http://www.hawaiireporter.com/…

The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. “Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

Good to hear that even in California laws like this can be shot down. It amazes me how people can willfully ignore moral and practical aspects of gun ownership. Gun prohibition does not work any better than drug prohibition. Those who wish to do harm with a gun will usually have to motivation to acquire one. I’ve met several people who advocated gun prohibition and when I bring up the ease of acquiring one they dismiss it, assuming that it is difficult to obtain one. They have no evidence, they have no reason to think this way besides they don’t know anyone who they could get one from. Or they don’t realize they don’t. They always admit that while they may not know a drug dealer explicitly they could acquire pot in less than a day of trying. Guns aren’t much different. Then you have the statistics on gun ownership and crime. New Hampshire having some of the least restrictive gun laws has some of the lowest crime. This is true for many other states with lax gun restrictions. Correlation does not indicate causation of course but many gun prohibition advocates talk as if it’d be Hollywood Wild Wild West if people were allowed to have and carry guns. I was at the Liberty Forum last weekend with many people open carrying, there were plenty of heated arguments and not a single gun drawn in anger or shot (except on Thursday when they went to the shooting range.) People have the right and in some cases the obligation to protect themselves from individuals who would do them harm. A gun is a tool to help perform that self defense. You can read Rational Review for a few days to see the number of people who do that every day.

http://www.kcbs.com/…

For years, the idea of taxing soda to beat back obesity has been tossed around in medical circles. But now, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is proposing a tax on beverages high in fructose corn syrup.

Newsom says obesity accounts for tens of millions of dollars in city health care costs. He cites a recent San Francisco Health Department survey that found nearly a quarter of the city’s 5th, 7th and 9th graders were overweight and that high sugar drinks make up a tenth of a kid’s daily calorie count.

Newsom reportedly wants all big box retailers and chain drug stores to pay into his new “Shape up San Francisco” program, which started this past summer with a walking regimen.

This comes as the state of California is considering slapping caffeine-infused sodas, and energy drinks with warning labels, saying consumption can contribute to diabetes.

This isn’t about obesity. They outright admit it’s about money. They don’t want to or can’t continue to mandate required city health care if the costs keep rising. Lets look at the entirety of this situation. The federal government steals your money through income taxation. They use some of that money to subsidize the corn industry and the fructose corn syrup industry in particular. In addition to that there are import quotas and tariffs on sugar. Those force the domestic price of sugar to more than twice the world price and lowers the cost of high-fructose corn syrup. According to Wikipedia Coca-Cola uses sugar internationally but HFCS domestically. Some believe that HFCS has greater health risks than sucrose. So here we have you paying for a possibly dangerous sweetener to be used in food which San Fran would like to then tax you for consuming. They want to tax you at the cash register so they don’t have to tax everyone else for your greater use of the mandatory health system. Of course the soda companies have something to say about this.

“It makes no sense to single out any one single cause of obesity, which is a complex problem,” said Kevin Keane, a senior vice president of the American Beverage Association, the trade group for $105-billion-a-year nonalcoholic beverage industry.

Keane said that if Newsom really wanted to fight the fat, he would take on computer and video game companies, which Keane said lured children inside when they should “be outside burning calories.”

Another person passes the blame. Lets see who has more sway in the California and San Francisco government: the beverage or videogame companies. Will they start placing “no fatties” taxes on Pepsi or Nintendo? Why can’t these people place blame on those who cause the obesity? The fat asses who eat and drink these things in excess and in the case of children their parents. Why not be honest and say that the reason they want to implement this tax is because people don’t want to actually pay for the socialist single payer health system pipedream they claim they want?

The soda proposal will be introduced to the Board of Supervisors early next year, Ballard said, and would affect only large retailers, not mom-and-pop stores. As for levies on other child-friendly delicacies, Ballard added, “The mayor has no intention of imposing a fee on pizza.”

Yet. Not as if the pizza is worth eating in San Fran.