I live in San Francisco (yes, by choice), and as a native Californian it is one of the best cities in the state for many reasons. The food, the people, the ocean, the Golden Gate Bridge, and I could go on and on and on.
However, the anti-gun politicians are still keeping at it and their newest attack on the Second Amendment has come as a knee-jerk reaction to the Pier 14 shooting by an illegal immigrant who had seven felonies and had been deported more than enough times. Many factors contributed to the poor victim's death but the city's sanctuary laws protecting immigrants, both legal and illegal has drawn the most ire from the national discourse.
What is simply incredible though is that The San Francisco Board of Supervisors believes that gun control is the solution. The guy reportedly found the gun wrapped up in a cloth on a bench, and that gun was stolen from a federal agent's work vehicle. I have no idea how gun control would have prevented this tragedy. So the only logical conclusion is that the Board of Supervisors is trying to take advantage of an innocent person's death to push their gun control agenda.
It's shameful, and now the Board of Supervisors will be hearing a new law in September which would require all dealer sales of guns and ammunition to be videotaped. Buyer data would be collected and handed over to the San Francisco Police Department creating a database that has no use. More wasteful government spending- that is something I can tell you San Francisco is good at.
- What will the SFPD even do with all that data? If someone came in and bought 1,000 rounds of 9mm, is that going to trigger some sort of alert and the SFPD will then go to that person's home? Then what?
- Is this data collection constitutional?
- Why does San Francisco think this will be effective when someone can just go to the next city over to buy guns and ammo? Also, there is only one gun shop in the city, Highbridge Arms, and so we're considering a whole law that targets a single business?