View Full Version : Questions about LAMC 103.314q.

01-17-2010, 7:24 PM
This is that sign that is posted in gun stores in Los Angeles and it is also the tag that they put on your gun. Here are my questions.

1. Why hasn't someone had this code repealed?
2. Isn't this past its expiration date?
3. Can't someone sue for grossly misinforming the public?


Motion - It is a priority of the City of Los Angeles to maintain a safe environment for its residents.
The significant number of incidents involving the use of a firearm in the home is one area where
public information and enforcement measures must be enhanced to better protect the public.
According to the Brady Campaign, firearms kept in the home for self-protection are more often used
against an acquaintance or a family member than against an intruder in self defense. A firearm kept
in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or
homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used justifiably to injure or kill in
self-defense. In addition, when someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two
percent of home invasion crimes. The 2005 Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report
shows there were 143 justifiable homicides committed with the use of a firearm, compared with
10,100 murders committed with a firearm. A Johns Hopkins University study found that although
many citizens keep a gun in the home for protection, guns are rarely used for this purpose. This
study also found that in homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost three
times more likely to occur than in homes without guns. In addition, a University of Washington
Department of Health Services study concluded that keeping a gun in the home locked, unloaded,
storing ammunition locked, and in a separate location are each associated with a protective effect
and suggest a feasible strategy to reduce these types of injuries in homes with children and
teenagers where guns are stored. In 2005, Assemblymember Mark Ridley-Thomas introduced AB
944, legislation that would have required firearms dealers to conspicuously post a warning in their
place of business regarding the dangers of having a gun in the home. A similar warning would have
also been printed on all firearms sales contracts. The bill failed to pass although it was supported by
the City of Los Angeles as well as organizations such as the Trauma Foundation and the Brady
Campaign. In an effort to reduce gun-related incidents in the home, the City should enact an
ordinance that mirrors the provisions contained in AB 944. A visual warning reminding customers
that there is a greater likelihood of being killed or injured by a family member rather than by an
intruder would bring to their attention this information and their responsibility in purchasing a
firearm for home protection. THEREFORE MOVE, that the Council request the City Attorney, with the
assistance of the Los Angeles Police Department, to draft an ordinance that would require firearms
dealers to post, conspicuously, a warning of the dangers of possessing a firearm within their place
of business and to include such a warning on firearms sales contracts.
Last Change Date Expiration Date
09/26/2008 09/09/2010

01-17-2010, 8:42 PM
Although a purposeful slap in the face to all common citizens everywhere with a modicum of brain matter between their ears, it's pretty harmless when you look at priorities. Then again you don't ever have to wonder why the city is screwed up when you can point to the obvious.

It's also a good indication of the lack of said brain matter between the ears of listed proponents. You know the ones: Mark-Ridley-Thomas, Bernard Parks, Wendy Greuel, Janice Hahn, Greig Smith, Herb Wesson, and all the rest of the bubble world living cabal of freedom haters.

It would be a worthwhile project to debunk the "research" and send each one a written statement.

Shotgun Man
02-05-2010, 3:17 PM
Such ridiculousness.

Is it any wonder the city of LA is on the verge bankruptcy?

02-05-2010, 7:19 PM
9/9/2010 is not here yet, so no, it's not expired.

02-08-2010, 8:30 AM
9/9/2010 is not here yet, so no, it's not expired.

Actually, there is no expiration date for the ordinance. The expiration date mentioned is the last date on which action can be taken on the file, not when the ordinance ceases to be in effect. I answered all of the posed questions here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=266926&highlight=LAMC