San Antonio Wants to Limit Gun Stores to ‘Fight Gun Violence’

William Cruz Shaw San Antonio

William “Cruz” Shaw courtesy facebook.com

After their handgun ban was invalidated in the 2010 McDonald decision, the city of Chicago attempted to put up as many roadblocks to legal civilian gun ownership within the city as possible. One of those maneuvers was to use zoning laws to prohibit ranges within city limits by . . .

(1) Restricting shooting ranges only to land zoned for manufacturing purposes.
(2) Barring shooting ranges from existing within 100 feet of another shooting range, or within 500 feet of a residential district, school, place of worship, “and multiple other uses”.
(3) Banning persons under the age of 18 years of age from entering a shooting range for any reason.

Those restrictions virtually eliminated all real estate within the city of Chicago. And they also resulted in a Second Amendment Foundation-backed lawsuit against the city. A suit which the city lost in a 2017 Seventh Circuit Court decision.

Now, however, some city council members in San Antonio want to travel down the same road, ostensibly to “fight gun violence.”

Aspiring gun sellers might find it harder to set up shop in San Antonio under a pair of proposed rules limiting where firearms could be sold throughout the city — part of a larger effort by local officials to fight gun violence in the wake of recent mass shootings.

One proposal would bar retailers and gun shows from selling firearms within 1,000 feet of a school or church. Another would allow new gun shops only in high-density commercial areas.

Exactly how inconveniencing San Antonio residents who wish to legally purchase firearms would somehow reduce “gun violence” isn’t really clear.

“We regulate alcohol and where it’s being sold, daycares, restaurants,” District 2 Councilman William “Cruz” Shaw said. “There’s a lot of different zoning criteria and not to have a firearm criteria doesn’t make any sense.”

Maybe someone should explain to Councilman Shaw — an attorney who should know better — that those other activities aren’t protected in the Bill of Rights.

Texas’s preemption law prevents the outright ban of gun and ammo sales within city limits. But according to San Antonio’s reading of the law, they apparently think they can get away with it.

“We’re pretty confident that’s (sic) there’s statutory authority for us to do something in the zoning realm,” deputy city attorney Edward Guzman said.

That Seventh Circuit ruling against Chicago’s zoning laws has no bearing on San Antonio, which is in the Fifth Circuit. The 60 stores already located in San Antonio that would be in violation of the new zoning restrictions would be grandfathered in.

Besides, it’s all about giving citizens more of a voice in the businesses in their neighborhoods.

The proposals would allow residents to have more of a say in whether a retailer that sells guns or ammunition sets up shop in their neighborhood by providing more information about proposed developments, Shaw said.

Uh huh.

“The only way it would make it more difficult (to open a store) is if the people in that community speak up and say, ‘we don’t want it,'” Shaw said.

If they go ahead with this, don’t expect much time to pass before the city is served with a lawsuit similar to the one Chicago was hit with.

Don’t touch that dial.

 

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    ““The only way it would make it more difficult (to open a store) is if the people in that community speak up and say, ‘we don’t want it,’” Shaw said.”

    My rights don’t care about what you “want”.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      But hey, if a bakery wants to limit who it sells to, that’s a Constitutional crisis, right?

      I have an idea, why not open gun stores IN the schools? Pick up a Glock along with your notebook paper and pencils.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Was there an argument somewhere in there? Because I couldn’t hear it over the sound of leftist temper tantrums.

      2. avatar Alex Waits says:

        “–But hey, if a bakery wants to limit who it sells to, that’s a Constitutional crisis, right?

        I have an idea, why not open gun stores IN the schools? Pick up a Glock along with your notebook paper and pencils.–”

        Your example is not analogous, but I think you know that.

        In your argument, a bakery is being forced to provide labor by the state.
        In the article, the state is attempting to deny civil rights under color of law.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Your example is not analogous, but you know that.”

          “In your argument, a bakery is being forced to provide labor by the state.
          In the article, the state is attempting to deny civil rights under color of law.”

          Woah there Buckarooski. I thought only leftists and the Taliban lacked a sense of humor.

          Slow down, Defens was leaving a chuckle on this thread.

  2. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Darn, darn, darn. The Council figured it out (without a pencil and a pad). Ne’er do wells get their gats from gun shops. After their brilliant plan goes into effect, there won’t be another shooting in San Antonio ever! Or, maybe not.

    (Nice tie, though.)

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    ““The only way it would make it more difficult (to open a [synagogue/temple/mosque/church/DNC branch office] ) is if the people in that community speak up and say, ‘we don’t want it,’” Shaw said.”

    Funny how these clowns never seem to apply the “common sense” they seem to espouse. It’s almost like we have some sort of document that expressly forbids “the community” from getting a say in certain things… What was it again? It’s on the tip of my tongue…

  4. avatar N64456 says:

    They should limit Democrats if they want to limit “gun violence”; which we all know is really “Democrat violence”…

  5. avatar Higgs says:

    They should attack crime next and get rid of all the police stations.

    Its about as logical.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      God, that’s a good one. Thanx, Higgs!

  6. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    The free market is the most effective and efficient means of the people communicating what they want nearby. If they don’t want a gun range, then don’t go there and spend money. Eventually it will go out of business.

    What’s really going on is antis trying to impose their decision on everyone else through city ordinances, then recasting their corruption as “the will of the people.”

  7. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Will someone in the San Antonio area please go before the city council and ask them to give up all their firearms, and police protection to reduce gun violence, and see what their reaction is.

  8. avatar Sam I Am says:

    To slap my own self, on my own self’s back (self-congratulations are terribly rewarding), I noted months ago that the threat was not storm troopers confiscating guns. The threat is the town-by-town strangling of an enumerated right. I also warned that amending the constitution through mere legislation (rather than a constitutional amendment) is what led directly to the Second American Revolution. We have suffered incremental infringement on all our rights over the last 165+ years, but the pace is accelerating, and the consequences increasing daily. Call it the Lilliputian Decption.

    Evil never sleeps, never rests. While normal people go about their lives with no intention of controlling the live of others, evil plots constantly. Constitutionalists slumber while tyrants eat away at the fabric of society. Note the great sigh of relief when Kavanaugh was confirmed. It was the sound of air bleeding from the inner tube of vigilance. Game over, we won, time to quaff some suds. We’ll main in our mid-term ballots, and talk about Monday Night Football. We got politicians to do all that other stuff for us.

  9. avatar CZJay says:

    Using the weapons that are democracy and licensing.

    It’s not free market capitalism if you need permission to setup a business.

  10. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Doesn’t make a lot of sense. Really? I doubt that your regulations regarding where alcohol is sold, day cares, restaurants, etc. make a lot of sense either.

  11. avatar Dan Sampsel says:

    Maybe they should try enforcing existing gun law. That might
    make a bigger difference, eh? What a novel concept…

  12. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    Have no fear, We’ve got Trump and Kavanaugh.

  13. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Are they going to limit restaurants to fight obesity and diabetes?

  14. avatar Victor says:

    Question from a non-Texan: Is San Antonio an anomaly in Texas?

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      looks like things are changing down there….

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      It sure sounds like San Antonio is little piece of California transplanted into Texas.
      People run away from state’s high taxes, high prices and over regulation. Then they vote for politicians who push the same idiotic policies that made them so miserable.

      1. avatar bigdaddytexasguns says:

        yep

    3. avatar Jeffrey Lanham says:

      No, unfortunately. It’s getting mighty leftist down here because of the massive influx of Californians and other leftist states fleeing massive taxation to come down here and make us just like them. Austin, which is the state capitol, is already a leftist crap fest. I live near and work in San Antonio, btw.

  15. District 6 Councilman, Greg Brockhouse, has stated that this will not happen! He is member of the Safety Committee where these ridiculous proposals were suggested a week or so ago.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    William “Cruz” Shaw, an ambulance chaser if there ever was one, already has an ethics complaint against him — and he’s not fighting it because it was so obvious.

    Oh, well. Grifters gotta grift.

  17. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    to “fight gun violence.”

    A better line of tact maybe to limit Progtard violence against the Constitution,because their scheme is UnConstitutional.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    Any chance they could outlaw shooting people?

  19. avatar TRUTH TELLER says:

    Why should law abiding white people have to suffer because black and brown people are irresponsible and violent??

    The OVERWHELMING majority of murders are committed by black and brown people against black,brown, and white people. The blacks and browns who are committing these crimes WILL ALWAYS GET THEIR GUNS. They’re not afraid of going to jail for illegally possessing or carrying a firearm. Middle class white people will sacrifice their guns instead of going to general population in state prison.

    Want to cut murder by 33 percent instantly? Make possession of a firearm by anyone non-white a capital offense. These particular ethnic groups have demonstrated their inability to be responsible members of society, and to be entrusted with the responsibility of exercising their gun rights. So they should have them revoked until they can do so.

    But nobody will ever have the balls to enact this common sense legislation, so we will all eventually be denied the opportunity to purchase firearms or ammunition.

    When you lose your rights, it will be because the underclass was allowed to run wild. Daryl Gates knew how to keep the animals under control.

    1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

      WOW.

      Take it easy there Whippy McCrack.
      StormFront is over that way —->

    2. avatar Sprocket says:

      Unfortunately, there is a kernel of truth here. Once you’ve accepted the premise that it’s acceptable to restrict citizen’s rights to solve a problem, why shouldn’t the burden fall on the the part of the population that the largest part of the problem? Of course part of the answer is that big city Democrats love of gun control is simply a mechanism to virtue signal on crime while avoiding conflict with their beloved ghetto pets. The other part is that they don’t consider the second amendment a real right and they hate our guts.

      1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

        No!

        Even if you weren’t a racist bottom feeder, limiting rights to a group starts the slippery slope to limiting it to all.

        Making broad assumptions about groups had never worked out well for anybody, instead of judging a group by what some of its population does, judge an individual by his or her actions. That has always been our argument over theirs.

        1. avatar TRUTH TELLER says:

          Nonsense. If not for that sort of mindset, the Indians would still be nomads and buffalo would be running wild all over the country.

          Sometimes certain ethnic group are problematic and require attention.

          If something isn’t done to focus attention on the murderous underclass, politicians are going to incrementally take rights away from law-abiding white people, rendering them defenseless.

          Don’t you find it odd that every city in America has neighborhoods which are no-go zones, and those neighborhoods are always populated by black and brown people?

          All the much-ballyhooed mass shootings in history don’t equal the black on black murders in Chicago in a year.

          Blacks and browns are the problem, and if we continue to be afraid to generalize out of some misguided fear of stigmatizing entire groups, we are going to lose our 2nd Amendment rights.

        2. avatar EnDangerEd says:

          Truth Teller is UNAWARE of a simple TRUTH…. way back when there were No-Go areas in most cities that were exclusively populated by Irish, Polocks, Checks, Germans, and other NATIONALITIES, all citizens who jealously guarded their “turf” against intruders… and they were white. Your entire argument is STUPID. I know lots of folks of “other” ethnicities who are outstanding, law abiding folks. Mostly Vets. And they would guard YOUR/THEIR Rights with honor. Get over your bigotry and learn some history, maybe it will humble you enough to live on this Earth with all the other sinners. Are there more black/brown criminals? Yep! Should we attack the good ones because some are bad? Nope, IF we did this would no longer be America. Think on it.

  20. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    How about the city having a crackdown at the flea markets that are selling fake I d’s and drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

  21. avatar James J. White says:

    Maybe San Antonio needs to limit auto dealerships since more people are killed on the roads.

  22. avatar neiowa says:

    I wonder who this twit calls massa? Beto, Nancy, Chuckie

  23. avatar Sora says:

    THIS is why you have to vote in local elections, AND Volunteer for rallies, and voter drives.
    NRA doesn’t do much lawsuits but they hold voter drives. Go and spend that weekend at the range for voter drives.
    If you don’t, you won’t have much of gun range to go to or a store to buy at.

  24. avatar Big Bill says:

    Pretty much all politicians agree that we have a massive problem with opiates in this country.
    I propose we attempt to solve this problem the same way they want to solve the “gun violence” problem: limit how people get their opiates.
    First, of course, anyone who wants these dangerous drugs must get a license to buy them. The local police/sheriff’s offices will be tasked with providing these licenses, on a “may issue” basis. This is to ensure that those who wish to buy these dangerous drugs actually have a need for them. (This should not be taken to mean that the said offices will have any medical staff to actually make a medical determination as to whether the applicant needs these drugs.)
    Once the license is granted (if it is granted) the person will present the license to a licensed pharmacy to get the dangerous drug. The person will sign for the drugs, accounting for each pill/capsule/any other means of ingesting said drugs. Each time the drug is taken, a form must be filled out describing when and where the drug is taken; this form must be witnessed by a notary. (it is possible, given the reading of pertinent laws, that places can be set up by local governments where these drugs can be ingested; such places should be the only places such drugs can be ingested.) The costs of these measures will be offset by a fee/tax imposed at the time of sale of the drugs to the licensee. Obviously, a background check (the NICS system is already in place,and should be used for this). Obviously, any transfers of opiates between non-licensed people is forbidden.
    Pharmacies, since they are the points of sale of these dangerous drugs, must be closely monitored. Given the realities of the limited nature of the personnel available to do this monitoring, the number and location of these pharmacies must be severely limited. Given the extreme nature of the opiate problem, it is actually preferred that there be no pharmacies in your local area to actually provide these dangerous drugs, so locations should be severely limited by zoning regulations and proximity to residential areas, schools, and other pharmacies.
    There are other means to attack the problem of opiates, such as requirements for safe storage of the drugs in the home, licenses (as above) for the carrying of these drugs on a person, and so forth.
    If the politicians do not do this, then they are callous bastards, and care not one whit for the children who are the main victims of this scourge upon our great nation.

  25. avatar Fred Lead says:

    There’s a major typo there. The bill is actually intended to fight legal gun culture, not illegal gun violence.

  26. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Not too surprising coming from a city that bans the possession of locking blade knives.

    1. avatar Old Air Force says:

      As of Sept. 1, 2017 Texas knife laws have been revamped. There is no blade length restrictions, except in bars, and most of the prohibited styles have been removed. You can carry a sword down the street if you chose. Daggers and machetes are legal as well.

  27. avatar Duke Sedona says:

    We had to go through zoning to be able to manufacture ammo at our current location. Everything was held up because 1 person who lives >5 miles from us had a fear that we might explode and he would be impacted. That was his excuse but in reality, this person acts as sort of a mob boss. He was upset because the city councilperson did not talk to him about this first. Luckily we were able to push past it, but this one guy caused a ton of delays.
    One person could stop a gun store opening based on this….total bullshit!

  28. avatar sgs says:

    Has it occurred to these fools that guns are portable? How would limiting gun stores stop shootings? The gun could be purchased and transported to where it will be used.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “How would limiting gun stores stop shootings?”

      That’s not the intent or purpose. Virtue signaling, and refusal of responsibility.
      “Doing something”, and “We aren’t the source of guns so we are not responsible for what other people do with guns.”

      Win-win.

  29. avatar Robert says:

    What’s that old adage?—-“THERE’S NO CURE FOR STUPID!”
    FIRST: People will simply go a little farther away and buy their guns anyway.
    SECOND: How many CRIMINALS actually go to their local gun shop and LEGALLY buy a gun to use in a crime?

    The only thing that comes to mind is a quote from “That 70’s Show” character Red Forman: “DUMBASS!”

  30. avatar Pa John says:

    Well proven solution: Putting more police on the job in problem areas, along with providing all of the necessary resources to enable them to do their jobs effectively, up to and including increased jail space for housing all the additional inmates this increase in policing will cause, along with cooperating with ICE to facilitate the deportation of countless criminal illegal aliens, and so forth and so on. You already know all of this.

    The only problem with this proven solution is it costs MONEY. Since they don’t have any money, they instead have to come up with a way to scam the voters by APPEARING to be “doing something”, so as to keep the voters happy and their donations coming in, but by necessity, do it in a way that doesn’t cost any real money. Since APPEARANCES can be far more important than reality in politics, the tiny little issue of only APPEARING to be “doing something” while actually doing nothing beneficial, and actually making things worse for the law abiding over the long term, is of no importance for politicians unconcerned with anything more “long term” than the next election.

    So we get yet another NEW LAW along with a lot of fanfare and noise. New laws cost almost nothing to create, especially when there is little to no funding provided for their enforcement, and they fill that need to APPEAR to be “doing something” so the suckers – that would be us – believe they are “doing something” and so we keep reelecting them. New law after new law after new law, almost none of them doing any good for anyone other than temporarily for the politicians themselves, by keeping the gravy train going just a little while longer. A SCAM by any other name is still a SCAM.

    This problem of politicians scamming the people by endlessly writing useless new laws – only to keep up the APPEARANCE of “doing something” without spending real money – is a very old one. Consider this old quote in it’s original Latin:
    “Corruptisima republica plurimae leges.” (The more corrupt a republic, the more numerous its laws.) – Tacitus

    Tell your local politicians to stop the age old scam of writing useless, liberty destroying new laws, and to cut frivolous & wasteful spending in other areas in order to free up the funds to ENFORCE EXISTING LAW. We are long past due for real world solutions and endless “new laws” are not the answer. And make damn sure the funds that get cut are not military spending, either. Look to the U.S. and State Constitutions and eliminate anything utilizing or assuming powers and authority not specifically enumerated therein. Hundreds of billions could be cut with ease, just as soon as government returns to the constraints of the U.S. and individual State Constitutions… Imagine that.

    1. avatar EnDangerEd says:

      Here’s a cheaper and easier solution, and it supports the Constitution as well. Instead of banning guns make every homeowner a Deputy, train EVERY gun owner in all facets of marksmanship and WHEN a crime is committed as long as the perp is armed in any way allow civilians to SHOOT the perp. As long as the perp is the only one hit and there WAS a crime in progress no charges filed against the Deputy. There would be a short period where lots of perps would have a really BAD Day, after which criminal activity would decrease considerably. There might still be an occaisional attempt at a “mass shooting” but if a civilian Deputy was on scene and took the perp out ASAP there would be less and less fools to try it. We, as a Nation, would also be safer overall as a “terrorist action” would be almost impossible to initiate without immediate reaction by an armed force. It would scare Dems into wetting themselves.

  31. avatar Mikial says:

    Another slime ball Liberal trying to make political points out of screwing over the American public.

  32. avatar Alan says:

    Local Officials, or if you prefer loco officials need to realize that the law abiding should not be so restricted. In addition, they also need to realize that those who choose to disobey the law are unimpressed by such foolishness as they propose, be that foolishness proposed in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Antonio or anywhere else.

  33. avatar mac e. says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if our elected leaders could make the same effort to disarm violent criminals that they exert in trying to disarm us – the criminals’ targets. Thank goodness that President Trump defeated Hillary!

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