San Francisco’s Supervisor Mark Farrell recently proposed a City ordinance that requires gun stores within city limits to videotape all firearms transactions, record all ammo sales and share ammo sales data with the police. The one gun store inside SF, High Bridge Arms, ain’t got time for that. Facing the prospect of customers refusing to darken its doors, and the ongoing problem of escalating rents, High Bridge is calling it quits. Here’s the statement from their Facebook page . . .
Dear friends and family, it’s with tremendous sadness and regret that I have to announce we are closing our shop. For many reasons I cannot get into at this moment, it appears our final days will be through the end of October of 2015. We will clearance out what ever inventory we have in the shop and offer sale prices for anything you would like us to order.
For all our true friends and followers, I would like to sincerely thank you for all your support, likes, positive feedback and best of all, your friendship. Hopefully, we’ll see you soon. It has been a long and difficult ride, but a great pleasure to be your last San Francisco Gun shop.
Score that a complete victory for San Francisco’s gun grabbers, infringing on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms under the guise of “public safety” (what else?). While the California Rifle & Pistol Association is speculating about legal redress, Highbridge would be the logical complainant – more than aggrieved San Francisco gun owners, anyway. As of this writing, Highbridge isn’t planning on suing.
We’ve heard nought from the NRA or SAF about taking-up the case – understandable given the cost and complexity of the pro-2A cases already working their way through the legal system. So . . . that’s it. No doubt we’ll be hearing from the usual anti-gun suspects on this one, crowing about irresponsible gun dealers and such. The struggle to defend and extend gun rights continues . . . [h/t DrVino]
Did they give any indication of reopening somewhere just outside the city limits?
The rent is too damn high. Also, most nearby areas either have a gun store or governing bodies would stall the permit process forever.
That’s true; there are tons of FFLs in the Bay Area and surrounding areas. I’ve been to High Bridge a couple of times mostly for the novelty of walking into a gun shop in SF haha. Sad to hear they’re leaving but, frankly, I’m surprised they’ve lasted this long in that hostile environment.
As for lawsuits, SF has lost a handful of high-profile and/or expensive lawsuits that overturned various anti-gun policies. Mostly, they lost on the grounds of state preemption (on certain topics, cities cannot enact laws that supersede a state-wide law) but I think the NRA-backed lawsuit against SF’s ban on firearms in public-assisted housing was based on civil rights grounds. To me, it was just further proof that gun control is rooted in elitism and racism, as making it illegal for anyone in assisted housing to possess a firearm or ammunition is patently classist and effectively racist, and serves to disarm a segment of the population that is most likely to need to defend itself against criminals while also being least likely to receive a timely police response if they get one at all. Sick and twisted, indeed.
But bans on hollow point ammunition, stringent requirements on firearm storage that make them worthless for home defense, restrictions on transportation of firearms, etc etc etc make San Francisco an extremely difficult place to be a law-abiding gun owner, let alone an FFL.
I guess they can check zoning and put a gun store barge in the bay or outside the golden gate.
Does the activities of the city government constitute interfering with interstate commerce since the business had a federal license to sell guns that they acquired through interstate commerce?
Wonder where Jamie and Adam will get their boom booms now?
We need to do a civil rights parity law. No gunstore, no gay marriege. No shall issue, no free speech. See?
The counterproposal would run something like “Let’s compromise! Free speech, gay marriage, and f*ck you!”
+1
nice one.
The same place they’ve always got them, from LE circles and prop houses.
No sympathy for them since I found out that Adam, at least, is a gun banner. Don’t know Jamie’s position, though.
Is it just me or does this look prime for a lawsuit?
Restrictive local law impacting and driving out a single legal business?
@Sian: Which appears to be exactly what they were trying to do with that law. Similar to the new tax on guns and ammo in Seattle. When one of the Council Members was asked about the gun shops closing down he basically said he did not care about that. So the supposed tax will not be collected from the stores that shut down and move out of the City. No tax revenue from those so it seems obvious that the taxes that would be used to prevent gun violence (supposedly) were not the real point of this law. Rather the Council Gun Grabbers really just want guns and ammo gone from Seattle. No matter that the bad guys will still get them and the honest folks that want protection will go outside of the City to buy what they need. Or that the honest people with less resources will not have legal access to guns and ammo for protection. See where this is going ? Punish the honest, law abiding citizens and promote more violence from the bad guys. When that happens give the criminals reduced sentences and put them back out on the street to do it again. What is wrong with this picture ?
Sucks… Good guys, good store. Absolute political statement. There are dozens of gun stores within 15 miles of Highbridge (none of them in SF) so this isnt about social utility. Its all about ultra lib bullying.
“There are dozens of gun stores within 15 miles of Highbridge (none of them in SF)”
A free market will always find a way to supply a product where demand exists. And if the competition is as you say, that may have factored into their decision to close rather than relocate.
For every urban center controlled by liberals intent on sticking it to local businesses, there are suburbs eager to pickup the sales tax generated by the displaced commerce.
Cry a river Redneck. Boo, hoo, hoo.
Of course, you’d be completely okay with this result for a business selling something you’re not opposed to. Say, a bookstore.
This is a store selling a legal product, which has just been regulated out of existence. If you’re ever wondering why people can’t get behind some “sensible regulation” to address an important issue, look no further than this example.
Of course, you’d be completely okay with this result for a business selling something you’re not opposed to. Say, a bookstore.
Or a proctologist.
Now that you’ve proven time and again that you favor restricting or doing away with civil rights, god, which of yours can we eliminate?
Free speech? Vote? Have to disown your gay lover?
Think about it and let us know.
What do you bet the owners had been advised that more and more and more complex and expensive restrictions would be piled on until they surrendered?
Is that a Texas Flag Hanging from the ceiling? It could be several others I know but just throwing that out there…
That was my thought as well. Could be Chile, but I’m betting on Texas.
SF council got their way.
No more Gun stores = no more gun violence.
Right?
Correct. San Francisco is once again completely safe from gun violence. Its citizens? Not so much.
Ah, there’s still the small matter of federal officers not securing their bangsticks properly.
Just one more sign of the time folks. We know CA is notorious for leading the liberal way down so many paths. Well, here is one such example. Think about it; SF is one of the nations largest cities. It is also one of the most liberal. And it has managed to literally shut down a specific type of business. Today it happens to be the gun businesses. But look at the bigger picture folks. Any type of business they want to regulate out of existence for whatever reason is now on the chopping block. The precedent has been set. Welcome to the future where totalitarianism rules. Welcome to the future of America.
In addition there is also the specter of other liberal minded city councils mimicking the moves of San Fran for the sole purpose of achieving the same results in their own jurisdiction.
The domino affect.
My point exactly Roscoe. If it was possible in SF then it will be possible in any other liberal minded municipality.
“SF is one of the nations largest cities.” SF ranks #13 – less than 10,000 above Indianapolis. 4th largest in CA behind LA, San Diego, and San Jose.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t they get rid of pet stores selling animals, as well?
Don’t know, but have observed a number on leashes. Two legs and clad in leather.
SF was one of the first to adopt a ‘no kill’ animal control policy. Unfortunately, its been adopted by several other bay area communities. Feral cats are spayed/neutured, ears notched, and then returned to where they were captured because “they’ve adapted to the community” – even though they are non-native and kill native species.
I trap them periodically, always give the mayor’s home address as the capture location, and occasionally leave cat chow nearby. So far his unmarked car security detail hasn’t stopped me.
Word to the wise: always use gloves – they can inflict painful scratches even through the wire cage. Put the trap in a lawn bag before putting it your vehicle. The stench of cat urine is tough to remove.
Well the city planners got exactly what they wanted. No gun stores in SF. But they will soon regret it. No tax money from the gun, ammo, and accessory sales.
A drop in the bucket, and the extreme anti-gun pols don’t care one wit about lost tax revenue to achieve their confiscatory disarmament goals.
Mark Farrell is a politician currently serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors representing District 2 and is responsible for the closure. On his Facebook page he post his political victory with this quote
“Prioritizing the public safety of our City’s residents always comes first, and trumps all else. My gun control reforms are intended to close known loopholes that exist in state and federal law. And, the facts don’t lie – jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws on the books have less gun crime compared to those who don’t.”
Here is the link https://www.facebook.com/markfarrellsf/posts/10153687853494623
“He goes on to say though other post “Unfortunately, our police department has been understaffed for years and is a contributing factor to why crime is increasing in our City. While some of my colleagues have fought against additional funding for more police, as Budget Chair, I have fought for and secured more funding for new police academy classes year-after-year during my tenure. Public safety is and will always be a top priority of mine – I hope you can make our 9/22 public safety meeting to ask questions and hear the discussion about what we are proactively doing as a City to bring crime down.”
Oh wait there is more….
Supervisor Mark Farrell was ordered by the City Ethics Commission on Friday to pay $181,000 for campaign finance violations committed during his 2010 board race against Janet Reilly.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-ethics-panel-tells-Farrell-to-pay-181k-for-6310530.php
This is Liberal Logic For You…
“And, the facts don’t lie – jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws on the books have less gun crime compared to those who don’t.”
Chicago and D.C. for instance?
I hate to see a perfectly good ordinance go to waste. Perhaps they could replace the words “gun store” with “bath house”. That should get a rise out of everyone.
I see what you did there.
Keep in mind that SF rents are astronomical and keep rising as have labor and other business costs. It’s exceedingly difficult for any small retail business to survive if they don’t own their property. They must compete with internet commerce plus nearby gun stores that have much lower operating costs, ranges, and classroom space for training.
No ranges in SF and traditional gun-owner demographics no longer align with SF. Many reach a point in life where we decide to leave. For example, my car and home insurance dropped by over 30% after moving a few blocks beyond SF city/county limits.
Yes, LCPGV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Center_to_Prevent_Gun_Violence is HQ’d in SF, but my perception is that hasn’t been a major factor versus economic aspects. Still sad to see it go.
“Keep in mind that SF rents are astronomical and keep rising as have labor and other business costs.”
Look at what 350 THOUSAND buys you in San Fran for LITERALLY a ‘shack’:
In America’s most expensive city THIS is what $350K buys you in San Francisco
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3239257/In-America-s-expensive-city-350K-buys-San-Francisco.html
Jeremy S –
Do you now wish you had held onto your small house in San Fran now?
🙂
How long before SF, Seattle, and NYC collapse from high taxes and the sheer weight of stupid.
I used to pay 1.5% income tax to City of Detroit for the pleasure of working in that shite hole. Residents paid 3% for the crumbling infrastructure and barely any services.
How do things get more expensive when population density is high? Corruption? Increasing density of leftism causes a neuronic black hole?
Who knew that “Idiocracy” was a vision of our future.
It’s a shame there is no sitting-ducks sanctuary in this Sanctuary City.
R.I.P., Kate Steinle.
I’m thinking more economic reasons than anti victory.
Solution (as long as no family issues or other important factors) Have a fire sale, locals get an extra 20% discount flood the place with weapons. Take money and move 5 blocks, re-open start making a profit again. Maintain small discount for SF residents (and new local residents).
Proudly advertise x amount of guns put into law abiding SF residents hands in the face of tyranny and crime.
Or go to a few public meetings and loudly ask WTF gun crime still exists since you moved (mention your new place a lot)
Alternatively, convert to non-profit. Pay handsome salaries and use sales proceeds to sponsor shooting sports and safety education. Not sure if tax relief afforded by non-profit status would offset operating costs, but would be interesting to consider were I an owner. Proposed name: Sister Boom Boom – see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhlwOdembJ0
Then there’s still the parking problem or problems leaving firearms in cars as SFPD and federal agents have discovered.
San Fransicko ruling class has been working very hard for decades to drive the middle class out of the city. >$2000 a month for a 450sqf studio apartment? People earning $100K a year and feeling poor because they have to spend over 50% of their take home just on housing and city taxes?
The ruling class only wants the wealthy who can afford tp pay for private armed security, and their servants living in the city.
Their Anti-2A crap is just one more means to effect that end.
I found a site that has compiled the crime statistics for SF. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime/
I have no sympathy for SF gun or store owners. They permit their local and state governments to behave like this.
Why are those politicians not being shot?
High Bridge was not that great a shop. There are way better gun friendly shops around.
But where is Leland Yee supposed to get his guns?
Ol’ Leland will get his on the black-market, same as always.
Leland was the black market.
I live within walking distance of this place and have purchased a few gun from them in the last couple of years. My suspicion is it’s the rent that is driving them out. They are at the end of the Valencia corridor, a place that is quickly filling with upscale businesses. Of course being at the foot of Bernal Heights with million dollar + shacks being bought by progressives who hate anything firearms does not help.
I have to say the staff was an extremely accommodating bunch of folks. I hope they all find other employment.
Pretty similar to Chicago-except there will NEVER be a shop in the city. I wish these guys luck. You’ll need it…
How many illegal gun sellers will still remain within the city limits?
All of them.
i have a feeling that more regulation on gun stores in SF will be written despite none existing within city limits in the future…
SF is probably the most vulnerable. Middle class is fleeing / has fled. Public schools are a mess. Oakland has benefitted, but gentrification is causing friction.
Unlike Seattle or NYC, SF’s economy is not diversified. It’s benefitted from the tech boom, but tech bubbles are periodic. The sector’s collapse in 2000 was devastating and housing prices severely contracted as did the region’s economy. The fundamentals don’t look promising. Too much money is being invested in dubious startups.
As others have observed, stewardship has been replaced by political pandering.
Sue the politicians personally for violating their oath of office. Never mind taking the whole system to court for this go after the council members or whoever is responsible. If they want to violate their oath then they are guilty of that and it is treasonable.
No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote. Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Is South San Francisco somehow not considered SF proper? Jackson Arms in “South San Francisco” is apparently still in business…
Completely separate. South SF is in another county (San Mateo). It’s not even adjacent to SF. Brisbane, Daly City, and Colma (city of the dead: 1,500 above ground and 1.5 million below) separate SF from SSF.
Wow, I thought for sure they’d hold out until the mandatory cavity search ordinance came down…
GunGeek, I couldn’t tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing that SF is on of the nations largest cities. #13 in the nation is pretty large. Regardless, it doesn’t get much more liberal than SF. Or expensive. I have known a lot of people from that area. My ex’s family is from there. And many of those I have known are living with multi-generations in one house because the adult kids can’t afford to move out. SF might be a great place to visit, for some, but no way would I live there. Mostly because of the libs, but also the cost. Besides, I know I would be way to tempted to shoot someone.
Having lived in Chicago and New York, SF doesn’t seem very big. Size is often the enemy of quality of life and good management.
Although their populations are separated by a few thousand, my sense is that say, Indianapolis is much better managed and scores higher in many quality-of-life criteria in what matters most. Wold-class museums and cultural venues are nice, but public safety, services, and schools matter more to many. I enjoy the SF opera, but not navigating the gauntlet of homeless, sidestepping street litter, viewing long term graffiti, assaulted by the stench of urine, or spending $20 for parking.
SF’s population are mostly transplants. A large young, single, sybaritic population results in few that are invested in long term community betterment. Lots of support for bread and circus type activities, but much less on say infrastructure improvements.
Indifference gets translated into tolerance. City services seem poor in comparison. Am more satisfied after moving an hour away from SF (and much better weather too). Prefer SF as a visitor rather than a resident – plus indoor and outdoor ranges are roughly 15 minutes (depending on traffic) away from my home.
They don’t care at all about safety, this is 100% about hating inanimate objects called “guns” and hating the people who own them and sell them. They just wanted these “gun nuts” out of their town.
The hell with SF bunch of sodomite liberals, for the rest of the real 47 or so ,excluding Illinois , NY US states. take heed in what is happening on the liberal west coast. This shit has the potential to spread like cancer. If we dont vote out all the fascist anti gun bleeding hart liberals . And for crying out loud join a pro 2A group and pledge what you can. The Bloombergs of the land are well funded and so should we.