San Francisco Mayor Newsom Defends Gun Violence Laws and Goes Full Bore After New Approaches to Reduce Homicides and Crime

“Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?"
Is there any reason that the poor shouldn't have access to a handgun for personal protection?

But as the majority wrote, “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Yes, but handguns (not revolvers) specifically cannot be banned. The semi-auto technology is the same with rifles. That quote was refers to bazookas, and machinguns. No more bans for common arms like all semi-autos.

14th Incorporation underway. Equal protection. Equal access. CA limitations. No doubt SF will provide test cases to help speed incorporation.

The 2nd with teeth. Got to love being on offense.

So much exaggeration here. SF housing is the site of a "test case" that NRA has chosen, nothing more than that. The mayor and others keep this hysterical stuff up of "blood in the streets" and everyone falls for it. Don't because the violence level is already very high. The city has not brought it down no matter what they have done or said nor will they ever.

Two centuries of legal repression occasion all the newest law suits about guns. Gun owners have been very patient for just a simple reading of the 2nd Amendment in court. A lot of this current trouble could have been avoided by just such a simple reading.

Everyone can thank bullheaded non communicators like the current mayor for the highly polarized situation today. No one comes out too far ahead.

If one assumes that public housing is filled with unindicted criminals and the borderline mentally retarded, then it makes sense to deny the residents firearms -- just as one would prohibit firearms in a prison or insane asylum. Of course, this means that public housing residents also cannot be expected to participate in self-government, to defend themselves, to help keep the peace -- or even to testify against criminals in court (unless anonymously).

Of course, it would be a miracle if such a neighborhood _wasn't_ overloaded with crime and violence. Perhaps the solution is to pay poor but law-abiding people of normal intelligence to live in public housing projects and carry guns there. That way, people who do drive-by shootings can be shot down by at least some of the residents of the oppressed community. incoming fire.

"If one assumes that public housing is filled with unindicted criminals and the borderline mentally retarded, then it makes sense to deny the residents firearms --"

FAIL. That's all the more reason for allowing innocent citizens the means to protect themselves. Making more people potential victims is not the solution.

fsilber: The plaintiff in the SF case is an elderly gay man who has repeatedly been the victim of hate crimes.

If self defense is a fundamental right, this should be a no brainer for both sides.

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.