Hey, whaddya expect from San Francisco. Furthermore, the media narrative for a long time has been than guns are only appropriate for sporting purposes.

California does have a pre-emption law. Everytime San Francisco passes one of these ordinances the NRA challenges it and wins.

To be honest, this is accidentally beneficial to self defense uses -- at pistol calibers, most exotic ammunition combines being inferior with being more expensive. You only need hollow point or similar expanding ammunition if your bullet would otherwise overpenetrate, and pistols are highly prone to having inadequate penetration, not excessive penetration. That said, limiting things to a 'sporting purposes' does seem to miss the point of defensive weapons (banning ammunition that matches (1) and either (2) or (3) seems reasonable but not the most obvious interpretation of the statute).

Incidentally, 'cop killer' ammo isn't hollowpoint, it's ammo that will shoot through a bulletproof vest, and the hazard to innocent bystanders is almost exclusively from bullets that miss (which, in any real gunfight, will be most of them).

The Second Amendment is not about sport, and it is not about food. It is about liberty, and about how a free people intend to keep it.

Everything else is sophistry.

BBB

What everyone else said, but also: in many if not most states (certainly here in WA, but I'm too lazy to try to figure out where to find CA's regulations), the use of non-expanding bullets for hunting is actually prohibited. It's considered inhumane to use FMJ ammo for hunting as it's too likely to drill a small hole through the animal, resulting in a long, slow, lingering death rather than a quick kill.

So the proposed law would actually end up banning the sale of most hunting ammo, too.

Let's not forget that State approved purposes probably will not include defense against the State.

shall not be infringed

I do not see a right to possess a gun, let alone a particular weapon one might prefer, for recreation.

Do you see any right to speech for recreation? If you have to prove a legitimate purpose, the right will rapidly be eroded by redefinition of what purposes are legitimate.

John Moore:
The 2nd amendment right is not qualified by purpose.

Isn't the 2nd amendment one of the only ones that is qualified by a purpose?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I'm not a constitutional scholar; please don't jump down my throat if I misunderstood something basic.

Isn't the 2nd amendment one of the only ones that is qualified by a purpose?

Yes. As it happens, that doesn't work to qualify its scope, unless someone perverts it to mean that government-regulated militias are going to keep government in line -- this interpretation is false and self-nullifying on its face, and the only people I've seen subscribe to it fear individuals with weapons more than they fear government with weapons (perhaps because they figure they have a better chance at gaining power in an armed government than they do over individuals protecting themselves).

Which otherwise lawful ammunitions have a lawful self-defense purpose and "no sporting purpose"? In theory, I see how such a category could exist. In practice, it is not obvious that one does exist.

The U.S. military refrains as a matter of policy from using at least some of the two prohibited types of ammunition, for human rights reasons, so it isn't at all obvious that they are reasonably necessary for self-defense. If something is regulated by the U.S. military, surely it is properly regulated within the sense of a "well regulated militia".

Also, even if there is a constitutional right to buy such ammunition, why does it follow that there is a right to do so in the City of San Francisco?

The ban is not on possession of such ammunition, but on selling it in the City limits, and the constitutional right protects the right to bear arms, not the right to buy arms anywhere you want.

In the same vein, many municipalities have no privately owned property which is zoned industrial (and there are a very few municipalities with no privately owned residential property). Yet, surely, the dormant commerce clause is not violated became one cannot produce goods to enter into the stream of interstate commerce in every single municipality in the U.S.

Likewise, while many municipalities are "dry" (i.e. do not permit the sale of liquor in their boundaries), or impose a monopoly on cable TV provision in their boundaries (in theory implicating the protected right to free speech).

"How is this not a bill of attainder? It certainly seems like Armin Glaser (uh, and Mr. Rhino) is attainted by this law, since his product is called out by name."

A Bill of Attainder is a punishment for past conduct imposed legislatively on a specific person. Prospective punishments for future conduct are not prohibited, even if everyone subject to them (e.g. repeat offenders) is theoretically capable off being named. Also, the names are by way of example, not limitation.

In the same vein, one could prohibit "rear facing seats in motor vehicle, except in minivans designed for the purpose, such as a Dodge Caravan," which would illustrate but include any vehicle of that class. Examples are simply good drafting, not a prohibited bill of attainder when applied only to prospective conduct.

Also, neither "Mr. Rhino" nor "Armin Glaser" is punished at all. The licensee is the sole recipient of the punishment, not the supplier, which cures dormant commerce clause issues that might otherwise apply.

Funny, the BATFU [sic] will not allow the import of any firearm that THEY THINK doesn't have a sporting purpose.

Be patient... I suspect the "sporting purpose" limitation in general may be on the endangered species list post-Heller. Ironically, the SFO ordinance might, if it results in a published appellate opinion striking down that specific limitation, hasten the overall demise of the phrase in gun control law, in general.

TNeloms wrote:

Isn't the 2nd amendment one of the only ones that is qualified by a purpose?



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

As a logical and semantic matter, that's not a qualification, but an preface or explanation. Prefaces don't generally limit the meaning of what follows them, but simply provide a context for interpretation. For example, the "arms" that are referred to are weapons, not bodily appendages.

I've recently been reading English history, and I was struck by the fact that there were several statutes limiting the right to bear arms in the British Empire in the century preceding the American Revolution, particularly limitations on Catholics bearing arms in Ireland. Seems reasonable to me to suppose that the Framers had laws like this (rather than hunting) in mind when the Second Amendment was ratified, and I was surprised that the Heller decision didn't talk about them.

I'm a little surprised that no one has yet pointed out that "Black Rhino" bullets were a 1994 hoax that was impossible on its face and never went into production. Or am I missing something?

Person,

Maybe they meant the "Black Talon" bullets?

Although who the hell knows what they were thinking, they might have been reading an old Brady press release or something.

Maybe they meant the "Black Talon" bullets?

They separately listed the Black Talon - even though Winchester stopped manufacturing that cartridge nearly a decade ago, and Winchester's current Ranger SXT line that replaced it (which is a high-expansion round that's fully as effective but has a slightly different shape upon impact) isn't listed in the ordinance at all.

This leads me to suspect you're right when you speculate "they might hae been reading an old Brady press release or something." Idiots...

I wholeheartedly agree that Second Amendment rights should not be an are not limited to "sporting" purposes. That said, hollow points may indeed be useful for some hunting. When trying to bring down large game, the increased damage the round does may prevent some animals from wandering off to die in the brush.

The rounds for my .300 WSM don't expand as does a hollow point, but they start tumbling on impact, thereby increasing the odds the animal will go down. I guess San Francisco hasn't (yet) heard of that feature.

The military standards evolved in the 19th century, and are a bit hard to justify rationally. Shooting an enemy with a .22 hollowpoint is forbidden, whereas shooting him with a .50 BMG is OK. Or for that matter a 20mm high explosive incendiary. It is (or so I am told) forbidden to inject tear gas into his tunnel, but giving it a long tap with a flamethrower is just fine.

This is totally off topic, but I wonder if WWI was prolonged and thus more devastating because of the 19th century bias against "unsportsmanlike" warfare.

The inclusion of a Glaser Safety Slug doesn't make any sense. Although the name may sound like a self-defense round, the purpose of those bullets is safety of others. These bullets fragment in a way that prevents them from traveling through walls, and many self-defense shooters believe them to be inferior to normal target ammunition for self-defense purposes. Similarly, hollow point bullets do not travel through walls as easily as target ammunition, although hollow points are generally considered superior to target ammunition for stopping an attacker.

The end result of this law is that more people will be using target ammunition to defend their homes. While this may be more effective for self-defense, it prevents gun owners who prefer to opt for the safety of their neighbors (via the Safety Slug) from doing so, and instead forces them to use target ammunition.

Even so, the difference between many of these rounds is quite minimal. While a few rounds are created to puncture body armor, there is very little ammunition more effective as a self-defense round than a standard target bullet. The Black Talon ammunition is not some ultimate weapon when compared to other high-end ammunition - it just has a more persuasive name and a famous shooting to go with it.

Supporters of ammunition bans never mention that Hollow Point ammunition, in addition to being more deadly for the person hit, is safer for everyone else.

It isn’t actually that much more deadly in a self-defense situation, particularly when using a handgun. The purpose of shooting an attacker is to stop him from attacking, and it may take more than one shot from a handgun. Depending on caliber, you may need two or three hollowpoints instead of four or five roundnose. When NYC cops were forced to use 9mm hardball they quickly learned to empty their gun when shooting someone. Ten or twelve hits causes far more damage than fewer hits with effective bullets. Modern law enforcement use hollowpoints almost exclusively.

I do not see a right to possess a gun, let alone a particular weapon one might prefer, for recreation.

Several state constitutions do make such guarantees.

The U.S. military refrains as a matter of policy from using at least some of the two prohibited types of ammunition, for human rights reasons, so it isn't at all obvious that they are reasonably necessary for self-defense.

Military ammunition is for offensive purposes, not self-defense. In military usage it is better to wound someone than kill them, as they then will require the enemy to provide for their care. In a self-defense situation the purpose is to stop the person from attacking, usually at very close range. Also, most military ammo is rifle caliber, not handgun.

And of course if that is broadly done and broadly accepted -- once people buy into the notion that the legitimacy of gun use rests on its "sporting" applications -- further steps towards broader gun and ammunition bans become much easier.

Bingo. When UN anti-gun spokesman Rebecca Peters was challenged by a person who wanted a firearm for sport she said, “Get another hobby.”

As has been observed on this blog before, Second Amendment pertains to arms of a "well-regulated militia" and not to arms for self-defense

Those are the same things. The militia is to be well-regulated (trained, not reined) to ensure proficiency. The militia exists for self defence. The nation exists for self defence.

The only argument against self defence is the argument against free individuals. Social justice is the popular compulsory-collectivist philosophy behind this. The adherents don't dispute any other this — they claim it's for the ignorant proles' own good — but the nonviolent liberalist apologists unfortunately do.

Only people like the British could respond to Ghandi positively.

This is totally off topic, but I wonder if WWI was prolonged and thus more devastating because of the 19th century bias against "unsportsmanlike" warfare.

cf. WWII which both Hermann Goering and Josef Stalin characterized as a war of racial extermination against the other side.

Hospis, you do realize that the state-of-the-art for ammunition engineering in 1868 is a far cry from the state of ammunition today, or really at any point in time during the 20th century, yes? The Hague Convention was written by barely post-Civil War diplomats whose assumptions, even if right regarding large-caliber bullets (during the Crimean War the Russians used .60 caliber bullets and the British used .577 caliber bullets. The Civil War was fought primarily with .58 caliber bullets on both sides. By comparison, during World War II the US used .308 caliber bullets, the British used .311 caliber bullets, the Soviets used .312 caliber bullets, and the Germans used .323 caliber bullets. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. switched to .224 caliber bullets which are still in use) fired before the invention of smokeless powder, aren't necessarily applicable to any guns or ammo developed in the 1890s or later. Not to mention considering the state of medicine at the time, they really didn't have reliable

For that matter, note that the treaty you quoted (Which is the Hague Convention of 1899, actually, not 1868. There was no Hague Convention of 1868. 1868 was the St. Petersburg Declaration, which incidentally the U.S. never signed, and it addressed different aspects of ammunition like maximum size for bullets and minimum size for explosives) explicitly said it only prohibited the use of such ammo during wars exclusively between the parties to the treaty. I think that kind of undercuts your point since by its terms it expressly does allow the United States to use those "prohibited" bullets against its own citizens, as well as against the citizens of any country that isn't among the fewer than 100 that've signed the 1899 Hague Convention (and even against those signatories if they have an ally from outside the group). By the way, the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration one was done by 20 countries, including such countries as Austria-Hungary, Baden, Bavaria, Württemberg, and of course everyone's favorite country, "Prussia and the North German Confederation". And again, the United States wasn't invited to the meeting and didn't sign the declaration afterwards.

And finally, as has been pointed out by others, the fact that the military does not use a particular ammunition is affected by tactical and strategic considerations that aren't relevant to personal self-defence or civilian law-enforcement. A full-metal jacket with lots of penetration is a good thing in battle. After all, if you're lucky, the bullet will go through the first enemy and hit another enemy behind him! And if he's behind a wall or a car door, you might still be able to hit him! But that sort of penetration's undesirable in a civilian environment for the aforementioned safety reasons. Plus, the way I always look at it, the goal with self-defense is to stop an attacker, and whether hollow-point's more or less lethal than FMJ ball (which frankly depends as much on where they hit the body as anything else since all else being equal hollow-point makes a wider hole, ball makes a deeper hole), that wider hole's going to hit more nerve endings, so the guy's going to feel it more. Which is very relevant to self-defense, since one of the factors affecting stopping power is subjective: the shootee's mental reaction to getting shot.

If the Second Amendment doesn't do this for you, what about the Ninth and Tenth? Article I Section 8 does not list regulation of recreational firearms among Congress's enumerated powers.

So San Francisco can only exercise a power if it is one of the enumerated powers constitutionally granted to Congress? Interesting.

Steve 2.

The 45 ACP was nothing more then an extension of the US Army's preference to 45 caliber for cavalry. Surprise surprise, they still had horse cavalry in 1911 and still felt the need for a pistol capable of downing a wounded horse with one shot. The 45 ACP was viewed as just powerful enough while allowing its use in a semi-automatic design. Other wise they never would have abandoned the 45 colt revolver.

Also, in regards to the issue of sporting, when was the last time any Police and gun controlist viewed a pistol as a sporting arm. I believe Breyer voiced this point during the Heller case that pistols have no military or sporting purpose. An expansion of the Burger statement that all pistols are good for is dueling.

cf. WWII which both Hermann Goering and Josef Stalin characterized as a war of racial extermination against the other side.

Ricardo,

1) When did Stalin say that? Sounds inconsistent with communist ideology, not that would have stopped him.

2) Some have argued that had the US not stretched some laws of warfare in the pacific casualties on both sides would have been substantially higher. I was wondering if there was a similar argument applied to WWI.

Heller held (in part):
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


I am with Zippy in feeling that "sporting purposes"-related criteria for protected arms are endangered.

That an arm or ammunition pass a "sporting purpose" test simply does not comport to the holdings of Heller.

On behalf of the NRA fund raising department, I would like to thank the city of San Francisco for preparing to make another large contribution to our coffers.

Thankfully the San Francisco board of supervisors seems totally oblivious to their own past history on these issues, is driven by a blind ideology and keeps repeating their behavior and, eventually writing big checks to the NRA when all is said and done.

They should really get them a nice plaque or something.

I do not recommend using .357 Hydra-Shok for target practice since it has a pretty powerful kick to it.

Which is exactly why, assuming that's what you carry in case of actual need, you should shoot a box of it regularly.

pete:

I do not shoot very often, but I have used several types of the ammuntion listed at a gun range before. I do not recommend using .357 Hydra-Shok for target practice since it has a pretty powerful kick to it.

I agree with JMnar, that's a reason why you should shoot more of it.

Felt recoil is very subjective and is more a function of the hand - gun interface. I have big hands and find the .44 magnum a fun gun to shoot. But I absolutely hate my little .38 snubnose. It has tiny grips and beats my hands to death. It is actually painful for me to shoot. I presume it is more painful on the other end.

@Ryann Waxx

First, can anyone name another right that you only can excercise if you can show a "legitimate" purpose that the government pre-approves?

Sure.

Several first amendment rights--e.g. pornography must have some serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, or it may be forbidden as obscene; allowing use of certain substances (peyote) or by certain people (wine by minors) only for religious purposes.

-- thankfully Posner is not on the supreme court so with any luck his opinions on this matter will continue to be irrelevant --
.
As SCOTUS is wont to deny certiorari in second amendment cases, the opinions and (mis)interpretations of binding precedent by District and Circuit Court judges end up being the most relevant.

The "National Guard is the ONLY current state militia" argument has been debunked. Under federal law, the "National Guard" is only the "active" federal militia. All males under 45 (and certain females) are the "Reserve" federal militia.

Plus, the National Guard members are under the command of the President, who graciously "allows" state governors to utilize the Guard's services if he/she feels so compelled. The Guard members wear uniforms that say "US Army," and their weapons and equipment are marked "US Government property." Their role as "state militias" is not actually as some (like Posner) may believe, or have been led to believe.

hospis:

why would any sane rational American consent to use such barbarous munitions against fellow Americans how much barbarous ones he could not use against hostile aliens?

Frankly, if I'm at the point of having to fire upon one of my "fellow Americans" or a "soldier of a hostile alien sovereign" because they threaten any of my family members, I'd be willing to take the stance that there is no such thing as a "barbarous munition." Seems like when the relationship has deteriorated to the point of trading bullets, nationality is a non-issue. I just want them to die, as quickly and painfully as possible, and with as low a risk to innocent bystanders as possible. (Which probably disqualifies things like chemical agents.)

Besides, merely because the U.S. Congress approves of some treaty concerning the "civilized" way to conduct war among other countries has NOTHING to do with what I consent to do in the realm of civilian self-defense. Unless, of course, they want to reactivate my commission, and let me drop napalm, CBUs, JDAMs, and 250 pounders again.


DennisN has it right. If you have to shoot, empty the magazine. If you're going to be killed with your own gun, make sure it's only because they beat you to death with it.

hospis (again):

Again, what I've read of Posner disgusts me, and his writing is no model; but his arguments describe far better the Framers' original meaning of Second Amendment than those of the present Court.

I take from this that Posner's opinion on this matter most closely conforms to what YOU want the Framers' original intent to be construed as.

Since there were many Framers, and they are as unlikely to have agreed on any one meaning/interpretation for the Second Amendment any more than we currently do, I find it curious when people talk of the Framers' intent in the singular.

Which brings us to the realm of extrinsic writings and the mindset of colonial/revolutionary America with regard to firearms. Somehow, I suspect you're better off arguing that the original intent is irrelevant, and that we need a "living Constitution." At least you'd be more intellectually honest, if still out of touch with the millions of American gun owners who distrust putting all of the physical power in the hands of government. The recent events in Iran remind us of what happens going down that road.

Ierrelevant as in not legally binding upon me (which incidentally applies to EV's opinions as well). However unlike Posner, EV is not a bore even when you disagree with him.

I grant that Posner's opinions are relevant to those who still live in Chicago. But lets be honest, the people of Chicago have it coming.

Gotcha. His opinions are also relevant to me here in Wisconsin. But I suppose you think we've got in coming, too.

I would like to add to this discussion the double standards Police and their gun control friends on the subject of sporting arms.

um, no. don't blame cops. cops overwhelmingly support CCW. cop-o-crats e.g. the IACP generally doesn't. IACP doesn't represent cops any more than the CEO of a company represents his employees.

pretty much accepted it and made it part of our Law of Land Warfare.

yes, I was just pointing out that following the Hague is an executive decision and not a legislative one (unless there were other laws passed by congress that i am not aware of).

"Posner also--as I've done here before--defines states' national Guard as that militia from the Amendment"

Posner may well think that the National Guard is a state militia, but that can only be be because he does not know the relivant law. In my home state of New York, the New York National Guard is a federal militia and the New York State Guard is the State Millitia. Half of the states have their own militia distinct from the National Guard alos called state defence forces, state militas, of state guards. Your and Posners ingnorance of the military orginisation of the United States is not binding on SCOTUS.

@Ryann Waxx


First, can anyone name another right that you only can excercise if you can show a "legitimate" purpose that the government pre-approves?



Sure.

Several first amendment rights--e.g. pornography must have some serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, or it may be forbidden as obscene; allowing use of certain substances (peyote) or by certain people (wine by minors) only for religious purposes.

The two are inapposite. You are taking small slices of an overall broad right and observing that similar restrictions attach to them. No such restriction broadly applies to free speech, as people wish to broadly apply to the RKBA.

A more apt comparison might say that the machine gun catrgory might require such intent-requirements, but not gun ownership in general.

As someone who previously sold body armor, firearms and ammunition (among other products) to police departments around the nation (or more accurately, managed one of the the store fronts for a company that did), I have to express my concurrance with those above who correctly observed that expanding tip (Hydra-Shok, Golden Saber, Black Talon, etc) and frangible rounds (Glaser "Safety Slugs") etc have the general principles of reducing penetration and rapidly "dumping" their kinetic energy into the first soft target they strike - functionally increasing the likelihood (as compared to full metal jacketed rounds) that a single hit to target will "stop" that target (more critical in self defense than the kill/no kill question), is less likley to "over penetrate" a target (thus providing lesser unintended risk to bystanders), is less likely to penetrate body armor (thus "safer" for intervening police officers), and are less likely to penetrate multiple layers of car door, wall boards, and other intervening structures (again, less danger to bstanders). In all these ways, those munitions are superior to an FMJ or "ball" round for self defense purposes. Of course, which round performs best for you is also highly dependent on the accuracy of the shooter, the caliber of the weapon, the grain weight of the round, the length of the barrel, the nature of the target, and the reliability of the round to properly cycle the weapon (in the case of semi-automatic weapons).

To the commentator who suggested hitting a target 5 or 6 times, I would suggest that my experience, and anecdotal evidence as shared with me by members of law enforcement, indicates that, even at close distances (under 10-15 feet), the typical shooter in such circumstances, under those stresses, is unlikely to hit more than once, or perhaps twice. Frankly, even law enforcement members themselves are not consistently recognized for accuracy on the shooting range, much less under high stress, often with a moving target and/or shooter, under questionable lighting. I believe the suggestion of hit rates over even 50% are likely generous.

Finally, most modern departments we sold to carry either a 9mm or a .40 cal as their service weapon. There are a few departments still carrying the .45 (falling out of favor for its limited magazine capacity and generally inferior performance to the .40 in most shooting situations) or the .357 magnum revolver (bulky, limited capacity, but highly reliable and good mix of stopping power/penetration). At least in Florida, armed security typically carried the .38, or a .357 chambered with the .38 round.

My money is still on a pump action shotgun, whose sound is a significant deterrent, but its size is such that it may not be "readily available" in an emergency situation (which at least reduces the chance it will be used against you by your attacker), and whose range of available ammunition (from bird shot thru slug) provides a host of options. Choice of shell and choke also help with accuracy considerations.

CarLitGuy - your post reminded me that I was incomplete in my 2:22 pm post - both the Korean and Afghan vets also eventually agreed they'd be satisified with a .40 S&W as a good compromise -- approximately the stopping power of a .45ACP, but with a high-cap magazine almost as large as the M9's. But to have that as your issue sidearm in military service, I'm afraid one would have to join the Coast Guard (although I understand DoD's non-uniformed IG agents also carry .40s rather than 9mms nowadays).

-- elected officials reducing policy decisions to legislation which appears contrary to the policy goals it is supposed to drive --
.
The law makes sense in light of the real rationale, which is not the same as the stated rationale. The policy goal is disarmament.

CJColucci:
This is much ado about little. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean you can have just any damn gun or ammunition you want, and doesn't disable governments from making some guns and ammo off limits. "Sporting" is a handy, if inelegant, shorthand that can be replaced by a more detailed description of the types of ammunition intended to be banned. It may be that banning, say, hollowpoints is unwise from a safety viewpoint, but unwise does not equal unconstitutional.
7.14.2009 12:48pm

It bans every rifle round that is legal in CA or most other states for hunting deer or larger game, and leaves it up to interpretation by an anti-gun executive as to which rifle rounds are suitable for other "sporting purposes". (Presumably target shooting with .22LR would qualify.) This isn't reasonable regulation, it is arbitrarily legislating from (deliberate) ignorance and bias.