San Francisco Chronicle Pimps Federal Gun Control

“We have tightened our laws but we don’t have closed (states’) borders,” state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco (above) tells the San Francisco Chronicle. “Until Congress acts and addresses what is a national issue in a country awash in guns, we’re going to see these horrific tragedies.” And there’s this . . .

Whatever lessons can be drawn from the gun deaths Wednesday of three victims and the shooter at a UPS warehouse in San Francisco’s Potrero Hill neighborhood, and the wounding of a congressman and two police officers in Virginia, Wiener said, they do not show a need for more guns in the world’s most heavily armed nation.

The majority of the Chronicle’s article — ‘California needs federal help to restrict use of guns, advocate says‘ —  is a back-and-forth about California’s draconian gun control laws, presenting the firearms freedom POV from CA gun rights groups.

That said, you can always tell on which side of an issue a mainstream media org sits by the headline, subhead (none need in this case) and, especially, the last quote in the article. To wit:

The statistics say otherwise, countered Ari Freilich, legislative director of the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He said California has reduced its rate of gun homicides by more than 60 percent since 1993, when it began tightening its firearms laws, changing from “one of the most violent states to one of the safest.”

“If it were true that guns everywhere made communities safer, America would be by far the safest country on Earth,” Freilich said. “We have more than one gun per person, and we have by far the largest (incidence) of gun violence.”

As we know, America is one of the safest countries on Earth. Especially if you don’t live in one of the Democrat-run hell-holes where gang bangers are busy racking up firearms-related homicides and injuries.

Anyway, in their desire to reassure nervous anti-gunners in the City by the Bay, the Chronicle lists the new gun control laws afflicting the Golden State.

State gun laws

Recent gun laws enacted by the California Legislature and voters include:

A ban on possession of gun magazines holding more than 10 cartridges, effective July 1.

A ban on sales of guns with “bullet buttons,” which allow owners to reload semi-automatic weapons quickly by pushing a button with a small tool or a bullet to detach an empty magazine.

A requirement that buyers of ammunition undergo background checks, starting in 2019.

A requirement that those convicted of felonies or violent misdemeanors, which make gun ownership illegal, keep records showing they have relinquished their weapons.

A requirement that any gun theft be classified as a felony punishable by up to three years in prison, changing the law that made the theft a misdemeanor if the gun was worth less than $950.

A requirement that ammunition dealers report a loss or theft to police within 48 hours.

Yup, California needs federal intervention — to restore residents’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms without government infringement.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Sammy says:

    Getting rid of demoncrats would cut crime by 90%

    1. avatar DDay says:

      I bet those San Fran democrats want open borders for immigration. They are such hypocrites on the issues.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      He said California has reduced its rate of gun homicides by more than 60 percent since 1993, when it began tightening its firearms laws, changing from “one of the most violent states to one of the safest.”

      I guess this moron hasn’t looked at the drop in homicides in the country as a whole. It’s dropped more than 60% even though there are over 100 million more guns in the country.

  2. avatar The Brig says:

    What, you want to close off California from the rest of the US? Make it just San Francesspit, San Diego, LA, and Sacramento, and you got a deal.

    Trump could practice his wall-building around those areas before he starts with the border.

    1. avatar Nick in CA says:

      Good idea! I have not heard that before. I live in California, saw an article from a rural newspaper on their website. It discussed the divide between urban and rural California. The people those cities send to the state capital are the worst when it comes to gun laws. It is the same Pinheads every time!

      1. avatar Ollie says:

        Look at the 2016 presidential election by county and California is more red than blue.
        The big cities are blue, most everywhere else is red.
        if California does leave the USA, it should be done on a county by county basis.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          By area, yes, but by population, the blues have it by a 2 to 1 majority. And their silliness is unending. Now they want to take away the guns of people who are merely accused of felonies and violent misdemeanors. Your tax dollars at work. Without Supreme Court intervention, it will get a lot worse over the next decade.

          What is sad is that so many people who own guns are almost entirely oblivious to what is going on. Just the other day, two pin heads “didn’t see any problem” with having licenses to purchase .223/5.56, but hoped the law would not spread to handgun ammo. Idiots–it already has. Just wait until 2019 when they ask you to produce your license that you haven’t gotten around to buying. (Starting in 2018, we will have to show ID, give finger prints, and be reported to the DOJ, including amounts and calibers/gauges of ammo purchased. Actually, I have no idea what the DOJ will do with that data, since I suspect they haven’t even started building the brand new hundred million $ plus computer system needed to store it.) I suspect that there will be hundreds of thousands of people who will be taken by surprise when they are told they are in possession of an illegal, unregistered “assault weapon” because they failed to modify it or register it. (I wonder if the Legislature pretty much intended that result.)

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Send home all that arrived illegally, “guests” AND their illegally naturalized offspring. Entirely remakes commiefornia.

    2. avatar Adam says:

      Let people enter CA but don’t ever let them leave. Hopefully all the progressive scum will move there and then we can keep them locked into the state so they don’t move and spread their mental filth.

  3. avatar The Duke says:

    We need the federal government to close state borders?

    My God have they gone full Commazi? (BTW that’s Commie/Nazi all in one)

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I thought they didn’t believe in “borders.”

      1. avatar C.S. says:

        They’re contradictory and hypocritical except in their own minds.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          crediting SF liberals with minds is a bit of a stretch, I have it on good authority that you need at least 6 in one place before they have more than 2 brain cells to rub together, collectively.

      2. avatar The Duke says:

        They don’t believe in borders, so long as you quietly agree with everything they believe. If you disagree then the Feds should be putting you on a secret watch list and limiting your movements

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      I guess this guy is oblivious to the fact that Californians may only legally import firearms that are legal to possess in California, a law that applies mostly to handguns and “assault weapons,” plus 10+ mags. (By the by, I discovered yesterday that Colt has completely withdrawn all of its pistols from the state. Not that I was in the market for a new one, but still.)

  4. avatar DaveL says:

    I know San Francisco is expensive, but can’t a state senator at least afford a shirt, and maybe a sandwich?

    Then perhaps he can explain why California’s homicide rate is virtually neck- and-neck with Arizona’s or Texas’?

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      I didn’t realize that the pic was of the senator! I thought it was some random weirdo depicting the usual San Franciscan.

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        Does he have an uncle named Anthony?

  5. avatar Leadslinger says:

    “We have tightened our laws but we don’t have closed (states’) borders.”

    I agree… We should have an “Escape from L.A.” wall around California.

  6. avatar Mark says:

    “The statistics say otherwise, countered Ari Freilich, legislative director of the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He said California has reduced its rate of gun homicides by more than 60 percent since 1993, when it began tightening its firearms laws, changing from “one of the most violent states to one of the safest.”

    An interesting thing to brag about considering that in the latest complete FBI crime report, (2015) California had the same homicide rate as Texas.

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5

    1. avatar Realist says:

      Californians prefer to stab or bludgeon folks to death so that it takes longer to die and the suffering is extended.

  7. avatar California Richard says:

    This is just an other scheme by California to export it’s way of doing things to your state. Wiener is basically saying that the state laws (a la same excuses made by New York, Illinois, etc) are ineffective because they arent national laws…. let me translate his liberalese for the rest of you: “Look at the utopia we’ve built in California! You want to be like us even if you dont realize it! Here! Let me help you with that!”

  8. avatar JDH says:

    This dummy wants to close borders for guns but not illegal aliens. I’m glad he’s running for Mayor of San Francisco. That way he can only screw up SF instead of the whole state.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      Too late!

  9. avatar Frank says:

    “We have tightened our laws but we don’t have closed (states’) borders,” should have been changed to
    “We have tightened our laws but we don’t have closed (states’) borders, DAMN IT”
    We ALL know that was what they wanted to add.

  10. avatar Angry D says:

    Dear California;

    What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

  11. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    If they want federal intervention, give it to them – NATIONAL RECIPROCITY!

  12. avatar anonymoose says:

    BUILD THE WALL AROUND CALIFORNIA. CUT OFF THE TOP TO SAVE NORCAL IF WE HAVE TO. THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW! SELL THEM BACK TO MEXICO!

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Jesus Christ man, what grudge do you have against Mexico? They just don’t deserve that.

  13. avatar bobo says:

    I am all for giving him just what he wants!

    lets bring in the feds and use the “AVERAGE” of the gun laws of over 40 of the other states and “EVEN” it all out!

  14. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

    That’s a….photo.

  15. avatar Icabod says:

    Funny they claim 60% since 1993. That’s the same decline that the United States has had. Guess it’s ” As the United States goes, so goes California.”
    Clearly all the draconian gun laws California has passed haven’t had much of an impact.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.5a8c6fbc4e2a

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Yes, homicide rates declined 60% since 1993, to stand where they were in the 1960s. You know, back when any felon could buy an M1A from the local hardware store with no waiting period, and no background check.

  16. avatar CarlosT says:

    Gotta love that final quote. The entire country experienced a precipitous drop in homicides, including places that took diametrically opposed action to California. Correlation does not prove causation, but non-correlation does prove non-causation. If two things are unrelated, then neither can be the cause of the other.

    Homicide rates aren’t related to gun laws. There exists every combination of level of gun control and level of homicide rate. The latter it driven by a host of factors, mainly social, that are difficult to address via legislation, and definitely not through any gun-related legislation.

  17. avatar Mark N. says:

    “The statistics say otherwise, countered Ari Freilich, legislative director of the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He said California has reduced its rate of gun homicides by more than 60 percent since 1993, when it began tightening its firearms laws, changing from ‘one of the most violent states to one of the safest.’”

    Ahem. Someone fact check me, but I was under the impression that the national murder rate in the US has dropped by 100% since 1993. IF California has only dropped 60% in the same period while enacting the strictest gun control measures in the country, I would surmise that causation is absent. But then again, Ari is a notorious liar when it comes to manipulating statistics.

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    “No one wants to take your guns!!!” they say, while figuring out new ways to come to your state and take your guns.

    Once again, politicians who pass useless laws find a way to blame everyone else for the fact that their laws don’t work.

  19. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    I’m doing part as I no longer travel to California for business or pleasure. Hope it helps. ?

  20. avatar million says:

    Peruta is going to rock his fragile perception.

  21. avatar Roger Cain says:

    Here is Gun Control that 90% of America can agree on.
    Democrats should not be allowed to own firearms!

  22. avatar George says:

    The last sentence of that article is well said.

  23. avatar ATTAG Reader says:

    How else can they explain the UPS shooting? It has to be the fault of the rest of the country. Can’t be that they create psychos and their laws don’t prevent spree killings. Just can’t be!

  24. avatar John Dennis says:

    Wiener. Stick to what you specialize in.

  25. avatar Chris says:

    “they do not show a need for more guns in the world’s most heavily armed nation.”

    It’s called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.

  26. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Growing up in the 1970’s in Sacramento I met many people who came to live and work in California. These people were leaving places where the crime was terrible. Detroit, New York City, parts of Texas. Now the SF Chronicle covers up most of the street crimes in the city.
    Radio Micheal Savage says the paper is dead. I remember how beautiful and safe the Presidio army base was. And the city destroyed it when the military under Clinton gave it to the state of California. The homeless crapping every where.

    Bring naked and having sex in public is more important than relying on yourself for armed protection. Legal marijuana intoxication has a higher priority than having guns in the city. High Bridge Arms, the last gun store in the city, was forced to close and then turned into a pot dispensary.

  27. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

    To NEIOWA, let’s start with GhostGuns DeLeon and his illegal family who he publicly outed on TV.

    “He said California has reduced its rate of gun homicides by more than 60 percent since 1993”, and yet infringements to our federal right to keep and bear arms continues as unabated as the criminals in this state using stolen firearms to kill each other AND innocents every night; as the Democrat rationale for further infringements are RISING gun homicide statistics!

  28. avatar Darkman says:

    It’s California. Does anyone really care?

  29. avatar HEGEMON says:

    California has become the beachhead for gun confiscation and communism in America. San Francisco, in particular, is a DIRTY city; bums defecating in public, garbage everywhere, broken liquor bottles littering the streets and the petulant smell of burning marijuana hovering over the city. What the hell happened there?

  30. avatar DetroitMan says:

    “We have tightened our laws but we don’t have closed (states’) borders.”

    Is the good congressman suggesting that California build a wall to keep out the illegals (guns, that is)?

  31. avatar Florian Geyer says:

    California should secede and trump should build a wall around it, enact a travel ban, and “Repatriate” the Californians living in the rest of the US (especially the ones in Austin).

  32. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Thank you for posting a picture of a typical male resident in San Francisco.
    Whether anyone likes it or not, he is the anti-gun, anti-liberty face of the city.

    He and people like him would never participate in a empty holster protest in the city by the bay.

    He does seem to be participating in one of the cities favorite outdoor activities.

  33. avatar Eric L says:

    Why the hell can’t the Dems stop electing weiners who run around without their clothes on?!

  34. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    These failed states always point to other states and their alleged “lax gun laws” as being the source of all their gun-related crime, so new federal laws are needed to address so-called gun violence. Well.

    It’s already against federal law to traffic in firearms without a license. If someone’s bringing in commercial quantities of firearms into California which they obtained legally in other states, then they must have a federal license to do so. If they have that license, then they must comply with your state law, too, as a condition of being licensed. Lax state laws or not, they’re already violating existing federal law by trafficking in guns without a license. So what new federal law do you want?

    Perhaps it’s just individual Californians buying guns out of state to take advantage of lax laws, not traffickers? Well, it’s already against federal law for a resident of one state to purchase and take possession of a handgun in another state. You can buy online, over the phone, in person, or via carrier pigeon or smoke signals all day long . You cannot take possession of that handgun, though. The physical transfer must occur between federal firearm licensees in the two states. The transfer to you takes place in your state with the FFL. On that case, all federal and your state laws will have been complied with. Any other transfer scenario of that handgun already violates federal law. So what new law do you want?

    Ahhh….the criminals are buying long guns in the lax gun law states! Well, it is true that a state resident may legally purchase and take possession of a long gun on another state, under federal law, that law also stipulates that you may do so only if the sale is would be legal under the laws of both states, even though it’s taking place in the other state. In effect, federal law already extends your state’s laws nationwide as it pertains to your state’s residents. So what new federal law do you want?

    It’s all just lies by gun grabbing statists who want to take everyone’s guns and shift blame for their failed state status to a convenient scapegoat.

  35. avatar TommyJay says:

    About those new laws, such as the looming background checks for ammo purchases:

    Some CA legislators have gone on record as saying that ammo purchases won’t be a problem since it can be bought at the range without extra checks. My local range just announced that after decades of ammo sales they are discontinuing all sales. Haven’t found out why yet.

  36. avatar modok says:

    If the lines for seceding from the Federal government in California was simply anything west of the I-5 freeway, I would be onboard. L.A., San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Sacramento, etc., to hell with them. That would leave many people like me in the south bay, or rural areas in the cold, but might be worth it. There is a HUGE gun culture here in California that has been beaten down into submission by the progressive socialists that have won the political discourse in this State. Although people are fleeing this state in droves, there are plenty of people that are still hanging on. Please, don’t judge all Californians by the actions of their corrupt government.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email