Les Jones

Guns > San Francisco Votes on Handgun Control Referendum Today

San Francisco goes to the polls today. Among the ballet initiatives is Proposition H. If enacted, it would ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns in the city. Current handgun owners would have to dispose of their guns by March 1, 2006.

As the NY Times story above notes, it's doubtful the law would stand even if the proposition passes. A similar 1982 law 1982 enacted under then-mayor Dianne Feinstein was struck down by California courts as an abridgement of state law.

Gun control seems to be losing ground in the U.S. and elsewhere. Wherever it's tried it generally leads to more violent crime and public outrage, as has been the case in England. In a post-9/11, post-Katrina world, people are less willing to believe that the police will be willing and able to protect them.

Gun control is traditionally a liberal issue, and San Francisco is the sanctum sanctorum of left liberalism. If gun control can't win there, it can't win anywhere. A July poll found 74 perfect of respondents in favor of Proposition H. However, a recent gun control referendum in Brazil seemed likely to win until last-minute campaigning against it, which resulted in the measure being defeated by a 2-1 margin at the polls. San Francisco police recently came out against the ban, which should change some people's votes.

Background
- San Francisco Issues Spark Scant Interest
- San Francisco Voters Consider Tough Handgun Ban

Where to watch for updates today
- Alphecca
- David Codrea
- Volokh Conspiracy and Dave Kopel

UPDATE: Jeff mentions Proposition H in today's Weekly Check on the Bias. He also points to the San Francisco Chronicle voter guide, which recommends voting against H:

Handgun ban. NO

This measure would prohibit city residents from owning handguns. The need to curtail the proliferation of handguns on the streets is a debate worth having, but at the state level. State law is pretty clear that such regulation is the Legislature's domain. Passage of H is unlikely to produce anything more than litigation. But even if it were to prevail in court, this one-city ban would be so impractical and widely defied that it would be meaningless.

And a one-state ban would be better how?