PDA

View Full Version : Firearms Sales in Sunnyvale Study NEXT MEETING 9/27/11!!! (UPDATED on post 82)


stix213
08-18-2011, 5:53 PM
Update
This has moved on from the planning commission to the City Council. Next meeting to attend is:

Date: 9/27/11
Time: 7:00 PM
Where: Council Chambers at 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA

The following proposal will be presented to the council:

1. Define a firearms sales business in the municipal code.
2. Prohibit firearms sales in any commercial / industrial districts w/in 200 ft of a public school.
3. Codify DPS Firearm Dealer Permit, requiring a security plan and background checks for all employees engaged in firearms sales.
(above shamelessly stolen from CalBear's post 82)


Original info from the study release on 8/18/2011 discussing the then upcoming 8/22/2011 meeting: (original post contents)

Sent to my e-mail because I was at the previous Sunnyvale meeting. Referenced PDF is attached. PUBLIC HEARING 8/22!!!!!


Hi-

Attached is the staff report for the study regarding the sale of firearms in the City of Sunnyvale. This is being sent to you because you requested to be informed about the issue.

The report is long, mainly due to the many attachments. This report has been sent to the City Council and Planning Commission members, and is available on line.

If you would like to submit written comments at this time, they will be included in a separate package presented to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing on Monday August 22nd. The hearing is expected to begin at 8:00 pm. The agenda on Monday is very full with many complex items to be heard, and the Planning Commission will appreciate oral comments at the hearing being concise and non-repetitive.

As you undoubtedly know, this is a passionate issue for many people. Please remember to be respectful and courteous of all opinions and positions during the hearing.

The City of Sunnyvale appreciates your interest and involvement in this issue. At this hearing, the Planning Commission will take public input (maximum 3 minutes for each speaker), and then close the public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Following the Planning Commission hearing, the staff report will be updated to reflect the Planning Commission's action, along with a synopsis of the public input from the hearing. The updated report will be given to the City Council a few days prior to the City Council hearing on September 27th. The revised report will be e-mailed to you no later than the Friday prior to the City Council meeting. Any public input submitted before noon on September 20 will be included in the revised staff report. Written comments received after that will be compiled and given to the Council at the hearing.

The City is striving to be as paperless as possible, so please forward the electronic version of this staff report to others that may attend the hearing, or you think would have an interest in the report.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Again, thank you for your respectful interest in this issue.

Andy Miner

unusedusername
08-18-2011, 6:38 PM
From the ordinance...

Staff recommends the Council adopt the draft ordinance (Attachment B) to amend the Municipal Code to:

2011-7071 Location and Operation of Firearm Sales Businesses September 27, 2011
• Add a definition for “firearms sales business;”
• Prohibit these businesses in commercial and industrially-zoned districts within 200 feet of public schools in order to provide a buffer to the schools;
• Require a new DPS Firearms Dealer Permit. Each permit should include additional conditions such as requiring a security plan to be installed and then inspected by the City, and that the Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder and all employees meet the state and federal requirements regarding past criminal convictions, etc. (current requirements are limited to the dealer and not the employees).

oldrifle
08-18-2011, 6:48 PM
I was going to post this up. Thanks Stix.

The permit is the part I really don't like. FFLs are already inspected by the ATF. I'm not sure why the City of Sunnyvale thinks they need to get involved in permitting or inspection. Maybe they see it as a new potential revenue stream?

monk
08-18-2011, 6:59 PM
I was going to post this up. Thanks Stix.

The permit is the part I really don't like. FFLs are already inspected by the ATF. I'm not sure why the City of Sunnyvale thinks they need to get involved in permitting or inspection. Maybe they see it as a new potential revenue stream?

Revenue.

stix213
08-18-2011, 7:00 PM
Should we organize another standing room only Sunnyvale trip?

(cough... Attn: Oaklander..... cough)

bwiese
08-18-2011, 7:21 PM
Oh this will be fun.

Sunnyvale isn't that broke that we can't get extra money out of them

underhook
08-18-2011, 7:39 PM
I do like this section. Could it be that crooks don't buy guns at FFLs?

"Attachment G shows a map of each business with a FFL, and the locations of crimes involving guns from January 2006 to June 2011. As can be seen in the map, there is no correlation between gun-related crimes and the location of firearms sales businesses."

oldrifle
08-18-2011, 7:40 PM
If they issue the permits, they can deny you the ability to run your FFL whether you're in the proper zone or not. I don't think it's just about revenue.

jdberger
08-18-2011, 7:50 PM
Time to go to Sunnyvale. That's good. I enjoyed the Firehouse.

I wonder if they are aware of Ezell and LCAV's win/loss record with regards to litigation.

wash
08-18-2011, 7:55 PM
I mentioned Ezell last time, they knew but maybe didn't get the result of the appeal.

I should have Been looking more closely for this.

Time to read.

oldrifle
08-18-2011, 7:55 PM
Yeah, let's do it again. We have to stay on top of this.

vincewarde
08-18-2011, 8:08 PM
<<<< Require a new DPS Firearms Dealer Permit. Each permit should include additional conditions such as requiring a security plan to be installed and then inspected by the City>>>>>>

Unless this duplicates federal or state requirements, I don't think this is unreasonable. All the FFLs I know have a great deal of security anyway. It certainly is reasonable to require dealer to have a reasonable security plan.

Just FYI, if you are stocking powder, you probably need a permit from the fire department. Ammo shouldn't require one, but flammable solids (like smokeless powder) and explosives (like black powder) surely will. I would not be surprised to see them use this as the excuse for the 200ft buffer around schools. They may even think that if there is a fire the bullets from loaded rounds will go, flying through the walls. It's a common misconception.

<<<<<and that the Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder and all employees meet the state and federal requirements regarding past criminal convictions, etc. (current requirements are limited to the dealer and not the employees).>>>>

This seems to duplicate state and federal requirements. The FFL holder has to be background checked in order to get the license and California has the COE requirement for employees. I wonder if they know that? I am sure someone will tell them :)

axel4488
08-18-2011, 8:20 PM
If anyone is going to this from SoCal lemme know. I would need to hitch a ride so I can help.

wash
08-18-2011, 8:34 PM
Well, don't bother reading past page 82 of the PDF, it's just LCAV drivel.

I am very disappointed with the recommendation of the planning commission. They obviously didn't hear us or chose to ignore us.

Maybe Alan Gura will get a new reason to visit California more often..

Before anyone plans carpools or anything, I'm going to dig around a little, there are public hearings happening most days and the planning commission or city council may have one sooner than the 23'rd.

We can handle this and one way or another Sunnyvale will not further burden our rights.

G60
08-18-2011, 8:45 PM
wow! the LCAV 'model policy' is 59 pages long!

"In 2009, the state adopted a law, AB962..." they mention AB962 several times and parker v california not once.

GrayWolf09
08-18-2011, 10:20 PM
What negative impact do gun stores have on children? Do they get traumatized just walking by the store?

On page six of the report it says that there is a similarity between the sale of firearms and the sale of liquor. :confused: Really? What similarity is that?

This report is really a crock!:(

mag360
08-18-2011, 10:56 PM
the brady shill on the council stacked the report!

wjc
08-18-2011, 11:24 PM
Anyone know where they are going to hold this meeting?

20:00 on 8/22 right?

cadurand
08-19-2011, 7:12 AM
So weak.

They find no evidence that gun dealers cause any issues.

Then recommend more regulations, just because people don't want the shops in their town.

They don't even consider the option of just leaving things as they are and tell the concern people "There's no evidence of problems related to gun dealers."

BanjoGunner
08-19-2011, 7:59 AM
It would certainly appear that their conclusions were pre-ordained and the call for community input was insincere (at best)..., unless you agreed with them of course.

Interestingly, I did not receive the emailed report, although my comments were included in it...

tonelar
08-19-2011, 11:53 AM
Just read til my brain hurt... so dissappointed that a group of adults (sunnyvale city council) could be so easily swayed bythe likes of lcav.

wjc
08-19-2011, 3:08 PM
yup, pretty weak. I can't even comment I'm so pissed...and I live here. :facepalm:

oh, and LCAV sucks!

wash
08-19-2011, 3:38 PM
My favorite bit of nonsense in the PDF is the one lady saying the tinted windows at US Firearms makes it look like a "hoodlum" area.

She must have been very upset when she went to city hall because I think they have tint as well.

chiselchst
08-19-2011, 4:35 PM
Oh this will be fun.

Sunnyvale isn't that broke that we can't get extra money out of them

That's gonna cause another tingle down my leg...

I have to work that night, but maybe I can buy the group a few pizza's if they have to congregate...

blakdawg
08-19-2011, 5:35 PM
FYI, LCAV sent out an E-mail alert yesterday encouraging public participation in the hearing, and providing the e-mail address for comments for people who couldn't show up. Send me a PM if more details would be helpful.

jb7706
08-19-2011, 7:25 PM
AAAANNNNNNDDDDD... que Fabio and Gene. :)

tabrisnet
08-20-2011, 7:16 PM
My favorite bit of nonsense in the PDF is the one lady saying the tinted windows at US Firearms makes it look like a "hoodlum" area.

She must have been very upset when she went to city hall because I think they have tint as well.

This is doubly funny b/c, iirc, it is state law that requires that the windows be tinted! (I can't find the PC, but it basically says that you can't have, viewable from the street, firearms advertisements).

wjc
08-20-2011, 7:34 PM
My favorite bit of nonsense in the PDF is the one lady saying the tinted windows at US Firearms makes it look like a "hoodlum" area.

She must have been very upset when she went to city hall because I think they have tint as well.

I believe you're right, Wash...And the police station has blue tinted non-see through windows and is built like a fortress. :chris:

jdberger
08-20-2011, 7:47 PM
LCAV's "memo" neglects to mention McDonald also. It has a 2008 copyright. It ignores Ezell. It's pretty obvious that LCAV is acting in the role of advocate, not attorneys. Especially not the attorneys for the City of Sunnyvale, because if Sunnyvale were their clients, that memo would be malpractice.

ZirconJohn
08-20-2011, 7:49 PM
Ahhhhhhhh... DANG... I work Monday night...! :cuss:

wjc
08-20-2011, 8:00 PM
LCAV's "memo" neglects to mention McDonald also. It has a 2008 copyright. It ignores Ezell. It's pretty obvious that LCAV is acting in the role of advocate, not attorneys. Especially not the attorneys for the City of Sunnyvale, because if Sunnyvale were their clients, that memo would be malpractice.

Yeha, that's my impression on the memo and LCAV's "model policy" document is that they are trying to steer the committees' decision by proxy. It's actually pretty slick.

wjc
08-20-2011, 8:14 PM
Ahhhhhhhh... DANG... I work Monday night...! :cuss:

dude, I'm still amazed you came down last time. That's a heck of a road trip!

freonr22
08-20-2011, 8:46 PM
Gooo team!

phalanxbl
08-20-2011, 9:32 PM
I will be there on Monday.

Trailboss60
08-20-2011, 10:54 PM
My favorite bit of nonsense in the PDF is the one lady saying the tinted windows at US Firearms makes it look like a "hoodlum" area.

She must have been very upset when she went to city hall because I think they have tint as well.

It would be interesting to see if this woman has a car with tinted windows, take a picture, and ask her if she is a "hoodlum"...:D

tabrisnet
08-21-2011, 11:43 AM
I know I can't go (did go to last meeting), as I'm out of state until Sep 1.

Hoping for a live stream.

CalBear
08-21-2011, 1:00 PM
It looks like DPS currently requires a permit to operate a firearms store, and they want to codify the requirement. The other change is not allowing firearms stores within 200 feet of schools.

The first seems to be their way of adding local verification that federal laws are being met -- oh and some permit money.

The second, once again, makes no sense beyond being a feel good measure. I don't understand how they can compare alcohol and firearms as having similar negative impact on children. Alcohol is prohibited in use for all people under 21.

OTOH, firearms have sale restrictions, but kids can use firearms at ranges with their guardians. Why shield kids from firearms except to further indoctrinate them with the anti gun agenda? It's irresponsible when a parent doesn't address firearms safety and introduce their child to the use of a firearm. Few parents would skip the sex talk with their kid, and I don't see why anyone would skip the gun safety talk -- it's just stupid.

jdberger
08-22-2011, 10:09 AM
Let's bump this back to the top. As per before, I'd like to fill the room.

Y'all know the rules.

*Collared Shirts - Please come dressed appropriately. No camo. Remember to wear your teeth.

*Be Respectful - People are more likely to listen to you when you are polite.

*Avoid the Antis - Don't get into arguments with these people. They're wrong - we're right. We're winning. They're fighting rearguard actions. Walk away.

ZirconJohn
08-22-2011, 10:22 AM
dude, I'm still amazed you came down last time. That's a heck of a road trip!

I am VERY SORRY I cannot make this meeting... however, know this... I am
with you guys in spirit :yes:

I get home from work at 08:00: PM... I'll check the board for information...
will unusedusername be providing live feed and video...?

DANG... I wish they had this meeting on Tuesday or Wednesday when I'm off
from Home Depot... :mad:

CalBear
08-22-2011, 11:17 AM
I'm dressed up and ready to attend. Where is the meeting being held?

rp55
08-22-2011, 11:25 AM
Here's an observation. I have long believed that an effective avenue to these sorts of backdoor regulation attempts would be to identify the individuals that get these things moving and on agendas and those who actively support them. I had some time on my hands and used it to read that PDF closely. One detail that became obvious was that of all the people (not representing organizations) who commented on not wanting firearms sales in Sunnyvale, only one of them had what I would call a traditional American name. In fact, I went back and read it and all but 2 of them appear of South Asian/Indian origin. I am going somewhere with this and this is not racist or immigrant bashing.

I then went and investigated the demographics of Sunnyvale. (http://sunnyvale.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) According to that study, Asian Indians make up 9.96% of the population of Sunnyvale. Is anyone else surprised that >95% of the negative comments came from a demographic that makes up 10% of the population.

I pondered this and recalled that Indians, perhaps due to having been under British influence for so long, appear to have allowed British ideas to influence their thinking on guns. Under the British, native Indians were completely disarmed and those policies were continued after Independence. (http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/) I have been to India and, outside of an airport, not once seen a gun or gun store in evidence. India has no "gun culture." We have all heard how the Mumbai police could not respond to the terrorists because they had to back to the police station to get their Enfield rifles (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5276283.ece) out from under lock and key. This may perhaps explain a communal knee jerk opposition to anything to do with firearms.

Long experience has shown me that the best way to make a neutral observer pro-gun is to take them to a range and get them shooting. I do this several times a year. Perhaps a long term goal of making Bay Area communities more pro gun should include some sort of outreach directed towards ethnic communities, with a particular focus on South Asian.

On the other hand, some of them may be just be here working temporarily. If that is indeed the case, I would be very angry with someone here on a H-1B being involved in anti-2A activities. This *IS* America. Guns *ARE* part of our culture. Maybe they need to be schooled on that fact.

wash
08-22-2011, 11:29 AM
The planning commission meetings are at Sunnyvale city hall off of El Camino and I think Saratoga Sunnyvale road.

You can find the address on the Sunnyvale City web page.

There is a city council meeting tomorrow also.

wash
08-22-2011, 11:36 AM
We can't make this a racial thing.

It's just a case of one or two hoplophobes that made noise and then LCAV got involved.

They could be purple for all I care.

Flopper
08-22-2011, 11:52 AM
Ok, I found out where this is, and the date, but not the time.

Could I get the time please?

Also, could you post all three bits of info in the OP please?

wash
08-22-2011, 12:14 PM
7:00 pm tonight for the study session and 8:00 for the meeting where comments are allowed.

Mesa Tactical
08-22-2011, 12:21 PM
From the ordinance... "Staff recommends the Council adopt the draft ordinance (Attachment B) to amend the Municipal Code to: . . ."

This is so sad. In Costa Mesa, our professional civil servants are first rate. Their recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council are always the minimum cost and effort required to legally meet some request or other from the Commission or Council (Council is elected, Commission is appointed by the Council). They stay the hell out of politics.

It's hard to imagine our city staff actually suggesting the city superimposes unnecessary and redundant layers of regulation unless specifically asked by a Councilmember to do so.

unusedusername
08-22-2011, 3:10 PM
My brother's car just decided to eat itself, so I won't be able to make this meeting as I've got to go get him. I will not be able to webcast the meeting this time.

If anyone else has an smartphone with unlimited data and wants to broadcast it I posted a howto in this forum a while back.

CalBear
08-22-2011, 3:36 PM
I'll be there around 7:30, most likely. That's the start of the session.

The meeting is in the council chambers at

456 W. Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

BanjoGunner
08-22-2011, 3:42 PM
7:00 pm tonight for the study session and 8:00 for the meeting where comments are allowed.
What is the study session at 7:00 pm? The City of Sunnyvale website only lists the 8:00 pm meeting.

Thanks.

CalBear
08-22-2011, 3:43 PM
What is the study session at 7:00 pm? The City of Sunnyvale website only lists the 8:00 pm meeting.

Thanks.
The study session starts at 7, but it relates to two other issues. The issues of firearms will not come up in that meeting.

The main hearing starts at 7:30 in the council chambers. The issues at hand is #3 on the agenda, and will start after 8 PM.

BanjoGunner
08-22-2011, 3:47 PM
The study session starts at 7, but it relates to two other issues. The issues of firearms will not come up in that meeting.

The main hearing starts at 7:30 in the council chambers. The issues at hand is #3 on the agenda, and will start after 8 PM.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I will show up at 8:00 unless you tell me there is a compelling reason to show up earlier.

jdberger
08-22-2011, 4:28 PM
Some thoughts.

1) As much as they like to make it seem so, LCAV cannot give legal advice to the City of Sunnyvale. The City isn't their client.

2) Because the City isn't a client, LCAV doesn't have any obligation to give them GOOD advice. The Memo and any connected advice serves LCAV's interests, not those of the City.

3) If the City was a client, that abomination of a Memo would be prima facie evidence of legal malpractice. It neglects to mention McDonald and Ezell - arguably the most important Second Amendment cases since Heller.

4) The Memo also neglects to mention that Second Amendment Advocates (especially in California) are particulary litigious. Currently, Second Amendment advocates are involved in about 32 seperate lawsuits against various Counties and Municipalities.

5) Of the matters won by Second Amendment Advocates, they always collect attorneys fees, making things doubly expensive for Municipalities who already operate on tight budgets. San Francisco paid $1MM. DC was hit with a $3MM bill. I'm sure that fees for McDonald will easily top $1MM. In addition to paying the opposing parties attorney fees, losing Cities and Counties will also have to pay their own lawyers who usually charge more money. This is also something that LCAV's memo fails to mention.

6) Ms. Cutiletta's letter is deceptive at best. It mentions Suter v. Lafayette (1997) but omits Fiscal v. San Francisco (2008). It also neglects to mention Ezell v. Chicago (2011). It's probable that the proposed provisions in her letter (and the supporting Memo) are unlawful. Again, because she's not the City's lawyer, she can ignore all the case law she wants without consequences (to her).

If they're smart, they'll reject this ordinance. LCAV's legal theories are bankrupt. They haven't won a case since 2004. Perhaps the City should instead require some sort of permit for unsolicited legal advice.

Librarian
08-22-2011, 4:47 PM
Perhaps the City should instead require some sort of permit for unsolicited legal advice.
Or require a bond sufficient to cover the city's legal costs. True, that would mean LCAV would have to commit to a legal obligation whose performance the bond is supposed to insure. But if it's actually good advice, that should be no obstacle ...

wjc
08-22-2011, 5:04 PM
I agree with your summation, jdberger.

Problem is...how do we convince the city Council that this is a bad idea?

timdps
08-22-2011, 5:23 PM
Some thoughts.

4) The Memo also neglects to mention that Second Amendment Advocates (especially in California) are particularly litigious

LOL! They ain't seen nuthin' yet...

GrayWolf09
08-22-2011, 6:15 PM
Good luck tonight guys.

The staff report seems singularly devoid of any justification for additional requirements other than some people are afraid of guns!:eek:

Hit em hard!:chris:

jdberger
08-22-2011, 6:38 PM
If you cannot attend, please send an email opposing the new regulations.

wjc
08-22-2011, 6:44 PM
Oh, I'll be there at 19:30. :chris:

freonr22
08-22-2011, 9:12 PM
What happened?

bacon_lover
08-22-2011, 9:54 PM
Motion failed with a tie vote of the commission.

bacon_lover
08-22-2011, 10:15 PM
Damn. Alternative 1 passed.

jdberger
08-22-2011, 10:18 PM
Can you tell us more? What was the composition of the crowd? Arguments put forth?

CalBear
08-22-2011, 10:50 PM
What an enormous disappointment. I was there in the yellow dress shirt and slacks. I aimed mainly to attack the 200 ft requirement, as it's completely arbitrary, ineffectual, and pointless. I noted that the ONLY city in Santa Clara county in their study that had a school zone requirement was Palo Alto. I basically asked how this could possibly be a necessary measure when we heard no facts or reasonable arguments in favor, other than some emotional tirades. Linking gun stores to alcohol or adult stores was put to bed.

Of the 6 commissioners present, only 3 supported the 200 ft zoning restriction. The initial vote went 3-3, failing. The second vote was for proposal 1, minus the 200 ft zone. It was 3-3 the opposite way, failing. The chair (who was arguably the most eloquent about why the 200 ft zone made no sense) then put forth, what in my opinion, amounts to a completely travesty and sham -- he said he felt it was important for them to send some firm proposal to council, instead of sending comments, which is what they were going to do, otherwise.

In essence, he completely abandoned his position on the matter, reversed course, and cast a vote for the proposal, just to get something up to council. It's the equivalent of a congress person opposing a bill, but voting on it to give the president a firm proposal to sign or veto.

The breakdown of the crowd went in our favor. There were a fair number of anti gun people there to speak, but we did outnumber them. I think some of the points raised were very very valid, and I think 3/6 appreciated the comments and agreed. Yet in the end, the chair caved in and abandoned his position.

wjc
08-22-2011, 10:54 PM
This is from memory so I may have some stuff wrong...updates from others may provide more details.

The LCAV rep was there. She put forth their usual arguments. She was nervous and kinda rushed through her comments.

There were two women for the motion that wanted to increase the buffer zone from 200 to 500 and 1000 feet from schools, parks, and day care along with some further restrictions.

There was a gentleman, not rabidly anti-gun, but concerned about the "character" of Sunnyvale that voiced support for the restrictions. He suggested people could go to other cities to purchase firearms.

The guy who was on the military bases wanted the restrictions.

Almost forgot...City Council meeting to go over the recommendations is on the 27th.

...then there was the guy from Greenland that went on about wanting them to ban Semiautomatic and automatic assault rifles. He mentioned that they have hunting firearms. I would characterize him as wanting the city to ban firearms ad firearms sales.

I didn't recognize all the names from the pro-gun side (only Bweise) but they all presented arguments that this was a solution looking for a problem, none of he report points showed any correlation with crime, the planning commission was responding to a perceived problem, etc. Our guys were really good!

There was one older lady, Ms. Truong, that got up and gave a really great impassioned argument against the restrictions. Kinda blew me away because I thought she would have been an anti...just goes to show what perceptions are all about.

The commission went through several votes and appeared to be disturbed about the outcomes of the voting (my perception). When none of the votes were passing, Chairmen Hendrix's asked the staff what the options were.

They could either vote a recommendation to the City Council or pass their comments. I thought they were going to go with comments but Chairman Hendrix's wanted a recommendation to go to the City Council so they basically caved in and went with option 1.

Somebody else chime in here...

BanjoGunner
08-22-2011, 11:06 PM
What an enormous disappointment. I was there in the yellow dress shirt and slacks. I aimed mainly to attack the 200 ft requirement, as it's completely arbitrary, ineffectual, and pointless. I noted that the ONLY city in Santa Clara county in their study that had a school zone requirement was Palo Alto. I basically asked how this could possibly be a necessary measure when we heard no facts or reasonable arguments in favor, other than some emotional tirades. Linking gun stores to alcohol or adult stores was put to bed.

Of the 6 commissioners present, only 3 supported the 200 ft zoning restriction. The initial vote went 3-3, failing. The second vote was for proposal 1, minus the 200 ft zone. It was 3-3 the opposite way, failing. The chair (who was arguably the most eloquent about why the 200 ft zone made no sense) then put forth, what in my opinion, amounts to a completely travesty and sham -- he said he felt it was important for them to send some firm proposal to council, instead of sending comments, which is what they were going to do, otherwise.

In essence, he completely abandoned his position on the matter, reversed course, and cast a vote for the proposal, just to get something up to council. It's the equivalent of a congress person opposing a bill, but voting on it to give the president a firm proposal to sign or veto.

The breakdown of the crowd went in our favor. There were a fair number of anti gun people there to speak, but we did outnumber them. I think some of the points raised were very very valid, and I think 3/6 appreciated the comments and agreed. Yet in the end, the chair caved in and abandoned his position.
This was my first reaction as well. I'm interested though in the opinion of someone more politically astute than me:

This motion by the chair came on the heels of another councilman's motion to accept Alternative 3, which was potentially far more restrictive than Alternative 1. Is it possible that by sending a recommendation for Alternative 1 to the council, with comments, including his articulate description of why the buffer requirement didn't make sense, he was heading off the possibility of the Council going with Alternative 3?

My sense was that he honestly didn't support the buffer zone.

wjc
08-22-2011, 11:10 PM
This was my first reaction as well. I'm interested though in the opinion of someone more politically astute than me:

This motion by the chair came on the heels of another councilman's motion to accept Alternative 3, which was potentially far more restrictive than Alternative 1. Is it possible that by sending a recommendation for Alternative 1 to the council, with comments, including his articulate description of why the buffer requirement didn't make sense, he was heading off the possibility of the Council going with Alternative 3?

My sense was that he honestly didn't support the buffer zone.

yeah, I thought he wasn't comfortable with the buffer for lack of a valid reason. I got the impression he basically just wanted to codify the DPS permitting process.

BanjoGunner
08-22-2011, 11:11 PM
There was one older lady, Ms. Truong, that got up and gave a really great impassioned argument against the restrictions. Kinda blew me away because I thought she would have been an anti...just goes to show what perceptions are all about.

Yeah, Ms. Troung words were a very compelling.

I wonder if she's taking disciples..

wjc
08-22-2011, 11:15 PM
Yeah, Ms. Troung words were a very compelling.

I wonder if she's taking disciples..

Wouldn't that be something!

bacon_lover
08-22-2011, 11:15 PM
I will refrain from making any comments about Committee Chair Hendricks since I discovered tonight that he's a co-worker. My GF on the other hand thinks he pulled a crappy move by flip-flopping. She used more colorful language than what I'm conveying here. Though she was pretty much apathetic going into this and figured she'd catch up on leisure reading during the hearing, the comments from the LCAV-ies got her riled up enough that she decided to speak out. Proud of her, to say the least.

I expected there to be more people representing our side after reading about the last hearing.

wjc
08-22-2011, 11:17 PM
I forgot to mention Chris' girlfriend got up and explained how she had been a non-gun type and how her associations going to firearms dealers and shooting together had changed her perspective on firearms.

wjc
08-22-2011, 11:19 PM
I will refrain from making any comments about Committee Chair Hendricks since I discovered tonight that he's a co-worker. My GF on the other hand thinks he pulled a crappy move by flip-flopping. She used more colorful language than what I'm conveying here. Though she was pretty much apathetic going into this and figured she'd catch up on leisure reading during the hearing, the comments from the LCAV-ies got her riled up enough that she decided to speak out. Proud of her, to say the least.

I expected there to be more people representing our side after reading about the last hearing.

Ahh, now I know who is who. :D

CalBear
08-22-2011, 11:33 PM
the comments from the LCAV-ies got her riled up enough that she decided to speak out. Proud of her, to say the least.
I was very happy when I realized she was on our side

I expected there to be more people representing our side after reading about the last hearing.
Ditto.

CalBear
08-22-2011, 11:42 PM
Yeah, Ms. Troung words were a very compelling.

I wonder if she's taking disciples..
Seriously. I was on the edge of my seat when she was speaking.

CalBear
08-22-2011, 11:43 PM
yeah, I thought he wasn't comfortable with the buffer for lack of a valid reason. I got the impression he basically just wanted to codify the DPS permitting process.
Yep, and it's too bad one of the more regulatory 3 didn't agree to a reduced motion. I still think it would have been better to send comments that send the entire 1st proposal -- and I think the two members who still voted no would agree with me a big way. I picked up on a bit of a sense of disbelief from them, especially the guy on the far right (from our perspective).

CalBear
08-22-2011, 11:45 PM
BTW, we got what, at 3, maybe 4 "I believe in the 2nd amendment" or "I grew up with firearms"? Funny how any time a person says that, they go on to decimate the 2nd amendment. Sort of like saying "no offense, but f*** off and die."

wjc
08-22-2011, 11:57 PM
Yep, and it's too bad one of the more regulatory 3 didn't agree to a reduced motion. I still think it would have been better to send comments that send the entire 1st proposal -- and I think the two members who still voted no would agree with me a big way. I picked up on a bit of a sense of disbelief from them, especially the guy on the far right (from our perspective).

The guy on the far right was Travis. To his immediate right was Sulser (didn't like his attitude about the meeting), next was Larsen, Chairman Hendrix, Chang, and Huluck. Dawalda was absent.

(from memory...be gentle you pedantic types)

wjc
08-22-2011, 11:59 PM
BTW, we got what, at 3, maybe 4 "I believe in the 2nd amendment" or "I grew up with firearms"? Funny how any time a person says that, they go on to decimate the 2nd amendment. Sort of like saying "no offense, but f*** off and die."

Yeah, evidently they don't recognize what it actually stands for....

CalBear
08-23-2011, 12:05 AM
To his immediate right was Sulser (didn't like his attitude about the meeting)
Nor did I, and he was the originator of the study. He seemed to take things very lightly and was almost like the commission jester.

Paladin
08-23-2011, 12:09 AM
Wash, I don't think rp55 was meaning to be "racist", but maybe more of a "race realist." IOW, he recognizes that CA is on the front lines of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" and that the sort of outreach (in content as well as language used), that works for middle-aged white guys w/pickups and hunting decals, won't necessarily work when trying to people who don't fit into that category. Advertisers commonly make ads targeted to specific socio/economic/racial-ethnic subgroups. We should plan to do likewise.

I actually think rp55 was suggesting, in an unartful way, that we be culturally sensitive! ;) Or at least that is the positive spin I'll put on it, since that is something we all need to be.

Perhaps a long term goal of making Bay Area communities more pro gun should include some sort of outreach directed towards ethnic communities, with a particular focus on South Asian.

Back to thread topic....

jshoebot
08-23-2011, 12:20 AM
So, does anybody want to summarize what Ms. Truong said, or are you guys just going to tease us with how profound the words were and not tell us what she said? :confused:

bulgron
08-23-2011, 12:28 AM
BTW, we got what, at 3, maybe 4 "I believe in the 2nd amendment" or "I grew up with firearms"? Funny how any time a person says that, they go on to decimate the 2nd amendment. Sort of like saying "no offense, but f*** off and die."

Just for that, I'm going to start my remarks on the 27th with, "I grew up with firearms and I believe in the second amendment." Just so you can be caught by surprise.

;)

In the "after party" at Jakes Pizza tonight, I realized that no matter what happened with the planning commission, we were all going to have to go through this drill again with the City Council on September 27th. I wish the planning commission could have gone with option 4 (do nothing) but that clearly wasn't going to happen.

I was very disappointed with Chairman Hendrix's flip flop, but I know that he also really wants to codify what DPS is already doing relative to permits, so maybe that was what caused him to change his vote. I did ask afterwards how people get on that commission, hoping that there's some way I could work to get some of the idiots off of there. But it looks like it's a job with a 4 year term, and the seats are selected by the city council behind closed doors. Bummer.

From the anti's remarks, it's clear that they won't be happy until you can't have a gun store in Sunnyvale. Of course, that opens Sunnyvale to an Ezell-style lawsuit, but the anti's don't care. I just hope we can convince the city council to avoid the regulatory framework that option 1 would put into place.

CalBear
08-23-2011, 12:36 AM
Can the OP or a moderator update the thread title with full details on the results of the planning commission session, and the upcoming city council meeting on September 27? I want a MUCH larger showing for the council meeting that the one we saw tonight. I think it should be standing room only.

Date: 9/27/11
Time: 7:00 PM
Where: Council Chambers at 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA

The following proposal will be presented to the council:

1. Define a firearms sales business in the municipal code.
2. Prohibit firearms sales in any commercial / industrial districts w/in 200 ft of a public school.
3. Codify DPS Firearm Dealer Permit, requiring a security plan and background checks for all employees engaged in firearms sales.

Why is this so important:

The Sunnyvale firearm study amounts to "we can't find a problem, but let's find a solution." Time after time, the study admits outright that there is absolutely no conceivable problem surrounding firearms stores. There is ample regulation already and school zone requirements are pointless.

You have to ask yourself -- what exactly is the point of the school zone part? 200 feet is nothing. Try thinking of it like a stub for more to come. It's a lot easier to make the jump from 200 to 500 or 1000 or from public schools to all schools and daycare facilities than to add the ordinance in the first place. What seems pointless now might become a big problem somewhere down the road.

There is no justifiable reason to add an ordinance that does nothing to address a non-issue, and the city council needs to hear it. I want the chambers flooded with supporters.

Things to remember and to consider:

Dress appropriately. No camo. I should be able to look at you and not tell whether you're an anti or pro rights. Our goal is to break stereotypes, not reinforce them.

If you aren't good at speaking off the cuff, considering reading from a prepared statement. Either way, speak! The more of us who speak, the more our presence is known!

In terms of speaking content, my honest suggestion is leave some of the basic 2A arguments at the door next time. We all know it matters, but when it comes down to convincing the council to do what is most practical, we should focus on issues that hit closest to home. You won't convince anyone about the 2nd amendment with an angry tirade that lasts 3 minutes.

Stick to issues that address the inadequacies of the study, the negative impact of firearms ignorance on kids, the utter insanity of grouping alcohol and firearms as being equivalent in sales, debunking myths as they come up, etc.

CalBear
08-23-2011, 12:38 AM
In the "after party" at Jakes Pizza tonight
I want in on the next after party. :D After all that sitting I didn't realize there was one.

Flopper
08-23-2011, 12:43 AM
This was an interesting experience to say the least--alternately boring, infuriating, confounding, compelling, eyebrow-raising, to nerve-racking (when I spoke :eek: )

I'm very glad I finally showed up for one of these jim-jams, and I exhort everyone who hasn't gone to stop being a back bencher and to attend their local government meetings. These clowns really need to constantly be scrutinized.

Plus, at the after-party we got a few interesting nuggets from a little bird or two. . . too bad the attendees have been sworn to secrecy about the details :43:

wjc
08-23-2011, 12:45 AM
So, does anybody want to summarize what Ms. Truong said, or are you guys just going to tease us with how profound the words were and not tell us what she said? :confused:

A couple of us were talking to the court reporter trying to get clarification on
the contents of the passed motion. She mentioned there will be a webcast of the meeting put on the city web site some time tomorrow. I'll try to dig it up and post the location tomorrow.

CalBear
08-23-2011, 12:51 AM
A couple of us were talking to the court reporter trying to get clarification on
the contents of the passed motion. She mentioned there will be a webcast of the meeting put on the city web site some time tomorrow. I'll try to dig it up and post the location tomorrow.
Tis already up:

http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/CityGovernment/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/WatchCouncilMeetingsOnline.aspx

Connor P Price
08-23-2011, 12:52 AM
The idea of "We wont say you can't have guns, you just can't buy them here. You'll have to go elsewhere for that." Has the potential to land them in some serious hot water.

wjc
08-23-2011, 12:58 AM
Tis already up:

http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/CityGovernment/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/WatchCouncilMeetingsOnline.aspx

Wow, that was quick! She gave the impression it would be after 10:00 tomorrow.

Thanks for posting the link!

CalBear
08-23-2011, 1:07 AM
Wow, that was quick! She gave the impression it would be after 10:00 tomorrow.

Thanks for posting the link!
Sure. The silverlight player gave me some problems when trying to browse to my comments. I ended up opening the source code for the session and finding the video link, but I think it's session ID based.

http://sunnyvaleca.granicus.com/ASX.php?view_id=4&clip_id=765

You may need to visit the link in my last post and attempt to play the video before clicking the direct link for it to work.

CalBear
08-23-2011, 1:10 AM
Ms. Truong is at 1 : 30 : 00.

jdberger
08-23-2011, 1:16 AM
Well done, everyone. I'm most impressed with the voices here that we haven't heard before. Y'all amaze and inspire me every day. You motivate me to roll up my sleeves and get in the fight!

Could we have an afteraction report to show folks what we did right, what we did wrong, what we should change for the next time we go to Sunnyvale, etc.

Finally, since I focus primarily on opposition research, could you tell me who the antis were? Whe they send to these things indicates how much weight they give them.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 2:40 AM
Wash, I don't think rp55 was meaning to be "racist", but maybe more of a "race realist." IOW, he recognizes that CA is on the front lines of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" and that the sort of outreach (in content as well as language used), that works for middle-aged white guys w/pickups and hunting decals, won't necessarily work when trying to people who don't fit into that category. Advertisers commonly make ads targeted to specific socio/economic/racial-ethnic subgroups. We should plan to do likewise.

I actually think rp55 was suggesting, in an unartful way, that we be culturally sensitive! ;) Or at least that is the positive spin I'll put on it, since that is something we all need to be.



Back to thread topic....

I agree. It would be interesting to farther research the individuals he is speaking of. A high number of individuals in that particular demographic are engaged in small retail business of the sort that is often targeted for armed robbery.

Perhaps that combined with the absence of a ‘gun culture’ background makes them feel that they would be safer if guns would just go away. However, Indians are not stupid, I think they could be persuaded by logic the same as any other intelligent person. It would benefit us to try to understand what strategies might be most effective, and persuasive to these communities.

chiselchst
08-23-2011, 3:37 AM
Sure. The silverlight player gave me some problems when trying to browse to my comments. I ended up opening the source code for the session and finding the video link, but I think it's session ID based.

http://sunnyvaleca.granicus.com/ASX.php?view_id=4&clip_id=765

You may need to visit the link in my last post and attempt to play the video before clicking the direct link for it to work.

Thanks much, that made it work for me.

Very interesting. I, as a lay person, felt some of the most effective speakers were those who simply spoke off the cuff, voicing a short concise, common sense type opinion.

I wish I could have made it. Thanks to all of those that went.

BanjoGunner
08-23-2011, 7:50 AM
Can the OP or a moderator update the thread title with full details on the results of the planning commission session, and the upcoming city council meeting on September 27? I want a MUCH larger showing for the council meeting that the one we saw tonight. I think it should be standing room only.

Date: 9/27/11
Time: 7:00 PM
Where: Council Chambers at 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA



Already on my calendar.

I was surprised by the low turnout on our side of the issue this time, doubly-so the lack of fellow Sunnyvale residents. A couple of their voices-of-reason from last meeting were needed here to offset the increased pro-regulation side.



The following will proposal be presented to the council:

1. Define a firearms sales business in the municipal code.
2. Prohibit firearms sales in any commercial / industrial districts w/in 200 ft of a public school.
3. Codify DPS Firearm Dealer Permit, requiring a security plan and background checks for all employees engaged in firearms sales.

Why is this so important:

The Sunnyvale firearm study amounts to "we can't find a problem, but let's find a solution." Time after time, the study admits outright that there is absolutely no conceivable problem surrounding firearms stores. There is ample regulation already and school zone requirements are pointless.

You have to ask yourself -- what exactly is the point of the school zone part? 200 feet is nothing. Try thinking of it like a stub for more to come. It's a lot easier to make the jump from 200 to 500 or 1000 or from public schools to all schools and daycare facilities than to add the ordinance in the first place. What seems pointless now might become a big problem somewhere down the road.

There is no justifiable reason to add an ordinance that does nothing to address a non-issue, and the city council needs to hear it. I want the chambers flooded with supporters.


A solution in search of a problem: This is it in a nutshell.

The pro-regulator's strategy is clearly revealed by commissioning a study, finding no data to support their stated position, and then pushing for the regulations anyway. It is obviously just the first step towards their intended goal.



Things to remember and to consider:

Dress appropriately. No camo. I should be able to look at you and not tell whether you're an anti or pro rights. Our goal is to break stereotypes, not reinforce them.

If you aren't good at speaking off the cuff, considering reading from a prepared statement. Either way, speak! The more of us who speak, the more our presence is known!

In terms of speaking content, my honest suggestion is leave some of the basic 2A arguments at the door next time. We all know it matters, but when it comes down to convincing the council to do what is most practical, we should focus on issues that hit closest to home. You won't convince anyone about the 2nd amendment with an angry tirade that lasts 3 minutes.

Stick to issues that address the inadequacies of the study, the negative impact of firearms ignorance on kids, the utter insanity of grouping alcohol and firearms as being equivalent in sales, debunking myths as they come up, etc.

I strongly agree WRT to arguments centered on basic 2A rights and think we should focus on the lack of any validation whatsoever for the pro-regulators claims of, among other things, an adverse impact on children walking by the stores, adverse impact on home values, city/neighborhood character, increases in crime/gun crime, etc.

I did not intend to speak, but felt compelled to do so by the limited number of my fellow Sunnyvale residents speaking at this meeting. I do intend to speak next time and so will prepare my comments in advance and try to offer a more compelling story against further regulation.

...and yes compel/compelled/compelling are my new words for the day!

underhook
08-23-2011, 8:03 AM
Added to my calendar. I'm guilty of relying on others last night. I'll show up on the 27th.

putput
08-23-2011, 9:08 AM
1:24

Lindsey Nichols LCAV

Ordinance represents important steps to limit source of crime guns…

2008 Heller = Handgun in home “condition and qualification on the commercial sale of firearms are presumptively valid”

Ezzel = Shooting ranges and licenses to own not buying

Police Permit, Planning Permit allow public to be heard on proposed location

30,000 die 70,000 injured, Kids lose parents, Parents lose kids

Guns come from gun shops then legal buyers pass on
Records for police investigations
Local monitoring keeps records available

1000 feet would be better.

Home based sales regulated.

6172crew
08-23-2011, 9:39 AM
Title updated. Good job Ladies and Gents.

wash
08-23-2011, 10:20 AM
Ms. Truong is the reason why this isn't a racial issue.

After you go to a few of these things, you will be able to tell the rational people from the antis. I am proud to say that my instincts were right about Ms. Truong and I only guessed wrong once.

There are probably 100 more little old ladies who don't walk so well that think gun ownership for defending yourself and your family is a good idea.

The antis are just homely middle aged women, their ***** whipped husbands and a random whacko or two. They rarely smile and when their lips move garbage comes out.

I'm all for targeted outreach if it can be done effectively but we don't need to play a race card at a public meeting, it would be bad for us because we are already more diverse than the antis are.

I am very disappointed with the outcome of the meeting. We should make sure that if the clown that asked for the study has any political aspirations, they will not be realized.

We will show up on the 27'th and we will be working on this in the mean time.

CalBear
08-23-2011, 2:18 PM
I strongly agree WRT to arguments centered on basic 2A rights and think we should focus on the lack of any validation whatsoever for the pro-regulators claims of, among other things, an adverse impact on children walking by the stores, adverse impact on home values, city/neighborhood character, increases in crime/gun crime, etc.

I did not intend to speak, but felt compelled to do so by the limited number of my fellow Sunnyvale residents speaking at this meeting. I do intend to speak next time and so will prepare my comments in advance and try to offer a more compelling story against further regulation.
Glad to hear you will be speaking again. I also went in unsure of whether or not I would speak. I only work in Sunnyvale, so my word probably doesn't carry quite as much weight as a resident. I felt compelled to speak after hearing a few of the comments, particularly the antis. I plan to speak at the council, and am working on a statement.

wjc
08-23-2011, 2:38 PM
I'll be working on a statement too.

oldrifle
08-23-2011, 6:36 PM
I'm ashamed to say that I missed the meeting last night. I would have loved the opportunity to speak. Unfortunately I was very sick (I'll spare you all the details) and had trouble getting out of the house last night.

I'll definitely be at the next meeting and have many things that I want to say to this city council. What they're suggesting is incredibly disappointing. Thanks to all the speakers... you did a great job and should be proud.

mag360
08-23-2011, 7:11 PM
who was it on the council that asked for the "study without a problem" in the first place?

BanjoGunner
08-23-2011, 7:22 PM
who was it on the council that asked for the "study without a problem" in the first place?
Brandon Sulser identified himself as the originator of the study.

bwiese
08-23-2011, 7:33 PM
Brandon Sulser identified himself as the originator of the study.

Sulser was hanging about after the meeting with the various antis there, while the gunnies gathered in the hallway figuring out the next venue.

mag360
08-23-2011, 7:49 PM
Nice to hear from Ms. Truong, and to have it followed up with B. Wiese! I really like the discussion about "Where is the problem, show me a problem, if there is no problem, then you must choose to do nothing and move on".

oldrifle
08-23-2011, 8:00 PM
Seems to me that the city council is under some kind of serious pressure from LCAV to make this happen. I think our game plan for the next meeting should be to discredit LCAV as much as possible by digging up as many facts as we can to expose their nonsense. Personally, I think it's time to get a little more aggressive in the face of these scumbags trying to limit our rights. Peacefully and respectfully, of course.

mag360
08-23-2011, 8:07 PM
Seems to me that the city council is under some kind of serious pressure from LCAV to make this happen. I think our game plan for the next meeting should be to discredit LCAV as much as possible by digging up as many facts as we can to expose their nonsense. Personally, I think it's time to get a little more aggressive in the face of these scumbags trying to limit our rights. Peacefully and respectfully, of course.

I really should consider driving over from Sacramento to do just that. But I'm working night shift that day :( .

I would say the best line of attack would be : discredit LCAV, discredit any "need" to have the legislation, repeat the fact that there is no issue, hasn't been an issue!

You guys sounded great there.

wash
08-23-2011, 8:08 PM
Not the city council, the planning commission.

But now it is the city council's problem.

If the council is listening to LCAV, they are going to hear from us.

oldrifle
08-23-2011, 8:12 PM
Do we have a lawyer on this yet? I think we need a lawyer at the next meeting to help illustrate how far we're willing to take this fight.

mag360
08-23-2011, 8:19 PM
what's up with the idiot saying that sunnyvale must try to ban semiautomatic and "assault rifle" sales.

edit: boy Sulser sure doesn't seem compelling in his reasoning. What a spineless speaker in terms of why this should be done.

edit again: I can't believe Hendrix rolled over to take suggestion 1 to the council for "them to operate with". What BS. the council is just going to affirm what the planning commission "found" even though there was nothing to find. grinds my gears!

oldrifle
08-23-2011, 8:25 PM
what's up with the idiot saying that sunnyvale must try to ban semiautomatic and "assault rifle" sales.

The LCAV lady? Read the LCAV website. One of their stated goals is to ban semiautomatic firearms.

BanjoGunner
08-23-2011, 8:35 PM
Seems to me that the city council is under some kind of serious pressure from LCAV to make this happen. I think our game plan for the next meeting should be to discredit LCAV as much as possible by digging up as many facts as we can to expose their nonsense. Personally, I think it's time to get a little more aggressive in the face of these scumbags trying to limit our rights. Peacefully and respectfully, of course.
I must disagree with this strategy. The issue at hand is not the credibility of LCAV, but rather the credibility of the arguments that were made purportedly justifying further restrictions on firearms businesses. As you can see from the report, none of these claims were supported by the study. That's not to say the some criticism can't be leveled at the LCAV in our comments, but it must be ancillary to the arguments regarding the claims of the pro-restriction group. JMO of course...

Brings to mind a bit of Dilbert's wisdom: "Never argue with an idiot: They will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience."

oldrifle
08-23-2011, 8:36 PM
Good points BanjoGunner. I think we need to do a big sit down and discuss strategy.

dantodd
08-23-2011, 8:45 PM
It seems to me that the most important thing is to avoid the "what part of 'shall not be infringed' can't you understand" or "we need to water the tree of liberty" type comments. The council meetings are also not the place or time to try and explain complex legal issues in 3 minutes.

Most of the commentary, IMO, should be to talk about not wanting new laws limiting access to firearms or treating them like a "vice" such as gambling, liquor or pornography. Also, we need to show that you can't tell a "gun person" from an "anti-gun person" on the street. Every walk of life, every profession, every socio-economic group, is represented in the rank of gun owners.

That being said having one or two people talk about the ACTUAL record for LCAV backed ordinances and legislation since Heller is valuable. Having that person or another also discuss the costs that Chicago, D.C., S.F. etc. have rack up in fees paid to "gun lawers" would be valuable.

But we don't want to overwhelm them with tons of people beating them up with "what could happen if you pass this ordinance." We want to beat them up with "we are just like you" and "guns are not bad."

BanjoGunner
08-23-2011, 8:49 PM
what's up with the idiot saying that sunnyvale must try to ban semiautomatic and "assault rifle" sales.

Although I fundamentally disagree with him, I must respect him for his intellectual honesty. He didn't mask what his goals were under the pretext of neighborhood character, or home values, or any of the other unsupportable rationales that were offered up by others in the pro-restriction crowd. And you know that's their goal as well...


edit: boy Sulser sure doesn't seem compelling in his reasoning. What a spineless speaker in terms of why this should be done.
His reasoning was devoid of any..., reason!

kcbrown
08-23-2011, 8:55 PM
Arrrgh. I totally missed that this was happening, else I would have shown up. :(

(I was out since last Thursday, so I didn't even see this discussion)


I've marked the 27th of September on my calendar, and as far as I can tell I have no conflicts, so I should be able to make that one.


Sorry about that, guys. I feel bad about missing this. :(

wjc
08-23-2011, 11:01 PM
what's up with the idiot saying that sunnyvale must try to ban semiautomatic and "assault rifle" sales.

edit: boy Sulser sure doesn't seem compelling in his reasoning. What a spineless speaker in terms of why this should be done.

edit again: I can't believe Hendrix rolled over to take suggestion 1 to the council for "them to operate with". What BS. the council is just going to affirm what the planning commission "found" even though there was nothing to find. grinds my gears!

That was the guy from Greenland. A tool if there ever was one.

wjc
08-23-2011, 11:10 PM
It seems to me that the most important thing is to avoid the "what part of 'shall not be infringed' can't you understand" or "we need to water the tree of liberty" type comments. The council meetings are also not the place or time to try and explain complex legal issues in 3 minutes.

Most of the commentary, IMO, should be to talk about not wanting new laws limiting access to firearms or treating them like a "vice" such as gambling, liquor or pornography. Also, we need to show that you can't tell a "gun person" from an "anti-gun person" on the street. Every walk of life, every profession, every socio-economic group, is represented in the rank of gun owners.

That being said having one or two people talk about the ACTUAL record for LCAV backed ordinances and legislation since Heller is valuable. Having that person or another also discuss the costs that Chicago, D.C., S.F. etc. have rack up in fees paid to "gun lawers" would be valuable.

But we don't want to overwhelm them with tons of people beating them up with "what could happen if you pass this ordinance." We want to beat them up with "we are just like you" and "guns are not bad."

I don't mean to offend anyone. I know you're passionate about this but we need to stick with the Councils agenda. This latest meeting was not necessarily about 2a rights. It was about city planning regarding a zoning oridinance for a particular type of business.

I think, in future, if we stick to arguments that directly address the zoning issue we will be in better shape. My impression of the planning commision
meeting was that most of the commissioners did not want to get into a 2a discussion and instead wanted to focus on the agenda. It could be personal or political reasons but I got the sense that discussions made them anxious. (my opinion)

We need to focus on what they need to hear to sway their decision in our favor.

ObRequired: Sulser is not a friend of firearms. I could see it in his face during the meeting.

wjc
08-23-2011, 11:27 PM
Ms. Truong is the reason why this isn't a racial issue.

After you go to a few of these things, you will be able to tell the rational people from the antis. I am proud to say that my instincts were right about Ms. Truong and I only guessed wrong once.

There are probably 100 more little old ladies who don't walk so well that think gun ownership for defending yourself and your family is a good idea.

The antis are just homely middle aged women, their ***** whipped husbands and a random whacko or two. They rarely smile and when their lips move garbage comes out.

I'm all for targeted outreach if it can be done effectively but we don't need to play a race card at a public meeting, it would be bad for us because we are already more diverse than the antis are.

I am very disappointed with the outcome of the meeting. We should make sure that if the clown that asked for the study has any political aspirations, they will not be realized.

We will show up on the 27'th and we will be working on this in the mean time.

I would suggest this, not meaning to offend, that females..especially mothers, have a tendency to want what is safe and secure for their children. The two Indian women at the meeting struck me as that type of person. My mother is also one of those women that have an irrational fear of firearms and can't get past any reasoning why they are safe, needed, useful, etc. It's taken me 40 years to get her to see my side and we still fight about it.

We need to craft an argument that explains and diminishes their fear of these tools in ways in which they can relate. There is also the cultural aspect.

btw, I believe the clown is appointed by the city council so voting him out might not be possible. (I didn't like him either)

wash
08-23-2011, 11:35 PM
We won't bother trying to convince the antis.

As people, they are broken and not worth fixing, kind of like a busted LCD watch, not even right once a day.

wjc
08-23-2011, 11:42 PM
I disagree.

I think if we can craft a good enough argument we may yet sway them to our point of view. I think much of the anti's position is based on ignorance or an intractable position that they cling to to justify their self image.

We may convince then. We may not. But we've at least provided food for thought.

wjc
08-23-2011, 11:44 PM
The LCAV lady? Read the LCAV website. One of their stated goals is to ban semiautomatic firearms.

I suggest their goal is to ban all firearms in the hands of private citizens. I saw nothing in her speech that indicated anything else.

CalBear
08-24-2011, 1:10 AM
I don't mean to offend anyone. I know you're passionate about this but we need to stick with the Councils agenda. This latest meeting was not necessarily about 2a rights. It was about city planning regarding a zoning oridinance for a particular type of business.
I agree completely. These city council / commission meetings are honestly just not the time or the place for 2A rants or anything similar. The city cares in this case about its residents and about zoning requirements. We should clearly stay focused on the zoning requirements. The study didn't provide any evidence of a problem, so what's the issue? That's what we need to ask them. Demonstrating the safety of gun stores is also a good tactic. Basically anything to discredit the point of the zoning restriction.

BTW, I'd probably be in favor of a get together at some point to discuss some strategies. We could probably organize it through PM or something.

oaklander
08-24-2011, 1:34 AM
Should we organize another standing room only Sunnyvale trip?

(cough... Attn: Oaklander..... cough)

Staying out of this one.

LOL

:D

I am switching from wolverine to honey badger mode. . .

ETA: just read the thread. . .

Here are some common sense things for the City Council (who is reading this thread) to think about:

FULL DISCLAIMER, THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, AND THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT MY CLIENT IN THIS MATTER, OR ANY OTHER MATTER.

✰ ✰ ✰ ➊ ✰ ✰ ✰

Pleasant Hill faced a similar situation. Their mayor is a very smart person, who has had a very distinguished legal career as a corporate attorney. I know he is smart because I have talked to him. I like him, he is a good person, and is doing a good job, in my personal opinion.

NOW - "corporate" attorneys have a very good skill in that they know how to minimize legal risk for their clients. Think about what this means. . . Think about what one city is doing (or not doing), and then think about what another city is doing (or not doing).

Do you see a pattern?

✰ ✰ ✰ ➋ ✰ ✰ ✰

In my personal opinion, LCAV folks are simply not good people. I don't know how to put this more plainly. Sit with one and talk for a while. They simply are not rational. Try to imagine having a beer with one of them. They are not pleasant. This is reflected in their work-product, BTW. They are so much "idealogues" that they have lost touch with verifiable reality. Attorneys must first "see" reality. They do not, in my personal opinion.

They drink their own kool-aid now, and it is sad. Again, you can actually "test" this by talking with one, if you do not think I am telling you the truth.

It is not wise to hitch your wagon to people like this. They bring bad legal results into situations.

✰ ✰ ✰ ➌ ✰ ✰ ✰

No matter what happens in Sunnyvale, "we" win. We either win now. Or we win later. If we win "later," it will be AFTER the city wastes taxpayer money to defend a losing lawsuit. There is an EXTREMELY slight possibility that the city may not lose whatever lawsuit(s) is/are filed - but even then - there will be much negative PR. Gun rights are now civil rights, these sorts of things result in negative re-election results, is a blunt way to put it.

The above are just PERSONAL observations. I am not saying this as someone connected to CGF. I am not even involved at this point. I won't be the person filing suit, and I am not sure who will be. But I have indications that it will be who everyone thinks it might be.

I *may* go to the 27 Sep. meeting for LULZ, but I am sensing EPIC LEGAL/PR/POLITICAL FAIL if the city actually moves on this.

The common sense part of all of this is that there are simply NO LINKS between gun shops and crime. None. Zero. Nada. In fact, there is actual evidence that gun shops decrease crime in a substantial radius around the gun shop (due to the fact that LE likes to go to gun shops).

Think about it - how many donut shops get robbed?

LOL

Sorry, I have many friends in LE, and that was meant as a nice joke.

One final thought!!!

I have just moved back to the Bay Area with my wife, SierraApril. I *may* get involved in actual politics out here. If I *do* (and this is not a lark, like it was out in T-county), I am going to work SUPER HARD to make sure that whatever I "do" does not waste taxpayer money. What we are seeing here is simply a waste.

wjc
08-24-2011, 1:46 AM
Staying out of this one.

LOL

:D

I am switching from wolverine to honey badger mode. . .

I gotta admit...that was an epic moment at the first meeting!

Wolverines!

wjc
08-24-2011, 1:48 AM
I agree completely. These city council / commission meetings are honestly just not the time or the place for 2A rants or anything similar. The city cares in this case about its residents and about zoning requirements. We should clearly stay focused on the zoning requirements. The study didn't provide any evidence of a problem, so what's the issue? That's what we need to ask them. Demonstrating the safety of gun stores is also a good tactic. Basically anything to discredit the point of the zoning restriction.

BTW, I'd probably be in favor of a get together at some point to discuss some strategies. We could probably organize it through PM or something.

Wash already has meetings on Wednesdays. I can't go because of prior commitments but you should if convenient.

CalBear
08-24-2011, 1:50 AM
You know what's funny. I was thinking about this more, and reading some news articles from other cities that went into a tizzy over similar issues over the years. It occurred to me -- in the event that a commercially zoned parcel is located near a school, not only would a gun store have no negative impacts, it is quite possibly the most ideal business to fill the space.

Think about it:

- Gun stores are quite possibly the most highly regulated category of business.

- Police officers routinely shop at these stores.

- Gun stores have robust security measures deterring break-ins / robberies.

- The city wants background checks performed on all employees. Great! Whereas a convenience store clerk could be a felon or sex offender working across from the school, the gun store employees would all be clean.

- Those prohibited from possessing firearms (felons, certain sex offenders, DV offenders) are effectively prohibited from visiting gun shops. Gun stores are likely to attract the most lawful crowd of any business.

- Children will NOT congregate there. It will not promote truancy like a restaurant or convenience store would.

- Most gun stores have very traditional business hours. Unlike bars and restaurants which are open late, attracting drunks and loud folks, gun stores are strictly business.

- There are no adult entertainment themes. No seedy characters.

What more can you ask for? A gun store is not a firing range. There's no live fire at all. It's a quiet, safe, highly regulated business. Seems perfect for a school zone.

wjc
08-24-2011, 1:53 AM
I agree completely. These city council / commission meetings are honestly just not the time or the place for 2A rants or anything similar. The city cares in this case about its residents and about zoning requirements. We should clearly stay focused on the zoning requirements. The study didn't provide any evidence of a problem, so what's the issue? That's what we need to ask them. Demonstrating the safety of gun stores is also a good tactic. Basically anything to discredit the point of the zoning restriction.

BTW, I'd probably be in favor of a get together at some point to discuss some strategies. We could probably organize it through PM or something.

The issue is one of the Planning Commissioners is anti-gun. I'm gonna guess Sulser because of his attitude, reactions, and he was the guy that initiated this.

You guys may also find this interesting...just found it.

Brandon went to college at George Washington University in Washington, DC where he studied International Relations. When not in class he had internships for Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a liberal gun control advocacy group. After graduating Brandon moved back to Silicon Valley and began volunteering at the Community Law Center in East San Jose where he helped out in the worker's rights clinic and the immigration law clinic.



Source: http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/scl/vote/sulser_b/bio.html

CalBear
08-24-2011, 1:57 AM
The issue is one of the Planning Commissioners is anti-gun. I'm gonna guess Sulser because of his attitude, reactions, and he was the guy that initiated this.

You guys may also find this interesting...just found it.


Source: http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/scl/vote/sulser_b/bio.html
Thanks for the link. Not surprised. He was clearly not open to any of the comments or any compromise.

wjc
08-24-2011, 1:58 AM
You know what's funny. I was thinking about this more, and reading some news articles from other cities that went into a tizzy over similar issues over the years. It occurred to me -- in the event that a commercially zoned parcel is located near a school, not only would a gun store have no negative impacts, it is quite possibly the most ideal business to fill the space.

Think about it:

- Gun stores are quite possibly the most highly regulated category of business.

- Police officers routinely shop at these stores.


- Gun stores have robust security measures deterring break-ins / robberies.

- The city wants background checks performed on all employees. Great! Whereas a convenience store clerk could be a felon or sex offender working across from the school, the gun store employees would all be clean.

- Those prohibited from possessing firearms (felons, certain sex offenders, DV offenders) are effectively prohibited from visiting gun shops. Gun stores are likely to attract the most lawful crowd of any business.

- Children will NOT congregate there. It will not promote truancy like a restaurant or convenience store would.

- Most gun stores have very traditional business hours. Unlike bars and restaurants which are open late, attracting drunks and loud folks, gun stores are strictly business.

- There are no adult entertainment themes. No seedy characters.

What more can you ask for? A gun store is not a firing range. There's no live fire at all. It's a quiet, safe, highly regulated business. Seems perfect for a school zone.

Good points! I would also be interested in the number of regulations FFL's and gun stores have to follow to go into business.

chiselchst
08-24-2011, 2:10 AM
The issue is one of the Planning Commissioners is anti-gun. I'm gonna guess Sulser because of his attitude, reactions, and he was the guy that initiated this.

You guys may also find this interesting...just found it.

Source: http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/scl/vote/sulser_b/bio.html

Wow, good to know. Not surprising knowing he pushed this effort. The history of this org is also interesting as it recently had it's Twitter account closed. It initially started as an effort to ban handguns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence

At the above link is some VERY interesting stuff, as I read more...
_________________________

According to CSGV, its mission is to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.[9] The organization has five areas of focus, regarding issues and campaigns:[10]

* Guns, Democracy and Freedom: CSGV is opposed to the "insurrectionist philosophy" which the group attributes to the National Rifle Association (NRA). The coalition contends the right "to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government” is, in fact, a plot to oppose to any stronger, activist government and degrades the institutions that protect other freedoms.[11] Ladd Everitt has called for the arrest of all Second Amendment activists, and has called for them to be prosecuted for treason. He also supports a secret watchlist, to be made and held by the government, of persons banned from gun ownership or self defense.

* Microstamping: CSGV supports, on state and federal levels, research relating to, and the implementation of firearm microstamping, an emerging ballistic identification technology which purports to allow law enforcement to trace the serial number of a firearm from ejected cartridge case(s) recovered at a crime scene.[12] Microstamping was enacted into law in the state of California in 2007 with AB 1471. It was immediately suspended while the state determines the feasibility of implementing the law.[13]

* Gun Show Loophole: CSGV believes that the ability of private individuals to engage in private firearms transactions without requirement for background checks constitutes a 'loophole' in the law, and is working to change this.[14]

* Opposition to Concealed Carry: CSGV highlights problems with the current system for providing permits to carry a concealed loaded weapon in public.[15]

* Federal Legislation: Through federal legislation,[16] CSGV supports repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, renewing the Assault Weapons Ban, closing the "gun show loophole", and prohibiting individuals who are on any government watch list from purchasing firearms.[17]

oaklander
08-24-2011, 2:11 AM
Updated my post (http://bit.ly/pawVTC), scroll back a bit. . .

Honey Badger Don't Give a Shizzle (http://bit.ly/o4CLO8)!

<munches on Cobra>

stix213
08-24-2011, 2:15 AM
Can the OP or a moderator update the thread title with full details on the results of the planning commission session, and the upcoming city council meeting on September 27? I want a MUCH larger showing for the council meeting that the one we saw tonight. I think it should be standing room only.

Done, hope you don't mind me just copy/pasting some of your post.

I think the short notice kept a lot of us from showing (including me). I think a lot more people will be available a month from now (including me again :p ).

wjc
08-24-2011, 2:26 AM
Updated my post (http://bit.ly/pawVTC), scroll back a bit. . .

Honey Badger Don't Give a Shizzle (http://bit.ly/o4CLO8)!

<munches on Cobra>

Thanks for updating your thread oaklander....copy your traffic.

chiselchst
08-24-2011, 2:31 AM
Updated my post (http://bit.ly/pawVTC), scroll back a bit. . .

Honey Badger Don't Give a Shizzle (http://bit.ly/o4CLO8)!

<munches on Cobra>

Oak,

Noticed the new sig ("Coming Soon") :eek:

Any more info or whatever to be revealed any time soon?

oaklander
08-24-2011, 2:31 AM
Thanks for updating your thread oaklander....copy your traffic.

I seriously think that a single rational person talking to the right people on the city council, by telephone, can stop this. Their problem now is either (1) they are doing a dance to keep everyone pleased, or (2) they actually think this is good idea.

If #1 - then we let them dance.

If #2 - we NICELY and POLITELY educate them.

As a taxpayer (albeit in another town), I simply hate to see stuff like this. It just exists outside the realm of common sense, etc. . .

oaklander
08-24-2011, 2:35 AM
Oak,

Noticed the new sig... :eek:

Any more info or whatever to be revealed any time soon?

LOL, not much beyond that. Might sell some cool t-shirts to help pay off some personal bills, etc. . .

Was thinking that a t-shirt with the URL might be a neat idea to get people to come into the fold here.

That is about the extent of my simple thinking on these things!!!

wjc
08-24-2011, 2:35 AM
Wow, good to know. Not surprising knowing he pushed this effort. The history of this org is also interesting as it recently had it's Twitter account closed. It initially started as an effort to ban handguns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence

At the above link is some VERY interesting stuff, as I read more...
_________________________

According to CSGV, its mission is to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.[9] The organization has five areas of focus, regarding issues and campaigns:[10]

* Guns, Democracy and Freedom: CSGV is opposed to the "insurrectionist philosophy" which the group attributes to the National Rifle Association (NRA). The coalition contends the right "to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government” is, in fact, a plot to oppose to any stronger, activist government and degrades the institutions that protect other freedoms.[11] Ladd Everitt has called for the arrest of all Second Amendment activists, and has called for them to be prosecuted for treason. He also supports a secret watchlist, to be made and held by the government, of persons banned from gun ownership or self defense.

* Microstamping: CSGV supports, on state and federal levels, research relating to, and the implementation of firearm microstamping, an emerging ballistic identification technology which purports to allow law enforcement to trace the serial number of a firearm from ejected cartridge case(s) recovered at a crime scene.[12] Microstamping was enacted into law in the state of California in 2007 with AB 1471. It was immediately suspended while the state determines the feasibility of implementing the law.[13]

* Gun Show Loophole: CSGV believes that the ability of private individuals to engage in private firearms transactions without requirement for background checks constitutes a 'loophole' in the law, and is working to change this.[14]

* Opposition to Concealed Carry: CSGV highlights problems with the current system for providing permits to carry a concealed loaded weapon in public.[15]

* Federal Legislation: Through federal legislation,[16] CSGV supports repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, renewing the Assault Weapons Ban, closing the "gun show loophole", and prohibiting individuals who are on any government watch list from purchasing firearms.[17]

Wow...good thing I already speak German!. They didn't mention anything about eugenics did they?

Thanks for digging this up...

wjc
08-24-2011, 2:38 AM
I seriously think that a single rational person talking to the right people on the city council, by telephone, can stop this. Their problem now is either (1) they are doing a dance to keep everyone pleased, or (2) they actually think this is good idea.

If #1 - then we let them dance.

If #2 - we NICELY and POLITELY educate them.

As a taxpayer (albeit in another town), I simply hate to see stuff like this. It just exists outside the realm of common sense, etc. . .


if I was to make a suggestion....

I would talk to Commissioner Travis or Huluck. They seemed the most moderate. I think Chairman Hendrix was in a tough spot but tried to be reasonable. Larsen, Chang, and Sulser were definitely anti.

wjc
08-24-2011, 2:42 AM
LOL, not much beyond that. Might sell some cool t-shirts to help pay off some personal bills, etc. . .

Was thinking that a t-shirt with the URL might be a neat idea to get people to come into the fold here.

That is about the extent of my simple thinking on these things!!!

url with Minuteman in the backgound. it's a must have. :D

oaklander
08-24-2011, 2:50 AM
Re: communicating to city. . .

Yes, I am thinking that is happening. Can't say more. . .

;)

Re: "coalition to stop XXXX." - most of what I am sensing from them is fallout from a strange and nonsensical viewpoint that "strong" central governments result in a "peaceful" society. . .

This has never worked. Not for 2000 years, at least. I think the last "strong central government" that lasted for any length of time was the Roman Empire. I guess if we want to go back to a feudal system of some sort, these harebrained ideas might have merit.

NOW - if we had a coalition of HISTORIANS who were for "gun control," then there might be something to think about - but the truth is that EVERY RATIONAL PERSON WHO LOOKS AT THE ISSUE COMES UP WITH THIS:

1) some basic control is OK (and we already have that)

2) taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens increases crime, and results in civil unrest.

AGAIN - this only applies to the United States (since our history is unique) - but think about ALL of the times that we have had civil unrest. In EVERY CASE, the folks who had access to firearms (and I am not just talking about the police or military) actually CONTRIBUTED to society self stabilizing.

The idea that there will be some sort of "revolt" or something is as crazy as the folks who get boners for FEMA camps and black helicopters. It does not match verifiable reality, or history, or common sense.

Jeez, we LOVE OUR COUNTY. That folks who want to take away our rights think we do not is insulting, to say the least!!!!

ALSO - there is a misperception that our county is run by "other" people. It is not.

It is run by us. You, and me, and mom, and dad, and sister, and brother. WE are America. There is no "group" that runs our country, there are just folks, just like us.

If you do not believe me, just get involved in public service. It is very easy to do. WE NEED PEOPLE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE and start doing things for "us" - as a country.

It starts local. Attending a City Council meeting is one of the most patriotic things you can do, also included is actually ATTENDING JURY DUTY, voting, getting involved in charity events, and all sorts of things. Our country is not a spectator sport. We run it, through our elected officials. And "we" can be part of that team, like we are seeing in this very thread. . .

</flag waving off>

wjc
08-24-2011, 3:03 AM
well put.

On possible exception. IT is not run by us. It is run by the 535.

Control...that's where it's at.

oaklander
08-24-2011, 8:59 AM
well put.

On possible exception. IT is not run by us. It is run by the 535.

Control...that's where it's at.

Actually, there are another 4500.

There is a great book called "who's running America" - it makes a good case that there are about 5000 folks who run the entire country. In CA gun rights, there is a certain small number (that I will not disclose in public). SO - the concept of an entire country being run by 5k people is not strange.

The book is old now, it was actually my textbook in undergrad. It is well known and highly regarded. i.e., not kool-aid.

Basic idea is that "it" is:

1) state leaders (governors, etc)
2) university leaders
3) religious leaders
4) military leaders
5) folks who run large companies

etc, etc. . . - not far fetched at all. . . common sense.

THEN - there are another several million or so people who do "everything else" (local City Council folks, local church leaders, etc).

"We" here in this county really are "of the people." The idea is sound, it works, etc. . .

BUT - the book was written "pre-internet."

:43:

HERE in CA - you have NOW seen how some doofuses with a keyboard and a mouse have totally changed the entire gun rights playing field. So, things are much different now. Small groups now have great effect (think "anon," and how it changes debates).

LOL

"We" are not anon!!! We do things legally, for starters!! (Not to dis them, I kind of like them, actually). But we are legal, and we will stay "legal."

NOW - about me:

It's nice being a little helpful here in our state on the "gun issue" - and again, I am just some old fat dude, with not much money, a speech impediment, a bad knee, and not much else.

I don't even "do" much - but it seems that time and time again, I kind of get in the middle of things, and I seem to have a good effect. Gene once used the word "change agent" to describe himself and people like me. Change agents don't have to do much, they just need to be at the right place at the right time.

A change agent does not even need to lead. They just need to kind of influence correct changes, if that makes sense.

We can ALL be change agents. And it starts with "showing up."

SHOWING UP

. . . to events

. . . to meetings

. . . to our own communities

. . . to our own lives, and the lives of people we love

etc. . .

Dang, been feeling pretty patriotic these last few hours. Could be related to the fact that I bought a used Craftsman lawnmower yesterday, and mowed my lawn. Kind of feeling like a real person right now. I also stayed at a nice hotel recently:

ZlCLuIwuVgQ

pointedstick
08-24-2011, 9:25 AM
ALSO - there is a misperception that our county is run by "other" people. It is not.

It is run by us. You, and me, and mom, and dad, and sister, and brother. WE are America. There is no "group" that runs our country, there are just folks, just like us.

As someone who holds that misperception, here's my reasoning: My mom, dad, sister, wife, friends, or myself would never, ever dream of running for office or holding a political position. We don't want power over others, even to use it for good. We just want to live our lives. However, the people who run for office are of a different mindset. They are under the impression that power in the right hands can bring about miracles. Because people without this mindset become increasingly turned off by politics as it takes over more of society and gets uglier and more polarized, they don't run. As such, the systemic tendency is for the rulers to become increasingly drawn from those who believe in the use of power to accomplish political goals. These people are not my sister, father, mother, or wife. Not by a long shot. I don't know anyone at all who aspires to be an elected official. My social group is composed of liberals, conservatives, and a few libertarians, but one thing we all share is a universal distaste for politicians and a distaste for political careers.

oaklander
08-24-2011, 10:04 AM
"Politics" or "public service" can be as simple as working in a homeless shelter. I know, I have done something similar to this.

Anything that one person does to try and help another is public service. That is an ideal that we have held dear for 250 years, and then for another 4000 before that.

As "humans" - we aspire to help others. This runs across every religion, culture, everything.

Just because some people do it for wrong reasons (or don't do it well) does not mean that we "throw out the baby with the bathwater." If no person did this work, we would all be living in caves. There is simply no way to run a society without some sort of loose structure.

THE MAIN issue is "how much structure" - most reasonable people like "some" - but not "too much."

I find your reasoning selfish, to tell you the truth. One of the reasons that our gun laws suck here in CA (but they are getting fixed) is precisely because people like you DID NOT DO anything in the past. You sit and complain. Maybe you "vote" once in a while, or you send money to people.

A country is not run like this.

You can't have it both ways. Either get involved and work to fix things, or STFU.

Sorry, YOUR type of thinking is almost evil, in the eventual outcome of it. You are in the wrong place if you think you will get traction for this type of thinking. The folks here, and especially in this thread, are NOT politicians, but WE are folks who get good stuff done.

What have "you" done, to help another anonymous person, recently?

There is a whole MORAL dimension to all of this. Read what I have been writing AND DOING! for the last few years. Google me, if you need to. We absolutely must be the good guys here. Good guys win! And part of being the good guy/gal means that you HELP OTHER PEOPLE, and ESPECIALLY people you do not personally know.

THAT is the exact DEFINITION of public service.

You are like Eric Cartman ("screw you guys, I am going home"), in your petty thinking.

zyltK6pmJGg

ETA: I read some of your posts. You are overthinking this issue. No person is trying to do a miracle here. "We" are just doing what is required. There is a high and thin type of intellectualism which seems to be prevalent among some overly educated people. It prevents them from getting their hands dirty and doing "work" on issues. We do not need this right now. We need more work, less theory.

I can argue deconstructionalism all day, or semiotics, or Jungian/Freudian shizzle (nice avatar, BTW). But at the end of the day, it does not matter what I think, or what I say. What matters is what I do. I am hoping you are like that too.

ETAA: You are also missing my subtle point that crowdsourcing brings increased democratization, if you "do" want to get intellectual on this issue. But please don't. Just help us, and do not argue with us.

As someone who holds that misperception, here's my reasoning: My mom, dad, sister, wife, friends, or myself would never, ever dream of running for office or holding a political position. We don't want power over others, even to use it for good. We just want to live our lives. However, the people who run for office are of a different mindset. They are under the impression that power in the right hands can bring about miracles. Because people without this mindset become increasingly turned off by politics as it takes over more of society and gets uglier and more polarized, they don't run. As such, the systemic tendency is for the rulers to become increasingly drawn from those who believe in the use of power to accomplish political goals. These people are not my sister, father, mother, or wife. Not by a long shot. I don't know anyone at all who aspires to be an elected official. My social group is composed of liberals, conservatives, and a few libertarians, but one thing we all share is a universal distaste for politicians and a distaste for political careers.

bulgron
08-24-2011, 10:05 AM
You know what's funny. I was thinking about this more, and reading some news articles from other cities that went into a tizzy over similar issues over the years. It occurred to me -- in the event that a commercially zoned parcel is located near a school, not only would a gun store have no negative impacts, it is quite possibly the most ideal business to fill the space.

Think about it:

- Gun stores are quite possibly the most highly regulated category of business.

- Police officers routinely shop at these stores.

- Gun stores have robust security measures deterring break-ins / robberies.

- The city wants background checks performed on all employees. Great! Whereas a convenience store clerk could be a felon or sex offender working across from the school, the gun store employees would all be clean.

- Those prohibited from possessing firearms (felons, certain sex offenders, DV offenders) are effectively prohibited from visiting gun shops. Gun stores are likely to attract the most lawful crowd of any business.

- Children will NOT congregate there. It will not promote truancy like a restaurant or convenience store would.

- Most gun stores have very traditional business hours. Unlike bars and restaurants which are open late, attracting drunks and loud folks, gun stores are strictly business.

- There are no adult entertainment themes. No seedy characters.

What more can you ask for? A gun store is not a firing range. There's no live fire at all. It's a quiet, safe, highly regulated business. Seems perfect for a school zone.

These sound like good talking points for the next city council meeting. :)

I assume you'll make them?

Also mention that unlike bars, the people going to gun shops are sober and serious.

Also, people don't congregate and linger at gun shops like they do at shopping malls, grocery stores, restaurants, and big box retail outlets. They simply don't attract large crowds of people, which means reduced traffic and reduced chance for social friction compared to those other places.

I'd make these points at the city council meeting, but I have something else that I want to say. If you have other points you want to touch on, let me know because I know a Sunnyvale city resident who really needs to get up and talk, but who claims he doesn't know what to say so he doesn't do it.

bulgron
08-24-2011, 10:14 AM
Another point that I hope someone will make and expand upon: LCAV mentioned a couple of times that local governments need to regulate gun shops because they aren't inspected enough by ATF and DOJ. I think they even flat-out said that they want to see the city be in the business of inspecting the records at local gun shops for compliance with state and federal laws.

I'd like to know how LCAV wants the city to pay for those inspections.

The way to get at this is to give a statement on the slippery slope nature of this ordinance. Point out that the other side is clearly looking to expand the location ban to 1,000 feet, and to include other properties such as day cares, parks, private schools and anywhere else where children congregate -- even though there's no proof or even hint of proof that the presence of a gun store endangers children. Then point out the inspection point, and question whether the city council is prepared to go as far as LCAV clearly wants them to go in regulating these businesses, and how much budget they're willing to expend to do it. Then politely suggest they should just say no to the slippery slope.

If someone would like to work up a 1 or 2 minute statement that touches on these points, please let me know. If you want help with it, let me know and I'll meet up with you. Otherwise, I'll see if I can recruit someone else to do it. (As I said, I have something else that I want to talk about at the meeting on the 27th).

Mesa Tactical
08-24-2011, 10:22 AM
Are any of you guys meeting with the Councilmembers and Commissioners one-on-one? That's the only way I have ever prevailed in city politics. Public meetings are for show.

oaklander
08-24-2011, 10:24 AM
Are any of you guys meeting with the Councilmembers and Commissioners one-on-one? That's the only way I have ever prevailed in city politics. Public meetings are for show.

There is something that is supposed to be happening. I am not directly involved in it, but I "know" about it.

I would encourage those of us who "know" the city (and there are several), to reach out nicely.

bulgron
08-24-2011, 10:46 AM
Are any of you guys meeting with the Councilmembers and Commissioners one-on-one? That's the only way I have ever prevailed in city politics. Public meetings are for show.

I had one come knocking on my door a few weeks ago, due to an unrelated issue. I gave him an earful.

How does one go about having a one-on-one meeting with a city council member? I'm a political neophyte, so I've never done something like that before.

jdberger
08-24-2011, 10:48 AM
LCAV has declared Sunnyvale a "win". (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Legal-Community-Against-Violence/215654610808)

I'm not so sure that I'd characterize it that way since it was essentially a tie (meaning it failed) until the Chairman changed his vote - and his change was simply a procedural matter. From his comments, he was concerned that the ordinance wouldn't have any commentary attached to it if it didn't have a vote attached. I think that we've a pretty good chance to bury this thing - or at the very least, amend Alternative 1 to remove the school distance prohibition and change 1.c.ii to only include those folks actually involved with the SALE of firearms.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 10:48 AM
I don't mean to offend anyone. I know you're passionate about this but we need to stick with the Councils agenda. This latest meeting was not necessarily about 2a rights. It was about city planning regarding a zoning oridinance for a particular type of business.


I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or if you think I was trying to suggest that a city council meeting is a good place for 2A arguments.

jdberger
08-24-2011, 10:53 AM
FYI - according to the DOJ website (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/0304.pdf), initial costs for a COE for a gunstore employee is $73. This doesn't include the fee for LiveScan (when I did the LiveScan, it was around $20). The representative from the Department of Public Safety thought that the fee was $22.

ETA COE App language:

The Employee COE application package includes a COE application (FD 4008 Rev. 10/03), two (2) completed fingerprint cards (BID-7) and requires an initial fee of $73. If the firearms eligibility check determines the applicant is not prohibited from possessing firearms, an Employee COE is issued. If the eligibility check determines the applicant is prohibited from possessing firearms, no COE is issued and both the applicant and the firearms dealer are notified of the denial. Once issued, the employee is required to provide a copy to the licensed firearms dealer. The Employee COE is renewable annually at a cost of $17.

curtisfong
08-24-2011, 10:57 AM
We won't bother trying to convince the antis.

As people, they are broken and not worth fixing, kind of like a busted LCD watch, not even right once a day.

Not even right?

I'd say not even wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).

CalBear
08-24-2011, 11:12 AM
These sound like good talking points for the next city council meeting. :)

I assume you'll make them?

...

If you have other points you want to touch on, let me know because I know a Sunnyvale city resident who really needs to get up and talk, but who claims he doesn't know what to say so he doesn't do it.
I will let you know, and I'd possibly like to coordinate a bit. I'd really like for more Sunnyvale residents on our side to speak out, because it's very valuable to show we have members of the community among us.

I've been preparing a statement which has thus far touched on other stuff. If I don't make these points myself, I might like to go shortly after whoever does, so I can incorporate that information into my statement without going into the details.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 11:17 AM
I had one come knocking on my door a few weeks ago, due to an unrelated issue. I gave him an earful.

How does one go about having a one-on-one meeting with a city council member? I'm a political neophyte, so I've never done something like that before.

I suspect that "giving them an earful" recently might make is difficult to have a congenial meeting right now. You might try a different council member. Even then, remember that "giving them an earful" is probably not conducive to bringing them to our side.

bulgron
08-24-2011, 11:34 AM
I suspect that "giving them an earful" recently might make is difficult to have a congenial meeting right now. You might try a different council member. Even then, remember that "giving them an earful" is probably not conducive to bringing them to our side.

Sorry, that probably sounded harsher than it was. He asked if I had any city-related issues on my mind, and I brought up this ordinance. The conversation went on for a while, but it was just that -- a cordial conversation. It certainly wasn't angry, or anything like that. In fact, I spent a good deal of the time just asking him questions about how the Planning Commission works and how this issue even came to be on the table.

Mesa Tactical
08-24-2011, 12:30 PM
I had one come knocking on my door a few weeks ago, due to an unrelated issue. I gave him an earful.

Probably not helpful.

How does one go about having a one-on-one meeting with a city council member? I'm a political neophyte, so I've never done something like that before.

I posted something like this a few months ago, but folks seemed more interested in grandstanding at council meetings so it didn't get any traction.

The commissioners and city council members work for you, and are generally obliged to respond to your requests for private meetings. So call them up and ask for some time to see them, one at a time. In many cases they will have a minimum amount of office hours available per week, or they might meet you at a coffee shop or they might just speak with you on the phone. Sunnyvale is about half again as big as Costa Mesa, but it's still not that large of a city; so these people aren't unapproachable celebrities or anything, they're your neighbors.

The best way to work with them when you want to get something done is to sit down with the city staff and actually craft the text of an ordinance you would like to see enacted. This gives them a concrete starting point for the discussion. They can tell you what they like or don't like about the proposal. It sounds like someone at LVAC has done exactly that in Sunnyvale.

In this case, however, you are opposed to the proposed legislation. So speak to the representatives and tell them how you feel. It's good to get their opinions on the matter. Ask them how they intend to vote and why. In this case, this is so clearly a solution in search of a problem it would be useful to understand why in the world anyone would be in favor of it.

One of two of the representatives might be die-hard anti-gun, and you won't get anywhere with them, but the majority of Americans, including politicians, don't really care that much one way or another and are open to intelligent arguments respectfully delivered. Again, in this case there is a proposal to add layers of bureaucracy for no possible enhancement to public safety. I don't see this as a gun rights issue, it's more of an administration issue. Some of the representatives might respond better to that.

You are having a chat, not giving a speech. And your representative has a chance to tell you his or her own concerns and you get a chance to shoot them down. You have as much time as they are willing to give you, not just three minutes.

The idea is to have the vote sewn up before you even walk into the public meeting. This is how I have done things in the past here in Costa Mesa.

jdberger
08-24-2011, 12:35 PM
^^Excellent Advice^^

wash
08-24-2011, 2:19 PM
I'm going to have a little gathering at the usual place in Sunnyvale at about 7:00 till late.

If anyone wants to be involved with local coordination on this issue, please show up.

If you don't know where the usual place is, pm me. If you do know where it is, please don't post it, we don't need the antis showing up.

chiselchst
08-24-2011, 5:59 PM
After reading comments from the LCAV from that link jdberger provided, and watching the video, one point that LCAV (and some SV residents) make, is so invalid is this process. That is their concern about safety from possible robbery attempts due the presence of a gun store (and a safe distance from *the children*)?

I just had to deter a few miles tonight on my way to work due to an armored car attempted robbery and subsequent shoot out which wound up resulting in one death, and wounding at least 3 others including a LEO, an armed guard and another perp.

My point is, Bank robberies are somewhat common, but I have yet to hear ANY concerns over allowing a BANK to be allowed in to a community because of these concerns?

I also really like this post and advice below (now THIS is real grass roots)

I posted something like this a few months ago, but folks seemed more interested in grandstanding at council meetings so it didn't get any traction.

The commissioners and city council members work for you, and are generally obliged to respond to your requests for private meetings. So call them up and ask for some time to see them, one at a time. In many cases they will have a minimum amount of office hours available per week, or they might meet you at a coffee shop or they might just speak with you on the phone. Sunnyvale is about half again as big as Costa Mesa, but it's still not that large of a city; so these people aren't unapproachable celebrities or anything, they're your neighbors.

The best way to work with them when you want to get something done is to sit down with the city staff and actually craft the text of an ordinance you would like to see enacted. This gives them a concrete starting point for the discussion. They can tell you what they like or don't like about the proposal. It sounds like someone at LVAC has done exactly that in Sunnyvale.

In this case, however, you are opposed to the proposed legislation. So speak to the representatives and tell them how you feel. It's good to get their opinions on the matter. Ask them how they intend to vote and why. In this case, this is so clearly a solution in search of a problem it would be useful to understand why in the world anyone would be in favor of it.

One of two of the representatives might be die-hard anti-gun, and you won't get anywhere with them, but the majority of Americans, including politicians, don't really care that much one way or another and are open to intelligent arguments respectfully delivered. Again, in this case there is a proposal to add layers of bureaucracy for no possible enhancement to public safety. I don't see this as a gun rights issue, it's more of an administration issue. Some of the representatives might respond better to that.

You are having a chat, not giving a speech. And your representative has a chance to tell you his or her own concerns and you get a chance to shoot them down. You have as much time as they are willing to give you, not just three minutes.

The idea is to have the vote sewn up before you even walk into the public meeting. This is how I have done things in the past here in Costa Mesa.

pointedstick
08-24-2011, 6:09 PM
"Politics" or "public service" can be as simple as working in a homeless shelter. I know, I have done something similar to this.

Anything that one person does to try and help another is public service. That is an ideal that we have held dear for 250 years, and then for another 4000 before that.

As "humans" - we aspire to help others. This runs across every religion, culture, everything.

Just because some people do it for wrong reasons (or don't do it well) does not mean that we "throw out the baby with the bathwater." If no person did this work, we would all be living in caves. There is simply no way to run a society without some sort of loose structure.

THE MAIN issue is "how much structure" - most reasonable people like "some" - but not "too much."

I find your reasoning selfish, to tell you the truth. One of the reasons that our gun laws suck here in CA (but they are getting fixed) is precisely because people like you DID NOT DO anything in the past. You sit and complain. Maybe you "vote" once in a while, or you send money to people.

A country is not run like this.

You can't have it both ways. Either get involved and work to fix things, or STFU.

Sorry, YOUR type of thinking is almost evil, in the eventual outcome of it. You are in the wrong place if you think you will get traction for this type of thinking. The folks here, and especially in this thread, are NOT politicians, but WE are folks who get good stuff done.

What have "you" done, to help another anonymous person, recently?

There is a whole MORAL dimension to all of this. Read what I have been writing AND DOING! for the last few years. Google me, if you need to. We absolutely must be the good guys here. Good guys win! And part of being the good guy/gal means that you HELP OTHER PEOPLE, and ESPECIALLY people you do not personally know.

THAT is the exact DEFINITION of public service.

You are like Eric Cartman ("screw you guys, I am going home"), in your petty thinking.

zyltK6pmJGg

ETA: I read some of your posts. You are overthinking this issue. No person is trying to do a miracle here. "We" are just doing what is required. There is a high and thin type of intellectualism which seems to be prevalent among some overly educated people. It prevents them from getting their hands dirty and doing "work" on issues. We do not need this right now. We need more work, less theory.

I can argue deconstructionalism all day, or semiotics, or Jungian/Freudian shizzle (nice avatar, BTW). But at the end of the day, it does not matter what I think, or what I say. What matters is what I do. I am hoping you are like that too.

ETAA: You are also missing my subtle point that crowdsourcing brings increased democratization, if you "do" want to get intellectual on this issue. But please don't. Just help us, and do not argue with us.





Yikes, that's not what I was expecting at all. I'll take the criticism that I'm not doing enough; it's true that I've been hesitant to do much more than donate to Calguns every month and introduce the occasional colleague to guns at the range. To that effect, I've promised myself that I'll attend the next Sunnyvale city council meeting and probably speak.

I'm not sure where I gave the impression that I just want to whine and complain and be selfish, though. All I said was that nobody in my social group wants to be a politician in response to you saying that the country is run by everybody. Perhaps in that exchange, I displayed my unspoken belief that the country is actually ruled by the politicians, not the people. Now, the issues of how the people can affect the politicians and how well the politicians represent the people and who really has the power in this relationship and who leads who and in which direction the power flows are weightier questions than a forum thread can address of course, but I truly meant no disrespect. I know you're doing great work advancing all of our rights.

And I believe it's important to help one another just as much as everyone else here no doubt does. To that effect, I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, but I think there are many ways to help people besides what people typically think of as charity. Volunteering at a soup kitchen is one way, but teaching the defenseless to defend themselves is another. I think building an awesome product that brings people happiness is still another, and raising your children with a good sense of morality and ethics is one more. And so on and so forth.

Now, you've defined "public service" very broadly and equated it with "politics", but to me, this isn't an obvious thing. It's not evident to me how, to use your example, volunteering at a homeless shelter has any political side to it. To me, it just seems like a decent thing to do.

GrayWolf09
08-24-2011, 9:46 PM
I ventured into that dreaded den of iniquity today -- the corrupter of our children -- US Firearms. They don't even let kids in unless they are accompanied by an adult. I bought my first rifle at 15, my first handgun at 18. How can we corrupt the youth if they can't go in and drool on the counters.

I will try to be at the Sunnyvale council meeting. This is getting too weird.:)

oaklander
08-25-2011, 1:39 AM
Sorry - personal pet peeve of mine.

I have found this to be true:

http://bit.ly/mT37CK

BUT - from your below post - you seem more thoughtful than I imagined.

As much fun as we have (and we have a LOT OF FUN), this is serious work. The right to protect self and family is something that is enshrined in our history, and is, in my personal opinion, THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT.

That some of us would shirk our duty to nourish that right makes me sad.

However, I realize that not all of us can do it (time constraints and stuff).

On a larger scale (or broader, etc.), I just wish more people would do what you just said you did (devote time to public service). . .

On the politics thing - yes - it is not for everyone. But the truth is that our country is NOT run by "other people." It is run by "us."

I am not bragging, if ANYTHING, I am illustrating what one wacky and goofy person with a mouse and keyboard can do:

1) Got largest PRAR *ever* from CA DOJ (500+ pages of documents). Many of these documents are STILL being used to win cases around the state. In fact, I had forgotten I even did this (my memory sucks). Then someone reminded me that a recent case featured some of these docs as exhibits or something. . .

2) Edited (with Gene as the writer) a "Petition to the OAL." If you shoot "fixed magazine" rifles in CA, the reason that you don't have to weld your magazine into the gun is due to me and Gene.

3) Caused an errant LE officer to get reprimanded for a very serious thing he posted on facebook. This was the genesis of some UOC groups (and they don't even know it was me). In retrospect, I would not do this now, as I have a better understanding of LE. Much of it due to the fact that my wife works for the DOJ (and NOT BOF).

4) Closed an illegal FFL in Oakland.

5) Changed CSU policy - university-wide, on the posting of 2A-related editorials.

6) Did a retreat where ALL of the TOP CA gun rights groups met together, for the very first time - at least in a grassroots setting. . .

etc. . .

The reason you don't know about them is because I am not always talking about them - most THAT is because I have a crappy memory, and not because I am modest (I am not modest). . .

LOL

ONE PERSON can do a lot!!!!

I am asking that we have more "one persons" join us. We are "an army of one" - as our own US Army likes to say sometimes.

Yikes, that's not what I was expecting at all. I'll take the criticism that I'm not doing enough; it's true that I've been hesitant to do much more than donate to Calguns every month and introduce the occasional colleague to guns at the range. To that effect, I've promised myself that I'll attend the next Sunnyvale city council meeting and probably speak.

I'm not sure where I gave the impression that I just want to whine and complain and be selfish, though. All I said was that nobody in my social group wants to be a politician in response to you saying that the country is run by everybody. Perhaps in that exchange, I displayed my unspoken belief that the country is actually ruled by the politicians, not the people. Now, the issues of how the people can affect the politicians and how well the politicians represent the people and who really has the power in this relationship and who leads who and in which direction the power flows are weightier questions than a forum thread can address of course, but I truly meant no disrespect. I know you're doing great work advancing all of our rights.

And I believe it's important to help one another just as much as everyone else here no doubt does. To that effect, I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, but I think there are many ways to help people besides what people typically think of as charity. Volunteering at a soup kitchen is one way, but teaching the defenseless to defend themselves is another. I think building an awesome product that brings people happiness is still another, and raising your children with a good sense of morality and ethics is one more. And so on and so forth.

Now, you've defined "public service" very broadly and equated it with "politics", but to me, this isn't an obvious thing. It's not evident to me how, to use your example, volunteering at a homeless shelter has any political side to it. To me, it just seems like a decent thing to do.

I am NOT trying to derail this thread, but since I am deliberately taking a background role in this "event" - I just wanted to offer an observation: "when we do do this work out of a sense of justice and right, we go far."

Again - there is an obvious moral dimension to "doing the right thing."

http://bit.ly/noAyse

Librarian
08-29-2011, 11:22 PM
Just a minor comment. Based on the Alan Gura/Ezell filing today, this [slightly modified] quote might be significant: But more to the point, the Seventh Circuit clearly instructed that zoning gun ranges stores for secondary effects must, as in the First Amendment context, be based on empirical evidence. Ezell, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14108 at *62-*63. Plaintiffs are unaware of any empirical evidence even purporting to justify these restrictions, and cannot fathom why a simple gun range store cannot be located within a thousand feet (or five hundred feet, or five feet) of most any other commercial use. The evidence before the Court already is that gun ranges stores have long operated in this city, without incident, amongst other normal property uses.

kcbrown
08-29-2011, 11:26 PM
Just a minor comment. Based on the Alan Gura/Ezell filing today, this [slightly modified] quote might be significant:

Yep. Sadly, the 7th Circuit's ruling is merely persuasive, not binding, here in the 9th.

Which means I very much look forward to the inevitable circuit split... :43:

CalBear
08-29-2011, 11:58 PM
Just a minor comment. Based on the Alan Gura/Ezell filing today, this [slightly modified] quote might be significant:
Thanks for the quote. I find that to be quite relevant, and the most convincing bit of info I've heard that an ordinance such as the proposed Sunnyvale zoning could eventually be struck down in court if implemented.

This is not to say that a municipality can get away with shoddy data or reasoning. The municipality’s evidence must fairly support the municipality’s rationale for its ordinance... If plaintiffs succeed in casting doubt on a municipality’s rationale in either manner, the burden shifts back to the municipality to supplement the record with evidence renewing support for a theory that justifies its ordinance.

Adding zoning to gun stores flies in the face of the lack of any empirical evidence in the study commissioned by the city on this issue. Sunnyvale isn't even going as far as Chicago is -- they haven't made claims that stores would cause secondary impacts. They've literally said we see no problem with gun stores, but we'll zone them anyway.

stix213
09-01-2011, 10:20 AM
New public notice sent as PDF in e-mail from sunnyvale yesterday. Looks like still on for Sept 27. I've added the pdf as an attachment, but I've copy/pasted it below (sorry it loses its nice table formatting, pdf is easier to read but I know some of you love your little smart phones).



public notice
This notice has been sent to you because the proposed project is near your
residence/property or you specifically requested notification of this project.
FILE #: 2011-7071
Location: City Wide
Council Study
Issue:
Location and Operation of Firearm Sales Businesses, a study of
Municipal Code requirements regarding the sale of firearms.
Environmental
Review:
This action does not meet the definition of a “project” under CEQA
and no additional review is required.
Staff Contact: Andrew Miner, 408-730-7707,
aminer@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us
information and opportunities to comment
public hearings CITY COUNCIL HEARING
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA
Final action on this matter may be taken at these hearings. If you
challenge the action taken in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s)
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing.
proposed plans
and information
Project information and environmental documentation is available for
review in the Planning Division at City Hall between the hours of 8:00
a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday to Fridays (except Holidays).
staff report You may contact the Planning Division at 408-730-7440 to obtain a copy
on the Friday prior to the hearing. Staff reports are also available (Friday
after 7:00 p.m.) on the City’s website at www.sunnyvale.ca.gov
Special
accommodations
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Sunnyvale will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require
special accommodation, please contact the Planning Division at (408) 730-7440 at
least five days in advance of this hearing.

oaklander
09-01-2011, 2:10 PM
We have a friend there. That person needs to find out what is happening and why. This whole thing seems strange. There is no reason for the city to do this, unless they are being pushed somehow.

I am staying out of this because I am doing something up here, so no bandwidth. Please, "you know who you are" - just find out who in the CC is behind this and talk to them.

jdberger
09-01-2011, 2:24 PM
I believe that I shall name this, "Librarian's Syllogism":

The syllogism should go
- gun rights are civil rights **
- opposing civil rights is not a proper duty of government
- our government is highly likely to lose civil rights lawsuits **
- lawsuits are expensive
- lawsuits are, in many cases, avoidable
- laying off firefighters and police while at the same time spending money opposing civil rights in lawsuits that will lose is stupid.

THEREFORE, support civil rights and do not spend money on futile lawsuits that are morally wrong and financially ruinous.

oaklander
09-01-2011, 2:42 PM
Like!

I believe that I shall name this, "Librarian's Syllogism":

The syllogism should go
- gun rights are civil rights **
- opposing civil rights is not a proper duty of government
- our government is highly likely to lose civil rights lawsuits **
- lawsuits are expensive
- lawsuits are, in many cases, avoidable
- laying off firefighters and police while at the same time spending money opposing civil rights in lawsuits that will lose is stupid.

THEREFORE, support civil rights and do not spend money on futile lawsuits that are morally wrong and financially ruinous.

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 3:01 PM
I believe that I shall name this, "Librarian's Syllogism":

The syllogism should go
- gun rights are civil rights **
- opposing civil rights is not a proper duty of government
- our government is highly likely to lose civil rights lawsuits **
- lawsuits are expensive
- lawsuits are, in many cases, avoidable
- laying off firefighters and police while at the same time spending money opposing civil rights in lawsuits that will lose is stupid.

THEREFORE, support civil rights and do not spend money on futile lawsuits that are morally wrong and financially ruinous.

I like this very much, except for the "financially ruinous" bit. That's overplaying it by quite a bit. I've never heard of any lawsuit that has even come close to placing an even moderately sized county or municipality in real financial jeopardy (and by that I mean that it forced them to shut down major operations, e.g. the entire police department, the entire school system, etc., and thereby caused a sea change in the political landscape). But maybe you guys know of some examples of that (if so, please share!)...

Mesa Tactical
09-01-2011, 3:53 PM
I believe that I shall name this, "Librarian's Syllogism":

The syllogism should go
- gun rights are civil rights **
- opposing civil rights is not a proper duty of government
- our government is highly likely to lose civil rights lawsuits **
- lawsuits are expensive
- lawsuits are, in many cases, avoidable
- laying off firefighters and police while at the same time spending money opposing civil rights in lawsuits that will lose is stupid.

THEREFORE, support civil rights and do not spend money on futile lawsuits that are morally wrong and financially ruinous.

Except that no one's civil rights are being jeopardized by the proposed legislation. It's just a lame zoning initiative that adds extra hoops for gun stores to jump through. Anyone who considers them particularly outrageous or onerous has obviously never attempted to open a bar, or an auto paint shop.

I suggest a far more fruitful tack is to insist it is a needless additional administrative burden - both for the city and for businesses - with no conceivable public safety benefit, none!

And don't ever mutter about lawsuits unless you are pretty damned sure there is going to be one. Is CGF going to sue over some dumb zoning law? Really?

Don't rant and rave about gun rights. Guaranteed, most of your audience couldn't care less about gun rights, one way or the other. Bang on about how it is senselessly burdensome, even vindictive. The wild-eyed zealots in the room should be the LVAC folks, for proposing the stupid law in the first place, not the gun rights supporters.

I'm sure the one-on-one conversations with city council members that are happening even as we type are addressing these points.

G60
09-01-2011, 4:10 PM
Can the first post be updated for those of us crippled by mobile devices and otherwise forced to count each post one by one to determine what 'post X' is?

Thanks.

bulgron
09-01-2011, 4:44 PM
Except that no one's civil rights are being jeopardized by the proposed legislation. It's just a lame zoning initiative that adds extra hoops for gun stores to jump through.

Actually, it's more than that. It's an opening of the door designed to create a situation where there can't be any new gun stores in Sunnyvale.

If you listen to the anti's, they clearly want the ordnance to be 1000 feet from any school property (public or private), park, daycare or any place else where children congregate. In Sunnyvale, this would mean that there aren't any locations where a gun store would open.

You know how the slippery slope works with these people: first you start with a small, sensible, easy to accept ordnance, then you come back later and broaden that to something highly unreasonable.

I agree that it is unhelpful to threaten the city with a lawsuit. But I also disagree that this isn't a civil rights issue. You can't violate someone's civil rights "just a little bit."

CalBear
09-01-2011, 5:08 PM
A few points that I think are most critical to our arguments:

1) What is the purpose?

The purpose seems to be to pacify a small group of local residents who are pissed off about gun shops. The city seems to be making no effort to claim it will actually do anything. Let's make clear that spending money and time on things that do literally nothing is unacceptable.

2) How have they justified the proposal?

They've actually defied their own study by going ahead with zoning proposals. The thing is, if you look at Alameda Books vs. Los Angeles, the Supreme Court said municipalities can (reasonably) zone stores that are linked to fundamental rights, but specifically said that doesn't mean the municipality can rely on shoddy data, or no evidence at all. The 4th Circuit drew on this case and a few others in their circuit and restated this, with a focus on gun ranges.

When it comes to potentially impacting a fundamental right, they need to provide proper due diligence, and base their course of action on the data. Sunnyvale, in this case, has done the exact opposite. It's really unethical, and could possibly be open to a lawsuit somewhere down the road. The main point is this type of behavior is not suitable for a city with any morals or ethics. To regulate a fundamental right via the equivalent of a tantrum by some residents, with evidence telling the exact opposite... it's really poor.

3) What is the fiscal impact?

Going forward, maybe some lost business. Looking back, they spent 10-20k on a study that they may as well use for toilet paper. What a waste it is to spend taxpayer money on studies you will never even take into account during decision making.

4) How does a firearms sales business impact a neighborhood?

It doesn't and their study says so. There was no increase in crime, no drop in home values, and no use issues. They aren't loud, cops shop there regularly, the primary employees undergo background checks, felons are prohibited from even entering the shops, they have very reasonable 9-5 style business hours, and they are among the most heavily regulated businesses. Beyond simply being holophobic, there's no logical reason anyone would not want a gun store in their neighborhood.

5) But don't they answer to their constituents?

They do, but that doesn't mean they should cave in to every small group of residents who complains loud enough. There are plenty of Sunnyvale residents who are completely opposed to this proposal. Not every squabble has to end in a compromise. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. The anti gun people got the city to blow money on the study, and they were proven wrong. End of story. It's time to stop wasting city resources on this matter. The compromise of codifying DPS permits is enough. Zoning is a slap in the face, no matter how small the zone is.

6) Aren't these zoning restrictions common?

No, not really. State and federal law are way more than enough to regulate firearms stores and gun owners. There is absolutely no reason for a municipality to get involved, unless there is an actual use issue (noise, hours, crime, etc), but there's clearly not. Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County with a zoning restriction on gun stores like the one Sunnyvale is proposing. The rest are apparently smart enough to avoid the issue.

7) What happens the next time around? Or when someone goes after another business?

Clearly, the raging antis will not be satisfied with the zoning requirement. What happens when they come back for more? Will the city bend over again and increase the zone size? What about if a cranky group of residents, angry over the gun store restriction, decides to taking up a cause against another group of business. Will the city bend over then?

Mesa Tactical
09-01-2011, 5:17 PM
CalBear, those are exactly the points that should be made individually and privately to every council member.

When it comes to potentially impacting a fundamental right, they need to provide proper due diligence, and base their course of action on the data.

Again, you don't even have to bring up a "fundamental right." This sentence applies to any new restriction or regulation to which you intend to subject city businesses.

They spent money on a study, and despite the conclusions of the study the Planning Commission failed in their duty by proposing the Option A in defiance of the data. Hammer that home.

oaklander
09-03-2011, 3:06 AM
I have intel that Mr. Gura has an affection for the nice Coastal weather in CA. He really seemed to be liking the NorCal weather when I met him a while back.

ANY law that needlessly restricts the ability to purchase an item protected by the Constitution IS a threat to civil rights. It can create a situation that is ripe to litigate on certain issues.

Do you all find it strange that little is happening on THIS end. Perhaps we were TOO EFFECTIVE in Sunnyvale?

Just little things that I think about, when I can't sleep.

Not related to anything here, obviously.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bulgron
09-03-2011, 9:21 AM
We have a friend there. That person needs to find out what is happening and why. This whole thing seems strange. There is no reason for the city to do this, unless they are being pushed somehow.


I've heard an unsubstantiated rumor that there are three on the CC who want this. One is term limiting out this year, one isn't up for election, and one is unnamed. I haven't heard yet if any of them are being 'pushed' by some outside force, other than their own prejudices.

oaklander
09-03-2011, 12:25 PM
I've heard an unsubstantiated rumor that there are three on the CC who want this. One is term limiting out this year, one isn't up for election, and one is unnamed. I haven't heard yet if any of them are being 'pushed' by some outside force, other than their own prejudices.

they may not be fixable. no person who wants to stay in politics will make large mistakes. the risk of litigation here seems like the main issue, and the national attention too.

once we get past being able to educate as to rational choices, then we just kind of rethink.

i may need to make a phone call, as much as i would like to see litigation happen on certain issues, i also think that avoiding litigation saves money.

in my perfect dreamworld, i would like to see the rational cc members help the less rational one realize the political and legal results from making a wrong choice. anyone agree?

jdberger
09-14-2011, 10:27 AM
Time to kick this up to the top.

Folks,

If you haven't had the opportunity to sit down and talk with your City Council members, please do so. You don't need to have a prepared speech or talking points. Simply introduce yourself, explain that you're an active registered voter and you'd be sorely dissapointed if this measure were to pass.

The City Council is responsive to YOU. That's their job.

We're less than 2 weeks out on this. Go get 'em, folks!

oaklander
09-15-2011, 3:47 AM
Agreed. I actually have asked certain people to call. NOW - let us hope they did. I am staying out of this one, since I can't really figure out which way it should go. . .

<evil grin>

Mesa Tactical
09-15-2011, 7:30 AM
Agreed. I actually have asked certain people to call. NOW - let us hope they did. I am staying out of this one, since I can't really figure out which way it should go. . .

I can't imagine any non-Sunnyvale residents having much influence on city officials. In fact, I suspect it would be within the rights of Council members to refuse to meet with outsiders, if they choose.

tabrisnet
09-15-2011, 8:21 AM
Blecch. Well understood, but from my pov... I legally live in MV but spend way more time in SNV now. I always, since I moved out here, lived right on the border. one street away from SNV. I work for a company that is HQ'd in SNV, I work maybe a mile from the SNV border (in Santa Clara).

oaklander
09-15-2011, 9:06 AM
I can't imagine any non-Sunnyvale residents having much influence on city officials. In fact, I suspect it would be within the rights of Council members to refuse to meet with outsiders, if they choose.

Wasn't outsiders. I am not stupid.

:43:

I am hoping to do some work a few miles Northeast. JD and Wash have this one well under control. I again need to express to people that "we" are the ones who ultimately set policy on this. Every time a city does this, it creates a chance to build a body of law that will eventually get up to the correct Supreme Court. We are now in a can't lose situation. The ONLY TWO questions are how broad will our rights be in 5/10/20/50 years, and how rapidly we will regain them "all" - 5/10/20 or longer?

I keep telling people that things are the exact opposite of how they are viewed. AND THIS is why it is SO important to finance CGF right now. We are just past the tipping point. We absolutely need to maintain the momentum. And lawyers (other than me) cost money.

Wherryj
09-15-2011, 10:36 AM
A few points that I think are most critical to our arguments:

1) What is the purpose?

The purpose seems to be to pacify a small group of local residents who are pissed off about gun shops. The city seems to be making no effort to claim it will actually do anything. Let's make clear that spending money and time on things that do literally nothing is unacceptable.

2) How have they justified the proposal?

They've actually defied their own study by going ahead with zoning proposals. The thing is, if you look at Alameda Books vs. Los Angeles, the Supreme Court said municipalities can (reasonably) zone stores that are linked to fundamental rights, but specifically said that doesn't mean the municipality can rely on shoddy data, or no evidence at all. The 4th Circuit drew on this case and a few others in their circuit and restated this, with a focus on gun ranges.

When it comes to potentially impacting a fundamental right, they need to provide proper due diligence, and base their course of action on the data. Sunnyvale, in this case, has done the exact opposite. It's really unethical, and could possibly be open to a lawsuit somewhere down the road. The main point is this type of behavior is not suitable for a city with any morals or ethics. To regulate a fundamental right via the equivalent of a tantrum by some residents, with evidence telling the exact opposite... it's really poor.

3) What is the fiscal impact?

Going forward, maybe some lost business. Looking back, they spent 10-20k on a study that they may as well use for toilet paper. What a waste it is to spend taxpayer money on studies you will never even take into account during decision making.

4) How does a firearms sales business impact a neighborhood?

It doesn't and their study says so. There was no increase in crime, no drop in home values, and no use issues. They aren't loud, cops shop there regularly, the primary employees undergo background checks, felons are prohibited from even entering the shops, they have very reasonable 9-5 style business hours, and they are among the most heavily regulated businesses. Beyond simply being holophobic, there's no logical reason anyone would not want a gun store in their neighborhood.

5) But don't they answer to their constituents?

They do, but that doesn't mean they should cave in to every small group of residents who complains loud enough. There are plenty of Sunnyvale residents who are completely opposed to this proposal. Not every squabble has to end in a compromise. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. The anti gun people got the city to blow money on the study, and they were proven wrong. End of story. It's time to stop wasting city resources on this matter. The compromise of codifying DPS permits is enough. Zoning is a slap in the face, no matter how small the zone is.

6) Aren't these zoning restrictions common?

No, not really. State and federal law are way more than enough to regulate firearms stores and gun owners. There is absolutely no reason for a municipality to get involved, unless there is an actual use issue (noise, hours, crime, etc), but there's clearly not. Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County with a zoning restriction on gun stores like the one Sunnyvale is proposing. The rest are apparently smart enough to avoid the issue.

7) What happens the next time around? Or when someone goes after another business?

Clearly, the raging antis will not be satisfied with the zoning requirement. What happens when they come back for more? Will the city bend over again and increase the zone size? What about if a cranky group of residents, angry over the gun store restriction, decides to taking up a cause against another group of business. Will the city bend over then?

I don't like what happens at Bed, Bath and Beyond, but I'm not asking for a zoning regulation.

http://comedians.jokes.com/auggie-smith/videos/auggie-smith---no-smoking

jdberger
09-16-2011, 1:37 PM
I recall arguments made by some residents that gun stores were somehow dangerous (refuted in the planning study).

I wonder if Planning Commissioner Sulzer feels the same way about Jewelry Stores?

GmadBLAvnfw

Listen to the comments of the other tenants starting at 1:04.

chiselchst
09-16-2011, 3:22 PM
I wonder if Planning Commissioner Sulzer feels the same way about Jewelry Stores?

How about banks?

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/128326848.html

kcbrown
09-16-2011, 3:34 PM
I recall arguments made by some residents that gun stores were somehow dangerous (refuted in the planning study).

I wonder if Planning Commissioner Sulzer feels the same way about Jewelry Stores?

GmadBLAvnfw

Listen to the comments of the other tenants starting at 1:04.

Note the title: "Would-be robbers shot by victim". If this had happened in California, the title would be markedly different, something like "Would-be robbers become shooting victims". And chances are, the building manager wouldn't even been given the chance to defend the vendor. :rolleyes:

But yeah, otherwise, this piece sounds a lot like what you'd expect here in California, not over there in Tennessee, with the bulk of the interview time going to some pansy tenant who would rather live in an area where the criminals aren't taken down by law-abiding citizens. :facepalm:

chuckles48
09-16-2011, 4:45 PM
Gack, more blatant stupidity. I'll be there, with bells on.

stix213
09-22-2011, 9:38 AM
Bumping thread as a reminder about the 27th. As far as I'm aware, the meeting is still a go.

underhook
09-22-2011, 9:44 AM
Thanks for the reminder. Double checked my calendar. Will be there.

oaklander
09-22-2011, 11:14 AM
Here is how OAKLAND fights a real crime issue:

http://bit.ly/oKUmTu

THAT is the Chief. And OPD is now working WITH stakeholders on this issue. In Sunnyvale, you DO NOT EVEN HAVE A MAJOR CRIME ISSUE.

I *can* say that driving the legitimate "gun trade" underground actually creates a culture of illegality. Take Oakland for example:

Since there are ZERO places to buy LEGALLY guns (or ammo) - well - law abiding folks tend to NOT do it. BUT - the criminals DO IT - since they use the guns as part of their "trade." What this creates, over time - is a situation in which law abiding citizens are discouraged from protecting their families and homes (by bad public policies), and yet criminals operate with impunity.

Again, everything that people "think" they know about guns and gun control is backwards. You do not even "need" statistics to "see" common sense. BUT - if folks want to "see" statistics - google the Phoenix violent crime rate, and compare it to Oakland.

Phoenix is a GUN TOWN. And yet - that racially diverse town has 1/3 of Oakland's crime. The guns actually CREATE a situation in which criminals have more fear and trepidation before doing things like home invasions and stuff. Criminals are rational. At least the ones who are not yet dead.

DO NOT listen to the "policy wonk" stuff re: Sunnyvale. The REAL issue is that certain people are gaming the system there to start a system that would eventually drive gun sales underground. These people are replicating a system that has FAILED OAKLAND. Like TOTAL EPIC UTTER FAIL.

The "prohibition" policy on guns simply DOES NOT WORK. THAT is why rational policy makers (even those who do not like guns) will STILL support creating a legal gun culture in a given city. I really need to sit down with someone there and explain this. It is NOT ROCKET science, but it requires a larger way of thinking than what most people are used to. . .

It is NO ACCIDENT that Oakland is listening to me. I actually studied urban crime issues at a very high level (like in level "7" classes in law school). I never talk about this stuff, since it does not come up in normal conversation. I know EXACTLY what causes crime, and I know EXACTLY what stops crime. Here, we have people who can't even decide where to put a fricken park bench trying to set a policy that will harm their own citizens.

CRAZY!!!

This is ALSO why LCAV refuses to debate me - even after I contacted Juliet DIRECTLY, VIA EMAIL. As a person, I simply know more than they do - on the policy aspects of gun prohibition. I also know more urban history, and apparently more law - at least from reading some of their communications to cities, in which they appear to mis-cite laws.

Again, my personal opinion is that these are simply not good people (LCAV). I am now working DIRECTLY with churches and community groups (and OPD) on actual crime reduction measures in Oakland (now that the gun prohibition thing has FAILED - we need to do REAL WORK). I HAVE YET TO EVEN "SEE" ONE SINGLE LCAV PERSON HERE.

Here is a photo that I took at a Candlelight Vigil for a poor child that died as a result of "bad policy."

http://bit.ly/pwQtoI

I sure did not see LCAV there. If anything, they would have been escorted out of there by local citizens who are tired of the capetbagging BS from out-of-towners who keep fracking up Oakland's policies. Now LCAV is trying to frack-up smaller towns?

EPIC FAIL, DUDES. . . Total epic fail. . .

stix213
09-22-2011, 4:02 PM
Some points worthy of bringing up in the sunnyvale meeting you make there Oak.

oaklander
09-22-2011, 10:49 PM
Some points worthy of bringing up in the sunnyvale meeting you make there Oak.

Thanks! Yes, I actually DO believe that crime is MUCH HIGHER in areas WITH gun control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

edsel6502
09-23-2011, 9:33 AM
Here is the latest study.

As of 09/22/2011

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2359310/Firearms%20Sales%20Business%20study%20issue%20repo rt%20for%20Council.pdf

I'm sorry I can't be there as I'm going to be out of the country. But please show up and show the Sunnyvale City Council the error of their ways.

Librarian
09-23-2011, 1:11 PM
Here is the latest study.

As of 09/22/2011

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2359310/Firearms%20Sales%20Business%20study%20issue%20repo rt%20for%20Council.pdf

I'm sorry I can't be there as I'm going to be out of the country. But please show up and show the Sunnyvale City Council the error of their ways.

Interesting document, thanks.

One interesting tidbit: "The ATF enforces a requirement that any firearm sold within 1,000 feet of a school must be transported in a locked case." Federal GFSZ does require that, but ATF actually enforces?

Otherwise, it's generally sensible up until the conclusion; it says there are no problems they can find with gun sales businesses but we should " amend the code to define “firearm sales business”, prohibit those businesses within 200 feet of a public school, and codify the requirement for a permit from Public Safety" anyway.

I'm impressed, I guess you could say, by the strong association they make between guns and liquor. Just another vice, can't have the kiddies exposed. You know, because there's this persistent group of down and out 'gun-os', sitting on street corners near the gun stores, passing Lorcins around in paper bags.

wjc
09-23-2011, 1:59 PM
Interesting document, thanks.

One interesting tidbit: "The ATF enforces a requirement that any firearm sold within 1,000 feet of a school must be transported in a locked case." Federal GFSZ does require that, but ATF actually enforces?

Otherwise, it's generally sensible up until the conclusion; it says there are no problems they can find with gun sales businesses but we should " amend the code to define “firearm sales business”, prohibit those businesses within 200 feet of a public school, and codify the requirement for a permit from Public Safety" anyway.

I'm impressed, I guess you could say, by the strong association they make between guns and liquor. Just another vice, can't have the kiddies exposed. You know, because there's this persistent group of down and out 'gun-os', sitting on street corners near the gun stores, passing Lorcins around in paper bags.

This was the point in the second meeting where I knew they were going to cave in and pass something for the anti's. I was seriously disappointed in the planning commission at that point.

psst...hey buddy...can you spare some change for a 1911? :D

oaklander
09-26-2011, 1:32 AM
I may have a meeting with a local politician here in Oaktown on another matter. If I do not, I would like to attend, simply to watch.

The concept of wasting taxpayer money on something STUPID is something I need to study, since there is a 90 percent chance that I will run for City Council here in Oakland. My goal, at this point, is to learn how NOT TO DO THINGS!

ROFL

;-)

Please Sunnyvale, can you not see that this will cause problems (and enertainment)?

It is like we have all entered a world where folks just stop responding to logic. As the entire STATE finally gets clarity on the gun issue, we STILL have one province that seems to think that aligning with pariahs like LCAV is somehow actually "helping" them?

Are they not in contact with political/legal reality? ALSO, folks, please do not get lost in details. That city has nearly ZERO gun crime. THESE statutes, if passed, would do ZERO - since they would attempt to fight a problem that does not even exist.

I am guessing that the city has spent at least SIX FIGURES of TAXPAYER money, at this point, fighting a problem that is truly an illusion. I imagine that re-election is now an illusion? I do not know, I am just learning this stuff too. Happy to know that the bar is low to entry.

;-)


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

Mesa Tactical
09-26-2011, 7:16 AM
Otherwise, it's generally sensible up until the conclusion; it says there are no problems they can find with gun sales businesses but we should " amend the code to define “firearm sales business”, prohibit those businesses within 200 feet of a public school, and codify the requirement for a permit from Public Safety" anyway.

You guys in Sunnyvale have got to make this point strongly in your private meetings with Councilmembers.

By the time the public meeting occurs it will be too late.

7x57
09-26-2011, 7:53 AM
You know, because there's this persistent group of down and out 'gun-os', sitting on street corners near the gun stores, passing Lorcins around in paper bags.

Wait...nobody told me about this. When and where do I show up? :43:

7x57

oaklander
09-26-2011, 2:04 PM
You guys in Sunnyvale have got to make this point strongly in your private meetings with Councilmembers.

By the time the public meeting occurs it will be too late.

I agree!!!

I am REALLY trying to stay out of this one - since I am trying to do some good and positive things here in my hometown. BUT SERIOUSLY GUYS AND GALS - just start meeting with the city.

Most people are fairly rational - and when you explain that there is simply no "win" OF ANY KIND attached to these stupid ideas - well - rational people WILL listen. . .

Remember, WE are the subject matter experts.

Librarian
09-26-2011, 2:57 PM
Wait...nobody told me about this. When and where do I show up? :43:

7x57

I believe the coterie of gun-os assembles at 456 West Olive Ave. alternate Thursdays at 0900 through 1030. Be sure to bring recyclable paper bags.

Later, they drift up to 665 West Olive Avenue for some impromptu re-staging of selected scenes from King Lear. IIRC this week's scene recapitulates the blinding of Gloucester (http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/King_Lear/16.html).