September 29, 2011 | 2:23 PM | By

NRA targets SF’s gun control measures

FILED UNDER: Politics, Gun control, National Rifle Association, Ross Mirkarimi, San Francisco City Attorney

barjack

San Francisco currently faces two lawsuits by the National Rifle Association attacking its gun control laws. The lawsuits are part of a nationwide campaign targeting local measures that restrict gun ownership.

In 1994, San Francisco started prohibiting the sale of certain kinds of particularly lethal ammunition, like hollow-point bullets (which expand when they enter the body, maximizing damage).

In 2007, the city passed a law requiring handgun owners to keep their guns locked away or trigger-locked when not in use.

The NRA argues that both laws interfere with an individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms–and the case it fueled by two recent US Supreme Court decisions that changed the dynamics of gun control. The first, District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, involved a 30-year-old ban on handguns and a trigger-lock requirement for other guns in Washington D.C. In that case, the court determined that the ban was unconstitutional, in part, because locking up rifles and shotguns rendered them useless for self defense purposes in the home. The second decision, in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, extended this ruling beyond the federally controlled Washington D.C. to the states.

Since the rulings, gun rights activists have pursued lawsuits targeting local gun ordinances, including San Francisco’s. On Monday, a federal judge declined San Francisco’s request to dismiss the suits. On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed legislation beefing up the ordinances, mainly by adding background information that demonstrates the laws’ necessity.

“It gives the court something to look at,” Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi told the Board. Despite having relatively “modest” gun control laws in place, “San Francisco is in the bulls eye,” Mirkarimi said.

 

  • Anonymous

    First, hollow point bullets are the preferred ammo for cops because, unlike solid points, they usually don’t go through a bad guy who has to be shot and whack out an innocent bystander.  Hollow points are more damaging to the target but less dangerous to others.

    Second, no amount of verbiage will justify the current ordinances.  Consider: over three quarters of the states now have “shall issue” systems for concealed weapons permits.  There have been no problems and, in fact, those places have less violent crimes than areas where gun ownership is restricted.

    San Francisco ought not to emulate Chicago and Washington D.C. in terms of irrational, unconstitutional and anti-civil rights laws.

  • Mike Hathaway

    In a self-defense situation, the objective is to quickly and efficiently STOP the threat – hollow point bullets do this much better than full-metal jacket bullets, which is why law enforcement and citizens concerned for their safety use them.

    Once again, San Francisco proves to be the capital of people who are out of touch with reality, those who suck up every liberal ideology as truth, no matter how senseless.

  • Sherminater

    How Right you are…