PDA

View Full Version : CALNRA: Oakland to Consider Gun Control Ordinances


mikehaas
01-29-2010, 9:18 PM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://calnra.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
CALNRA: Oakland to Consider Gun Control Ordinances
01/29/2010 9:00 PM - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER GUN CONTROL ORDINANCES

Next Tuesday, February 2, 2010, at 6:00 PM, the Oakland City Council will consider adoption of several ordinances that impact the rights of lawful gun owners in that County. One ordinance will require that all firearms that are lost or stolen be reported to law enforcement when the owner knew or should have known it was lost or stolen. Another ordinance is an extensive, draconian regulation of firearms, firearm components, and ammunition vendors, which will basically make it impossible to have a gun store in the City of Oakland.

Only about a month after LCAV failed to convince the County of San Mateo (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=sanmateoord) to consider adopting some of LCAV’s model ordinances placing draconian regulations on firearms dealers, it is trying again in the City of Oakland.

These types of ordinances are intended solely to harass. The Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) is pushing it in Oakland because, just as in unincorporated San Mateo County, there is not an operating gun store there and they want to keep it that way. They believe that they will face little opposition.

For more detail, please visit:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=oaklandord

Check on other California firearms-related issues here:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml

Purple K
01-29-2010, 9:23 PM
Here we go again!!!!

AndrewMendez
01-29-2010, 9:32 PM
:sigh: I can not wait for incorporation!

wildhawker
01-29-2010, 9:36 PM
Marked on the calendar.

383green
01-29-2010, 9:44 PM
Wouldn't such laws be almost certain to fall in front of state preemption in court even without incorporation? How much of their taxpayers' money does Oakland want to spend on a losing proposition?

AndrewMendez
01-29-2010, 10:50 PM
Wouldn't such laws be almost certain to fall in front of state preemption in court even without incorporation?

This is what I am assuming. I wonder if they are trying to exhaust us? It makes me do nothing but remember to pay my NRA and CRPA dues, and donate to the CGF.

oaklander
01-29-2010, 10:52 PM
There will be an article about this coming out in the Oakland Tribune this weekend (maybe even tonight).

I will post it when it comes online.

383green
01-29-2010, 10:53 PM
This is what I am assuming. I wonder if they are trying to exhaust us?

Well, if they're trying to exhaust us, they're not doing a very good job by presenting us with slam-dunk preemption cases. Furthermore, I think LCAV will run out of cities and counties who don't understand preemption long before we tire of pushing their face into the deuces they keep dropping on the living room carpet.

RobG
01-29-2010, 11:01 PM
Finally some real crime control for that poor city. Its reasonable gun control. Should work perfectly:rofl2::rolleyes:

SJgunguy24
01-29-2010, 11:03 PM
Didn't the City of Oakland already run all of the gun shops out of town already with tax increases?
When will they look at the type of people they're pulling the guns off?
They are dope dealers, gang bangers and most likely not able to legally possess a firearm anyway. If they are breaking the law in the first place what makes them think they will follow a new law?

I'm amazed that these people make it through adolescence from their lack of common sense.

obeygiant
01-29-2010, 11:31 PM
Didn't the City of Oakland already run all of the gun shops out of town already with tax increases?
When will they look at the type of people they're pulling the guns off?
They are dope dealers, gang bangers and most likely not able to legally possess a firearm anyway. If they are breaking the law in the first place what makes them think they will follow a new law?

I'm amazed that these people make it through adolescence from their lack of common sense.

common sense, logic and reason appear to be absent during and after the adolescent stage of those that suffer from hoplophobia.

obeygiant
01-29-2010, 11:41 PM
Email addresses in comma delimited form:

cityclerk@oaklandnet.com, dbrooks@oaklandnet.com,jquan@oaklandnet.com,pkerni ghan@oaklandnet.com,officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.co m ,atlarge@oaklandnet.com,idelafuente@oaklandnet.com ,citymanager@oaklandnet.com,cruby@oaklandnet.com,n nadel@oaklandnet.com,lreid@oaklandnet.com ,jbrunner@oaklandnet.com,jrusso@oaklandcityattorne y.org

Phone,Fax and Email:


LaTonda Simmons
City Clerk
E-mail: cityclerk@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-3612
Voice Mail: 510-238-3611

Desley Brooks
District 6
E-mail: dbrooks@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7006
Fax: 510-238-6910


Jean Quan
District 4
E-mail: jquan@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7004
Fax: 510-238-6129

Patricia Kernighan
District 2
E-mail: pkernighan@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7002
Fax: 510-238-6910

Ron Dellums
Mayor
officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-3141
Fax: 510-238-4731
TDD: 510-238-3724

Rebecca Kaplan
At-Large
atlarge@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7008
Email: atlarge@oaklandnet.com

Ignacio De La Fuente
District 5
E-mail: idelafuente@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7005
Fax: 510-238-6129

Dan Lindheim
Acting City Administrator
citymanager@oaklandnet.com
Telephone: 510-238-3301
Fax: 510-238-2223
TTY/TDD: 510-238-3724

Courtney Ruby
City Auditor
E-mail: cruby@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510.238.3378
Fax: 510.238.7640
TDD: 510.839.6451

Nancy Nadel
District 3
E-mail: nnadel@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7003
Fax: 510-238-6129

Larry Reid
District 7
E-mail: lreid@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7007
Fax: 510-238-6910

Jane Brunner
District 1
Email: jbrunner@oaklandnet.com
Phone: 510-238-7001
Fax: 510-238-6910

John Russo
City Attorney
Email: jrusso@oaklandcityattorney.org
Phone: 510.238.3601
Fax: 510.238.6500
TTY/TDD: 510.238.3254

oaklander
01-30-2010, 12:01 AM
This document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26090818/Gun-Ordinance) contains the entire text of the proposed ordinance, along with a bunch of other happy crap.

You can clearly see that Oakland has been relying on the LCAV in this matter. Oakland's reliance is quite misplaced, since the resulting litigation will help to deplete Oakland's already empty coffers.

Gray Peterson
01-30-2010, 12:29 AM
This document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26090818/Gun-Ordinance) contains the entire text of the proposed ordinance, along with a bunch of other happy crap.

You can clearly see that Oakland has been relying on the LCAV in this matter. Oakland's reliance is quite misplaced, since the resulting litigation will help to deplete Oakland's already empty coffers.

Sounds like Gene needs to send yet another love letter....

wildhawker
01-30-2010, 12:57 AM
Calgunners, let's pack the room.

Event thread here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=264610

wildhawker
01-30-2010, 12:58 AM
Once again Obeygiant comes through!

Email addresses in comma delimited form:

cityclerk@oaklandnet.com, dbrooks@oaklandnet.com,jquan@oaklandnet.com,pkerni ghan@oaklandnet.com,officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.co m ,atlarge@oaklandnet.com,idelafuente@oaklandnet.com ,citymanager@oaklandnet.com,cruby@oaklandnet.com,n nadel@oaklandnet.com,lreid@oaklandnet.com ,jbrunner@oaklandnet.com,jrusso@oaklandcityattorne y.org

Phone,Fax and Email:

obeygiant
01-30-2010, 1:25 AM
This document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26090818/Gun-Ordinance) contains the entire text of the proposed ordinance, along with a bunch of other happy crap.

You can clearly see that Oakland has been relying on the LCAV in this matter. Oakland's reliance is quite misplaced, since the resulting litigation will help to deplete Oakland's already empty coffers.

From Page 3.

As of the writing of this report there is only one federally licensed firearms dealer in Oakland.

So, lets run the last licensed firearm dealer out of Oakland with some additional law.

From Page 4.

KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
Injuries and deaths resulting from gun violence continue to be a significant threat to public safety, endangering both citizens and law enforcement personnel. In 2008, 89% of homicides in the City of Oakland were gun related; of that 89%, 78% were committed using a handgun. As of October 2009, 88% of Oakland homicides were gun related.

According to data provided by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), from 2007-2009 traceable firearms were involved in a significant number of crimes in Oakland. The ability to trace firearms allows local law enforcement agencies to track the chain of custody of a firearm through the licensed distribution system to the original owner. Oakland-specific data from these tracings suggest that in 2007, a total of 200 firearms were traced backed to felons in illegal possession of a firearm. In 2008, this number jumped to 263, and as of December 9, 2009 the number increased to 283. In 2008, a total of 89 firearms were traceable in cocaine sells and 42 were traceable in robberies. Although most registered gun owners are responsible citizens, the fact that a significant number of these firearms were involved in a crime demonstrates a need to better educate potential gun owners and strengthen existing local laws.

Although most guns and ammunition used in the commission of crimes in Oakland are not legally purchased in Oakland, it is important to strengthen our local gun control laws to continue to discourage the irresponsible sale and distribution of guns in Oakland. Strengthening the municipal code provides the Police Department with additional tools to address gun related violence.

These proposed changes to the OMC will allow the OPD to:
• Better monitor who is legally purchasing guns and ammunition in the City;
• Educate potential and current gun owners on gun safety; and
• Provide an additional tool to assist in the apprehension of potentially dangerous individuals who may attempt to acquire ammunifion for illegally obtained firearms.

They acknowledge that

firearms were traced backed to felons in illegal possession of a firearm
most registered gun owners are responsible citizens
the guns and ammunition are not legally purchased in Oakland


Yet they still want to fix the problem by passing ordinances that further restrict the law abiding citizen. :chris:

jdberger
01-30-2010, 1:36 AM
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that LCAV is walking into these things promising some sort of pro-bono representation to the Counties and Cities.

I wonder there would be some discoverable information there....maybe something that our local PRAR guru could find....:)

obeygiant
01-30-2010, 1:38 AM
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that LCAV is walking into these things promising some sort of pro-bono representation to the Counties and Cities.

I wonder there would be some discoverable information there....maybe something that our local PRAR guru could find....:)

+1 I've been thinking the same thing.

oaklander
01-30-2010, 1:47 AM
The most ironic thing about this is that I am almost 100 percent certain that *I* am that single FFL. They are just about stupid enough not to know the difference between an 01 and an 03.

From Page 3.


So, lets run the last licensed firearm dealer out of Oakland with some additional law.

obeygiant
01-30-2010, 1:52 AM
Upon further reading it also states that this was submitted by


Jean Quan - Council Member District 4
Larry Reid - President Pro Tempore City Council
Anthony Batts - Chief of Police


And the previous ordinance was passed by
AYES- BROOKS, KAPLAN, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN, REID, and PRESIDENT BRUNNER

nobody_special
01-30-2010, 2:02 AM
The most ironic thing about this is that I am almost 100 percent certain that *I* am that single FFL. They are just about stupid enough not to know the difference between an 01 and an 03.

I'm not even sure what to make of that... all of the following come to mind:

:rofl: :nuts: :notworthy:

Let's hope this gets nipped in the bud.

oaklander
01-30-2010, 4:39 AM
FOLKS - THIS IS THIS COMING TUESDAY!!!!!

2/2/2010

http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/m...ing_Agenda.pdf

ETA: it appears that the easiest way to speak on this item is to fill out a speaker card online (print out the confirmation page - they require it to speak). You do not need to include your addy or phone.

Click here to see the rules (then click continue to fill out a card).

http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/...structions.htm

Note that the agenda item is S-10.13-CC ("S" stands for supplemental, "10" stands for Consent Calendar, 13 is the actual agenda item number, and "CC" also stands for Consent Calendar - I know it's stupid).

cdtx2001
01-30-2010, 6:55 AM
So they don't want any new gun stores in Oakland, and they say it will reduce gun violence, yet there seems to be a ton of unregistered illegal guns.

I wonder if they know that whether legal or illegal, the evildoers will get their guns.

DoesItGoBang
01-30-2010, 8:03 AM
Howdy all, long time lurker but first time poster. Never had much to add to the great post on the site until now.

There is a FFL holder in Oakland! AK Industries LLC
www.akindustriesllc.com
Phone: 415-572-0885
Email: info@akindustriesllc.com
Adddress: 2969 E. 7th Street
Oakland, CA 94601

By the looks of their website it looks like the general public is low piority and they are likey to get a pass based on their cliental.

Keep up the good fight.

BroncoBob
01-30-2010, 8:56 AM
Howdy all, long time lurker but first time poster. Never had much to add to the great post on the site until now.

There is a FFL holder in Oakland! AK Industries LLC
www.akindustriesllc.com
Phone: 415-572-0885
Email: info@akindustriesllc.com
Adddress: 2969 E. 7th Street
Oakland, CA 94601

By the looks of their website it looks like the general public is low piority and they are likey to get a pass based on their cliental.

Keep up the good fight.


Interesting tidbit from their website
We are based in Oakland, CA and have a liaison office in Pasig City, Greater Manila, Philippines to serve our local clients.

oaklander
01-30-2010, 9:07 AM
This information is useful and will be forwarded to the right people. Thank you.

Howdy all, long time lurker but first time poster. Never had much to add to the great post on the site until now.

There is a FFL holder in Oakland! AK Industries LLC
www.akindustriesllc.com
Phone: 415-572-0885
Email: info@akindustriesllc.com
Adddress: 2969 E. 7th Street
Oakland, CA 94601

By the looks of their website it looks like the general public is low piority and they are likey to get a pass based on their cliental.

Keep up the good fight.

HUTCH 7.62
01-30-2010, 9:23 AM
Oakland sucks Gun laws galore but gun related violence high.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
01-30-2010, 2:58 PM
I did not want to keep everyone in suspense on what action will be taken, so I am posting this to let everyone know that we are preparing an opposition letter to these amendments. I will post again to let everyone know when and where it is available. Please do not forget to e-mail and/or call the Oakland City Council and voice your opposition to these unreasonable, harassing amendments.

obeygiant
01-30-2010, 3:18 PM
I did not want to keep everyone in suspense on what action will be taken, so I am posting this to let everyone know that we are preparing an opposition letter to these amendments. I will post again to let everyone know when and where it is available. Please do not forget to e-mail and/or call the Oakland City Council and voice your opposition to these unreasonable, harassing amendments.

This is always good news. Now it's time for us as members of CGN to spread the love as well. :43:

obeygiant
01-30-2010, 3:19 PM
Howdy all, long time lurker but first time poster. Never had much to add to the great post on the site until now.

There is a FFL holder in Oakland! AK Industries LLC
www.akindustriesllc.com
Phone: 415-572-0885
Email: info@akindustriesllc.com
Adddress: 2969 E. 7th Street
Oakland, CA 94601

By the looks of their website it looks like the general public is low piority and they are likey to get a pass based on their cliental.

Keep up the good fight.

Welcome to CGN and thank you for the FFL information as well.

Python2
01-30-2010, 3:21 PM
Interesting tidbit from their website
We are based in Oakland, CA and have a liaison office in Pasig City, Greater Manila, Philippines to serve our local clients.

OT but inreresting indeed. I wonder if they have anything to do in the selling/transaction of all the high powered weapons discovered in the Ampatuan massacre in sourthern Philippines (over fifty and about half were journalist and the rest in the opposing candidate side) recently. These weapons are not available in local gun stores. The governor his mayor son and another related high official who are suspect are currently in custody and their area under marshall law.

obeygiant
01-30-2010, 3:22 PM
FOLKS - THIS IS THIS COMING TUESDAY!!!!!

2/2/2010

http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/m...ing_Agenda.pdf

ETA: it appears that the easiest way to speak on this item is to fill out a speaker card online (print out the confirmation page - they require it to speak). You do not need to include your addy or phone.

Click here to see the rules (then click continue to fill out a card).

http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/...structions.htm

Note that the agenda item is S-10.13-CC ("S" stands for supplemental, "10" stands for Consent Calendar, 13 is the actual agenda item number, and "CC" also stands for Consent Calendar - I know it's stupid).

Agenda can be found here (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/meetings/2010/2/5884_A_Concurrent_Meeting_of_the_Oakland_Redevelop ment_Agency___City_Council_10-02-02_Meeting_Agenda.pdf)
Instructions/rules link can be found here (http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/speaker_instructions.htm)
Online speaker card form here (http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/speakerupdate.asp)

oaklander
01-31-2010, 1:09 AM
Bump - we NEED people at that meeting!

Agenda can be found here (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/meetings/2010/2/5890_A__Public_Safety_Committee_10-02-09_Meeting_Agenda.pdf)
Instructions/rules link can be found here (http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/speaker_instructions.htm)
Online speaker card form here (http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/speakerupdate.asp)

mikehaas
01-31-2010, 8:46 PM
CALNRA ONE-CLICK Message Report (from 1/29 to 1/31):

Total ONE-CLICK messages sent to OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL regarding ORDINANCES: 1

I know we're all contitutional attorneys with busy, busy schedules and important opinions to render on calguns, but I heard a rumour that NRA wants us to do this...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#oneclick

Pretty silly idea, right? Surely the Oakland City Council will read calguns and thereby be enlightened as to the error of their ways. Easy for them and easy for us. They don't have to deal with emails from concerned gun owners and we don't have to write 'em.

Someone should tell NRA about this idea!

wildhawker
01-31-2010, 9:00 PM
This is a bit uncalled for Mike. I understand what you're trying to do here, and I believe you'll find that taking a more humble approach gets better results.

That said, I do believe we are going to send out an email blast and will include the one-click info.

I don't work for the NRA. We *are* the NRA, and the NRA might find that being abrasive and divisive to its more active and effective members is unwise.

CALNRA ONE-CLICK Message Report (from 1/29 to 1/31):

Total ONE-CLICK messages sent to OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL regarding ORDINANCES: 1

I know we're all contitutional attorneys with busy, busy schedules and important opinions to render on calguns, but I heard a rumour that NRA wants us to do this...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#oneclick

Pretty silly idea, right? Surely the Oakland City Council will read calguns and thereby be enlightened as to the error of their ways. Easy for them and easy for us. They don't have to deal with emails from concerned gun owners and we don't have to write 'em.

Someone should tell NRA about this idea!

ugimports
01-31-2010, 9:22 PM
The most ironic thing about this is that I am almost 100 percent certain that *I* am that single FFL. They are just about stupid enough not to know the difference between an 01 and an 03.

I actually found 1 x FFL01s in Oakland:

http://www.akindustriesllc.com/contact.asp

Funny the people they're trying to run out service the LEOs..

obeygiant
01-31-2010, 9:24 PM
CALNRA ONE-CLICK Message Report (from 1/29 to 1/31):

Total ONE-CLICK messages sent to OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL regarding ORDINANCES: 1


Make that 2

7x57
01-31-2010, 9:25 PM
I don't work for the NRA. We *are* the NRA, and the NRA might find that being abrasive and divisive to its more active and effective members is unwise.

I read Mike's post as being somewhat ironic. I agree it mostly didn't quite fly (except the remark about being important Constitutional attorneys rendering opinions on calguns--I laughed at that), but hey--I make jokes that fall flat too.

I'm nowhere near Oakland, so I can't do more than the web drill. :(

I look forward to the action report from the front line.

7x57

obeygiant
01-31-2010, 9:28 PM
To make things even easier click the link below:
Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL against NEW! OAKLAND ORDINANCES (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=oaklandord&year=2010)

Direct email link removed per:

While I really appreciate the effort to provide a link to help encourage people to pitch-in and participate, I strongly caution against providing such links as assistance. I'll explain why.

Because both automated and manual spammers collect such links to send offers of items to sell, as well as off-topic political commentary, we frequently change the email address for the One-Click tool In this way, spammers are unsuccessful when they try to use our powerful tools such as the One-Click.

There is a very good possibility that this link will be changed at any time. That is why it is best to click through to the generic link that says, "Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL" under the "O N E - C L I C K M E S S A G E C E N T E R" at http://calnra.com/legs.shtml .

BTW, I have just checked and it is almost unbelievable how few people have sent in emails through the One-Click system that we make available for everyone. It doesn't matter that we don't live in Oakland. We are all in this fight for the Second Amendment together and we really should do whatever we can to help defeat this attack on our freedoms.

Thanks in advance for your efforts. Times like this are when the-rubber-meets-the-road and its up to us to get the job done.

Paul

H Paul Payne
01-31-2010, 10:49 PM
To make things even easier click the link below:Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL against NEW! OAKLAND ORDINANCES (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=oaklandord&year=2010)
While I really appreciate the effort to provide a link to help encourage people to pitch-in and participate, I strongly caution against providing such links as assistance. I'll explain why.

Because both automated and manual spammers collect such links to send offers of items to sell, as well as off-topic political commentary, we frequently change the email address for the One-Click tool In this way, spammers are unsuccessful when they try to use our powerful tools such as the One-Click.

There is a very good possibility that this link will be changed at any time. That is why it is best to click through to the generic link that says, "Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL" under the "O N E - C L I C K M E S S A G E C E N T E R" at http://calnra.com/legs.shtml .

BTW, I have just checked and it is almost unbelievable how few people have sent in emails through the One-Click system that we make available for everyone. It doesn't matter that we don't live in Oakland. We are all in this fight for the Second Amendment together and we really should do whatever we can to help defeat this attack on our freedoms.

Thanks in advance for your efforts. Times like this are when the-rubber-meets-the-road and its up to us to get the job done.

Paul

oaklander
01-31-2010, 11:12 PM
Actually this is more about limiting competition.

I actually found 1 x FFL01s in Oakland:

http://www.akindustriesllc.com/contact.asp

Funny the people they're trying to run out service the LEOs..

obeygiant
01-31-2010, 11:18 PM
While I really appreciate the effort to provide a link to help encourage people to pitch-in and participate, I strongly caution against providing such links as assistance. I'll explain why.

Because both automated and manual spammers collect such links to send offers of items to sell, as well as off-topic political commentary, we frequently change the email address for the One-Click tool In this way, spammers are unsuccessful when they try to use our powerful tools such as the One-Click.

There is a very good possibility that this link will be changed at any time. That is why it is best to click through to the generic link that says, "Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the OAKLAND MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL" under the "O N E - C L I C K M E S S A G E C E N T E R" at http://calnra.com/legs.shtml .

BTW, I have just checked and it is almost unbelievable how few people have sent in emails through the One-Click system that we make available for everyone. It doesn't matter that we don't live in Oakland. We are all in this fight for the Second Amendment together and we really should do whatever we can to help defeat this attack on our freedoms.

Thanks in advance for your efforts. Times like this are when the-rubber-meets-the-road and its up to us to get the job done.

Paul




np, edited my original post so that the link is no longer there. If you'd edit your quote of me then it will be gone from this thread entirely. :)

dantodd
01-31-2010, 11:23 PM
Agenda can be found here (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/meetings/2010/2/5890_A__Public_Safety_Committee_10-02-09_Meeting_Agenda.pdf)
Instructions/rules link can be found here (http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/speaker_instructions.htm)
Online speaker card form here (http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/speakerupdate.asp)

I didn't see the ordinance in question but you just gotta love the $3million no-bid contract for their police radio system. I wonder whose brass got polished for that one.

oaklander
01-31-2010, 11:30 PM
Here's the ord., plus a LOT of background info:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26090818/Gun-Ordinance

I didn't see the ordinance in question but you just gotta love the $3million no-bid contract for their police radio system. I wonder whose brass got polished for that one.

bwiese
01-31-2010, 11:35 PM
I have just checked and it is almost unbelievable how few people have sent in emails through the One-Click system that we make available for everyone. It doesn't matter that we don't live in Oakland. We are all in this fight for the Second Amendment together and we really should do whatever we can to help defeat this attack on our freedoms.

So noted and indeed true, but I think quite a few folks that don't have a regular email client - i.e, use webmail - bypass the system and go direct. These days I'd bet more folks using PCs at home use a webmail client instead of an actual email tool like Outlook, Eudora, etc....

wildhawker
01-31-2010, 11:36 PM
Letter sent.

obeygiant
01-31-2010, 11:37 PM
For those that are unable to attend Tuesday's meeting and are interested in what happens when the Oakland City Council meets Oaklander you can watch it live here:

Windows Media

Primary (http://oakland.granicus.com/ASX.php?publish_id=2&sn=oakland.granicus.com)
Alternate (mms://helixVideoSvr.oaklandnet.com/wmtencoder/live.wmv)


Real Player Users (http://helixvideosvr.oaklandnet.com/ramgen/broadcast/encoderstream.rm)

oaklander
01-31-2010, 11:41 PM
Not sure about the other webmail clients - but gmail can be configured to act as your primary email account. This means that when you click on an email link, gmail opens a "compose mail" window.

Actually, I do not understand why people use anything except gmail for their webmail accounts.



So noted and indeed true, but I think quite a few folks that don't have a regular email client - i.e, use webmail - bypass the system and go direct. These days I'd bet more folks using PCs at home use a webmail client instead of an actual email tool like Outlook, Eudora, etc....

bwiese
01-31-2010, 11:41 PM
I didn't see the ordinance in question but you just gotta love the $3million no-bid contract for their police radio system. I wonder whose brass got polished for that one.

Motorola's sales job is easy. Police radio officers aren't radio engineer - at best they're purchasing agents that barely know FM vs. APCO25. Make it simple and easy for them to understand and change over, and the sales drop in. No knob polishing needed. Plus there's institutional history.

Kenwood/Icom/EFJohnson don't have the sales reach or ability to sustain large orgs like Moto, the latter having their GSG "Gov't Services Group".

Much of the 9/11 NYC radiocoms disaster was due to "trunked radio" being overhyped and part of their system downed (in the WTC). The rest of the system couldn't handle the mass of traffic in an emergency and couldn't go back to "simple mode" (i.e., point-to-point simplex NBFM).

bwiese
01-31-2010, 11:44 PM
Not sure about the other webmail clients - but gmail can be configured to act as your primary email account....
Actually, I do not understand why people use anything except gmail for their webmail accounts.

History + laziness + some other mail systems have been around for a long time and work very well.

Plus gawd knows what Google does with your mail.

dantodd
01-31-2010, 11:48 PM
Here's the ord., plus a LOT of background info:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26090818/Gun-Ordinance

Thanks, the problem was that the agenda posted was the next public safety committee meeting not the city council meeting.

obeygiant
02-01-2010, 12:02 AM
Thanks, the problem was that the agenda posted was the next public safety committee meeting not the city council meeting.

Sorry, my bad, here are the corrected links:

Agenda (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/meetings/2010/2/5884_A_Concurrent_Meeting_of_the_Oakland_Redevelop ment_Agency___City_Council_10-02-02_Meeting_Agenda.pdf)

Detailed Report (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=17742)

ETA:
Corrected the bad link in my first post.

oaklander
02-01-2010, 12:19 AM
LOL - agreed!

Their ability to choose ads based on the content of my emails is eerie. Sometimes I am like "get out of my head, you crazy googlers!"

:D

History + laziness + some other mail systems have been around for a long time and work very well.

Plus gawd knows what Google does with your mail.

dantodd
02-01-2010, 12:22 AM
History + laziness + some other mail systems have been around for a long time and work very well.

Plus gawd knows what Google does with your mail.

We know for sure they don't protect it very well. They have a very handy backdoor to more easily give access to any agency around the world. Apparently it was a nice enough backdoor that the Chinese used it to spy on their own people.

oaklander
02-01-2010, 12:45 AM
Eeek!

That's good to know!

:eek:

We know for sure they don't protect it very well. They have a very handy backdoor to more easily give access to any agency around the world. Apparently it was a nice enough backdoor that the Chinese used it to spy on their own people.

dantodd
02-01-2010, 1:42 AM
Eeek!

That's good to know!

:eek:

Completely OT but interesting wrt the topic at hand: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html

HUTCH 7.62
02-01-2010, 5:53 AM
Plus gawd knows what Google does with your mail.


You mean gawd knows what the chinese do with your g mail:D

Lone_Gunman
02-01-2010, 10:28 AM
I'm glad to see we can watch it live but for those of us who will be at work and unable to see it is there any way one of you CalGunners would be alowed to video the whole thing and then be able to post it later. Even just audio of it would be great. Anyone?

lockwrench
02-01-2010, 11:19 AM
Hi,

Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else on the board (I missed the discussions
surrounding the San Mateo incident) but maybe a short summary of the proposed ordinances and their implications would be useful for those
of us having difficulty accessing and/or parsing the ordinance text? Particularly since once these things acquire momentum there is a tendency
for them to spread state-wide?

For example, as I read the proposed changes to the ammunition registry of chapter 9.20, the intent is to extend AB962-type requirements to, basically, whatever AB962 left out : long-gun and shotgun ammunition AND reloading components (primers, cases, powder, bullets, "and any component thereof").

Again, extrapolated to other communities that can be expected to look
to Oakland as an example, this seems to be a pretty major expansion
of ammunition regulation. Not to mention just plain bad right now if
you happen to live in Oakland.

H Paul Payne
02-01-2010, 1:25 PM
Hi,

Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else on the board (I missed the discussions
surrounding the San Mateo incident) but maybe a short summary of the proposed ordinances and their implications would be useful for those
of us having difficulty accessing and/or parsing the ordinance text? Particularly since once these things acquire momentum there is a tendency
for them to spread state-wide?

For example, as I read the proposed changes to the ammunition registry of chapter 9.20, the intent is to extend AB962-type requirements to, basically, whatever AB962 left out : long-gun and shotgun ammunition AND reloading components (primers, cases, powder, bullets, "and any component thereof").

Again, extrapolated to other communities that can be expected to look
to Oakland as an example, this seems to be a pretty major expansion
of ammunition regulation. Not to mention just plain bad right now if
you happen to live in Oakland.
As stated in the first post on this thread: For more detail, please visit:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=oaklandord (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=oaklandord)

lockwrench
02-01-2010, 2:36 PM
Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply. Let me try to re-phrase.

I did read the CalNRA summary first-thing on its appearance.
However, my criticism is, the detailed summary isn't very, well, detailed.

For example, the impression I get from the short summary is that
the proposed regulations will make it impossible/impractical for a gun
store to exist in Oakland. Well, there aren't any gun stores in Oakland now,
and, giving that the existing regulations are very FFL-unfriendly now,
one would be left with the impression that these ordinance changes,
while annoying, are mostly posturing and don't really change much
from a practical perspective. Not likely to motivate large numbers of folks
to show/write in opposition particularly those outside Oakland. Maybe this
is part of the explanation for the anemic 'one-click' response.

On a closer reading of the ordinance text, it appears it can be interpreted
to -- just picking one example, there are more -- require sales of reloading
supplies to be face-to-face (no online sales?), fingerprinted, and reported. That's a
disturbing new twist and one that should be of considerable concern. I
could well be wrong in my understanding of either the current or the
proposed ordinance -- and will be grateful to be corrected if so. Even if
there is no real change in the Oakland ordinances, I claim the fact that a
major municipality is stirring the pot in response to the AB 962 passage, piling
on further restrictions in a manner designed to dovetail with that bill, has
potential statewide ripple effects that go well beyond the status of gun
stores in Oakland.

Please take this as constructive conversation. While I do not post often on
this board, I do closely watch and appreciate your efforts and CalNRAs.


As stated in the first post on this thread: For more detail, please visit:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=oaklandord (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=oaklandord)

obeygiant
02-01-2010, 7:19 PM
Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply. Let me try to re-phrase.

I did read the CalNRA summary first-thing on its appearance.
However, my criticism is, the detailed summary isn't very, well, detailed.

For example, the impression I get from the short summary is that
the proposed regulations will make it impossible/impractical for a gun
store to exist in Oakland. Well, there aren't any gun stores in Oakland now,
and, giving that the existing regulations are very FFL-unfriendly now,
one would be left with the impression that these ordinance changes,
while annoying, are mostly posturing and don't really change much
from a practical perspective. Not likely to motivate large numbers of folks
to show/write in opposition particularly those outside Oakland. Maybe this
is part of the explanation for the anemic 'one-click' response.

On a closer reading of the ordinance text, it appears it can be interpreted
to -- just picking one example, there are more -- require sales of reloading
supplies to be face-to-face (no online sales?), fingerprinted, and reported. That's a
disturbing new twist and one that should be of considerable concern. I
could well be wrong in my understanding of either the current or the
proposed ordinance -- and will be grateful to be corrected if so. Even if
there is no real change in the Oakland ordinances, I claim the fact that a
major municipality is stirring the pot in response to the AB 962 passage, piling
on further restrictions in a manner designed to dovetail with that bill, has
potential statewide ripple effects that go well beyond the status of gun
stores in Oakland.

Please take this as constructive conversation. While I do not post often on
this board, I do closely watch and appreciate your efforts and CalNRAs.

Did you have an opportunity to read the LCAV report that was included in Oak's post below?

Here's the ord., plus a LOT of background info:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26090818/Gun-Ordinance

JJE
02-01-2010, 8:28 PM
I one-clicked the mayor and city council:


"I have read the proposed ordinances which are scheduled to be heard by the Oakland City Council on February 2, 2010, and which would:

1) Impose additional administrative requirements on ammunition sellers in the City of Oakland beyond those recently approved throughout California in AB962.

2) Impose additional barriers to the lawful sale of ammunition to Oakland residents, including the requirement that buyers provide a fingerprint and personal data.

3) Criminalize the loss of a firearm unless the victim of the loss waives their right against self-incrimination by filing a police report.

As an Oakland resident, I am reminded on a daily basis of the number of deaths and injuries caused by criminals with handguns. However, considering that there are no firearm or ammunition retailers in Oakland that I am aware of, I must conclude that current Oakland ordinances regarding commerce in firearms or ammunition have had no effect on firearm-related violence, and that the proposed ordinances will also have no effect on this problem. Instead, these proposed ordinances will further burden lawful commerce and activity in the city, and further reinforce Oakland’s unfortunate reputation in the Bay Area and the rest of the country as a place overrun by criminal violence and a place where political leaders have so little idea about how to improve the situation that they have been reduced to over-regulating non-existent businesses and criminalizing victims of theft.

It is no secret that virtually all of the firearm violence in Oakland , as in most large cities, is confined to the poorest parts of the City which also have the least effective schools. I urge the City Council and Mayor to reject these misguided and damaging ordinances and instead do what they can to address the obvious root causes of firearm violence in Oakland : poor parenting and ineffective schooling."


I received email responses from councilmembers Quan and Nadel, both telling me that there was at least one FFL in Oakland, and Nadel in a 2nd message sent me the link to AK Industries website. I responded to both of them that AKI did not appear to sell guns or ammo to the general public, and reiterated my original comments.

lockwrench
02-01-2010, 8:57 PM
Did you have an opportunity to read the LCAV report that was included in Oak's post below?

Yes, repeatedly, as well as the original ordinance text. Not a quick
read.

H Paul Payne
02-01-2010, 10:43 PM
Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply. Let me try to re-phrase.

I did read the CalNRA summary first-thing on its appearance.
However, my criticism is, the detailed summary isn't very, well, detailed.
It's not supposed to be extremely detailed. As you correctly stated, it's a "summary."

For example, the impression I get from the short summary is that the proposed regulations will make it impossible/impractical for a gunstore to exist in Oakland. Well, there aren't any gun stores in Oakland now, and, giving that the existing regulations are very FFL-unfriendly now, one would be left with the impression that these ordinance changes, while annoying, are mostly posturing and don't really change muchfrom a practical perspective. Not likely to motivate large numbers of folks to show/write in opposition particularly those outside Oakland. Maybe this is part of the explanation for the anemic 'one-click' response.

On a closer reading of the ordinance text, it appears it can be interpreted to -- just picking one example, there are more -- require sales of reloading supplies to be face-to-face (no online sales?), fingerprinted, and reported. That's a disturbing new twist and one that should be of considerable concern. I could well be wrong in my understanding of either the current or the proposed ordinance -- and will be grateful to be corrected if so. Even if
there is no real change in the Oakland ordinances, I claim the fact that a major municipality is stirring the pot in response to the AB 962 passage, piling on further restrictions in a manner designed to dovetail with that bill, has potential statewide ripple effects that go well beyond the status of gun stores in Oakland.
I'm sure that most of these are quite good points, but it really doesn't change the intent of the alert that we distributed. I will try to explain below.
Please take this as constructive conversation. While I do not post often on
this board, I do closely watch and appreciate your efforts and CalNRAs.
Thank you for your kind and well thought-out words.

We are operating in the venue of hard-line go-for-broke politics. Those who would steal our freedoms have nothing better to do than to follow their religion of control and power. Often, there is profit in their motives, but not always.

One constant, with almost all elected officials (at most levels of government) is the fact that they must be elected, so, they fear the voters. A vote is a form of power. In other words, its a type of force. When they are confronted with this kind of "force" they fear that they won't get re-elected or elected to higher office.

When properly applied, lobbying is a demonstration of this "force," but it has not yet come. It can be perceived as something akin to a threat (of this political "force" aka vote).

When we, the grassroots, lobby in a unified effort throughout the state, it is perceived as very powerful. Years of experience has taught me that the response to our alerts is not measured by the content of the messages, but by the volume of messages. For example: If I write a multi-page very detailed dissertation regarding why the proposed ordinance is flawed, it will have the exact same influence as a message that you might write that says, "Please vote against the proposed ordinance #XXXXX."

It is for this reason that we frequently post summaries that lead to some talking points and a link to the One-Click email tool. We try to do what will be easiest for the majority of pro-Second Amendment activists to use. If it is easy, more people will normally use the tools. The more that use the tools, the more effective we are because we are able to exsert more political "force."

I hope this helps to explain why we do some of the things that we do. This message contains some generalities and does not contain exact strategic and tactical considerations. I am not willing to publicly post such details. I hope you understand why.

Paul

obeygiant
02-01-2010, 10:47 PM
For example, the impression I get from the short summary is that
the proposed regulations will make it impossible/impractical for a gun
store to exist in Oakland.
Correct

On a closer reading of the ordinance text, it appears it can be interpreted
to -- just picking one example, there are more -- require sales of reloading
supplies to be face-to-face (no online sales?), fingerprinted, and reported. That's a disturbing new twist and one that should be of considerable concern. I could well be wrong in my understanding of either the current or the proposed ordinance -- and will be grateful to be corrected if so.

they are also extending the requirements of AB962 to long guns before the law even goes into effect and appear to be applying it to reloading , as you stated earlier, with their removal of

As used in this chapter: "Ammunition" means a projectile designated
to be expelled by force of an explosion, and intended for use in any
firearm, including pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns.

from 9.20.030 - Definitions. and leaving the following

"As used in this chapter, "Ammunition" means projectiles,
cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for
use in any firearm, and any component thereof, but shall not include
blank cartridges or ammunition that can be used solely in an
"antique firearm" as that term is defined in section 921(a)(16) of Title
18 of the United States Code.



Even if there is no real change in the Oakland ordinances, I claim the fact that a major municipality is stirring the pot in response to the AB 962 passage, piling on further restrictions in a manner designed to dovetail with that bill, has potential statewide ripple effects that go well beyond the status of gun stores in Oakland.

This is also correct and the reason why we need to stop it now rather than later.

obeygiant
02-01-2010, 10:49 PM
I one-clicked the mayor and city council:


"I have read the proposed ordinances which are scheduled to be heard by the Oakland City Council on February 2, 2010, and which would:

1) Impose additional administrative requirements on ammunition sellers in the City of Oakland beyond those recently approved throughout California in AB962.

2) Impose additional barriers to the lawful sale of ammunition to Oakland residents, including the requirement that buyers provide a fingerprint and personal data.

3) Criminalize the loss of a firearm unless the victim of the loss waives their right against self-incrimination by filing a police report.

As an Oakland resident, I am reminded on a daily basis of the number of deaths and injuries caused by criminals with handguns. However, considering that there are no firearm or ammunition retailers in Oakland that I am aware of, I must conclude that current Oakland ordinances regarding commerce in firearms or ammunition have had no effect on firearm-related violence, and that the proposed ordinances will also have no effect on this problem. Instead, these proposed ordinances will further burden lawful commerce and activity in the city, and further reinforce Oakland’s unfortunate reputation in the Bay Area and the rest of the country as a place overrun by criminal violence and a place where political leaders have so little idea about how to improve the situation that they have been reduced to over-regulating non-existent businesses and criminalizing victims of theft.

It is no secret that virtually all of the firearm violence in Oakland , as in most large cities, is confined to the poorest parts of the City which also have the least effective schools. I urge the City Council and Mayor to reject these misguided and damaging ordinances and instead do what they can to address the obvious root causes of firearm violence in Oakland : poor parenting and ineffective schooling."


I received email responses from councilmembers Quan and Nadel, both telling me that there was at least one FFL in Oakland, and Nadel in a 2nd message sent me the link to AK Industries website. I responded to both of them that AKI did not appear to sell guns or ammo to the general public, and reiterated my original comments.

Nicely written and I'm glad to hear that someone got a response back even if it was pointing out what we already know. I doubt they will answer the second email but I will be interested to see what they have to say.

383green
02-01-2010, 10:53 PM
One-click message sent. Give 'em hell, guys!

HUTCH 7.62
02-02-2010, 6:01 AM
Correct



they are also extending the requirements of AB962 to long guns before the law even goes into effect and appear to be applying it to reloading , as you stated earlier, with their removal of



from 9.20.030 - Definitions. and leaving the following






This is also correct and the reason why we need to stop it now rather than later.


Give me a break like Gangbangers are going start learning to reload. Good thing Oakland's school district has educated them so poorly gonna that if they'd tried they'd probaly blow themselves up.


Unfortunately I wil not be able to make it to the meeting tonight. I must study for my Hazmat test.

johnny_22
02-02-2010, 10:17 AM
Chicago v. McDonald is putting a number of lawsuits on hold. Why would Oakland make a law that may be overturned as soon as June?

I sent them a "one-click" pointing out the problems with this proposal. We'll see if common sense is present at the City Council.

curtisfong
02-02-2010, 10:21 AM
We'll see if common sense is present at the City Council.

If history is any guide...

madmike
02-02-2010, 11:28 AM
I sent my emails today. Sorry I didn't get to them sooner.

-madmike.

Purple K
02-02-2010, 12:50 PM
Oaklander. I just got word that a good friend from work has passes away. I won't be able to make it to Oakland today. Give em' h*ll

oaklander
02-02-2010, 1:20 PM
Sorry to hear of your loss. My prayers are with you and your friend's family.

Oaklander. I just got word that a good friend from work has passes away. I won't be able to make it to Oakland today. Give em' h*ll

obeygiant
02-02-2010, 3:22 PM
Give me a break like Gangbangers are going start learning to reload. Good thing Oakland's school district has educated them so poorly gonna that if they'd tried they'd probaly blow themselves up.


Unfortunately I wil not be able to make it to the meeting tonight. I must study for my Hazmat test.

Actually the reloading part of that answer was pointing out the difficulties the proposed ordinance would make for anyone that reloads. I don't recall mentioning "Gangbangers".

obeygiant
02-02-2010, 8:12 PM
Anyone have an update? I was unable to get online in time to see the live broadcast that covered it.

lockwrench
02-02-2010, 8:28 PM
Anyone have an update? I was unable to get online in time to see the live broadcast that covered it.

Passed unanimously. Second reading/ final passage in two weeks I believe.

A bunch of amendments were rushed in at the last minute,
I'm guessing in response the the NRA letter.

There was some verbage about ABAG and how the intention was to
have similar restrictions in all Bay Area jurisdictions.

Could not hear everything, I was watching the live feed.

Robidouxs
02-02-2010, 8:30 PM
+1

Same here, I would love to hear an update before they provide the video of the meeting a week from now on the website.

Robidouxs
02-02-2010, 8:33 PM
Passed unanimously. Second reading/ final passage in two weeks I believe.

A bunch of amendments were rushed in at the last minute,
I'm guessing in response the the NRA letter.

There was some verbage about ABAG and how the intention was to
have similar restrictions in all Bay Area jurisdictions.

Could not hear everything, I was watching the live feed.


How was the representation at the meeting? I came in too late to see how many people were in attendance at the meeting.

oaklander
02-02-2010, 8:44 PM
Still away from computer. Quick notes - city appears to be deluding themself about potential litiagation risk. 3 brady people there - they spoke but didn't address actual issues. We had about 10 people there. 4 Tv stations there. We declined to be interviewed

Robidouxs
02-02-2010, 8:50 PM
Still away from computer. Quick notes - city appears to be deluding themself about potential litiagation risk. 3 brady people there - they spoke but didn't address actual issues. We had about 10 people there. 4 Tv stations there. We declined to be interviewed

I was under the impression that something was going to be said during the meeting against this item. Was it determined prior to the meeting that it would have been a fruitless endeavor to attempt to discuss with the city council why they should not support this measure?

ramosthompson
02-02-2010, 9:07 PM
It's embarrassing. This is only 'feel good' 'lets kick legal gun owners' around legislation. It does nothing to promote safety, only fear.

obeygiant
02-02-2010, 9:08 PM
Still away from computer. Quick notes - city appears to be deluding themself about potential litiagation risk. 3 brady people there - they spoke but didn't address actual issues. We had about 10 people there. 4 Tv stations there. We declined to be interviewed

looking forward to hearing the full version.

obeygiant
02-02-2010, 9:09 PM
OK folks, whose going to the meeting? I plan on being there.

The one that was already held tonight? :confused:

Liberty1
02-02-2010, 9:09 PM
OK folks, whose going to the meeting? I plan on being there.

The 2nd reading? The 1st was tonight.

Liberty1
02-02-2010, 9:11 PM
I was under the impression that something was going to be said during the meeting against this item. Was it determined prior to the meeting that it would have been a fruitless endeavor to attempt to discuss with the city council why they should not support this measure?

The did not address the media. I've sure(assumed) some spoke to the council.

Hunt
02-02-2010, 9:20 PM
:sigh: I can not wait for incorporation!

I can't wait for the entire Country to get so sick of this tryanny it turns into one giant Free State Project and we have millions of people stand in the streets in disobedience to this tryanny. In a way I hope some of these draconian rules get approved so it speeds up the revolutionary process.

Robidouxs
02-02-2010, 9:21 PM
I'm just surprised this item was not retracted like it was in San Mateo a while back. Just hoping this does not get enacted.

Of all places, why Oakland? This will do nothing to reduce the number of homicides in Oakland.

dunndeal
02-02-2010, 9:25 PM
This is nothing more than politicians being politicians, doing the popular thing because it'll enhance their re-election chances come November 2nd.

Lone_Gunman
02-02-2010, 10:23 PM
Standing by for the update. I didn't get in till after 8 tonite so I wasn't able to watch.

rrr70
02-02-2010, 10:32 PM
Idiots.

rrr70
02-02-2010, 10:34 PM
I'm just surprised this item was not retracted like it was in San Mateo a while back. Just hoping this does not get enacted.

Of all places, why Oakland? This will do nothing to reduce the number of homicides in Oakland.

Who's saying anything about reducing crime? OAKLAMD vice-mayor said herself that "it probably will have no effect on crime".

oaklander
02-02-2010, 10:35 PM
Several of us spoke. One of us also presented some items to be added to the minutes. One of the items was a 10 page letter from Michel & Associates outlining the legal risk that the city if facing if it passes these ordinances.

Film at 11. . .

I was under the impression that something was going to be said during the meeting against this item. Was it determined prior to the meeting that it would have been a fruitless endeavor to attempt to discuss with the city council why they should not support this measure?

lockwrench
02-02-2010, 10:38 PM
This is nothing more than politicians being politicians, doing the popular thing because it'll enhance their re-election chances come November 2nd.

I think in this case, they really believe they are doing The Right Thing.

thedrickel
02-02-2010, 10:38 PM
Watch the ABC7 news at 11.

thedrickel
02-02-2010, 11:11 PM
Weak! Oak was on but not me :(

oaklander
02-02-2010, 11:16 PM
Note that the "Bradys" were not on TV at all! (Even though they sucked right up to the news crews after we refused to be interviewed).

:D

I guess since they need SOME attention, I'll post the EPIC photo of ALL THREE OF THEM.

ETA: since they were so willing to talk to the media at this event, I assume they will have no problem with me posting a fuzzy photo of them.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2ihpes6.jpg

Weak! Oak was on but not me :(

Sutcliffe
02-02-2010, 11:25 PM
Pretty certain she was the same gal that was in the overfill/cafeteria section at the Nordyke 9th circuit hearing.

oaklander
02-02-2010, 11:37 PM
It was hard to take them seriously with their matching t-shirts. The taxpayers of Oakland will now be spending somewhere in the 6 figures to defend these proposed laws, if they pass.

Thanks Brady - I would rather have my tax money go towards hiring more cops.

Pretty certain she was the same gal that was in the overfill/cafeteria section at the Nordyke 9th circuit hearing.

thedrickel
02-02-2010, 11:55 PM
One thing that was funny - there was a retirement ceremony for a certain Deputy Chief Kozicki to start the meeting. Yes, the Kozicki from the Lovelle Mixon incident that was in charge at the scene of the ad hoc SWAT raid. I thought it was amusing that he was being commended for his retirement, which was due to such a terrible incident.

jdberger
02-03-2010, 12:00 AM
There were about 10 of us. 3 Bradys and a kook in the back that kept giving shout-outs when any of us spoke.

Only one of the Bradys spoke.

Interestingly, the FFL mentioned before apparently does not have the proper licensing to sell guns in Oakland. That was quite a development.

Next time, I'd like to see more folks from our side show up and speak (myself included).

oaklander
02-03-2010, 12:05 AM
I soooo much wanted to clasp my hand in an open fist and make an up and down motion during that part.

One thing that was funny - there was a retirement ceremony for a certain Deputy Chief Kozicki to start the meeting. Yes, the Kozicki from the Lovelle Mixon incident that was in charge at the scene of the ad hoc SWAT raid. I thought it was amusing that he was being commended for his retirement, which was due to such a terrible incident.

N6ATF
02-03-2010, 12:15 AM
I think in this case, they really believe they are doing The Right Thing.

They want blood running in the streets. This is just more of the same government death cult treason.

2009_gunner
02-03-2010, 12:18 AM
Found the video

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7252704
or
http://tinyurl.com/ycjmdqk

HUTCH 7.62
02-03-2010, 6:08 AM
Found the video

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7252704
or
http://tinyurl.com/ycjmdqk

+1 for the calguns foundation. THe media coverage seemed un bias. I was expecting a gun bashing on the medias part.

BusBoy
02-03-2010, 7:58 AM
I posted this in another thread... Heres another news video.

http://www.ktvu.com/video/22418158/index.html

oaklander
03-04-2010, 10:46 AM
Their website is still up, but I was just informed by the ATF that they voluntarily surrendered both of their FFL licenses on March 1, 2010.

;)

Howdy all, long time lurker but first time poster. Never had much to add to the great post on the site until now.

There is a FFL holder in Oakland! AK Industries LLC
www.akindustriesllc.com
Phone: 415-572-0885
Email: info@akindustriesllc.com
Adddress: 2969 E. 7th Street
Oakland, CA 94601

By the looks of their website it looks like the general public is low piority and they are likey to get a pass based on their cliental.

Keep up the good fight.

xxdabroxx
03-04-2010, 11:03 AM
very interesting...

thedrickel
03-04-2010, 11:12 AM
Their website is still up, but I was just informed by the ATF that they voluntarily surrendered both of their FFL licenses on March 1, 2010.

;)


PWNT! Who was it that first realized teh guy was in violation . . . that guy deserves a medal!

oaklander
03-04-2010, 11:30 AM
Hmm. . . .

That would be THE DRICKEL!

PWNT! Who was it that first realized teh guy was in violation . . . that guy deserves a medal!