James,
Sorry, who is the "he" you are referring to below?
Personally it makes perfect sense to me that the NRA doesn't endorse
many Democrats. The disconnect is when an organization says it supports
gun rights but does not endorse *Libertarians*.
The SFgunban.com site is pretty thorough. Good resource.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Yep. NRA scares him! Afraid he might not have his utopia with NRA
around.
Do you know that he is a democrat party apparatik.btw: The National Rifle Association does not call itself the national
republican party.
That is a recent democrat party ploy to dissuade dems from belonging to
groups that don't tow the democrat antigun platform.
The NRA supports competitive candidates from any party
based only on the candidates support of the second ammendment.The key factor is that the candidate must be competitive.
Congressman Joe Baca, Senator Denise Ducheny, and Los Angeles City
Councilman & Former Assemblyman Rod Wright are some California
democrat politicians who currently receive NRA endorsements and
support.-James
There is a new site called www.sfgunban.com. You should check it out.
-JamesFrom: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
Sent: Jan 19, 2005 3:49 AM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Cc: covolo@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: SF gun ban - random thoughts on organizing against itLast week's Bay Guardian (January 12) has an opinion piece about the
gun ban proposal titled "NRA out of S.F."<<< Starchild >>>
Good comments Starchild. I?m afraid that if this fight is labeled
?Republican?, it?s all over. There?s a reason they call the NRA the
National Republican Party in the same way the Teachers? Union belongs
to the Democrats. If we don?t outreach to the left here in SF, we?re
going to loose. An obvious NRA presence in the discussion will make
that difficult and maybe impossible in my view.Congrats Ron on your LTE. Well said.
Mike
<image.tiff>
From:Starchild [mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 6:57 AM
To: covolo@earthlink.net
Cc: LPSF Activist List
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] FW: [lpsf-discuss] SF gun ban - random
thoughts on organizing against itJames,
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 itHello 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.comSubject:[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
+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 FranciscoWithin 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
FranciscoWithin 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>
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
Yahoo! Groups Links
? To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/? To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/