Sacramento City Moves On Ammo

[Anthonysmanifesto]

The City of Sacramento will be having a hearing to discuss a measure to require all three Retailers in Sacramento city limits to record personal information and obtain a thumbprint for any and all ammunition purchases.

this hearing is to take place April 3rd at Sacramento City Council Chambers. at 12:30 PM

[triggerhappy]

Yeah, that'll make Suckramento safer.

[ViPER395]

There goes the ammo business inside Sacto City limits.

This won't affect the shops in the unincorporated Sac County, correct?

[anotherone]

There goes the ammo business inside Sacto City limits.

This won't affect the shops in the unincorporated Sac County, correct?

You mean there's actually people who still buy ammo inside city limits? Outside of having a dire immediate need for a few boxes of shotgun shells during duck season I haven't purchased ammo offline for at least a decade.

[CSDGuy]

This would not affect any shops OUTSIDE the city limits OR any shippers sending TO an address OUTSIDE city limits.

Basic civics covers this...

[paradox]

You mean there's actually people who still buy ammo inside city limits? Outside of having a dire immediate need for a few boxes of shotgun shells during duck season I haven't purchased ammo offline for at least a decade.


River City Gun Exchange has a wide assortment of ammo at internet prices, and without shipping. I usually drop a couple of bills on ammo there every time I roll through Sac. But, I'm tin-foil enough that the biggest selling point of shopping at RCGE was paying cash and getting ammo without Big Brother sticking his big nose up my business. With this law, Sac will be missing out of my sales tax.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

This is more to establish another local ordinance in order to convince the state to enact statewide legislation and then onto the Federal level.

Keep an eye on your City Councils and County Boards of Supervisors.

Vick

[1SGMAT]

What Can'thavenuthingood said. How do we stop this.

[ViPER395]

With this law, Sac will be missing out of my sales tax.

But just think of all of the crime that will be prevented :rolleyes:

[DrjonesUSA]

Crap, how'd you find out about this???

The City's agenda website is one of my tabs that opens when I start Firefox; I put it there so I could track firearms-specific issues!!!

The agenda for that meeting is not out yet, how'd you hear?

Here's the site I check daily: http://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=6

[Anthonysmanifesto]

the city is giving a heads up to the three ammo dealers and other "stakeholders" early

[DrjonesUSA]

I'm going.

Who is coming with me??

Let's start formulating some talking points for when we speak in front of the council.

[anonymous]

You mean there's actually people who still buy ammo inside city limits? Outside of having a dire immediate need for a few boxes of shotgun shells during duck season I haven't purchased ammo offline for at least a decade.

It is well known that only criminals buy ammo within Sacramento city limits, hence the proposed regulation. I think your post proves my point.;)

[Anthonysmanifesto]

I'm going.

Who is coming with me??

Let's start formulating some talking points for when we speak in front of the council.

I will be there with questions.

hard questions are much more fun than debatable statements.

[DrjonesUSA]

I will be there with questions.

hard questions are much more fun than debatable statements.



True. :)

[tman]

I think I can make it. Who's driving?

[DrjonesUSA]

Bump.

Anyone wanna help with some talking points?

[redneckshootist]

I'll come but I need to know where to go. I work in sacramento, even though I live in woodland. I like to buy ammo for my sks at the armory so this affects me too.

[DrjonesUSA]

I'll come but I need to know where to go. I work in sacramento, even though I live in woodland. I like to buy ammo for my sks at the armory so this affects me too.


Please come to:

Sacramento City Hall
915 I Street, 1st Floor - City Council Chambers

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:30pm.

Thank you and I look forward to seeing you there!!!

[socalsteve]

Be sure to mention that los Angeles has had this law for a few years now and look no more gun violence!

Actually, they most likely know it won't change crime they just want another anit-gun law.

[CA357]

I'll try and be there. I don't work too far away from downtown Sacramento. As far as talking points, I'm not sure, but just the presence of some pro 2A folks may help. Does the NRA know about this?

[bruss01]

So what will be the effect on ammo dealers like Miwall at the Cal Expo gun shows? I imagine many will choose not to buy, and many may decide to no longer sell, because of this. It would certainly curtail my ammo buying sprees.

[DrjonesUSA]

I'll try and be there. I don't work too far away from downtown Sacramento. As far as talking points, I'm not sure, but just the presence of some pro 2A folks may help. Does the NRA know about this?


TALKING POINTS:

What follows below is from the Sacramento City Council's OWN RESEARCH into the firearm loss/theft reporting issue. I personally transcribed all of this, as I could not copy & paste out of this particular .pdf, so you better read it!!

Link: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/cgi-bin/pass.cgi?url=calnra.com/local/sacramento/sacmandrepreqrep070210.pdf



"In July 2006, the SPD Criminal Intelligence Unit contacted police departments of the three CA cities with similar ordinances: San Francisco (since 2004), Oakland (since 2003), and Berkeley (since 2001).

Specific questions focused on:

1) The impact of the ordinance on the reduction of crime and the method of measurement.

2) Details of arrests and convictions for violations of the ordinance.

3) revisions in police procedures due to adoption of the ordinance.


The agency personnel contacted:

1) Were unaware of the ordinance,

2) reported that no investigations, arrests, or convictions related to the ordinance existed, and

3) were unaware of any studies of costs of enforcement or impact on crime related to the ordinance.


In October 2006, the SPD Economic Development Unit re-contacted the above-mentioned police departments and consulted with the District Attorney's Offices in Alameda County and SF County.

Results of this survey echoed those of the earlier survey:

1) An experienced inspector in the weapons unit of the SFPD, who reads 3,000 reports every moth, had not handled nor had he heard of any cases in which the ordinance was invoked.

2) A criminal Intelligence Unit Sergeant in the Oakland PD, while aware of the municipal code, had never heard that it had been charged.

3) An Assistant District Attorney for the County of San Francisco in charge of prosecuting misdemeanors was unaware of the existance of the ordinance, and therefore, had never heard of any prosecution involving violation of the ordinance.

4) An Assistant District Attorney for the County of San Francisco stated that he did not believe it would expand his ability to prosecute crime and that it would take special circumstances for the ordinance to be useful in prosecution, n that the person charged would have to be proven cognizant of a burglary or theft of the firearm.

5) An Alameda County Deputy District Attorney who prosecutes weapons charges had not used the ordinance to prosecute and had not heard of anyone else using it.

6) A Berkeley PD Lieutenant also had not used the ordinance nor heard of its use.


In short, no jurisdiction or agency contacted by SPD has been able to provide examples of:

1) investigations or arrests,

2) successful prosecutions,

3) Studies of effectiveness

4) studies of the costs of enforcement, or

5) studies of fees to cover those costs.


Additional notes:

On Sept. 29, 2006, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed Senate Bill 59 (mandating reporting of lost or stolen firearms or parts of firearms to law enforcement within 5 working days of the time te person should reasonably have known of the theft or loss). In doing so, the Governor:

1) Noted that the measure "could result in cases where law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties simply because they were the victim of a crime"

2) cited "unproven results of jurisdictions in California that have passed similar measures.


Persons who illegally possess a firearm cannot be required to incriminate themselves by reporting its loss. Haynes v. United States 390 U.S. 62 (1968).

[redneckshootist]

I just found out I wont be able to make it cause of work:(

[Surveyor]

... I like to buy ammo for my sks at the armory so this affects me too.

Beware of the Armory, the owner is not our friend. He is Iggy's friend. When I called him in Feb of '06 about OLL's, he told me that they were highly illegal and he wanted nothing to do with them. Now that all of the risk and hard work are over he wants our ammo and accessory money :rolleyes: .

Example:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=560444#post560444