If crisis comes: Let San Francisco look after itself
Citizens of one of the nation’s largest cities have banned ownership of handguns. They also have “urged” their city’s high schools and colleges to keep military recruiters off their campuses.
Which city? San Francisco — no great surprise.
Fifty-eight percent of its voters had decreed that the city must require all handgun owners to surrender their weapons by April. This means, of course, they cannot have the weapons anywhere — in the closets or safes in their homes, their vehicles or wherever.
The National Rifle Association is challenging the right of a city to do this, even under California law.
The city’s voters asked high schools and colleges to keep military recruiters off their campuses — but did not order an absolute ban. This, advocates feared, could lead to losing federal funding.
If that’s what the citizens of San Francisco want, so be it.
But perhaps the U.S. government should take a second look at any involvement of federal tax funds to support crime control in a city in which law-abiding citizens are not allowed to have weapons in their homes to protect themselves.
And if San Francisco is so opposed to people serving in the military, perhaps it should be declared off-limits to all service personnel and none of its businesses should be allowed to compete for defense contracts — or supply services or commodities to the military. Divert all military cargoes and passengers from its ports and air terminals.
In the event of a terrorist attack on San Francisco, or the unlikely event of some invasion of the U.S., let the citizens of San Francisco fend for themselves. We should not commit troops and tax dollars to defend a city where the majority of the citizens oppose the nation’s military and the rights of law-abiding citizens to have handguns in their homes.
Published in Editorials on November 11, 2005 10:24 AM