated by rising homicides, tries
handgun ban," Associated Press, 1/19/05
[2] "Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001," National Crime
Victimization Survey, U.S. Department of Justice
[ 3 ] Wa shing ton Times, E d itor ia l, 10/7/03
[4] "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academy of
Sciences, 12/16/04
[5] Lott, John, "Lottery Numbers: Why don't media cover the good-news
stories," Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/1/03 (Note: estimates are as high
as 2.5 million times annually for defensive uses based on research by
Gary Kleck, Criminologist)
[6] Ryan, Joan, "Guns are a bad idea, but so is ban," San Francisco
Chronicle, 12/23/04
[7] Crime in the States, 2003, Federal Bureau of Investigation
[8] Ibid
[9] Curtis
[10] Lee, Henry, "DA's office clears man who shot teen neighbor," San
Francisco Chronicle, 3/17/05
[11] Diaz, Kevin, "Red Lake shootings ignite scant debate," Sacramento
Bee, 4/4/05
[12] S.F.P.D. Department Bulletin 05- 017, 2/7/05
[13] Van Derbeken, Jaxon, "Heading off homicide," San Francisco
Chronicle, 12/23/04
[14] Bone, James, "US murder rate sinks as zero tolerance puts gangs
on run," Times Online, 1/3/05
[15] "Pink Pistols Angered, but Not Surprised, by SF Gun Ban Plans,"
Pink Pistols Press Release, 1/3/05
[16] SCOTUS: DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep. of Social Services, 489
U.S. 189 (1989)
[17] Polsby, Daniel and Dennis Breenen, "Taking at Gun Control,"
Heartland Policy Study, 10/30/95>
> The Brazilian national referendum on whether or not hand guns should
be
> illegal in Brazil was defeated over the weekend 2-1. This comes after
> initial polls months ago showed the referendum passing by the same
> margin. It appears that as soon as Brazil's scandal plagued president
> came out in favor of it, its popularity plummeted like a stone.
>
>
>
> Mike
>SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Good point about keeping the POA stand on Prop H in mind. This
proposition is so distressing to me as the mom of a young person. I
am hearing a lot from the young crowd about how this proposition will
save them from all the shootings. The good kids are pretty fearful
and grasping at straws. We need to do more outreach to the young!!
Marcy
That's two pieces of good news! Fitting that the gun ban in
Brazil was
shot down by a criminal -- though I hope the Brazilians would have
defeated it even without the endorsement of an unpopular politician.And I'm likewise delighted that the SF POA has lent its name
to such a
strong argument against Prop. H, even mentioning the Pink Pistols.
I
never would have expected it. This will be a terrific document to
cite
in the event that any SF police groups come out in favor of gun
control
now or in the future.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>> Thanks for the news about the Brazilian referendum, Mike. As a
> Brazilian, with friends and relatives in Brazil, I can attest that
> crime is of concern in Brazil. It appears that Brazilians knew
better
> than to believe that a gun ban would solve the problem. I hope
San
> Franciscans will come to the same conclusion. I find it
interesting
> that the Police Officers Association is OPPOSED to Prop H; their
> reasons below:
>
> Marcy
>
> POA Opposes Proposition H:
> San Francisco's Gun Ban InitiativeOctober 2005
>
> By Michael Nevin, Jr.
> Southern Station
>
> The San Francisco Gun Ban Initiative (Proposition H) will appear
on
> the next election ballot in November. Several supervisors have
touted
> the ban as a step in curbing violence and increasing public
safety.
> The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA), representing
men
> and women dedicated to a life of service to public safety, must
> evaluate any legislative effort affecting its membership. After
> careful review and analysis, the POA does not support the proposed
> ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city
> residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes.
>
> The Handgun Ban
> The proposed ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents from
> possessing any handgun, and they would have 90 days to relinquish
> their property. The sale, manufacture, and distribution of
firearms
> would be prohibited. Visitors to the city would not be subject to
the
> ban if they are in compliance with applicable laws. Police
officers
> and members of the military would also be exempt while "carrying
out
> the functions of his or her government employment." And it should
be
> noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or
> other law enforcement agencies is stated in the proposal.
>
> The role members of the police department, represented by the POA,
> will play in any door-to-door gun confiscation scheme is cause for
> concern.
>
> Nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased by residents since
1996,
> according to the state attorney general's office.[1] But there is
no
> way to determine how many total guns exist because local
governments
> are forbidden under state law from requiring firearms to be
registered
> or licensed.
> It is unclear what database the city would utilize to track San
> Franciscans who have lawfully purchased handguns.
>
> National Statistics and Studies Do Not Favor the Handgun Ban
Argument
>
> According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted
from
> 1993 through 2001, violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence was
> down 59%, and firearm violence decreased by 63%.[2]
> A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control released in
2003
> found no proof to support the claim that gun-control laws are
> effective in preventing violence. The task force found firearms-
> related injuries declined since 1993 despite approximately 4.5
million
> new firearms sold each year.[3]
> In December of 2004, the National Academy of Sciences released the
> findings of a study: "Firearms and Violence: A Critical
> Review." "Current research and data on firearms and violent crime
are
> too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of
various
> measures to prevent and control gun violence," according to the
panel.
> [4]
> Guns are used defensively, according to some estimates, more than
2
> million times annually four times more than the estimated use
of a
> gun in commission of a crime.[5]
> Case StudyWashington D.C.
>
> Washington D.C. provides a glimpse into gun prohibition after it
> banned handguns in 1976. How successful has our nation's capital
been
> in reducing violence? D.C. has consistently been dubbed "Murder
> Capital U.S.A.," dating back to the early 1990s. The Department of
> Justice found that guns accounted for 80 percent of Washington
D.C.'s
> homicides between 1985 and 1994.[6] With a murder rate nearly 8
times
> the national rate, it is clear that something is not working. [7]
> Washington D.C. had a homicide rate of 44.2 per 100,000
population in
> 2003, while San Francisco had a homicide rate of 8.9 per 100,000
in
> 2003.
> D.C. had more than double the overall violent crime rate when
compared
> to San Francisco in 2003.[8]
> FBI Uniform Crime Report San Francisco
>
> In 1995 San Francisco had a population of 738,371. There were 99
> homicides and 10,903 violent crimes.
> In 2003 San Francisco had a population of 772,065. There were 69
> homicides and 5,725 violent crimes.
> From 1995 through 2003, the homicide rate decreased by 33.3% and
the
> violent crime rate decreased by 49.8% in San Francisco.
> Although San Francisco had an unusual number of homicides, 88, in
> 2004, the city has averaged 71 homicides each year over the past
> decade. 63 of the homicides in 2004 involved a firearm.[9]
> Societal Problem Not a Gun Problem
> We need to look no further than across the bay in Oakland to find
> anecdotal evidence highlighting the need for citizens to have
> lifesaving options when facing violent encounters. Patrick
McCullough
> has spent a decade reporting drug dealers to police. He is the
face of
> the law-abiding citizen who lives with urban terror. When
McCullough
> shot and wounded someone he believed was posing a threat to him,
the
> Alameda County D.A.'s office found that McCullough acted in self-
> defense.[10] McCullough may not live in a gated community or be
able
> to afford armed bodyguards, but he has an inalienable right to
defend
> himself and his family.
>
> Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, who happened to be a
retired
> police officer, before stealing his guns and going on a killing
spree
> on the Red Lake Indian reservation in Minnesota. "Everything that
kid
> did that day, practically from the moment he walked out of his
> bedroom, was a felony," said Joe Olson, a Hamline University law
> professor and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.
>
> Olson concluded, "I don't think any gun-control laws would have
made a
> difference."[11]
>
> To believe that the proposed handgun ban would have an impact on
> handgun violence, one would have to assume that criminals would
> actually abide by the new law. After all, criminals are
undoubtedly
> responsible for the high crime rates and firearm violence.
Considering
> the very definition of a criminal, it would be hard to imagine
that
> such enlightenment would occur. In fact, both reason and empirical
> research suggest that most criminals are attracted to places where
> they meet less resistance.
>
> Guns and ViolenceA Law Enforcement Approach The proposed handgun
ban
> initiative states: "The presence of handguns poses a significant
> threat to the safety of San Franciscans." In reality, the
presence of
> criminals in possession of any firearm poses a significant threat
to
> the safety of all Americans. Guns are nothing more than a tool
that if
> in the wrong hands will hurt innocent people. 9/11, the worst
> terrorist attack on American soil, proved that box cutters and
deadly
> intentions could be as dangerous as almost any weapon in a
military
> arsenal.
>
> Proactive law enforcement targeting crime-infested neighborhoods
has
> been the most effective method in curbing the violence. The
S.F.P.D.,
> in conjunction with federal authorities, has established a gun
task
> force known as "Triggerlock II." A police department bulletin
> explains: "`Triggerlock II' is committed to disarming violent
> criminals and reducing gun violence by identifying the most
dangerous
> offenders and referring them for prosecution under state and
federal
> firearm violations."[12]
>
> When homicides in San Francisco surged in the first half of 2004,
the
> Gang Task Force and other specialized units of the police
department
> stepped up and cut the homicide rate by 40 percent in the second
half
> of the year. According to an article in the San Francisco
> Chronicle: "The most important factor in the decline, police say,
is
> authorities' attempt to take those they consider the most violent,
> incorrigible criminals off the streets with the help of the
> federal `Triggerlock' law, which provides for prison terms of 10
years
> or more for felons who are caught with a gun."[13]
>
> A targeted response to violent crime coupled with tough state
> legislation such as "Three Strikes" ensures that predators are
not in
> a position to wreak havoc on society. The District Attorney has
made
> it clear that she will aggressively prosecute anyone using
firearms in
> the commission of a crime and/or found to be in unlawful
possession of
> a firearm.
>
> Cities across the nation that employ a "zero tolerance" approach
to
> violent crime are reaping the benefits. New York City, which
leads the
> way in policing tactics such as CompStat, saw its peak of 2,245
> murders in 1990 drop to 571 in 2004. Chicago, the nation's murder
> capital in 2003 with 598 homicides and a city that banned
handguns in
> 1982, watched as homicides in 2004 fell to 447. Police in the
Windy
> City credited the Targeted Response Unit that saturates areas
known
> for gang violence.[14]
>
> While the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing
the
> Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural
issues
> of crime and violence. Random or targeted acts of violence
personally
> affect the law enforcement community. Those dedicated to public
> service understand that we need to support any reasonable effort
to
> stem the tide of violent encounters threatening citizens and law
> enforcement alike. However, good intentions don't necessarily make
> good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
>
> Guns and Civil Liberties
> The Pink Pistols, the largest national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and
> Transgender organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and
responsible
> use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority
community, has
> a San Francisco chapter and is outraged by the proposed handgun
> ban. "The idea is to make the people better, so they don't commit
the
> crimes, or if you can't do that, at least stop them when they do.
A
> gun is the law-abiding citizen's best tool to stop the criminal
in his
> tracks," states Gwen Patton, International Media Spokesperson for
the
> Pink Pistols.[15]
>
> San Francisco has a storied reputation as a stronghold of personal
> liberty. The Bill of Rights explicitly refers to rights of
> individuals, not rights of government. And most San Franciscans
are
> not in favor of allowing government to be in the business of
> abrogating civil liberties.
>
> No Constitutional Right to Police Protection In DeShaney v.
Winnebago
> County Dept. of Social Services (1989), the United States Supreme
> Court held that the state has no constitutional obligation to
protect
> citizens from private violence.[16]
>
> California Government Code section 845 states, in part: "Neither a
> public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to
establish
> a police department or otherwise to provide police protection
service
> or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to
provide
> sufficient police protection service."
>
> Since even the fastest calls for service (9-1-1) are measured in
> minutes rather than seconds, how does a law enforcement agency
explain
> to victims of violent crime that the agency sup-ported efforts
denying
> them reasonable means of self-defense? That's a tall order.
>
> Conclusion
> Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt
> while "carrying out the functions of his or her government
> employment." But does this mean that San Francisco police
officers or
> F.B.I. agents living in San Francisco would be forced to leave
their
> weapons at the office upon the completion of their shift? The
danger
> associated with that scenario is unfathomable. And it should be
noted
> that no exemption for retired members of our association or other
law
> enforcement is stated in the proposal.
>
> Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in 1764: "The laws
that
> forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither
inclined
> nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for
the
> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[17] Doesn't
this
> ring true today?
>
> When we disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, we contribute to
> empowering criminals and endangering society-at-large. The San
> Francisco Police Officers Association supports the right of our
> members (active and retired), neighbors, and law-abiding citizens
in
> this city to choose reasonable means of self-defense while in
their
> homes or businesses. We oppose Proposition H, the S.F. Gun Ban
> Initiative.
>
> [1] Curtis, Kim, "San Francisco, frustrated by rising homicides,
tries
> handgun ban," Associated Press, 1/19/05
> [2] "Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001," National Crime
> Victimization Survey, U.S. Department of Justice
> [ 3 ] Wa shing ton Times, E d itor ia l, 10/7/03
> [4] "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academy
of
> Sciences, 12/16/04
> [5] Lott, John, "Lottery Numbers: Why don't media cover the good-
news
> stories," Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/1/03 (Note: estimates are as
high
> as 2.5 million times annually for defensive uses based on
research by
> Gary Kleck, Criminologist)
> [6] Ryan, Joan, "Guns are a bad idea, but so is ban," San
Francisco
> Chronicle, 12/23/04
> [7] Crime in the States, 2003, Federal Bureau of Investigation
> [8] Ibid
> [9] Curtis
> [10] Lee, Henry, "DA's office clears man who shot teen neighbor,"
San
> Francisco Chronicle, 3/17/05
> [11] Diaz, Kevin, "Red Lake shootings ignite scant debate,"
Sacramento
> Bee, 4/4/05
> [12] S.F.P.D. Department Bulletin 05- 017, 2/7/05
> [13] Van Derbeken, Jaxon, "Heading off homicide," San Francisco
> Chronicle, 12/23/04
> [14] Bone, James, "US murder rate sinks as zero tolerance puts
gangs
> on run," Times Online, 1/3/05
> [15] "Pink Pistols Angered, but Not Surprised, by SF Gun Ban
Plans,"
> Pink Pistols Press Release, 1/3/05
> [16] SCOTUS: DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep. of Social Services,
489
> U.S. 189 (1989)
> [17] Polsby, Daniel and Dennis Breenen, "Taking at Gun Control,"
> Heartland Policy Study, 10/30/95
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Denny" <mike@d...>
wrote:
> >
> > The Brazilian national referendum on whether or not hand guns
should
> be
> > illegal in Brazil was defeated over the weekend 2-1. This comes
after
> > initial polls months ago showed the referendum passing by the
same
> > margin. It appears that as soon as Brazil's scandal plagued
president
> > came out in favor of it, its popularity plummeted like a stone.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Dear Amarcy;
To get to my South of Market job by CalTrans I usually end up on the 15 Third Muni line headed South. Last week while sitting at the back of the bus I heard a conversation among some young black males in their early 20's about what they were carrying on themselves and in their backpacks.
The whole conversation was totally none threatening to anyone it was among themselves but the jist was in order to protect themselves in certain parts of the Lower Third street area around Hunters Point Bayview and Sunnyside Ingleside they had to be packers or shooters.
The general talk revolved packers and shooters who used a burner and capped someone. At least they weren't talking about Thumpers. Thumpers being heavy duty cannons like .44 magnums and other .445 cannons..
I can guarantee these guys were not in anyway going to be turning their burners in no matter what law gets passed And I think I can gurantee not a gun they had was legal.
As an aside on the 15 headed south I heard a different group of slightly older black men and women maybe late 20's early 30's talking about what happened in New Orleans after Katrina from friends and relatives they knew. WOW!!! If only half of what was said was true the after Katrina screwup was an enormously awful monumental and totally abysmal F****P way beyond SNAFU and approaching TARFU level and almost FUBAR!!!.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Good point about keeping the POA stand on Prop H in mind. This
proposition is so distressing to me as the mom of a young person. I
am hearing a lot from the young crowd about how this proposition will
save them from all the shootings. The good kids are pretty fearful
and grasping at straws. We need to do more outreach to the young!!
Marcy
That's two pieces of good news! Fitting that the gun ban in
Brazil was
shot down by a criminal -- though I hope the Brazilians would have
defeated it even without the endorsement of an unpopular politician.And I'm likewise delighted that the SF POA has lent its name
to such a
strong argument against Prop. H, even mentioning the Pink Pistols.
I
never would have expected it. This will be a terrific document to
cite
in the event that any SF police groups come out in favor of gun
control
now or in the future.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>> Thanks for the news about the Brazilian referendum, Mike. As a
> Brazilian, with friends and relatives in Brazil, I can attest that
> crime is of concern in Brazil. It appears that Brazilians knew
better
> than to believe that a gun ban would solve the problem. I hope
San
> Franciscans will come to the same conclusion. I find it
interesting
> that the Police Officers Association is OPPOSED to Prop H; their
> reasons below:
>
> Marcy
>
> POA Opposes Proposition H:
> San Francisco's Gun Ban InitiativeOctober 2005
>
> By Michael Nevin, Jr.
> Southern Station
>
> The San Francisco Gun Ban Initiative (Proposition H) will appear
on
> the next election ballot in November. Several supervisors have
touted
> the ban as a step in curbing violence and increasing public
safety.
> The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA), representing
men
> and women dedicated to a life of service to public safety, must
> evaluate any legislative effort affecting its membership. After
> careful review and analysis, the POA does not support the proposed
> ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city
> residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes.
>
> The Handgun Ban
> The proposed ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents from
> possessing any handgun, and they would have 90 days to relinquish
> their property. The sale, manufacture, and distribution of
firearms
> would be prohibited. Visitors to the city would not be subject to
the
> ban if they are in compliance with applicable laws. Police
officers
> and members of the military would also be exempt while "carrying
out
> the functions of his or her government employment." And it should
be
> noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or
> other law enforcement agencies is stated in the proposal.
>
> The role members of the police department, represented by the POA,
> will play in any door-to-door gun confiscation scheme is cause for
> concern.
>
> Nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased by residents since
1996,
> according to the state attorney general's office.[1] But there is
no
> way to determine how many total guns exist because local
governments
> are forbidden under state law from requiring firearms to be
registered
> or licensed.
> It is unclear what database the city would utilize to track San
> Franciscans who have lawfully purchased handguns.
>
> National Statistics and Studies Do Not Favor the Handgun Ban
Argument
>
> According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted
from
> 1993 through 2001, violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence was
> down 59%, and firearm violence decreased by 63%.[2]
> A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control released in
2003
> found no proof to support the claim that gun-control laws are
> effective in preventing violence. The task force found firearms-
> related injuries declined since 1993 despite approximately 4.5
million
> new firearms sold each year.[3]
> In December of 2004, the National Academy of Sciences released the
> findings of a study: "Firearms and Violence: A Critical
> Review." "Current research and data on firearms and violent crime
are
> too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of
various
> measures to prevent and control gun violence," according to the
panel.
> [4]
> Guns are used defensively, according to some estimates, more than
2
> million times annually � four times more than the estimated use
of a
> gun in commission of a crime.[5]
> Case Study�Washington D.C.
>
> Washington D.C. provides a glimpse into gun prohibition after it
> banned handguns in 1976. How successful has our nation's capital
been
> in reducing violence? D.C. has consistently been dubbed "Murder
> Capital U.S.A.," dating back to the early 1990s. The Department of
> Justice found that guns accounted for 80 percent of Washington
D.C.'s
> homicides between 1985 and 1994.[6] With a murder rate nearly 8
times
> the national rate, it is clear that something is not working. [7]
> Washington D.C. had a homicide rate of 44.2 per 100,000
population in
> 2003, while San Francisco had a homicide rate of 8.9 per 100,000
in
> 2003.
> D.C. had more than double the overall violent crime rate when
compared
> to San Francisco in 2003.[8]
> FBI Uniform Crime Report� San Francisco
>
> In 1995 San Francisco had a population of 738,371. There were 99
> homicides and 10,903 violent crimes.
> In 2003 San Francisco had a population of 772,065. There were 69
> homicides and 5,725 violent crimes.
> From 1995 through 2003, the homicide rate decreased by 33.3% and
the
> violent crime rate decreased by 49.8% in San Francisco.
> Although San Francisco had an unusual number of homicides, 88, in
> 2004, the city has averaged 71 homicides each year over the past
> decade. 63 of the homicides in 2004 involved a firearm.[9]
> Societal Problem Not a Gun Problem
> We need to look no further than across the bay in Oakland to find
> anecdotal evidence highlighting the need for citizens to have
> lifesaving options when facing violent encounters. Patrick
McCullough
> has spent a decade reporting drug dealers to police. He is the
face of
> the law-abiding citizen who lives with urban terror. When
McCullough
> shot and wounded someone he believed was posing a threat to him,
the
> Alameda County D.A.'s office found that McCullough acted in self-
> defense.[10] McCullough may not live in a gated community or be
able
> to afford armed bodyguards, but he has an inalienable right to
defend
> himself and his family.
>
> Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, who happened to be a
retired
> police officer, before stealing his guns and going on a killing
spree
> on the Red Lake Indian reservation in Minnesota. "Everything that
kid
> did that day, practically from the moment he walked out of his
> bedroom, was a felony," said Joe Olson, a Hamline University law
> professor and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.
>
> Olson concluded, "I don't think any gun-control laws would have
made a
> difference."[11]
>
> To believe that the proposed handgun ban would have an impact on
> handgun violence, one would have to assume that criminals would
> actually abide by the new law. After all, criminals are
undoubtedly
> responsible for the high crime rates and firearm violence.
Considering
> the very definition of a criminal, it would be hard to imagine
that
> such enlightenment would occur. In fact, both reason and empirical
> research suggest that most criminals are attracted to places where
> they meet less resistance.
>
> Guns and Violence�A Law Enforcement Approach The proposed handgun
ban
> initiative states: "The presence of handguns poses a significant
> threat to the safety of San Franciscans." In reality, the
presence of
> criminals in possession of any firearm poses a significant threat
to
> the safety of all Americans. Guns are nothing more than a tool
that if
> in the wrong hands will hurt innocent people. 9/11, the worst
> terrorist attack on American soil, proved that box cutters and
deadly
> intentions could be as dangerous as almost any weapon in a
military
> arsenal.
>
> Proactive law enforcement targeting crime-infested neighborhoods
has
> been the most effective method in curbing the violence. The
S.F.P.D.,
> in conjunction with federal authorities, has established a gun
task
> force known as "Triggerlock II." A police department bulletin
> explains: "`Triggerlock II' is committed to disarming violent
> criminals and reducing gun violence by identifying the most
dangerous
> offenders and referring them for prosecution under state and
federal
> firearm violations."[12]
>
> When homicides in San Francisco surged in the first half of 2004,
the
> Gang Task Force and other specialized units of the police
department
> stepped up and cut the homicide rate by 40 percent in the second
half
> of the year. According to an article in the San Francisco
> Chronicle: "The most important factor in the decline, police say,
is
> authorities' attempt to take those they consider the most violent,
> incorrigible criminals off the streets with the help of the
> federal `Triggerlock' law, which provides for prison terms of 10
years
> or more for felons who are caught with a gun."[13]
>
> A targeted response to violent crime coupled with tough state
> legislation such as "Three Strikes" ensures that predators are
not in
> a position to wreak havoc on society. The District Attorney has
made
> it clear that she will aggressively prosecute anyone using
firearms in
> the commission of a crime and/or found to be in unlawful
possession of
> a firearm.
>
> Cities across the nation that employ a "zero tolerance" approach
to
> violent crime are reaping the benefits. New York City, which
leads the
> way in policing tactics such as CompStat, saw its peak of 2,245
> murders in 1990 drop to 571 in 2004. Chicago, the nation's murder
> capital in 2003 with 598 homicides and a city that banned
handguns in
> 1982, watched as homicides in 2004 fell to 447. Police in the
Windy
> City credited the Targeted Response Unit that saturates areas
known
> for gang violence.[14]
>
> While the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing
the
> Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural
issues
> of crime and violence. Random or targeted acts of violence
personally
> affect the law enforcement community. Those dedicated to public
> service understand that we need to support any reasonable effort
to
> stem the tide of violent encounters threatening citizens and law
> enforcement alike. However, good intentions don't necessarily make
> good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
>
> Guns and Civil Liberties
> The Pink Pistols, the largest national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and
> Transgender organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and
responsible
> use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority
community, has
> a San Francisco chapter and is outraged by the proposed handgun
> ban. "The idea is to make the people better, so they don't commit
the
> crimes, or if you can't do that, at least stop them when they do.
A
> gun is the law-abiding citizen's best tool to stop the criminal
in his
> tracks," states Gwen Patton, International Media Spokesperson for
the
> Pink Pistols.[15]
>
> San Francisco has a storied reputation as a stronghold of personal
> liberty. The Bill of Rights explicitly refers to rights of
> individuals, not rights of government. And most San Franciscans
are
> not in favor of allowing government to be in the business of
> abrogating civil liberties.
>
> No Constitutional Right to Police Protection In DeShaney v.
Winnebago
> County Dept. of Social Services (1989), the United States Supreme
> Court held that the state has no constitutional obligation to
protect
> citizens from private violence.[16]
>
> California Government Code section 845 states, in part: "Neither a
> public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to
establish
> a police department or otherwise to provide police protection
service
> or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to
provide
> sufficient police protection service."
>
> Since even the fastest calls for service (9-1-1) are measured in
> minutes rather than seconds, how does a law enforcement agency
explain
> to victims of violent crime that the agency sup-ported efforts
denying
> them reasonable means of self-defense? That's a tall order.
>
> Conclusion
> Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt
> while "carrying out the functions of his or her government
> employment." But does this mean that San Francisco police
officers or
> F.B.I. agents living in San Francisco would be forced to leave
their
> weapons at the office upon the completion of their shift? The
danger
> associated with that scenario is unfathomable. And it should be
noted
> that no exemption for retired members of our association or other
law
> enforcement is stated in the proposal.
>
> Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in 1764: "The laws
that
> forbid the carrying of arms�disarm only those who are neither
inclined
> nor determined to commit crimes. �Such laws make things worse for
the
> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[17] Doesn't
this
> ring true today?
>
> When we disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, we contribute to
> empowering criminals and endangering society-at-large. The San
> Francisco Police Officers Association supports the right of our
> members (active and retired), neighbors, and law-abiding citizens
in
> this city to choose reasonable means of self-defense while in
their
> homes or businesses. We oppose Proposition H, the S.F. Gun Ban
> Initiative.
>
> [1] Curtis, Kim, "San Francisco, frustrated by rising homicides,
tries
> handgun ban," Associated Press, 1/19/05
> [2] "Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001," National Crime
> Victimization Survey, U.S. Department of Justice
> [ 3 ] Wa shing ton Times, E d itor ia l, 10/7/03
> [4] "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academy
of
> Sciences, 12/16/04
> [5] Lott, John, "Lottery Numbers: Why don't media cover the good-
news
> stories," Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/1/03 (Note: estimates are as
high
> as 2.5 million times annually for defensive uses based on
research by
> Gary Kleck, Criminologist)
> [6] Ryan, Joan, "Guns are a bad idea, but so is ban," San
Francisco
> Chronicle, 12/23/04
> [7] Crime in the States, 2003, Federal Bureau of Investigation
> [8] Ibid
> [9] Curtis
> [10] Lee, Henry, "DA's office clears man who shot teen neighbor,"
San
> Francisco Chronicle, 3/17/05
> [11] Diaz, Kevin, "Red Lake shootings ignite scant debate,"
Sacramento
> Bee, 4/4/05
> [12] S.F.P.D. Department Bulletin 05- 017, 2/7/05
> [13] Van Derbeken, Jaxon, "Heading off homicide," San Francisco
> Chronicle, 12/23/04
> [14] Bone, James, "US murder rate sinks as zero tolerance puts
gangs
> on run," Times Online, 1/3/05
> [15] "Pink Pistols Angered, but Not Surprised, by SF Gun Ban
Plans,"
> Pink Pistols Press Release, 1/3/05
> [16] SCOTUS: DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep. of Social Services,
489
> U.S. 189 (1989)
> [17] Polsby, Daniel and Dennis Breenen, "Taking at Gun Control,"
> Heartland Policy Study, 10/30/95
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Denny" <mike@d...>
wrote:
> >
> > The Brazilian national referendum on whether or not hand guns
should
> be
> > illegal in Brazil was defeated over the weekend 2-1. This comes
after
> > initial polls months ago showed the referendum passing by the
same
> > margin. It appears that as soon as Brazil's scandal plagued
president
> > came out in favor of it, its popularity plummeted like a stone.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.