Reprinted with permission from Bill Sappington:

(Below sent to every member of the board of supes and the mayor )


Dear Supervisor Daly,

Proposition H, is nothing but pure political grand standing. And justlike the legislature, you carefully exempt all of yourselves from this, to whit:

"Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. _Specifically,
any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including *** but not limited to*** peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et.seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun._ Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns."

( emphasis added by author )

So Mr. Daly, when has your life become more important then mine? By the definition above, you your fellow board members and the mayor can be construed to by city employees "...carrying out the functions of his or her employment..." or for that matter anyone else who is on the city payroll and you guys decide to bless as being worthy of being able to protect their life, property and family.

Your proposal site "176 handgun incidents in San Francisco affected 213 in 1999..." so let me do the math for you:

* Population of San Francisco city and county in 2000 = 776,733

(213 / 776,733) * 100 = .0274 percent.

Yes that is 2 One hundreth's of a percent the population of the entire city of San Francisco was effected by gun violence or expressed _very_ accurately:

0.0274225506 percent.

You further break that down to 176 handgun incidents in San Francisco, so lets look at those number based upon population: (176 / 776,733 ) * 100 = .0226 percent or expressed very accurately:

0.022659009 percent

So based upon those numbers, you intend to deny the right of some 776 thousand people to possess a handgun in their own homes!

Will you take a police officer to the _home_ of Senator Diane Feinstein and _demand_ she hand her handgun over to the officer you brought with you?

You know Mr. Daily, somehow I kind of think she is going to fall into the "...including but not limited to..." clause of your proposition. Mr. Daily, is _her_ life more important then mine?

Will you go to the home of every retired police office who lives in San Francisco and demand any handguns they have? Although the city is not allowed to force handgun owners to register a handgun and therefor you cant get a list and go door to door, I think you can find out where every retired police officer in San Francisco lives because we send them
a check every month.

I was in the military for 10 years, I am quite capable of handling most any kind of weapon ever made competently and with the rules of deadly force uppermost in my mind. And yet, you would deny me a tool to protect myself and my family.

The bans don't work plain and simple. Criminals who want guns will simply continue to buy them out of trunks of cars and nothing will change, all you will have accomplished is to deny law abiding citizens of a tool to protect themselves.

Now personally I think a shotgun is the best home defense tool, but if someone prefers a handgun, it is their business, not yours Mr. Daly.

As history will tell you, the first step of government subjugation of the population is to disarm them. This was true in Germany, The former Soviet Union and elsewhere.

I am a red blooded pretty middle of the road ( politically ) American. I spent 10 years of my life ready to die for my country ( and your young life as well) before you were even in High School, much less a supervisor.

Banning handguns is not the answer to the problem of violence. Making The City more attractive to business and getting better employment is one good way to give people the ability to make a better life for themselves and is a good place to start. Yet sadly the Board of Supervisors enacts law after law that make SF more hostile to business.

Bill Sappington
A Native of SF.