California Gun Control Restrictions San Francisco

California Gun Control Restrictions San Francisco

A new gun control proposal in San Francisco would force all sales of guns and ammo to be videotaped. In addition, it would force permit holders to submit detailed records of any ammunition they sell to the San Francisco Police Department. Supervisor Mark Farrell submitted the proposal calling for legislation to be drawn up by the Board of Supervisors, which would be formally introduced in September.

The legislation that would result from that proposal is aimed at “filling any loopholes in current federal, state, and local gun control laws.” Supposedly, this would prevent illegal trafficking of firearms and ammunition, by helping eliminate the loss and theft of them from dealers. (How exactly videotaping someone legally buying something would prevent someone else from stealing weapons and ammo isn’t really explained. Perhaps thieves are required to videotape themselves, as well.)

Also, this aims to prevent and detect the sales of firearms and ammo to people who are prohibited from owning them. That would include felons, (certain) mentally ill people, etc.
According to Farrell:

“Easy access to guns and ammunition continue to contribute to senseless violent crime here in San Francisco and across the country,” said Supervisor Mark Farrell. “Even though San Francisco has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books in the country – there is more we can do to protect the public – and we should do everything in our power to give local law enforcement the additional tools they need to prevent crime and keep our neighborhoods safe.”

This legislation would also force anybody, including people who are not dealers, to keep records of their ammunition and any sales or transfers on hand for five years. Updates for that information would have to be sent in to the SFPD on at least a weekly basis.

The minimum information that would be required to be recorded would include:

  1. The date of the transaction;
  2. The name, address and date of birth of the transferee;
  3. The number of the transferee’s current driver’s license or other government issued identification card containing a photograph of the transferee, and the name of the governmental authority that issued it;
  4. The brand, type, caliber or gauge, and amount of ammunition transferred;
  5. The transferee’s signature; and
  6. The name of the permittee’s agent or employee who processed the transaction.

banner-store

54 Comments

  1. Big deal. If this helps keep guns out of people’s hands who have felonies ect…. it’s worth it.

    1. It won’t. And is it worth it? What price safety? Are you this scared of life, that anything that might, might, keep you alive ten seconds longer is worth any price.
      All these gun laws do is make things harder on lawful gun ownership. Create a greater risk of running afoul of some small statute.

      He who would trade essential liberty for a little security deserves neither. – Benjamin Franklin.

      1. JC is again showing his a*s. And that idiot supervisor – has he any clue at all?

        1. The supervisor knows what he is doing. Make gun ownership harder, with more risks of falling afoul of a law. Create enough laws, and it becomes harder to remain law abiding. They are trying to make it dangerous to exercise 2nd Amendment rights.

          JC is dumb enough to believe they care about him. They don’t.

          1. The problem there is eventually one realizes they are already a criminal with all these laws so why abide by one more…..?

            Might as well go down for a real crime while making a point. KWIM?

      2. Shawn:
        It’s disgusting to read that quote being so misused.

        So YOU want everyone else to forfeit their freedoms…for yours.
        Your rights aren’t any more important than their rights.

        Last I checked…your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t outweig Molly’s Meaning…your right to your gat doesn’t outweigh Molly’s right not to be terrorized by you with your gat.

        You guys just can’t get that into your closed minds. Everyone has rights and yours aren’t more important.

        1. “Everyone has rights and yours aren’t more important.”
          They aren’t less important either, you control freak. I used the quote EXACTLY as it was meant. Ben saw the danger of too much law, of too much control. Counter my interpretation, if you know so much.

          T, you are simply obsessed with order at any price. More and more laws don’t make the world better. It makes it harder to remain law abiding.
          And that is what this law is about, making it harder to legally own a gun, and easier to accidentally break the law. And you fucking know it.

          T, you’re nuts. You are afraid of anyone and anything you don’t control. You think like a liberal. “Give me just one more law, and we’ll have Nirvana.”

          You know, I was just watching the recent Tron movie. You reminded me so much of the antagonist. You don’t dig imperfection, and there is nothing more imperfect than our world. Given the power, you’d become a monster.

          Stalin thought he could make a perfect world too. How well did that work?

          1. t is a coward decended from a long line of cowards.

            There would have been no US had his type been prevalent 250 years ago.

            Chalk and quotes scares him, can you imagine what tar and feathers would have done?

          2. Shawn:
            No goof…you didn’t

            Once again…what significant pieces of writing were those two involved in? One of them gets wrongly quoted around here all the time. It created something germane to what you and I are discussing. The reason it’s germane is that. that one specific document, lays out specifically why you are using that quote wrong

          3. Shawn:
            And once again…you still have me wrong.
            I’m all for responsible gun ownership and use. But your opposition to felons having guns shows that you don’t have that same stance.

          4. No, t, you aren’t for gun ownership. You are for HEAVILY controlled, maybe if you don’t jay walk and surrender all rights, gun ownership. You only want to allow extremely limited gun ownership. You are out of control with your desperate need to control everyone else.
            I don’t have you wrong. I have only just started to figure out how dangerous you really are.

            Do you not understand what this kind of mess of laws and controls does? It makes exercising the 2nd Amendment dangerous. Because if you miss one part, you suddenly are now breaking gun laws. That is a serious danger that a person must then consider before owning a gun. They have to consider just how onerous the laws are getting, deliberately to make gun ownership a pain, how dangerous it is if you make a mistake with all the laws they want to pass, and how intrusive government wants to be if you own a gun.

            This isn’t about felons. This is about making gun ownership as hard as possible, and as intrusive as possible. And bluntly, so many crimes are called felonies that I’m not as concerned about that issue. Want to strip people of their 2nd Amendment? Just make everything a felony. You know that the word felony used to actually mean something? There is a book out there talking about how each of us arguably commits 3 felonies a day, without even knowing it.

          5. Hypothetically we are all in violation of USA PATRIOT Act simply by commenting on this very website which could be interpreted as providing material support to terrorists.

            A federal felony.

            Even t.

          6. It’s really why he needs to be taken out as one of the first ones and made a horrendous example of

          7. You can’t control guns. That’s the thing. Literally anyone can make a gun out of stuff you can buy at home depot. All this type of thing will do will make the street value of black market guns go up so the black market dealers will make money that much faster.

          8. OK, so by warning against trading liberty for security, Ben was advising that we create a massive mess of laws and controls. Ya, that’s a logical interpretation.

        2. Your death will be filmed.

        3. Misused? God you are stupid.

          You want security then why not check yourself into federal max prison and let the rest of us live life on the edge in this big bad scary world.

          1. Miss:
            Wow. Reading comprehend much?

            Nope

          2. The problem for you is I comprehend you and your ilk all too well and that scares you; you prefer to spout your anti-american propaganda and hope noone catches on until it is too late to change.

            Sorry, we are all on to you pigs.

          3. Miss:
            My “ilk”. Nice

            So…let’s make sure we got this straight:

            I am pro responsible gun ownership
            I am pro electoral process
            I am pro Constitution(s)
            I am pro local level governmnent as it is the closer representation of the citizenry

            To you…that’s “anti American

            Wow. That’s is something

          4. You can claim you are pro whatever you want but your actions and words show differently and it annoys you I know that.

          5. T is only pro anything when it supports what he wants. Like his “I support gun ownership” BS. No he doesn’t. He supports making it as harsh and intrusive as possible, all for the nebulous claims of stopping criminals from getting a gun. They haven’t been particularly successful at anything but demonizing gun ownership and making it a risky right to exercise.

            He’s pro Constitution, only when it empowers police. But he openly defends abusive behavior by cops, lawless behavior, and even efforts to ignore Constitutional restrictions. Look up the Orlando barber shot raids a few years ago.

            “I am pro local level governmnent as it is the closer representation of the citizenry”
            Have you read his attitude about professional conduct with the citizenry? Poor at best. And he is fine with cops harassing legal activity that cops don’t like. The exercise of open carry for instance. Whatever he or I thinks, many areas have made it legal. But t thinks it is fine to harass those who exercise that right. What it amounts to is that t thinks cops have a veto right to laws they don’t like.

            T is scared of anything he doesn’t control. If given the power, he’d likely become a human butcher of the same bent as Stalin. T is just that desperate to control everything around him.

          6. I have been reading t’s anti-American nonsense for two plus years now.
            No one believes his “I love the Constitution” claims.

            He is just shocked his propaganda hasn’t worked.

            People who have no self control always want to control others.

          7. Wow:
            Where have I ever written anything to the opposite?

          8. If the police are for responsible gun ownership, why were fire arms taken from citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? Why was it deemed necessary to disarm the people? Because that is exactly what happened. I think we all got to see what local government as well as the police, thought of our rights to be responsible gun owners!

            Before you try to spin this, even the regulars on Policeone and other police blogs made comments to those “door kickers” in New Orleans when discussing the Boston Door to Door searches. In other words, they didn’t like that.

          9. YF:
            Katrina was Katrina. I wasn’t in favor of it either.
            Boston was completely different….and as it turned out showed how dumb most CBers are.

            But don’t get me wrong…for as like we have discussed many times:
            I believe that ex founding fathers…when they wrote he second amendment…believed strongly in the people being armed so that they could band together in defense of the frontier, their towns and families, and the nation.
            They never meant for the idea to be to go,Aron’s toting your rifles everywhere trying to intimidate people.
            It’s funny how for decades people carried guns…without issues. Rifles in gun racks. Pistols under jackets. Seldom did the police get called…seldom was there an issue.
            But at doesn’t suit some. They want the shock factor. They want to scare people.. They want to intimidate.
            And that’s why I have a problem. Remember…your rights don’t outweigh mine or anyone else’s. When you decide to DO SOMETHING…to TAKE AN ACTION…tou then are forcing others to accept that actin. You can’t force others to hear you. You can’t force them to read what you write.

            And this is where you and I have a large difference…
            I favor local,government. It closely reflects the citizenry of the town, city, county. If that cite Ray elects officials that are…more open to drug use…and they are. If those officials reflect a dislike of guns in public or whatever…well there you go.
            You like central government control. Liberal Sna Franciscians forcing their ideas on conservative Texans. I don’t. and BTW….neither did the FF’s. That’s why the Constitution is written the way it is.

          10. I believe in states rights and believe we need more of that. Be careful when you talk about my love for federal government. You guys loved federal asset forfeiture laws and used them to take things left and right. The only role the feds need to play is the role of protection of the country via a strong military! Spend some time looking at what FF’s believed in a central government. It might surprise you. George Washington is one of them. Someone I would meet right after Jesus Christ, if I could.

            http://legal-planet.org/2012/07/04/did-the-founding-fathers-believe-in-a-strong-national-government-you-betcha/

            I do not agree with how far they believed but I do agree with some. To regulate commerce, make treaties, make laws to promote the general health and welfare and etc. Remember this, you have stated your thoughts on the most interesting word in the 2nd being MILITIA. That is the same word that anti gun folks focus on as well. When you talk about my rights being equal with others, correct but If I choose to OC, that doesn’t give anyone the right to stop it by calling the law. When I choose to take action, legally, I am legal. If someone doesn’t like me OC, go fight to change the laws. If I am not doing it illegal or flinging the gun around, which would be irresponsibly, I am correct. In other words, if I do my rights exercising legally and someone is shocked or whatever feeling they have, that doesn’t mean I have to stop. Racists offend me but that doesn’t mean I can stop them. I can shout them down but calling the police and trying to stop them is not the answer.

            As to Boston, sorry but if you believe tactical teams going door to door and forcing their way in sans warrants to hundreds of families was acceptable, then we do disagree. That was not acceptable!

          11. You ain’t shit, most definitely not American. Your kind will be found and slaughtered. of this, there is no question

          12. That’s the thing. Some of us try telling RAD to go off and make his anarchist Utopia. So why doesn’t t go off and live in a super max prison, if his fellow citizens are just so dangerous.

          13. We’re already living in anarchy. Statists just don’t know it yet. The rule of law is a myth the false messiahs of government use to sell their phony religion to us.

        4. I’m sure you believe that quote is misused, you ignorant fuck.

      3. Now that is funny. You say I am scared of life but every time the PD get a new weapon or vehicle you are whining and crying everyone is going to die. You are a hypocrite copblocker.

        1. Hardly. The Founders understood just how dangerous the government can be.

        2. I’m starting to believe your IQ is seriously near 60. I thought you were just playing stupid for a while, it appears you really are.

    2. I’m a big fan of making murder illegal. If we just do that, then nobody would ever kill anyone else.
      On a different topic, where were the cops in Chattanooga?

      1. they were at the donut shop while the gov’t ran another drill.

      2. Throwing a fit because they lost the investigation to the TBI.
        It is a turf war down there right now and they want us all to think they care about protecting us. nope it is about getting the hero label.

    3. Traitors to the Constitution will be executed.

  2. Lawmakers are often incredibly stupid. Like in Connecticut after Newtown they knee jerked legislation to register magazines. Nevermind that magazines don’t have serial numbers or any other identifying numbers on them.

    Or their requirmemt to only load your mag with seven bullets for all those guns people have that standard mags hold more than seven.

    Even NY had to go back and quickly change their gun legislation when they realized it applied to cops too. Oops.

    All these feel good gun laws do nothing but punish law abiding citizens.

  3. how would they video record online or mail order sales? I buy most of my ammo via mail… looks like it’s time to buy another 100,000 rounds before a law like this hits.

    1. All these stupid laws do is cause people to stockpile more.
      Like you I order 90% of my ammo and gun accessories online. I also tend to buy in bulk as it is far cheaper.

      I even buy guns online but they still have to go through a dealer. I suppose they would start making you go pick up your ammo orders at a FFL.

      1. Yes, we know. We know right were to go to confiscate all that juicy contradband when the time comes

        1. Lol. Assuming you get past my electrified gate, drones, dogs, landmines, shark infested moat, and motion activated lasers.

    2. Very clever. then The online supplier has a record of the transaction, name, credit carrd info, and mailing adress instead

      1. And your warrant for that information is predicated on what exactly?

        1. Youv heard that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sanwich? Well, warrants work in a similar way. If you bring the judge a ham sanwich, he’’ll sign your warrant for you

          1. So you admit the chances of obtaining a lawful and constitutional warrant is pretty slim to none.

            Good to know.

  4. Register your bullets with the police one at a time in their face. The only good pig is a dead pig.

    1. That would be againset the law and suvject you to arrest

  5. Its just the beginning. Next it will be tattooed bar codes and assigned employment. Its all over. The end is near.

    1. You joke, but do you remember Regan’s warning about freedom? We’re never more than a generation from tyranny. A snip here, a cut there, all of a sudden you don’t recognize your country. There have been numerous warnings that our freedom isn’t to be taken for granted. “I give you a republic, if you can keep it.”

      You don’t cook a frog by tossing it into boiling water. You toss it into cold water, then turn up the head slowly.

      1. I remember my father telling me how they cooked turtles in a old cast iron stove. “You’d hear them scraping at the door, but they wouldn’t scratch very long.”

        1. Go back into your shell , little turtle, the heat won’t find you there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *