PDA

View Full Version : The City of Santa Barbara hinders interstate commerce for FFL 03 C&R license holders


Robidouxs
08-09-2010, 9:39 PM
I was reading Santa Barbara municipal code and came across an interesting passage. It indicates firearms can only be discharged at a rifle range but also indicated in the municipal code in a later passage that shooting ranges are prohibited in Santa Barbara. Furthermore, it hinders interstate commerce for FFL 03 C&R licensee’s through mandating that individuals retain a permit sanctioned by the city if they “engage in the business of selling or otherwise transferring or advertising for the sale of any firearms” 9.36.160.

It is quite possible I might be way off base and over-analyzing this. Still a very interesting find.


9.34.020 Discharge of Firearms - Authorization of City Council.
It shall be unlawful to discharge any firearm of any description in the City of Santa Barbara; provided, that this section shall not be construed to prohibit:
A. Any Peace Officer or other person duly constituted and authorized by law to discharge a firearm when lawfully defending person or property; nor
B. Any citizen to discharge a firearm within any building or structure expressly constructed for and commonly used as a rifle or pistol range; and provided further, that any person desiring to operate any mechanical amusement device, which in its operation involves the discharge of any firearm, shall apply to the City Council in writing for such authorization. (Ord. 3763 §2, 1975.)

28.94.034 Uses Prohibited.
Shooting clubs, any activities involving the discharge of firearms, and clubs providing primarily indoor recreation facilities rather than outdoor facilities are prohibited. (Ord. 4152, 1982; Ord. 3710, 1974.)


9.36.160 Dealings Without Permit Prohibited.
No person without holding a current permit as provided in this chapter shall engage in the business of selling or otherwise transferring or advertising for the sale of any firearms. (Ord. 3124 §9(part), 1966; prior Code §17.14.)

9.36.170 Permit Application - Form - Approval.
An application for the permit required by the preceding section shall be made on a form obtainable from, and filed with, the Tax and Permit Inspector, together with the application fee required by Section 9.36.180. Applications shall be in the form prescribed by the Chief of Police and Tax and Permit Inspector. Each application shall be approved by the Chief of Police prior to issuance of a permit. (Ord. 3763 §4, 1975; Ord. 3124 §9(part), 1966; prior Code §17.15.)

9.36.180 Permit Application - Fee.
An application fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) is required to accompany each application required by Section 9.36.170 to cover the costs of investigation and processing. Such fee is not refundable in the event the permit required by this chapter is denied. The application fee is to be paid to the Tax and Permit Inspector of the City. Business establishments having more than one (1) location shall be required to pay one (1) application fee only for all locations. (Ord. 3124 §9(part), 1966; prior Code §17.16.)
9.36.190 Permit Application - Issuance or Denial - Appeal.
An application for a permit required by this chapter shall be deemed approved, unless written notice is deposited in the regular course of mails within sixty (60) days of the filing of the application in the Office of the Tax and Permit Inspector to the applicant, that the application is denied. In the event that an application is denied, the applicant may appeal to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.30.050 of this Code. (Ord. 5136, 1999; Ord. 3763 §4, 1975; Ord. 3124 §9(part), 1966; prior Code §17.17.)

9.36.200 Issuance - Approval of Police Chief.
Upon approval of the application by the Chief of Police or upon approval as provided in Section 9.36.190, the Tax and Permit Inspector shall issue a permit; provided, that all applicable license fees have been paid by the applicant. (Ord. 3763 §4, 1975; Ord. 3124 §9(part), 1966; prior Code §17.18.) 213 rev. 12/31/99

9.36.210 Duration - Grounds for Revocation.
Permits required by this chapter shall be effective for one (1) year, and shall be subject to renewal annually upon application thirty (30) days prior to date of expiration, and approval by the Chief of Police. A renewal fee of ten dollars ($10.00) shall be required with each such application. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be revoked by the Tax and Permit Inspector upon recommendation of the Chief of Police for breach of any of the following conditions:
(1) The business shall be carried on only on premises designated in the permit;
(2) The permit or a copy of the permit, certified by the issuing authority, shall be displayed on the premises where it can easily be read;
(3) No pistol or revolver shall be delivered unless all of the following conditions are complied with:
(a) Within five (5) days of the application for the purchase,
(b) Unless the same shall be unloaded and securely wrapped, and
(c) Unless the purchaser either is personally known to the seller or shall present bona fide documentary evidence of his identity;
(4) No pistol or revolver or imitation thereof, or placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof, shall be displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside;
(5) The happening of any event or the performance of any subsequent act which would render the permittee a person to whom a permit cannot be issued in the first instance;
(6) The misrepresentation of a material fact by any applicant in obtaining any permit. (Ord. 3763 §4, 1975; Ord. 3383 §1, 1969; Ord. 3124 §9(part), 1966; prior Code §17.19.)

9.36.220 Persons to Whom Permits May Not be Issued.
In no event shall a permit required by this chapter be issued to any of the following persons:
(1) Persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms capable of being concealed upon the person under the provisions of Section 12021 of the State Penal Code;
(2) Anyone convicted of any violation of any provision of the law of the State dealing with the unlawful use of narcotic, hypnotic or dangerous drugs or under similar laws of the United States;
(3) Anyone not of good moral character;
(4) Anyone under the age of twenty-one (21) years. (Ord. 3124 §9(part), 1966; prior Code §17.20.)

hoffmang
08-09-2010, 10:06 PM
By definition a C&R or 03 FFL can not "engage in the business of selling" any firearms. As such, these regs only reach to 01/02/07 FFLs. C&R away.

-Gene

eaglemike
08-09-2010, 10:31 PM
Doesn't it prohibit the discharge of a firearm for the purposes of self-defense? :)

rabagley
08-09-2010, 10:33 PM
If you're a cruffle and start to look like you're "in the business", the BATFE may reclassify you as incorrectly licensed. Which REALLY sucks.

A friend of mine was on the edge of that. Got audited after doing a lot of transactions and coming to the notice of the BATFE, but kept his classification as he argued that every transaction was to make his collection better. After seeing his book and much deliberation, the BATFE accepted his argument, but it was a very close thing as there were a few transactions in there to make a buck along the way.

Fyathyrio
08-10-2010, 12:10 AM
9.36.210 Duration - Grounds for Revocation.
Permits required by this chapter shall be effective for one (1) year, and shall be subject to renewal annually upon application thirty (30) days prior to date of expiration, and approval by the Chief of Police. A renewal fee of ten dollars ($10.00) shall be required with each such application. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be revoked by the Tax and Permit Inspector upon recommendation of the Chief of Police for breach of any of the following conditions:
(1) The business shall be carried on only on premises designated in the permit;
(2) The permit or a copy of the permit, certified by the issuing authority, shall be displayed on the premises where it can easily be read;
(3) No pistol or revolver shall be delivered unless all of the following conditions are complied with:
(a) Within five (5) days of the application for the purchase,
(b) Unless the same shall be unloaded and securely wrapped, and
(c) Unless the purchaser either is personally known to the seller or shall present bona fide documentary evidence of his identity;

OK, my interpretation is (3) (a) implies you must deliver the pistol/revolver within 5 days, doesn't that violate the state's 10 day wait?

Alaric
08-10-2010, 1:18 AM
Overall, I don't see how those regs could possibly be upheld in a post-Heller/McDonald environment...eventually.

It's Santa Barbara though, notoriously liberal and statist. For now, it is what it is.

Glad I don't live there anymore.

-hanko
08-10-2010, 5:40 AM
OK, my interpretation is (3) (a) implies you must deliver the pistol/revolver within 5 days, doesn't that violate the state's 10 day wait?
Only if you interpret the law to apply to a C&R licensee, which it doesn't...go back and READ what hoffmang posted.

If you sell a weapon using your C&R, you're improving your collection per ATF rules...that kind of buying and selling is an integral part of your C&R.

Relax.:TFH:

-hanko

gtturborex
08-10-2010, 6:55 AM
9.34.020 Discharge of Firearms - Authorization of City Council.
It shall be unlawful to discharge any firearm of any description in the City of Santa Barbara; provided, that this section shall not be construed to prohibit:
A. Any Peace Officer or other person duly constituted and authorized by law to discharge a firearm when lawfully defending person or property; nor
B. Any citizen to discharge a firearm within any building or structure expressly constructed for and commonly used as a rifle or pistol range; and provided further, that any person desiring to operate any mechanical amusement device, which in its operation involves the discharge of any firearm, shall apply to the City Council in writing for such authorization. (Ord. 3763 §2, 1975.)

I read this as it is unlawful to fire any weapon inside city limits unless there is an indoor shooting range. This sounds about normal to me.

Section A: Seems to allow an officer to fire their weapon to protect property. Is this correct? We are not allowed to defend our own property but they are allowed to defend someone elses, if they want to...

OlderThanDirt
08-10-2010, 8:02 AM
I know a guy in SB that shot his neighbor's dog (it was stuck to the end of his arm) and did not face any repercussions from LE. He clearly violated the city ordinance by discharging his firearm outdoors while standing in his driveway.

It should also be noted that most older homes in Santa Barbara have deed restrictions and cannot be sold to Negros or Chinese. The city thought about changing this, but decided it was too expensive to rerecord thousands of deeds. The deeds are about as enforceable as some of the older city codes.

misterjake
08-10-2010, 9:32 AM
I know a guy in SB that shot his neighbor's dog (it was stuck to the end of his arm) and did not face any repercussions from LE. He clearly violated the city ordinance by discharging his firearm outdoors while standing in his driveway.

It should also be noted that most older homes in Santa Barbara have deed restrictions and cannot be sold to Negros or Chinese. The city thought about changing this, but decided it was too expensive to rerecord thousands of deeds. The deeds are about as enforceable as some of the older city codes.

still scary to believe that the law "might" press charges on you if they "feel" like it. That bothers me on so many levels.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-10-2010, 10:38 AM
Overall, I don't see how those regs could possibly be upheld in a post-Heller/McDonald environment...eventually.

It's Santa Barbara though, notoriously liberal and statist. For now, it is what it is.

Glad I don't live there anymore.

The first one, 9.34.020, is superceded by state alw, so anyone charged with that can use the SF ban case law to defend the charge. (unless the rest of the city codes allow discharging a weapon otherwise lawful under the PC)

wash
08-10-2010, 10:50 AM
It seems like 9.36.160 would prohibit SB residents from posting a for sale ad on calguns or completing a PPT.

I don't know how you could get standing to sue but these regulations are B.S.

Californio
08-10-2010, 10:53 AM
The City of Santa Barbara is run by Carpetbaggers, no one on the City Council was even born in California, so they pass all these nut case laws. The current Mayor wanted to paint a Blue Line across the City to delineate Sea Level due to Global Warming. They just love to spend Tax $$ on nut case projects. They wanted to charge the USS Ronald Reagan a landing fee just because it was nuclear powered. The blue line and landing fee, thankfully was shouted down.

We only have one FFL store front in the City of Santa Barbara.

BigDogatPlay
08-10-2010, 2:21 PM
The current Mayor wanted to paint a Blue Line across the City to delineate Sea Level due to Global Warming.

So would Al Gore's recently purchased $9M Santa Barbara hacienda be on the ocean side of that blue line? Or the land side?

It's always important to remember that no matter how dim the bulbs might be that are elected to government, the voters are getting exactly what they deserve for pulling the dim bulb lever in the first place.

Californio
08-10-2010, 2:35 PM
So would Al Gore's recently purchased $9M Santa Barbara hacienda be on the ocean side of that blue line? Or the land side?

It's always important to remember that no matter how dim the bulbs might be that are elected to government, the voters are getting exactly what they deserve for pulling the dim bulb lever in the first place.

He is somewhere in Montecito, Googled pictures show on the mountainside with an ocean view from the pool.:D

Wisconsin Lois my Carpetbagger Congressperson wants to ban offshore drilling here, the twit does not realize that before drilling, the beaches were always covered in natural oil seep tar, now they are pristine with the release of pressure from the oil formation by the current oil platforms.