Saturday, March 05, 2005


San Francisco gun banners would put residents at the mercy of thugs and drug dealers, and the proof lies just across the bay in Oakland, where a local resident there has had to defend himself for trying to help rid his neighborhood of criminals, according to the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). CCRKBA points to the case of Patrick McCullough, who recently was surrounded on his property by a gang of about 15 young thugs. Several of them reportedly punched him, one apparently hit him with a tree branch, and a 17-year-old allegedly reached for a gun. That's when McCullough drew his own gun and shot the teen in the arm. McCullough, who has no criminal history, was arrested on suspicion of felony assault.

"Police reportedly see McCullough as a good citizen who stands up to drug dealers," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. "The chairman of a local crime prevention group is urging prosecutors not to charge McCullough. They do not want to see their community turned over to criminals, and prosecuting McCullough sends the wrong signal.

"Yet, across the bay," Waldron continued, "a handful of San Francisco supervisors are sending just such a signal by putting an issue on the ballot to ban handguns. They might as well be telling every honest, law-abiding San Franciscan to move because they're turning over the city to rapists, robbers, burglars, drug dealers and street criminals. And woe be unto any San Francisco resident who tries to defend himself or herself with a firearm.

"It's crazy," Waldron said about the ballot issue. "Bad enough that in Oakland, Mr. McCullough may have to defend himself in court for defending himself against a mob of thugs, but over in San Francisco, citizens won't even have that option. The supervisors want to disarm citizens, leaving them defenseless against an emboldened criminal element. And they'll get bolder, because they know there will be nothing to stop them beyond an outnumbered police force that will be literally overwhelmed when citizens can no longer fight back on their own.

"Gun bans have never accomplished anything, other than to create a safe working environment for criminals," Waldron concluded. "Lunatics may not be running asylums, but fools definitely appear to be in charge in San Francisco. Ultimately, the public will suffer for their folly."


Not time for gunowners to relax: "With the sunsetting of the 1994 'Assault Weapons Ban' there may be fewer firearms restrictions on the federal level, but gunowners can't relax yet. Well-organized state level gun-prohibitionists are taking up where the feds left off, proposing and enacting draconian laws restricting your rights. ... [instances in California, Iowa, Oregon, Maryland, Washington state and New York cited] ... This is not a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination. No, this is a deliberate, coordinated attack on YOUR right to bear arms."

New Hampshire: Right to bear arms has no legal legs here: "Twenty, maybe even 10 years ago, a high school yearbook photograph of a student with his hunting or trap-shooting guns wouldn't have raised many eyebrows. One might say those were days of relative innocence. But those days are no more., Not since Columbine. Not since 9/11. Consequently, a Londonderry High School skeet-shooter lost his federal court suit, and won't have his senior portrait published in the yearbook with a gun in his arms."

No comments: