View Full Version : Gun advocates blast firearms laws proposed for San Mateo County

12-16-2009, 4:28 PM

By Shaun Bishop

Daily News Staff Writer

Posted: 12/15/2009 10:39:49 PM PST
Updated: 12/15/2009 10:39:50 PM PST

More than a dozen gun rights advocates spoke out Tuesday against two gun control ordinances proposed by a San Mateo County supervisor.

Although Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson asked at the beginning of the board meeting that both proposed ordinances be pulled from the agenda, that didn't speakers from attacking the proposals.

"I'm offended you think so little of my civil liberties to actually place this item on the agenda," said Minder Singh, a resident of an unincorporated part of the county, one of about two dozen people who showed up for the issue.

The first ordinance would impose new regulations on firearms dealers in the unincorporated areas of the county, including a requirement that they be at least 1,500 feet from places such as schools, parks, community centers, liquor stores and youth centers. Dealers would also have to obtain a license from the sheriff's office every year, take measures to secure their stores, conduct background checks on employees and maintain ammunition sales laws.

A second ordinance would require gun owners in unincorporated areas to report lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours of when the owner "knew or reasonably should have known" the gun was gone. A violation would be a misdemeanor.

Tuesday's meeting came after an attorney for the National Rifle Association sent a letter threatening to sue if the county passed the ordinances.

Jacobs Gibson did not speak about the ordinances at the meeting



and has not returned calls for comment on the issue, but stated in a county memo the ordinances are "an effort to address youth gun violence and prevention."

In a memo released late Monday, Jacobs Gibson said the proposed ordinances "generated significant interest" and she asked that they be postponed to "afford the opportunity for greater dialogue about creating safer communities." The supervisors did not set another date to the address the proposals.

Several speakers, including some residents from elsewhere in the Bay Area, told the supervisors that the ordinances are impractical and illegal.

Kevin Thomason, a board member of the Calguns Foundation, which has an office in Redwood Shores, said restricting firearms dealers will not reduce crime. He said he lives in Oakland, where gun violence is prevalent but there are few gun dealers.

"I think gun control doesn't work and I think Oakland is a fine example," Thomason told the board.

David Menche, a 46-year Redwood City resident, said the 48-hour reporting ordinance is "really not going to do anything except be a burden on legal gun owners."

After the meeting, San Jose resident Bill Wiese said he felt there was little public notice about the ordinance, though there have been active discussions in online gun forums.

"There's been a lot of concern all over the gun community," said Wiese, also a member of the Calguns Foundation.

E-mail Shaun Bishop at sbishop@dailynewsgroup.com.

12-16-2009, 4:30 PM
Thanks to all who attended...

12-16-2009, 4:34 PM
Who are these Calguns Foundation people? They are all over the news :D

One big HOOOAH to you guys that attended.

12-16-2009, 5:21 PM
Winning the battles eventually means winning the war.
Thanks to all who attended and helped swat this crap down.

12-16-2009, 6:01 PM
You can bold Minder Singh as well, he's a calguns member :)

12-16-2009, 6:03 PM
I don't get it, other than just another level of rules that wont actually do anything, whats wrong with requiring stolen guns to be reported? Is there a reason NOT to report them or is the issue the misdemeanor offense?

12-16-2009, 6:04 PM
You can bold Minder Singh as well, he's a calguns member :)

I just got something in the mail from Mr. Minder Singh....:D

You guys rock. All of you.

12-16-2009, 6:06 PM
Criminalizing victims is criminal.

12-17-2009, 6:40 AM
The reporting rule is dumb because it said "when you should have known" not when you know. If you go on a two week vacation, get robbed the day after you leave and the gun is used in a crime the day before you get back, you could be convicted of violating that law.

Also, the main point of proposing these ordinances was to add on to them later so that they could stop people from buying any ammo and then make theft a real risk to criminal prosecution so people will get rid of their guns.

Make no mistake, the LCAV's and Brady's still hate guns, they are just trying to find a strategy to take them away or make them useless in a way that we can't stop.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.