Guns

Why Did San Francisco's Last Gun Shop Close Its Doors?

High Bridge Arms gun shop refused to handover customer information to police.

|

Originally posted October 30, 2015:

Over the weekend, San Francisco will lose its last gun store: High Bridge Arms.

Why? The city has mandated that gun shops hand over information about its customers to the cops.

"Just the idea of giving that information willingly to the police department, for no real reason, seemed very unreasonable to me." says Steven Alcairo, the general manager of High Bridge Arms. Alcairo notes that the store already complies with all federal and state reporting requirements.

Mark Farrell, a member of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, was behind the local ordinance. The ordinance places new requirements on gun shops like High Bridge Arms, such as videotaping everything that happens in their stores and providing the San Francisco Police Department with weekly updates on customers and purchases.

"I would never introduce legislation to hurt a small business in our city," Farrell told the local NBC affiliate. "However, if a gun store in particular wants to close as a result of it, so be it." 

High Bridge Arms' website says the shop was opened in 1952 by the renowned Olympic shooter Bob Chow. It was later bought by Andy Takahashi in the late 1980s. It was Takahashi who made the decision to close the doors.

"You know, I think I would like it if San Franciscans would just kinda take a look at this," says Alcario. "We decriminalized medical marijuana, we pioneered equal rights. But in the same town you're gearing laws specifically to make it hard on me," 

About 3 minutes. Produced by Alex Manning. Filmed by Paul Detrick. Music by Podington Bear.

NEXT: The Wickedness of Our Foreign Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Liberal = Facist

    1. I don’t know how any normal person in his right mind can tolerate being around that Bay Area scum all the time.

  2. “I would never introduce legislation to hurt a small business….however”

    1. “Out of sight, out of mind” is the new “What is seen, and what is unseen”.

  3. Do the San Fran cops also require stores to provide customer information on who is buying Big Gulps or food high in trans fats?
    Those things kill more people than guns.

    1. Yeah, but guns are scaaaaaaary!

  4. Doesn’t the SFPD require bars to maintain video surveillence systems for the convenience of the police department without benefit of an ordinance so why do they even need a law if they can just make it so?

  5. This situation is bathed in irony. Progressives fancy themselves as “scientifically” minded yet there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence here to back up their assertion. Of course there would be no gun violence if there were no guns at all, but that is not the same as no violence at all. Furthermore, they claim to speak for the average worker while at the same time driving out of business the very job-giver they claim to champion. Considering the fact that their policies often produce the opposite of their stated intention, one is left wondering whether progressives are less fact-based than they claim, or whether they actually intend something quite different from what they profess.

    1. I asked joe the holistic midget the other day this question and received no answer, not that I was expecting one:

      JW|10.29.15 @ 9:53PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

      What’s wrong, joe? Are you one of the primitive animists who believe that guns have a special power of to act on their own?

      It’s funny when twits like you show up.. People can kill each other at any time. You don’t need a gun. Humans perfected killing one another centuries before the gun came onto the scene.

      Any object will do. A rock, a brick, something sharp to slice at someone, a car to run people down, gasoline in a glass bottle and a lighter.

      But yet, people don’t. Why do you think that is?

    2. Progressives are inherently inconsistent and contradictory. Where their policies make sense and consistent is if you look at it in terms of control

      1. Well, it would be easier to control you if it weren’t for all those guns…!

    3. You have to think like a proggie to understand proggies. After all the guns are gone, they can take away the rest of your constitutional rights, starting with that pesky first amendment.

      1. common-sense speech control

        1. Now you’re getting it…

        2. Look, money isn’t speech and corporations aren’t people, so banning that movie is acceptable.

    4. They feel it’s true so it must be true. They feel it!

  6. Why Did San Francisco’s Last Gun Shop Close Its Doors?

    FYTW?

  7. Is this the gun store where Diane Feinstein bought her guns?

    1. Party Members have access to amenities that the Proles do not. Quit questioning your social betters.

  8. OT.
    Somebody would:
    “Margaret Cho: ‘I was a sex worker'”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydi…..ex-worker/

    1. When you’re down to your last seven dollars in Vegas and absolutely need a blowjob….

      …that’s when you call Margaret Cho.

      /shudder

      1. BTW, I do have to give her props. Most lefties by now are howling about how sex-work is RAPE!!!!

    2. Are you able to comment over there or have they permanently blocked your IP?

      1. I’m sure I can get around whatever blockage they have, but I haven’t even signed up for the ‘high-priced spread’; I read SF gate and don’t bother with the comments on that.

    3. Unless there is something truly amazing below that neck, I have to say that you have to be truly desperate to pay for that, that is the stuff of nightmares. That’s why god gave men hands.

    4. Bullshit.

      She is just trying to get her ‘victim of the patriarchy’ creds.

    5. She was totally doable back in the day.

  9. I am sure she had hers delivered to her mansion.

    Off topic SF progressive derp: Thieves should not be called criminals but rather, “the person who stole my…”
    Just when you think they cannot possibly get any more ridiculous the progressives here try and top themselves.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..9300001766

    1. If we called thieves criminals, we’d have to call the government a bunch of criminals too

    2. people of curiosity

      1. People having an alternative lived experience of possession.

    3. These people aren’t criminals you heartless rogues.

      They are simply undocumented owners.

      I find it quite disgusting that this proggie tells one victim that even if they can’t afford to replace their stolen property they can live without it but fails to see that the thief could likewise have lived without it. She tell him to check his privledge because his gym bag was stolen at an upscale gym while never stopping to think that so was the thief either a member of the gym or a paid employee of it. I doubt the gym allows non members free access to the property.

      What has led to the explosion of this idiocy in the last few years ? Where did it come from ? Is it just a result of far left ding bats feeling emboldened because of Obama ? It’s getting plumb effing crazy out there. Do they see no correlation between their actions and the predictions of the same by Orwell?

      I encourage you all to read a book by Ken Wilber, an MIT prog. It is titled ” Boomeritis” and he goes in dept to explain the progressive mind set and perfectly, in my mind, explains the reasons behind their words and deeds. A very hard read but very enlightening. Even Wilber realizes this as he adds one episode of gratutious sex in each chapter to get you to read until the very end which you must do to get the entire picture.

      1. It isnt important to know where it came from. It is important to know where it is going.

      2. Yes, and the so-called stolen property is just “differently acquired.”

    4. Impatient socialists

    5. I love how the guy who got his bike stolen makes as though the race, gender, disability, and socioeconomic status of the “person who stole his bike” makes a difference whether this person is a criminal or not.

      1. There’s the classic story I can’t find right now… of a San Fran hipster-transplant drunkenly witnessing a crime (bike robbery / iphone mugging of a friend)… then bitching at the police afterward, whining about their behavior … (i can’t remember what the issue was = whether they said, ‘you can’t report a crime then not press charges’ or what it was)… and ending up spending a night in jail themselves….. then writing this story for Medium (or someone), and describing their experience like it was Midnight Express and the greatest injustice since Steven Biko died in prison.

        Yet everything they complained about was exactly the consequence of their control-freak worldview where police enforce every little goddamn detailed little “There oughta be a law!”-idea that san-francisco progs had come up with. there was even a brief awareness of this paradox, then rejected, because Bad Things Shouldnt Happen To Good People…

        I really wish i could find it. I was a viral story like a year or 2 ago.

        1. Although i found this while looking for it, and it was mildly rewarding =

          Hipster seeks out “gritty” part of Brooklyn to get feel for “Pre-gentrified New York” = gets mugged, immediately moves back to San Francisco

          I found it funny because Bushwick has been ‘gentrified’ since the late 1990s, by any NY measure. By which i mean, there are a number of ‘islands’ of whitebred hipsterville. If you happen to not know how to act between those islands, yes, you can get jacked while alone at 3AM. I almost invested in a loft there in 1998, but passed because I didn’t trust myself or my buddies to successfully install an industrial space-heater and expect it to work effectively in the dead of winter.

          1. OMFG “a scrappy loft neighborhood full of young bohemians camping in their studios” = “pre-gentrified New York” I just can’t even.

            You know what else is like “pre-gentrified New York”? Any of dozens of other neighborhoods in Brooklyn that are full of families and young professionals but aren’t trendy enough for this twat.

            1. “You know what else is like “pre-gentrified New York”

              Five Points in the 19th century during a cholera outbreak?

              1. NYC was so much more edgy back then.

    6. “But perhaps, if you took a moment to look around and see what this city has become, you’ll understand.”

      Fuck me to tears, this is the city you and your prog ilk built!

  10. Now that we are rid of those evul gunz, we can focus on the next issue, we can get rid of te evul first amendment. Free speech only in special ‘free speech zones’, and there are no free speech zones. We’ll make them like a carbon trading scheme, you can purchase one from the gubmint, for the right price. Of course that needs to be well regulated, we can’t just let any serf buy a free speech zone, there would be anarchy!

    1. I don’t think it’s mentioned often enough how closely linked the first and second amendment are. Considering there are people in this world that equate words with incitement to violence, and I’m not just talking about progs, how are you going to defend yourself when you offend the wrong person? If you don’t think you should even be allowed to defend yourself, you have no choice but to kowtow to the violent, easily offended types. Free speech is seen as a threat to safety.

  11. “I would never introduce legislation to hurt a small business in our city,” Farrell told the local NBC affiliate. “However, if a gun store in particular wants to close as a result of it, so be it.”

    Like that wasn’t the goal from the beginning.

    1. That’s almost as icky as the way people righteously insisted, “Obamacare didn’t FORCE insurance companies to drop anyone’s coverage!!”

      i.e. when the, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan“-promise turned out to mean…. “Millions of people will lose their plans because the ACA requires coverage which existing plans wont meet”…

      … everyone in the progosphere spluttered that “well, it was THEIR FAULT for not complying!”

      There are a dozen arguments along these lines at the usual sources (thinkprogress, dailykos, huffpo, TPM, etc)

      – “These companies chose to drop coverage because they didn’t want to join the future and comply”
      – “The plans they offered were ‘defective’ anyway and ripping people off (despite being far more ‘affordable’) – your coverage was “lousy” and you don’t know what’s good for yourself anyway”
      – “You’re probably lying because you hate America”
      – “Oh, so now you can’t even buy new coverage because the Government Website is down? You probably want to go back to the insanity we had before when children were dying in the street and fat-cat insurers were burning cripples on money-bonfires”

      1. My individual policy had better coverage with lower deductibles and was way way cheaper than the bronze plans.

        1. same here but the typical lefty refrain is that I’m to stupid to know that it wasn’t better

    2. Farrell is far from the worst on the BoS, but he’s trying.

    3. if a gun store in particular

      Yeah, that’s the key part of that statement. So be it if the store that is affected is the wrong kind of store.

      1. It was indeed the wrong kind of store. It was a store owned by someone who doesn’t ask permission and obey orders from idiots. Leftists have no use for that kind of store. Or person.

      2. If it was the last one, it was one store in particular…

  12. OT =

    Anyone who enjoyed “The Martian”, Adam Savage has a podcast/intervew up with Andy Weir and the Canadian astronaut guy whatshisname. I don’t pay attention to anything else on the Tested channel, but the Savage podcasts are good stuff.

  13. To the alleged human being that willingly resides in SF, you are truly a piece of human debris. Get the Hell out of my country and go live in Tehran, or Ho Chi Minh City, or Caracas, or Havana.

  14. “Shall not be infringed”. Like, what the hell don’t they get? So if they can ignore the constitution, I guess we can ignore the parts about taxes.

    Want to raise the debt ceiling? No taxes for you. Sadly, a mass protest wouldn’t happen. Without top men, or “limited gov’t” there would be ChaOS!!!! Cause people being free would be terrible. “Limited slavery cause DEFeNSES and RoaDZ!!!!!

  15. What I find (very mildly) funny is that how they have, through their desire for control, legislated gun stores out of their city and thus no longer have any control of that market in their city. There will still be gun owners in SF, they will just have to go to gun stores in adjacent cities now.

  16. Heh. I own a Model 23 Glock (.40 cal.) as depicted here.

    Note to self. Steer clear of the bay area. Disclaimer: I’m from Cali and already know this.

    1. I don’t know how but if you have a CCW permit in Cali its still not valid in SF

  17. Looks like these hippies are the new elite and they don’t want to see the peasants owning a gun as shown in this webcomic from 2009 titled “Anarchy in Your head”. http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2…..-peasants/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.