Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

San Francisco Gives Gunowners 90 Days To Turn In Magazines

san francisco magazines 90 daysCalifornia Governor Jerry Brown may have vetoed a statewide ban on so-called assault rifles, but San Francisco officials have enacted a similar version of the bill locally – and the NRA is fighting back.

The city has a history of pushing the envelope on gun control. A total ban on handguns in 2005 was ultimately overturned by a state court in 2008. Smaller scale gun laws have been passed in the city since the court invalidated the handgun ban.

The new San Francisco high-capacity magazine ban was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors, making it illegal to sell guns with magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds. The new San Francisco gun control law also requires that citizens who already own high-capacity magazines turn them in to the police department within 90 days.

The law, though, likely will have no impact on violence. As previously reported by Off The Grid News, an Indiana county sheriff recorded a now-viral YouTube video demonstrating just how quickly even a novice shooter could empty magazines of any size, reload and begin firing again.

Despite the constantly evolving California gun control laws, crime in the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, has increased, and FBI crime statistics show that homicides are at a two-decade high. After all, criminals, by their very nature, have no respect for gun laws.

How to hide your guns, and other off grid caches…

Supervisor Malia Cohen, who sponsored the law, said:

While not a panacea, this legislation provides law enforcement with more tools to continue to address gun violence and also continues to strengthen our city’s strong stance on gun regulation. Banning assault rifles only scratches the surface. We need to be better at addressing mental health concerns if we really want to solve the problem.

She went on to state that she hoped the new gun control law would “serve as a model” for other cities in her region.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed a suit against the law, saying it is unconstitutional. Larry Barsetti is one of the plaintiffs and a retired cop.

“All you’re doing is impacting honest law abiding citizens of San Francisco; the bad guys aren’t going to obey this law, they’re not supposed to be carrying guns in the first place,” Barsetti told a local ABC station.

The law firm that is filing the lawsuit on behalf of the NRA said:

Although the San Francisco ordinance describes the banned magazines as ‘large-capacity,’ magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds are standard for many common handguns and long guns. Millions of firearms that have been sold in the United States come from the manufacturer with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Sign up for Off The Grid News’ weekly email and stay informed about the issues important to you

© Copyright Off The Grid News


  1. Should there be a max on mags, if so how much? To gun rights advocates the answer is no and unlimited I’m sure. Law abiding gun owners don’t see a reason for such bans and believe it’s their constitutional right to carry as much ammo as they want and limited only by gun manufactures constraints. Of course, we all know and understand this. The government puts on a concerned face and claims such limits willl decrease violent crimes and save innocent lives. Personally, I feel the driving force behind such bans lies in our leaders desire to enact more control of the citizens.

    I really don’t (not can’t) see a reason for me to own a handgun that has a mag with a capacity over 15 rounds (note, handgun). But that’s just my opinion, besides I don’t have a handgun at this point. I hope when I buy one I’ll have the RIGHT to a firearm of my choice with a mag capacity of my choice.

    • You don’t see a reason because you have never been in a fire fight. When the bullets start flying you always want to have more than your opponent. Otherwise, when your ammo runs out, he will walk up and shoot you.

    • The answer is education. Not more gun control, gun safety classes have to be put in our schools as a required class.

      • Hahahaaha, really gun safety classes, when most schools don’t even want sex education around the nation. Nice utpoian idea, how about harsher penalties on criminals, why would your idea to put more stress on people who don’t deal with firearms. Prevention doesn’t work, remember D.A.R.E. waste of time and money. Not to put you’re idea down, it’s just that criminals need to be the ones to pay the consequence of their actions, not regular law abiding citizens. You can’t get rid of guns, so make those that abuse them pay infinitely more than those they hurt. Make an example of every scum bag every time.

        • Fire arm safety was part of standard training at all high schools and junior highs in the mid 80’s if you were in any of the cadet programs (almost every high school and junior high had these programs). By the late 80’s due to accessibility to proper firing areas the firearm training was dropped. I’m not quoting any publication I’m talking from personal experience.

    • why 10 rounds, why not 5 rounds? these arbitrary limits are ridiculous….I’m keeping mine….Molon Labe

    • get out of my country treasonous scum.


    Yeah! Sure… ‘Comrade’. I wouldn’t hesitate to comply… after I’m dead.


  3. Isn’t California a preemption state?

    • California *is* a preemption state, and SF has lost TWICE on preemption issues. They’re going to lose on this one, just like Sunnyvale is going to lose for their try at a magazine ban and other feel-good gun control measures.


    You took a sworn oath upon the Constitution and therefor you DO NOT FOLLOW any orders that order you to arrest any gun owner for not turning in their magazines nor confiscate any magazines from gun owners.
    Just following orders doesn’t cut it! Any Police that follow these Unconstitutional Orders will be trialed for treason when WE THE PEOPLE had enough of these Nazi Communist Anti-Constitutional laws and revolt, and I promise if you are not with the Constitution and Republic, YOU WILL LOOSE!
    -Dan Bidondi

  6. SF CITIZENS! STAND YOUR GROUND!! DO NOT at any circumstances give up your mags, this is where you draw the line in the sand!
    Support and protect your 2nd Amendment now!
    “Resistance to tyrants and tyrannical laws is victory- Spirit of 1776” -Dan Bidondi

  7. …and Americans wonder why the rest of the world think they are idiots.

    There is zero reason to even own assault rifles.

    • I’m sure that the Jews in the 1930’s Germany felt the same way…..until they disembarked the trains that took them to the concentration camps!

      It is also ironic that Jews like S.F. Supervisor Malia Cohen and politicians like Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Schumer, Barbara Boxer and others of Jewish descent are today the strongest advocates of dis-arming the populace. Surely, these folks are not that ignorant of history, so they must feel supremly confident that their kind will be the ones with the guns directing people off the trains in the future.

    • Their is no such thing as an assault weapon dumb ass. If you hit someone with a stick 30 times is it now an assault stick. Objects don’t assault, people do while using objects.

      • Joe,

        I don’t recall the last time that I laughed so hard this early on a week day before finishing my first glass of caffeine. I may have to recycle your phrase (credit given of course) the next time I am at a family dinner seated next to my liberal brother having a discussion about gun control!

    • In case you’re confused, “assault rifles” are classified as automatic weapons, and as such, are extremely expensive. You cannot buy one made after a specified date somewhere in the 80’s (I’m not sure on the exact date). You have to jump through as many legal hoops to get one as you would to get a fully automatic weapon. There have apparently been just two or three murders committed with legally owned automatic weapons in the past eighty years, and currently about 250,000 of such weapons are owned by civilians. Considering how difficult it is to acquire them, and the fact that doing so brings you to the attention of the government by basically putting you on a list of people who have automatic weapons…there is very, very little chance of any legally owned automatic weapon being used to murder. This includes assault rifles. Banning assault rifles outright might possibly save two lives every eighty years…but then, why wouldn’t those people just use a different gun if they didn’t have access to an assault rifle?

      What you’re thinking of is probably this new ambiguous term, “assault weapons”, which they have decided means “semiautomatic weapons that look scary”, basically. Certain visual features will turn a normal semiautomatic hunting rifle into what many people nowdays think is an “assault rifle”. But it is, in fact, not an assault rifle. Internally it is often exactly the same as a normal semiautomatic hunting rifle.

      • Perfect way to explain the explain the terminology. When several armed robbers try to push their way through my door when my husband is not home, I intend to be standing their in my usual dress and heels ensemble with as “scary” a looking weapon as the law allows! If such a scary weapon is not near, but attractive .380 will get the job done as well.

    • No, Jeff, it’s ultra-extreme-left wing Frisco libturd losers who wonder why REAL Americans think THEY are idiots.

      Btw: semi-automatic weapons are not assault rifles. Your lies aren’t working.

    • Actually, I’d suggest very few Americans even care, much less wonder, wha tthe rest of the world thinks of us–nor is there any reason to waste our time wondering about it beyond idle curiousity as to why the rest of the world are such sheeple.

      It’s immaterial to the issue of government regulation of firearms whether there is any “reason” to own any firearm. People don’t need a reason to justify anything in order to prevent government from acting against them. Instead, it is *government* that needs the *authority* to regulate what firearms people own. So the proper test is not whether people have a reason to do something, but whether government has an authority to prevent people from doing something. Or at least, that’s how it works here in the Constitutional federal republic of the United States of America. Of course, in the rest of the world it is typically different, but that’s because typically there those people have let their governments assume that authority.

    • Most people cant afford assault rifles. they run around 30k dollars

      Assault WEAPON is a meaningless term.

      Take a ruger 14 hunting rifle (standard buy at walmart) put a folding stock, a flash suppressor and a forward grip and it suddenly becomes an assault weapon? NOTHING but cosmetics changed yet its now illegal?

    • Theirs no reason for your car to go faster than the speed limit but I dont see you yelling about people being killed in car accidents daily and I might add the statistics for car deaths are substantially higher than gun deaths but than again if your over priced BMW only went 65mph max that wouldn’t be fair now would it because it would impact YOU!. Laws are great when they dont impact YOU now do they? As long as YOU aren’t effected its all good huh?
      Got news for you, when all the guns are gone they’ll come for you because they can. Read history and pull your head away from your smart phone and out of your ass long enough, you might actually learn something.

  8. EgbertThrockmorton

    The overwhelming majority of San Franciscans DO NOT own or possess firearms willingly. They are willing sheeple being led to sacrifice on the altar of political expediency. The majority of all “gun crimes” being committed in SF, are from felons (restricted persons-anyway), scumbag dope dealers and other thugs living and preying upon the residents of San Francisco. San Francisco is it’s own city/county, and as a result has truly poor lawn enforcement coverage for it’s residents. The Board of Supervisors actually encourages transients to come to reside in San Francisco, making the crime problem there even worse. The Democrats and Progressives within San Francisco, have destroyed what was once a beautiful city. Now, it is commonplace to see numerous transients urinating and defecating in public places, especially those frequented by tourists-whose dollars the city desperately needs. Like visiting a dump? Then you will enjoy San Francisco, while parts(very few) are truly enjoyable, most neighborhoods in SF are not for the faint of heart at all. The MYTH of legal firearms ownership within the city/county limits of SF is just that a MYTH.

  9. I have an EPIC Idea! Make it against the law to kill kids at school! Then people won’t……wait, that’s not working. Make it against the law to kill people in movie theaters……wait, tried that too. Make it illegal to rape women……no, that’s been done…..ok, make it illegal to kill people in general, just no killing people… what make us think that making something illegal will prevent it from happening? Say no guns, the people have two choices, turn them in, or become outlaws, the crooks and dirtbags who are already breaking the laws now still have their guns. The good law abiding citizens now don’t have anything to defend themselves with. The good mostly law abiding citizens are now crooks for keeping their guns……how is this going to work?

  10. They are also doing this in NYC, requiring owners of firearms that hold more than 5 rounds to turn them. I’m curious to know what they are going to do to people who don’t turn them in. No article I heave read so far has mentioned anything about what the authorities are saying they are going to those who don’t turn them in……….

    • Just for clarification, NYC isn’t requiring that the firearms be turned in. Citizens also have the option of proving that the weapon has been transferred to a location outside of the city, or that the weapon has been destroyed. While this may not be a significant difference to many, it IS how NYC can get away with the “nobody is confiscating your guns” line of argument.

  11. Control, control, control, the left wants our guns ,,has no problem killing through abortion,wants to offer handouts to the non working in trade for votes, force health care down our throats that’s not good enough for them and flood our country with immigrants (more handouts ) and destroy capitalism (jobs). so let see what we end up with. A jobless America with immigrants to feed and health care to fund and the gov will have to take over and save America by creating jobs under govmt rules and control, sounds familiar to me but then again they cant do this with a bunch of self thinkers and doers with guns to protect themselves from a gov take over now can they. For they know whats good for us. And we know whats good for the.m If sf hands over their mags then that’s a green light to take their guns next. oh why don’t the people of san fran who hand over their mags just hand over their wives and daughters also. I hope the people of san fran show their leaders some disgrace by handing over not one magazine. Iif they(the gov) tried that in mo. they would be the laughing stock of the state and of course unemployed.

  12. When are the politicians going to realize that the law abiding citizens are not the one’s going around killing people!! I just don’t get it!!!

  13. You know folks, it boils down to this–plain and simple. Why do you buy a car–and what criteria do you use to buy a car? A good portion of that criteria concerns how you LIKE that car. The fact that all cars can be basic black, have four wheels and an engine and will get you to your destination is immaterial. You buy cars because you LIKE that particular car.

    Why do you choose to buy different foods? Why do you eat a variety of things? Because you WANT to, and because you CAN. That’s why–and it’s the best reason in the world.

    The United States of America was founded on that very simple principle–why do you worship in a certain way? Why do you say the things that you do? Why do you travel thousands of miles to see one particular site or object? Because you CAN. YOU have that right of free speech, free passage, freedom to worship.

    The founding Fathers recognized that there was an inherent problem with freedom; with good, gentle people living together who would want to do nothing more than build their homes, grow their food, ply their trades and crafts and meet for good company, there would always be those with a lust for power, for control, for twisting around the freedom into a form of slavery.

    That is where the Second Amendment comes in. It is the teeth; the fangs of the people.

    A Golden Retriever is perhaps the friendliest dog in existence. Loveable, cuddly, and kinda goofy–and that’s all right. You keep the dog safe, and treat it kindly, and they’ll love you to death. They will claim you as their family.

    Ever seen a Golden go nuts? They will, when their human family is threatened. Some time ago, my wife swas approached by an unsavory gentleman–and our 7 year old Golden first stood between her–then went into a display of snarling and barking that I had never seen. I had to use all my strength to hold the dog back–and I’m a pretty big fella.

    The American people are like that, mostly–we are great to be around, generally very neighborly, and we’re all kinda goofy sometimes. (the phrase, “Hey y’all, watch this!” comes to mind here.) We will bend over backwards to get along with everyone, and to help when needed.

    Yes, we bend quite a bit. We are flexible. But at a bridge on Lexington Green, the kind, goofy American turned into a terrible presence; an iron gazed, ice cold machine that hissed the warning, “Don’t tread on me”.

    On December 7, 1941, the iron warrior again emerged–slowly and majestically, and lashed back at the people who dared to attack us. Our might carried the day, again.

    Have people not learned from the lessons of history? Does anyone not remember when in World
    War II, when Hitler and Nazi Germany was threatening to overrun Europe that England asked us for GUNS–the very firearms that they denied their citizens?

    I own guns because I CAN. I am content with punching paper at long distances, ringing armor steel plates as fast as I can, and trying to figure out why, oh why, can’t I hit ALL of those stupid clay pigeons? I delight in putting out big clouds of smoke from a black powder cartridge rifle–and charcoal briquettes do make a satisfying puff when hit with a .22.

    However, I am also a student of history. I am also a veteran of the US Army; of the Infantry where I spent quite a few years. I believe that this is explained best by an opinion written by a seated Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: “The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. “–Kozinski, Alex. Silviera v. Lockyer, 2003.

    You don’t want to own or be around guns? Fine. I respect that, and will honor that. Let me be that sometimes goofy guy, and I’ll be happy with my targets and steel plates. I own guns because I choose to do so. NO one has the right to take that away.

    Don’t even think about it.

    • “However, I am also a student of history”

      A very shit one.

      ” Does anyone not remember when in World
      War II, when Hitler and Nazi Germany was threatening to overrun Europe that England asked us for GUNS–the very firearms that they denied their citizens?”

      Since that didn’t happen you moron, no they don’t “remember” it. British citizens were not and are not denied those firearms and “England” did not ever ask you for guns. They shielded you from the World War for 3 years and provided you with the radar technology to effectively combat the Japanese.

      “The United States of America was founded on that very simple principle”

      To maintain slavery you silly cunt, upheld as unenforceable in English law in 1772.

      “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision,”

      No it isn’t it is irrelevant, an untrained civilian population with a few small arms is nothing against a modern military, proven time and again.

  14. I can change a magazine in under 1 second (2 if I fumble) and I’m not a pistol guy. Who here can identify when a shooter’s magazine is empty, formulate an attack and execute it in 1-2 seconds? Who here has the balls to even try? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? I thought so.

    The fundamental assumption behind magazine limits is fallacious and absurd.

  15. How about make criminal scum bags pay infinitely more than the people they hurt, make gun crime punishments much more horrible than they pain they cause. That way criminals will think it is not worth it and don’t get all hurt with suggestions of the death penalty. It is cheaper and more effective.

  16. I have read that in the UK,when there were riots a few years ago,the number#1 weapon for defense was, the baseball bat. A gun is like any other working tool,a shovel,ax, a knife, or a baseball bat. When used properly, they all work fine, with no side effects. But in the wrong hands, they can hurt you and kill you. We need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. We might want to bring back the death penalty and enforce it. And further more,the people who I know, who own gun’s, are down to earth American’s who abide by the safety rules of gun ownership and are not the one’s we should be concern about. Not really concerned, about mag size,more concern that the government continues to take away our constitutional rights. On right at a time.I’m not very eager to give up any more of my right’s. Appreciate this site and your reader’s. Thanks. Southern Patriot

  17. Attention S.F. residents: If you are planning to, or considering turning in your magazines you can mail them all to me. I will ensure you they will all be safely recycled with no impact on the enviroment or landfills of Cal. All calibers, makes and models will be accepted in this program. I also have a program to deal with that now empty and useless pistols. These can also be mailed with full assurance of their safe disposition. Just reply below. Thank you for your full cooperation.

  18. This is just one of many issues where liberals seem to have no logic or common sense. Their motivation is all about regulation and control. Only an idiot would believe that outlawing magazine capacities over 10 rounds would reduce gun violence. It will not. It certainly will not reduce other violence. In fact, more people were killed last year with blunt objects than with guns, a fact that liberals ignore.

  19. Limit weapons to 10 rounds then 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. I think we see where this is going! If no one fights back at this level, they will soon have you at “0”. It will be too late to complain later; they proved they had the “authority” over gun capacity when they got away with a limit of 10 and no one successfully challenged them!

  20. The real reason democrats hate guns is because guns are power. Guns are power against crime (helpless sheep need government protection), guns add teeth to the bill of rights and the constitution (we have seen how much respect obama has for them while being cheered for by democrats). The reason courts are overturning gun laws lately? Because the evidence is without a doubt today, more legal guns less crime. Long live theNRA.

  21. One useless counter productive law at a time the democrats will take your rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *