Firearms manufacturers, lawyers and pro-handgun residents of San Francisco are wondering what's next following passage of Proposition H, the measure that bans all handguns in San Francisco County. The measure's passage by a nearly seventeen percent margin effectively means that on April 1, 2006, anyone owning or possessing a handgun in San Francisco becomes a criminal.

While that may be the short version, it's certainly not an adequate reflection of the myriad issues Proposition H raises. The measure may have been popular enough to win passage, but it fails to address - even superficially - methods for enforcing such a sweeping dictate. Methods of collecting, cataloging, or even disposing of the thousands of firearms that may be in the hands of San Francisco residents aren't spelled out. The proponents of the measure candidly admit they have only the roughest of estimates of the number of firearms actually inside San Francisco County; much less how many are handguns - the supposed target of the measure.

Opponents point to several other potential problems, including whether off-duty or retired police officers will be permitted to carry handguns, and a failure to address what can be done with firearms either seized or surrendered under the ban. After all, Proposition H prohibits "any firearms commerce" inside the county. Police officials, who had gone on record opposing what they called an "unenforceable" measure, say the ban means they can no longer legally purchase firearms, parts or ammunition. There is no exception granted in the measure for law enforcement, it says, simply, that firearms commerce is banned in San Francisco.

Police officials also have another financial concern they say is inadequately addressed: it also appears city and county governments will be banned from selling confiscated firearms to federally licensed dealers and distributors.

Nationally, police use the proceeds from such sales (generally permitted under RICO' "ill gotten gains" statues) as a source for revenues to purchase equipment and training not provided by their operating budgets. In its present form, Proposition H would ban that practice, a budget hit that union leaders say will further impede officers' abilities to do their jobs properly - and safely.

Firearms and ammunition manufacturers are also asking questions.

Last week, following passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, the National Shooting Sports Foundation announced plans to "fold" the previously independent Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Fund into overall NSSF operations as an "operational efficiency".

The Heritage Fund was created through financial contributions of firearms manufacturers to combat frivolous lawsuits and encourage legislative efforts to protect firearms and ammunition manufacturers. Today, some companies may consider the NSSF absorption play may be "premature." In an interview earlier this week, NSSF counsel Larry Keane said two or more years of legal actions before the lawsuits pertaining to the legislation were "likely."

Now, Proposition H represents yet another legal battle manufacturers must either choose to fight or write San Francisco out of any business planning. While that might not look like a significant sacrifice in itself, industry observers say a failure to fight Proposition H would quickly lead to similar measures appearing on other ballots across the nation.

Some are quietly encouraging a refusal to conduct business with San Francisco, mimicking the actions taken by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing following a Los Angeles ban on .50 caliber firearms.

After adoption of the private ownership ban in Los Angeles, Barrett Firearms owner Ronnie Barrett notified LAPD Chief William J. Bratton his company would no longer "sell nor service" LAPD's Barrett rifles.

There are also several legal questions to be decided, including the city's right to pass measures which supplant state laws regarding firearms ownership; and the obvious disconnect that says non-residents of San Francisco are not banned from firearms possession there, provided, of course, they do not violate any other statutes.

While the dust is far from settled from Proposition H, it's certain there's yet another conflict brewing for the firearms and ammunition industries.