From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Date: 10 Jan 1993 16:25:03 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan10.200933.6461@leland.Stanford.EDU> kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth) writes:
>A friend of mine, who is a police officer in San Francisco, told
>me that it is legal for a citizen to carry an unconcealed firearm in
>San Francisco.  It is illegal, however, to carry bullets.

Try carrying unconcealed sometime. Attracts a lot of attention no?

>Now, I know this guy to exaggerate a lot, so does anyone else on
>the net know if this is true?  Also, how would I go about learning
>the gun laws of any particular state (California at the moment) and
>locality?

Badger your own government. The more people calling and asking
reasonable questions like this the more gov't will be responsive
to it.

>Another subject:  The wife of this same police officer always carries
>concealed in San Francisco even though she does not have a permit to
>do so.  This police officer (I'll call him "Dave") says that it's crazy
>for a woman to walk around San Francisco unarmed (permit or no permit).
>Of course his wife handles a pistol excellently and has a cool head on
>her shoulders.

Well, I call this elitism. Turn her in, she is obviously a ticking
time-bomb. Some rapist could get hurt.

>But if so many police officers know how crazy it is on the streets, and
>they themselves go armed when off-duty (maybe because it's a requirement,
>but also for personal protection), why are most police officers against
>the idea of civilians carrying weapons?  I understand that some humans act
>irrationaly in stressful situations, so nobody would want just any old 
>Joe carrying his favorite handgun, but why oppose a proposition which
>would allow an eligible citizen who has passed a comprehensive written
>test and demonstrated proficiency with a firearm to carry a concealed
>weapon?  It would be easy enough to design an objective testing system
>which could weed out those more likely to whip out their gun and shoot
>someone that ran a stop sign.  You could even have a law which would
>give police powers to temporarily revoke a person's permit for recklessly
>handling a weapon.  But to ask the citizenry to go unarmed where the
>police themselves wouldn't consider going unarmed off-duty seems terrible.
>Police Officers surely aren't superior to the general population, as
>they come from the general population.  Most cops have much less 
>education than I and probably many on this net have.  And some cops
>I've talked to are just plain stupid--and they're quite capable of
>responsibly carrying a gun.

Yep. no question you've got elitism as well. It's okay for me and a few
people I know are trustworthy, so let's just whip up some simple test
to weed out the scum. Sorry pal, to someone else *you* are the person
who is too dangerous to carry. I would point out that in the Old West
most people didn't carry sidearms either, but they could if they darn
well felt they needed to. Homicide rate was I think 1/100K instead of
9/100K like today. The same people likely to use their guns on someone they
got mad at in traffic have probably taken a few turns through the big
house already for assault on people the know well and *REALLY* dislike.
But of course, we have to keep our jails filled with dangerous
pot & crack smokers so we have to turn out the Jr. Mansons to make room.
(sarcasm intended). And what was that stat about.... 50% of NYPD officers
getting shot by fellow officers or themselves? Well-trained indeed!

On a police note, the officers in my extended family all seem for 
citizens carrying pistols and defending themselves. Police chiefs
and feel-good politicians who are isolated from the public by 
Uzi-toting bodyguards are the ones who love disarming the public.

One need only look at Chicago for examples of where well-meaning
regulations lead. You start off outlawing Tommy Guns (never much used
by gangsters, but anyway...), pretty soon your handguns regulations
are really tight. Then the funding for the required classes gets
cut off and applications are no longer accepted for carry permits.
Coupled with a ban on unlicensed/unregistered guns you can achieve
the Nirvana-state of a city with no illegal guns!

This pattern has been repeated many times. Soon you have a department
whose budget is entirely devoted to stamped "NO" on applications, and
special courts just for collecting revenue...errr fines from those
citizens caught carrying handguns. Then you have LA & DC-type
situations where the average citizen is humiliated and punished for
carrying a gun, whereas criminals/politicians are not so hindered.

>Now I don't want to carry a gun with me all the time.  But I'd surely
>like to do so when I go to San Francisco or San Jose.  And I don't
>see why I shouldn't be able to.

Because you are nothing, nobody, and aren't even smart enough to be rich!
Hey if you were Ted Kennedy you could criticize violence and advocate
destroying all guns while having your own hired guns to protect you
from everything.

>Daniel Roth
>kato@leland.stanford.edu

Good luck Daniel. You may find you have to break the law and take some
risks even though you are a good citizen. Sad no?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns