Second Amendment? Not Anymore!

There are few things that upset a hard working guy like me more than politicians. Those are the idiots who get payed $150,000+ per year to not show up for votes. However, the recent Proposition H that passed in San Francisco, California certainly qualifies. California is known for strict gun legislation, but this particular law is absurd. It is known as the San Francisco Hand-gun Ban. That's right, they banned guns in San Francisco. Now, fascinatingly enough, they only banned handguns for residents. In fact, this legislation stretches to the point of forcing all those who currently own handguns to turn them in to the police.

The strange exception, however, is that this legislation does not apply to visitors. Yes, the visitors can carry guns, but the people who live in San Francisco cannot carry them. It's an absurd piece of work, but let's stick to its Unconstitutionality for the rest of this article. It is an egregious violation of both the 2nd Amendment and the Ex-Post Facto clause.
Let's run through the Second Amendment real quick. The actual wording is:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

The argument has been made that it is worded this way because it only applies to the militia. As such, here's a short list of Supreme Court cases that cite it as an Individual Right: United States v. Miller, Dred Scott v. Sandford, United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Logan v. United States, Miller v. Texas, Robertson v. Baldwin, Maxwell v. Dow, Trono v. United States, etc. etc. etc. I can go into detail, but this article doesn't need to get that lengthy. You can take my word for it or have a read of No. 99-10331 USA v. Emerson. The fact remains that the Second Amendment is an individual Right. To further prove this, let's read and interpret the Amendment. For example, without the mention of militia, the Amendment reads:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clearly this stands on its own. In fact, the first portion of the sentence is reasoning. The necessity of a militia is the reason for the right to bear arms, not the benefactor. Now, let's make sure we understand those terms.

Bear - to carry openly
Arms - any weapon
Infringe - to limit

Clearly, the government should not, in any way, limit our ability to carry any weapon, openly or not. The flawed logic of San Francisco is not the beginning, but the final step. The beginning was when they took away our swords. Now they've limited it to the extent that we cannot defend ourselves at all. I thought that gun confiscation in New Orleans got enough bad publicity that thought of this type of thing would be reconsidered for some time. Sadly, however, this didn't even get much news coverage. I had to search all over the internet to find bits and pieces of this legislation. It was slipped under the radar in wake of all the terrible things that happened after Hurricane Katrina. Here's an interesting fact: In Canada in 2003, 86% of firearms used in homicides were unregistered. Canada requires gun registration. Funny how that works.
Anywho, the Second Amendment isn't the only portion of the Constitution that this law violates. The other portion is known as the Ex-Post Facto Clause:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." What is an "ex post facto law"?

ex post facto - formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively.

This legislation, by requiring people to turn in handguns they already own, retroactively bans handguns. It is upsetting that the federal government is willing to continue to ignore the Constitution for its own sake. I think it's time to stand up and protect ourselves. Otherwise, we all might be finding ourselves tackled and dragged from our homes by the police 'for our own safety'. Have a look at this video. It's frightening.

http://www.ktvu.com/video/4946889/detail.html