Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumSan Francisco Could Make Gun Sale Regulations Even Stricter
Nonetheless, after a violent start to 2015, city leaders are trying to make it even tougher to buy and sell guns.
Farrells proposal has two main parts: The first portion would require the videotaping of all gun and ammunition sales in San Francisco, as well as video surveillance of all places in the store where guns or ammo are kept, handled and transferred.
The second portion of Farrells proposal would require ammunition dealers to store and electronically send sales data to San Francisco police every week for at least five years.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Francisco-Could-Make-Gun-Sale-Regulations-Even-Stricter-315018131.html
Response to SecularMotion (Original post)
TeddyR This message was self-deleted by its author.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Any comment from you? I think this will just drive more people out to outlying areas and cost the city tax revenue. As a host I wish you would follow the spirit is not the letter of the group SOP and at least comment and DISCUSS your posts. This is very disrespectful to this group and to the actual group host of this group that you do not host.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)If you have issues with what is being posted and where it is posted, please use the ATA forum.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I posted a comment that was directly related to the article. I tend not to use up the admins valuable time by going to them every time I get a post locked or have a point to make about a poster.
hack89
(39,171 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)No question. When they say "reasonable commonsense" gun control, 1 dealer per city the size of SF is precisely what they have in mind, as a 'good start'.
As usual, for everyone that isn't shooting others or being violent.
Darb
(2,807 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)That will be the SF Chronicle's headline in a few months.
SFO has lagged in writing checks to the NRA and SAF legal teams for a few years.
After forking over a few hundred thousand $$$ for the SF handgun ban, they let Chicago and Rahm take over the leadership in contributing to their legal fund.
But clearly, the SF Board of Supervisors don't want Chicago multi million dollar legal fund payday to the SAF and NRA to go unchallenged.
They want to be sure and have their own checks recognized when they lose in court again on this 2nd amendment version of a Poll Tax.
Can't wait for the squealing about how "that money should go to the schools, not the NRA" etc.
I just hope the NRA and SAF are nice about it this time and at least give the Board of Supervisors free T-shirts when they lose and have to write those big checks again. And maybe a one year membership for the mayor and a coupon good for the Basic Pistol class.
hack89
(39,171 posts)If this counts as a gun control victory then you have really lowered your expectations. A 20 year losing streak can do that.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)God! they must have a huge tax base.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)if one were to consider that a large truck would also be needed to haul the massive gun safe into the city - because only the law abiding citizens do stupid things with a weapons. it just gets dumber every day
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)and legally purchases firearms and ammunition in other municipalities/counties. A boon for them, and SF is left to scratch their asses wondering "Why isn't this working?"