Federal appeals court upholds two strict San Francisco gun laws

[SecularMotion]

A federal appeals court dealt a blow to the gun lobby on Tuesday by upholding two San Francisco gun laws requiring owners to securely store their weapons and regulating ammunition dealers.

Handgun owners in San Francisco currently must use trigger locks or secure weapons in a safe inside their homes when they are not carrying them. The restriction aims to prevent unauthorized users and children from accessing guns. Additionally, the city forbids licensed ammunition dealers from selling hollow-point bullets, which expand upon impact and can cause massive damage to the human body.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, defended the two separate pieces of legislation this week as reasonable attempts to increase public safety without destroying residents’ Second Amendment rights.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and several other gun supporters objected to both laws with the belief that gun locks burden Second Amendment rights. The NRA did not respond to msnbc’s request for comment.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/court-upholds-strict-san-francisco-gun-laws

[uncommonlink]

1. I see a big loophole to the ammo ruling.

Licensed dealers can't sell hollow points, which in and of itself, is a stupid law, but there is nothing say a person can't possess the same ammo, so, all one has to do is travel outside SF to a neighboring town or city and buy all the hollow points they want and bring it home.

Isn't San Francisco represented by CA. State Sen. Leland Yee? The same Leland Yee who was just arrested by the FBI for Bribery, Corruption and Weapons Trafficking.
The same Leland Yee that's one of the most vocal gun control politicians in the CA legislation?
Seems kinda hypocritical to me if he's found guilty.

[clffrdjk]

2. While I disagree with the laws

Yes they probably are constitutional. As luck would have it there are two other solutions, fist vote he buggers out and have the law changed (not going to happen). Solution two is that I stay the heck away from San Francisco

[Jgarrick]

3. So a dealer can't sell a .25 ACP hollow point because it causes too much damage...

But he can sell a .458 Weatherby Magnum?

[clffrdjk]

4. Yes, and as a kicker the SFPD MUST use those evil baby killing hollow points.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. While the bullet law is profoundly idiotic, the storage requirement is not.

Proper firearms security is an intrinsic component of the RKBA, in my view. If someone isn't willing to properly secure one's weapons, then they shouldn't have them. Period.

The ban on hollowpoint ammunition, of course, is pure, fuckwitted "security theater" nonsense. Had the proponents of that little slice of idiocy bothered to actually research what they felt they needed to pas a law about, they'd have learned straight away that hollowpoints constitute safer ammunition...even for the person shot.

The greater safety to others is obvious: hollowpoints don't tend to exit the body of the person shot. Overpenetration is a very serious matter for ammunition intended to defensive purposes in crowded urban settings. It's why a rifle (which generally fires much more powerful ammunition) is not always the best choice for defense. Even hollowpoint rifle rounds can easily overpenetrate and pose a lethal danger to bystanders.

The greater safety for the person shot is less evident, but it's very real (and statistically verifiable). Hollow-point handgun ammunition will most often stop an assailant with one or two shots. Fully-jacketed ammunition, with its much less efficient energy transfer, often requires many more shots to stop an assailant. A trained person (or untrained, for that matter) will shoot until the attacker drops to the ground, clearly indicating that the threat no longer exists. If that takes six rounds instead of one, the probability of mortality is vastly higher, despite each shot being somewhat less damaging than with hollowpoints.

[Eleanors38]

11. Good exposition on the reasons why hollow-points are preferable.

I have neighbors, and should I have to use a handgun in SD, I don't want a bullet with greater penetrating power careening around the 'hood.

[spin]

22. You could always use a shotgun for self defense. ...

I own a double barreled coach gun which is probably a good choice if you are willing to stay in your bedroom and wait for intruders to come to you.

If you prefer to play Wyatt Earp and clear your house when you hear an unusual noise at night, even my short barreled coach gun can be an awkward firearm to use.

If I am alone in the house and I am sure someone has broken in, I plan to call the police and hide behind my bed with the shotgun pointed at the door. If some fool breaks my bedroom door down I will have just enough time to be absolutely certain that he is an intruder before I shoot. A 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot is an extremely effective self defense weapon at close range.

Fortunately that has never happened. Usually there are other family members in my home, visitors or those who are rooming with us. Several times i have heard something strange and perhaps foolishly decided to investigate. I pulled on a pair of shorts and dropped my snub nosed .38 revolver into a pocket.

Every time I did, I found the noise was the result of an overactive dog or another person who was legitimately in the house. I simply got myself a glass of water and returned to my bedroom. They were not even aware that I was armed and consequently I didn't scare the crap out of them.

Of course the problem with the Wyatt Earp tactic is that a real intruder might hear me coming, take cover with his weapon and wait. If so, I am at a significant disadvantage.

I feel a rifle such as an AR-15 may be an excellent choice for self defense in a rural environment. I favor using a shotgun or handgun in an urban environment.

[gejohnston]

23. playing Wyatt Earp after calling the cops is a very bad idea

[spin]

24. I totally agree. ...

I would only do so if I was hiding in my bedroom waiting for the intruder to break my bedroom door down. That way I can stay on the phone until the cops arrive.

I have a cell phone in my bedroom in case the intruders have cut the phone lines.

[Bazinga]

6. Hollow point ammo ban

Another fantastic example of legislative firearms ignorance.

I'm not saying you have to be an expert in firearms to write effective laws, but working with people who are would be highly beneficial.

[uncommonlink]

7. The kicker is that I don't see anything banning the possession of those by citizens of SF,

just the banning of licensed dealers from selling them, so, anyone can travel outside SF and buy all they want and take it home.
Am I wrong here?

[Jgarrick]

8. As I read it, you're not wrong.

So the law is foolish and ineffective...quite a combination!

[Bazinga]

10. What ^ s/he said. n/t

[MO_Moderate]

9. Gotta love unenforceable laws

[flamin lib]

12. If hollow points are so innocuous why do NATO and

the Geneva conventions require full metal jacket for outright warfare?

[blueridge3210]

13. If hollow points are so deadly why does the law only ban sale of and not possession as well? (NT)

[flamin lib]

16. Because gun laws are designed to be ineffective and unenforceable. nt

[sarisataka]

14. That is erroneous information

It is a common misconception that hollow points are banned by the Geneva convention. The prohibition is actually in the Hague Convention of 1899. It states

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

This resulted from a German complaint made in 1898 that hollow points, new at the time, that they were a violation of Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 which said

The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

the purpose of both of these treaties was to attempt to limit war to the purpose to weaken the military force of a country by the employment of highly destructive weapons. Therefore the goal was to kill combatants which could be done by regular bullets, musket balls at that time. Light explosives and then hollow points were considered inhumane because they were not deadly enough and could merely injure combatants causing undue suffering.

In short, hollow points are banned for not being deadly enough. Interestingly the U.S. follows these treaties, though we have never ratified them. Russia/ Soviet Union who did sign them has used hollow point bullets for decades.

[flamin lib]

15. Thanks for the clarification. Leave no nit un-picked I

always say.

So, if hollow point a are less effective why want them?

They are cruel because a poorly placed shot that would be otherwise an injury may become a surgical problem as the bullet often fragments leaving bits that are hard to find as well as the massively inceased tissue damage. For hunting where placement is more easily assured (less stress, more planning) they can be merciful because all the kinetic energy and shock is imparted to the game.

I see no issue with hollow point/soft nose ammo for hunting, but don't like them for self defense or law enforcement.

[petronius]

17. The argument for them is that they deform on impact, making it less likely

that they will pass through walls or targets, and less likely that they will ricochet. So primarily it's to prevent damage/injury to bystanders and unintended targets. And when they do hit their targets, all of the bullet's energy is imparted to that target, making it more likely that an assailant will be stopped quickly. (That's my reading-based understanding, anyway - I've never been shot or shot anyone/thing (other than with a shotgun (and never a person, even with a shotgun)))...

[sarisataka]

18. Correct information = nits ? ok. Moving on...

There are very valid reasons for using hollow points by civilians and LE. While it seems at first glance irrational to claim a bullet which causes a greater wound is better and safer but there are three reasons why this is so:

1. Because each bullet does more damage, the attacker is stopped more quickly. When the attacker stops quickly, the victim is less likely to be injured. So hollowpoint bullets are safer for you.

2. Because each bullet does more damage, likely fewer hits will be needed to stop the attacker. Leaving fewer holes in the attacker makes it more likely that the attacker will survive. So hollowpoint bullets are actually safer for the bad guy.

3. The mushrooming or fragmenting activity of the bullet "puts the brakes on" inside the attacker’s body. That creates more damage. But it also makes the bullet far less likely to go through the attacker to strike a bystander. Because of their shape, hollowpoint bullets that miss their intended target are also less likely to ricochet and hit innocent others. So hollowpoint bullets are safer for bystanders.

[Straw Man]

19. There is a very simple reason ...

... why hollow-points are used in both self-defense and law enforcement: They do not overpenetrate. When they expand, they lose a lot of their velocity and tend to stay in the body that they first struck, rather than going "through and through," potentially striking someone behind the original target. It's a public safety issue.

Also, because of the kinetic energy and shock that you mentioned, hollow-points are more immediately incapacitating. In contrast, a full-metal-jacket projectile may do serious internal damage without causing much immediate shock or blood loss, meaning that the targeted individual may still be capable of movement and action while being seriously, even mortally, wounded. This is not good for anyone.

EDIT TO ADD: I see sarisataka and petronius beat me too it.

[Bazinga]

20. something the other three failed to mention,

It has only been in the last 30 years or so that the bullet construction technology of hollow-point bullets for handguns has become advanced enough to surpass full metal jackets as man-stoppers. The FBI funded a huge study on this topic in the 80's that supported FMJs over JHPs. But advancements since then in bullet design and metallurgy have made that study obsolete. All of the literature out now says a personal defense handgun needs to have JHPs in the magazine.

In essence, the reasoning for the Geneva convention is outdated.

[Jgarrick]

21. Today's hollowpoints are considerably more effective.

So, if hollow point a are less effective why want them?

Given that they're more effective...me, not to mention virtually every police department in the United States. Should I find myself in the unfortunate position of needing to defend my life, I'm going to use the most effective round possible for firearm in question, which in this case means I've chosen to use 230gr Federal HST .45 ACP +P hollowpoints in my Para Black Ops Recon.