PDA

View Full Version : Oakland City Council Strategy Thread


jdberger
02-12-2010, 11:26 AM
Oaklander and I were discussing strategy for the Oakland City Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 16 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=266833)(of course, all of you will be there ;))

We thought that it would be a good idea do some division of labor. Different speakers would address different topics. This way we could be sure that we address everything that concerns us about the proposed measures.

Some topics that we'd discuss are:


The history of gun control as a tool of racism.
The LCAV lawsuit success rate and resulting cost to cities.
The constitutionality of the proposed measures in the light of Heller and the impending McDonald decisions.
The social repercussions of restricting access to self defense tools (using poor and disabled as examples).


I'm going to do the demographic/geographic approach.

Volunteers?

I'm aware that public speaking ranks right up there with the fear of drowning. We have to move past it. We can't expect government to respect our rights unless we're willing to assert them.

Finally, not everyone can attend the meeting, but we encourage ideas and input from all Calgunners. We are an Army of Davids, our community is our strength (it's really quite incredible!).

Get in the fight!

oaklander
02-12-2010, 11:40 AM
Excellent JD!

Remember folks - even if you do speak - you only get about 3 minutes (or at least that's what we got last time). So, short and to the point!!!

putput
02-12-2010, 11:45 AM
Shouldn't someone mention state preemption? Can I just stand around the back of the room and scream "You don't have the authority!"

Also, have we decided that averyone needs to fill out a form to request time that can be defered to Oak or etc???

bwiese
02-12-2010, 11:54 AM
Shouldn't someone mention state preemption? Can I just stand around the back of the room and scream "You don't have the authority!"

Preemption is a valid concern.

Now remember also that the likely vector for this is San Mateo County Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson (who is also an ABAG staffer). Her plans in San Mateo were thwarted. LCAV has great difficulty in getting these packages accepted so they work thru their 'viral' entity, ABAG - whose staff is not subject to election.

Remember that these are a set of laws that LCAV has strolled about with - county to county, city to city. 1,000+ governmental entities have rejected this package already. Why does the elected body of Oakland governance carry water for a nonelected (and likely nonelectable) body?

And for Russo saying we are pointy headed gunrights intellectuals, we most certainly can retort that we are indeed instead "Roundheads " (historical significance - he might be smart enough to get it.)

7x57
02-12-2010, 12:03 PM
And for Russo saying we are pointy headed gunrights intellectuals, we most certainly can retort that we are indeed instead "Roundheads " (historical significance - he might be smart enough to get it.)

Nobody appreciates subtlety or historical understanding, but I love you for suggesting it.

1. So in the end do we get to behead King Charles? :D

2. Dibs on being Oliver Cromwell. :43:

7x57

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 12:04 PM
I have prepared comments on the constitutional conflicts present in these ordinances; I'll be sending them out to a few of you for review/comment later this afternoon.

-BC

n2k
02-12-2010, 12:06 PM
For those who are less historically inclined but internet savvy like myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundhead

Glock22Fan
02-12-2010, 12:07 PM
Nobody appreciates subtlety or historical understanding, but I love you for suggesting it.

1. So in the end do we get to behead King Charles? :D

2. Dibs on being Oliver Cromwell. :43:

7x57

You want to go around destroying priceless historic artifacts? :D

Roadrunner
02-12-2010, 12:10 PM
I'd suggest taking the whole issue and dividing it up like 3 minute bullet points so that the entire issue is recorded. If a point requires more than 3 minutes, divide it up so that the entire point can be made. I would also suggest doing an outline and writing the name of each person next to that point and then everyone stand in the order that their point needs to be made. As a matter of dividing up labor, each person should research their point and then write it out and practice it so that each person can tweak their point to where it is exactly 3 minutes or less.

jdberger
02-12-2010, 12:13 PM
Agreed, Roadrunner.

Now all we need is volunteers!

SJgunguy24
02-12-2010, 12:23 PM
I'm in, there's no way in hell i'm missing this one. Is there a way to review the minutes from the last meeting? I'd like to quote the Vice Mayor when he said that this will do nothing to deter crime.

I'll be away from the computer for a while today and sat. if there's any other info could you (Bill, JD, or Kev) post on facebook or message me on FB please?
I can't access CGN from my phone but I can get on FB.

jdberger
02-12-2010, 12:32 PM
Ask and you shall receive.

Meeting Minutes for the OCC Meeting on 2/2/10. (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/meetings/2010/2/5884_M_Concurrent_Meeting_of_the_Oakland_Redevelop ment_Agency___City_Council_10-02-02_Meeting_Minutes.pdf)

I'm in, there's no way in hell i'm missing this one. Is there a way to review the minutes from the last meeting? I'd like to quote the Vice Mayor when he said that this will do nothing to deter crime.

I'll be away from the computer for a while today and sat. if there's any other info could you (Bill, JD, or Kev) post on facebook or message me on FB please?
I can't access CGN from my phone but I can get on FB.

NorCalMama
02-12-2010, 12:33 PM
The social repercussions of restricting access to self defense tools (using poor and disabled as examples).


Could we include a woman's ability to defend herself, since we're in a day where "women's lib" rules with an iron fist. How being able to carry a firearm gives a woman the ability to properly/effectively, and independently defend herself should, God forbid, a situation arise. While on the flipside, over regulation be it of ammo, CCW, etc creates an environment where a woman (or any citizen) can not adequately defend themself.
I dunno, it may be just adding too much in to the discussion, but I know that as a woman that is a HUGE concern to me, especially in a day where LE agencies are making drastic cuts and cities are not becoming any safer. What's more, with people losing work, it seems that individuals are willing to take drastic steps to acquire money... not to mention, Sacramento released those who were in jail early due to trying to sort out the budget mess, and we saw the ramifications of that, and that could easily spill over to Oakland be it by releasing prisoners there or those released here venturing into that area.
Just my two cents...

Steyrlp10
02-12-2010, 12:40 PM
Could we include a woman's ability to defend herself, since we're in a day where "women's lib" rules with an iron fist. How being able to carry a firearm gives a woman the ability to properly/effectively, and independently defend herself should, God forbid, a situation arise.

I vote that you get a speaker card and give your 3 minutes :)

jdberger
02-12-2010, 12:41 PM
Yes, NorCalMama.

It might also be helpful to include that an exception exists in the CCW law, essentially codifying a woman's right to CCW when she has a restraining order against her spouse (can someone pull and link the exact text and cite?). Here the State recognizes the utility of a firearm in defending a physically weaker victim.

Would you like to tackle this one? :)

NorCalMama
02-12-2010, 12:46 PM
Yes, NorCalMama.

It might also be helpful to include that an exception exists in the CCW law, essentially codifying a woman's right to CCW when she has a restraining order against her spouse (can someone pull and link the exact text and cite?). Here the State recognizes the utility of a firearm in defending a physically weaker victim.

Would you like to tackle this one? :)



lol, I will IF I can get a general overview of the most important aspects/points to tackle regarding this topic. I'll be doing lots of reading this weekend, and up until the meeting once I get a general feel for the direction I should make my points "flow".
I'm curious, should I try to, in a cohesive way, tie together suffrage and other women's rights/lib issues with the Right to keep and bear arms as it relates to women?
And yeah, I'll be looking into the specific code regarding women getting a ccw...

Any/all input on this is REALLY appreciated! lol, I've only ever called talk radio shows and given speeches in front of my class in Jr High so I'm already feeling VERY nervous at the thought of this, but I'll gladly do this! :)

thedrickel
02-12-2010, 12:48 PM
Sorry guys I'm "going rogue" on this one. And the speaking time limit is 2 minutes, not 3. Unless you're some crazy bald guy that gets 15 minutes for some reason.

bwiese
02-12-2010, 12:50 PM
Let's not range too far off topic - i.e., let's stay focused on the LCAV package and its ills in particular and not just expound on why "guns are good" in general except in more limited side comments.

steadyrock
02-12-2010, 12:53 PM
Does the Oakland City Council broadcast their meetings on the Internet, like Orange County does with the Board of Supervisors? For those of us who cannot make it, it would be awesome to see a live stream of what's happening.

jdberger
02-12-2010, 12:56 PM
NorCalMama - go for broke.

Drick - I'm sure that you'll display your usual level of competence (make sure to drive - I've a box for you)

Everyone else - some possible talking points:


Imagine a world without guns. The strong molest the weak with impunity. Women must belong to men for protection. Should we really want such a world?
Efforts to disarm free people of color date back to the 1800s. Some bigots are still trying.
This measure is trivially circumventable. It's not so much about public safety, but more about harassing politically disfavored but law abiding citizens. (note these aren't my own words)
Police Chief Batts has stated on more than one occasion that 1% of the population of Oakland is committing 90% of the crimes.
This measure does nothing to target that 1% of criminals who make Oakland one of the most dangerous and crime ridden cities in the Nation.

NorCalMama
02-12-2010, 12:59 PM
Let's not range too far off topic - i.e., let's stay focused on the LCAV package and its ills in particular and not just expound on why "guns are good" in general except in more limited side comments.

What do you think would be a good way to address the subject to keep it more on topic?

NorCalMama
02-12-2010, 1:03 PM
Also, does anyone have any thoughts on how to tie in women and our right to defend ourselves with what the city council is proposing?

kcbrown
02-12-2010, 1:27 PM
I always wondered how well something like this would go over:
(pointing at some random person in the audience) If someone gave you a gun, would you start going around shooting people? No?

(pointing at some other random person in the audience) What about you? No?

Then what makes you think you're so special?

Even if you don't care to own or carry a firearm yourself, by passing laws restricting the ability to keep and bear arms, you are restricting yourself and all others like you. Because you are a law-abiding citizen and will follow the law.

Guess who you're not restricting? That's right: those who care nothing about the law. Such people are known as "criminals".

So the only people that you really care about restricting firearms from are the only people that your measures will do nothing against. And on the other side, the people that your measures will be effective against are the very people you don't need to worry about anyway, because they're just like you: they would never think of intentionally harming someone with a firearm, just like you wouldn't.


So why, again, are you intent on handcuffing yourself and everyone else like you?

Give yourselves the physical and legal tools to defend yourself and your problems with crime will abate.
:D

Purple K
02-12-2010, 1:35 PM
I was planning to speak. I'll gladly save my notes for another time in favor of something prepared by JD, Kevin, etc.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
02-12-2010, 1:54 PM
We posted an article on www.calgunlaws.com urging people to attend and/or send an e-mail through the Cal-NRA website: http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo. We also linked this discussion for people who want to attend to be able to coordinate with you all here.

Oaklander, et al., what you all are doing is very commendable, and those of us who cannot attend wish you luck.

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 2:11 PM
Thanks, Sean! A strong show of force should prove politically useful regardless of the outcome on Tuesday. We, as a community, need to make clear that any and every attempt by LCAV/Brady will be vehemently opposed by thoughtful, passionate civil rights advocates en masse wherever they try to dupe politicians into passing bad laws.

dantodd
02-12-2010, 2:15 PM
I would suggest that someone have a list of the proponents of this bill handy. It is quite possible that the fact many of the pro-2A people are not Oakland residents. It would be good to be able to refute that by pointing out that those advocating and writing the bill are also not residents.

ElToro
02-12-2010, 2:22 PM
Good luck on beating up on the Oaktown City council. i will be there in spirit for you guys.

i really think you guys should hit home points about minoroties and especially the LGBT community has few ways to defend themselves against attack. anybody thought about getting the local chapter of Pink Pistols involved ?


2. Dibs on being Oliver Cromwell. :43:

7x57

the wife of a friend of mine had a girlfriend in college get married. (this is the late 60s early 70s?) well they all knew the guy as Ollie. nobody ever thought of it, then one day they get the wedding invites and the dudes name is Oliver Cromwell the XXIII or something. 30 years later my friend still talks about it when wedding subjects come up.

jdberger
02-12-2010, 2:44 PM
I was planning to speak. I'll gladly save my notes for another time in favor of something prepared by JD, Kevin, etc.

By all means - go forward with your notes.

Kevin and I aren't really preparing anything for anyone - we're encouraging folks to prepare their own stuff. We'd just like to shepherd the process a little so that we cover all the bases, get all the points across and don't step on each other's toes. (enough metaphors in there?)

sbrady@Michel&Associates
02-12-2010, 2:58 PM
Thanks, Sean! A strong show of force should prove politically useful regardless of the outcome on Tuesday. We, as a community, need to make clear that any and every attempt by LCAV/Brady will be vehemently opposed by thoughtful, passionate civil rights advocates en masse wherever they try to dupe politicians into passing bad laws.

My pleasure. I agree with everything you said. However, when you talk about "vehemently opposing Brady" could you please clarify by saying "Brady Bunch" or something so people don't start vehemently opposing me. I'm one of the good guys.:)

Roadrunner
02-12-2010, 3:11 PM
Also, does anyone have any thoughts on how to tie in women and our right to defend ourselves with what the city council is proposing?

How about a quote from Susan B. Anthony:

"I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand."

biofire
02-12-2010, 3:17 PM
Is this worth mentioning at the meeting?

I just read the supplemental report to the proposed Oakland ordinance and it says, "The proposed changes will allow... the Oakland PD to better monitor who is purchasing guns and ammunition in the city."

Isn't this a privacy issue? If the purchaser is legally entitled to buy ammunition, why does that person need to be monitored? If they can't link the bullet to the purchaser, then how does it help to monitor ammunition sales? That is, the government wants to monitor our behavior, but they can't do anything with the information.

Would it be persuasive to pitch our position on this one specific issue as a concern for personal privacy? Will citizens and sporstmen be harassed for buying "too much" ammunition? Isn't this type of monitoring just another invasion of our privacy, an invasion that cannot possibly be productive?

We already get fingerprinted for gun purchases, for which there is some logic, as a gun has a serial#, whereas a bullet does not. Would drawing this distinction help? Could we use this difference to propose that they remove this requirement for ammunition because it is in an invasion of privacy that gives the government access to personal information for which there is no proven benefit to the public?

I suggest this because I think we will be more effective in our presentations if we stick closely to the specific ordinance.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, just trying to help out here.

Californio
02-12-2010, 3:26 PM
The last meeting I was involved with in front of the Gubmint we all signed up for our 2 minutes and then granted our minutes to several designated spokespersons as needed. Thus we gave several people the time to make a better presentation. We had 50 people sign up to speak (100 minutes) and only 3 people that actually did the speaking. Trying to make your point in 2 minute sound bites is sometimes hard, especially if public speaking is not your gig. Are you allowed to do that in Oakland? We also got there early and took all the seating, forcing the other parties supporters out of the main chambers and in to the overflow. It was a tactical massacre. :D.

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 3:57 PM
My pleasure. I agree with everything you said. However, when you talk about "vehemently opposing Brady" could you please clarify by saying "Brady Bunch" or something so people don't start vehemently opposing me. I'm one of the good guys.:)

Indeed, and my apologies for the confusion. ;)

All, I meant these (http://www.bradycampaign.org/) Bradys, not this (http://www.michelandassociates.com/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=83&Itemid=109) Brady. :D

GuyW
02-12-2010, 4:10 PM
Wow, the thread title mislead me into thinking that someone was alleging that the Oakland City Council had a strategy, rather than just lurching from stupidity to insanity...
.

jdberger
02-12-2010, 4:25 PM
Is this worth mentioning at the meeting?

I just read the supplemental report to the proposed Oakland ordinance and it says, "The proposed changes will allow... the Oakland PD to better monitor who is purchasing guns and ammunition in the city."

Isn't this a privacy issue? If the purchaser is legally entitled to buy ammunition, why does that person need to be monitored? If they can't link the bullet to the purchaser, then how does it help to monitor ammunition sales? That is, the government wants to monitor our behavior, but they can't do anything with the information.

Would it be persuasive to pitch our position on this one specific issue as a concern for personal privacy? Will citizens and sporstmen be harassed for buying "too much" ammunition? Isn't this type of monitoring just another invasion of our privacy, an invasion that cannot possibly be productive?

We already get fingerprinted for gun purchases, for which there is some logic, as a gun has a serial#, whereas a bullet does not. Would drawing this distinction help? Could we use this difference to propose that they remove this requirement for ammunition because it is in an invasion of privacy that gives the government access to personal information for which there is no proven benefit to the public?

I suggest this because I think we will be more effective in our presentations if we stick closely to the specific ordinance.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, just trying to help out here.

Excellent. How'd you like to work up some quick bullet points?! :cool2:

donstarr
02-12-2010, 4:46 PM
Ask and you shall receive.

Meeting Minutes for the OCC Meeting on 2/2/10. (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/meetings/2010/2/5884_M_Concurrent_Meeting_of_the_Oakland_Redevelop ment_Agency___City_Council_10-02-02_Meeting_Minutes.pdf)

Who's that "Kevin Thomason" guy who started talking about 03:45? :cool:

Doug L
02-12-2010, 5:04 PM
...Can I just stand around the back of the room and scream "You don't have the authority!"...

Better yet, go to the microphone as the concerned citizen you are and just read the pre-emption statute to them.

You'll need to get a copy in advance, of course.
Perhaps one of the lawyers here could point you in the right direction.

We're counting on you.

wash
02-12-2010, 5:10 PM
Would it be a good idea to bring up the records request about the "assault weapon" used in the police shooting a while back?

That could show how they are sensationalizing the news but don't let the real facts out.

But this might be something better saved for another day, let us know.

oaklander
02-12-2010, 6:25 PM
Some random dude. . .

:cool:

Who's that "Kevin Thomason" guy who started talking about 03:45? :cool:

7x57
02-12-2010, 6:34 PM
You want to go around destroying priceless historic artifacts? :D

Is not the first female speaker of the house a priceless historic artifact? :43:

7x57

RP1911
02-12-2010, 6:38 PM
Would it be a good idea to bring up the records request about the "assault weapon" used in the police shooting a while back?

That could show how they are sensationalizing the news but don't let the real facts out.

But this might be something better saved for another day, let us know.

That could be done in the open comment period if they have one.

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 6:40 PM
Wash, I would recommend we stay close to the issue of the ordinances; the farther away we are (and more abstract the argument) the more diluted our message will be (and more opportunity for "off base pointy-headed gun nut" spin).

NorCalMama
02-12-2010, 7:05 PM
Wash, I would recommend we stay close to the issue of the ordinances; the farther away we are (and more abstract the argument) the more diluted our message will be (and more opportunity for "off base pointy-headed gun nut" spin).

What points are the absolute essentials for this for those who will be speaking? I'm curious if linking women/women's rights will be one of those more abstract points?

wildhawker
02-12-2010, 8:16 PM
What points are the absolute essentials for this for those who will be speaking? I'm curious if linking women/women's rights will be one of those more abstract points?

I'd say that it is absolutely an applicable topic in the context of how these ordinances would affect the rights of female residents. Josh, Oak?

loather
02-12-2010, 8:21 PM
And for Russo saying we are pointy headed gunrights intellectuals, we most certainly can retort that we are indeed instead "Roundheads " (historical significance - he might be smart enough to get it.)

Could you imagine Obama at the forefront of a Constitutional monarchy? That'd be frightening indeed!

Roadrunner
02-12-2010, 8:30 PM
What points are the absolute essentials for this for those who will be speaking? I'm curious if linking women/women's rights will be one of those more abstract points?

Just decided to check it out just so I know what I'm talking about, but 75% of the Oakland city Council is female. I would venture to say that those six women are voting based on their ignorance of firearms and not out of any substantial knowledge of how women protect themselves and their families everyday by merely displaying a firearm. I think bringing up the fact that a firearm in the hands of a law abiding woman for self defense makes physical inequality irrelevant and she has a far better chance of surviving an attack rather than relying on the mercy of the attacker. I think that a woman who is a second amendment advocate, would have a lot more impact than a man.

These are the council members:

1. Jane Brunner (Council President)

2. Patricia Kernighan

3. Nancy Nadel

4. Jean Quan

5. Ignacio De La Fuente

6. Desley Brooks

7. Larry Reid

8. Council member at Large- Rebecca Kaplan

BTW, John Russo's webpage (http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/) is laughable.

NorCalMama
02-12-2010, 9:22 PM
Just decided to check it out just so I know what I'm talking about, but 75% of the Oakland city Council is female. I would venture to say that those six women are voting based on their ignorance of firearms and not out of any substantial knowledge of how women protect themselves and their families everyday by merely displaying a firearm. I think bringing up the fact that a firearm in the hands of a law abiding woman for self defense makes physical inequality irrelevant and she has a far better chance of surviving an attack rather than relying on the mercy of the attacker. I think that a woman who is a second amendment advocate, would have a lot more impact than a man.

These are the council members:

1. Jane Brunner (Council President)

2. Patricia Kernighan

3. Nancy Nadel

4. Jean Quan

5. Ignacio De La Fuente

6. Desley Brooks

7. Larry Reid

8. Council member at Large- Rebecca Kaplan

BTW, John Russo's webpage (http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/) is laughable.


Good thinking to look up the council members! I feel silly for not thinking of it... Ok, well, I'll start righting down "bullet point" style notes and figure out what I'll say. Oaklander, anyone else who is a primary "player" in this, would you like me to send you what I plan on saying to approve or give feedback? I'd like to make sure what I say is worthwhile and not just a 2 minute ramble that is eyeroll inducing. Let me know! :)

oaklander
02-12-2010, 9:32 PM
Guys and Gals, awesome comments and ideas.

Let me digest these ideas and come back with some suggestions. . .

In the meantime, what I would like to do (based on a suggestion from someone in the know) is to have a mix of people who will speak on for 10 minutes on topics that require more explanation, and people who will speak for 2 minutes on topics that can be covered quickly.

If you are comfortable speaking publicly, and want to speak for 10 minutes - please let me know in this thread - and we can all work on a message.

If you want to speak for 2 minutes, so that your voice can be heard (and this is important too), let me know in this thread, and we can coordinate your message with the other messages.

I know this all sounds complicated - but the more work we do now - the less work we do Tuesday.

ALSO - AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT - PLEASE ARRIVE AT 5:15 AND TAKE A SEAT ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROOM (STAGE-RIGHT). I want us to pack the room!!!

I also have confirmation that at least one of The Pink Pistols is coming, so it may be good to somehow equate the concept that a "right is a right" and gun rights are no less important than other civil rights.

This is going to be a historic meeting, and I am excited to be a part of it!!!

curtisfong
02-12-2010, 9:33 PM
people should definitely be requesting their minutes, REGARDLESS of whether they intend to speak so that they can yield their time to the ones designated to speak longer.

oaklander
02-12-2010, 9:43 PM
Yup!

Everyone - and I don't care if you are speaking or not - please go to:

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

And read the instructions and then click on the continue link at the bottom of the page.

Fill out the form and press "Submit" - print out the receipt and bring it to the meeting.

That that the agenda item is "10.4-CC"

Note that only three fields are required.

Dew it!!!

people should definitely be requesting their minutes, REGARDLESS of whether they intend to speak so that they can yield their time to the ones designated to speak longer.

emcon5
02-12-2010, 11:38 PM
Don't overlook the money angle. Find out how much San Francisco spent defending their idiotic handgun ban (Prop H, IIRC).

Ask them where that money will come from. Whose budget will they need to cut to pay to defend against the inevitable lawsuit, which according to the clearly worded state preemption and case law they will lose.

Parks? Schools? Police or fire? Will the city council all take a pay cut?

hoffmang
02-12-2010, 11:50 PM
Don't overlook the money angle. Find out how much San Francisco spent defending their idiotic handgun ban (Prop H, IIRC).

$380K was the part SF paid to NRA and excludes whatever they paid for their own lawyers.

-Gene

tboyer
02-13-2010, 1:49 AM
$380K was the part SF paid to NRA and excludes whatever they paid for their own lawyers.

-Gene


The sum of what it cost SF was between $700K-$800K
I think

jdberger
02-14-2010, 12:16 PM
This is promising to be pretty exciting, folks! I'm looking forward to seeing you all there.

Keep the ideas coming.

dantodd
02-14-2010, 1:27 PM
Don't overlook the money angle. Find out how much San Francisco spent defending their idiotic handgun ban (Prop H, IIRC).

Ask them where that money will come from. Whose budget will they need to cut to pay to defend against the inevitable lawsuit, which according to the clearly worded state preemption and case law they will lose.

Parks? Schools? Police or fire? Will the city council all take a pay cut?

LCAV promises to defend these terrible laws pro-bono but they don't promise to pay opposing counsel's fees. This is what will get them in trouble even if the bad guys give them free services.

jdberger
02-14-2010, 1:35 PM
LCAV promises to defend these terrible laws pro-bono but they don't promise to pay opposing counsel's fees. This is what will get them in trouble even if the bad guys give them free services.

Is there anywhere we can find this LCAV promise to defend the law pro-bono?

bodega bob
02-14-2010, 2:44 PM
I have my confirmation number from my request for a speaker's card. I could speak for a few minutes, but would gladly cede my time to someone more eloquent. I'll see you there.

obeygiant
02-14-2010, 3:01 PM
Does the Oakland City Council broadcast their meetings on the Internet, like Orange County does with the Board of Supervisors? For those of us who cannot make it, it would be awesome to see a live stream of what's happening.

Streaming Video of the Oakland City Council

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

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


Related Documents

Agenda (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/meetings/2010%5C2/5894_A_Concurrent_Meeting_of_the_Oakland_Redevelop ment_Agency___City_Council_10-02-16_Meeting_Agenda.pdf)
Supplemental Report - 2010 FEB -4 PM 6:17 (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/24122.pdf)
Supplemental Report - 2010 JAN 12 PM 7:24 (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/24022.pdf)
Master Detail Report Legislative File ID 09-0857 (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=17742)
Master Detail Report Legislative File ID 09-0857-1 (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=18152)
Master Detail Report Legislative File ID 09-0857-2 (http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=18153)

oaklander
02-15-2010, 10:33 PM
OK - here is the final plan. We will all meet at the steps of Oakland City Hall at 5:30 PM. At that time, please let me know if you will be speaking, and a general idea of what you will be saying. I will try and set it up so that we don't duplicate each other too much.

If you WON'T be speaking, get a speaker's card anyways!!! We can use those.

Patrick Aherne
02-15-2010, 10:47 PM
When I spoke in front of my city council about a course of action I opposed, I carefully prepared my speech and timed myself to ensure that I hit all of the points I wanted to and that I fell within the three minute time period. I practiced the speech several times, to make sure my diction and intonation were clear. Just thought I would give a few pointers to folks who might never have done this before. Good luck.

oaklander
02-15-2010, 10:49 PM
Excellent advice!

When I spoke in front of my city council about a course of action I opposed, I carefully prepared my speech and timed myself to ensure that I hit all of the points I wanted to and that I fell within the three minute time period. I practiced the speech several times, to make sure my diction and intonation were clear. Just thought I would give a few pointers to folks who might never have done this before. Good luck.

obeygiant
02-15-2010, 11:24 PM
Folks, you heard Mike above.

Especially if you're not attending (and even if you are) get those emails and letters in and you can use the One-Click CA NRA website to do this:


OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER GUN CONTROL ORDINANCES (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2010&summary=oaklandord)

Send a One-Click Email to the Oakland CIty Council (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#oneclick)

Yup!

Everyone - and I don't care if you are speaking or not - please go to:

Oakland City Council Speaker Instructions (http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/speaker_instructions.htm)

Read the instructions
Click "Continue" at the bottom of the page.
Fill out the form
Enter "10.4-CC" as the agenda item
Press "Submit"
Print out the receipt and bring it to the meeting.


Note that only three fields are required.

Dew it!!!

Even if you will not be able to attend please consider doing the following:

Send an email to the Oakland City Council using the CALNRA One-Click Email above.
Register for a speaker card and pm the confirmation number to oaklander


*Note: You do not have to use your real name on the form if you're concerned about it being on the public record. You can use "concerned citizen" or any other generic name but you do have to provide a valid email address.

dantodd
02-15-2010, 11:56 PM
Is there anywhere we can find this LCAV promise to defend the law pro-bono?

Don't know where it is but this letter (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oakland/CGF-Oakland-Ordinance-Opp-2010-02-01.pdf) speaks to the promise.

oaklander
02-15-2010, 11:59 PM
Please note that the figure below is $380,000 and not $38,000, neither me or Gene caught that before it went out:

Finally, LCAV often promises to provide pro-bono defense of the ordinances that it lobbies for. There are two significant caveats to this promise that the City of Oakland should be aware of. First, in the long running battle over an ordinance banning gun shows in Alameda County entitled Nordyke v. King, LCAV asked for pro-bono work to determine if that ordinance is actually constitutional as recently as only 120 days ago even though the project dates back almost 10 years. Second and most importantly, LCAV does not, to our knowledge, promise to pay for the prevailing attorney’s fees. San Francisco recently lost Fiscal at. al. v. San Francisco and paid $38,000.00 to NRA attorneys. D.C. is facing a potential bill of approximately $3,500,000.00 for Mr. Gura and his team. Should the City wish to proceed with these ordinances, it should both consider the likely costs of losing as well as require LCAV to be willing to participate in offsetting the costs should civil rights groups prevail.

Don't know where it is but this letter (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oakland/CGF-Oakland-Ordinance-Opp-2010-02-01.pdf) speaks to the promise.

wildhawker
02-16-2010, 12:04 AM
Card in:

Speaker Card Form

Your Information has been Submitted
Your Confirmation Number is

2SC3530

Name : Brandon Combs
Item Number/OpenForum: 10.4-CC
Favor: [ ]
Against: [ X ]
Neutral: [ ]
Comm/CouncilDate: 02-16-2010

Can'thavenuthingood
02-16-2010, 4:54 PM
Back to the first page with this bump. Put on your best bib & tucker and get to this meeting.

DATE, TIME AND LOCATION

6PM on 2/16/2010 at Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, Oakland City Hall.

1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza,
Oakland, CA 94612
between 14th and 15th Streets
at Clay Street.


Vick