HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1999-11-15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 AT
8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Vice-Mayor
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session Items.
CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:00 PM
1. a. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
(Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property Address: Menzies Parking Lot (Mission Avenue at "E"
Street): APN 11-162-017
Negotiating Parties: City of San Rafael, a California Municipal
corporation, and MCF Property Holdings, Inc., a
California public benefit corporation.
Under Negotiation: Instruction to negotiator with respect to price
and terms.
b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(a))
Case Name: Karen Hansen-Thompson v. City of San Rafael
Marin County Courts Case No. 175806
No reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:30
PM
RE: BILL OF RIGHTS DAY - File 110
Fielding Greaves, resident of San Rafael, stated he believed one of the most
important things in the entire legal system was the Bill of Rights to the
Constitution. He noted various municipalities have passed resolutions
celebrating such things as "Bring Your Daughter to Work Day"; however, he felt
the most important day we could celebrate would be a day in honor of the Bill of
Rights. Therefore, he was proposing a resolution proclaiming the 15th day of
December (the date on which the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791), be
commemorated, now and forever, as "Bill of Rights Day"; and that this date be
marked annually by appropriate official public recognition and acknowledgment of
the Bill of Rights as a great gift from the Founding Fathers of this nation, to
be honored and cherished by all generations of Americans as our ultimate
safeguard and guarantee of liberty. Mr. Greaves asked for a show of hands from
those in the audience, in support of his request, and many in the audience
responded by raising their hand. Mr. Greaves requested this item be placed on
the next City Council agenda, and considered for adoption.
Mayor Boro directed staff to place this item on the agenda for the next City
Council meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Member Miller moved and Member Heller seconded, to approve the following Consent
Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Meetings Minutes approved as
of Monday, November 1, 1999 (AS) submitted.
3. Call for applications to Fill One, Two-Year Term Approved staff
recommendation:
on the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control a) Called for
applications to
Board, Due to the Resignation of Kevin Ostrom - fill one, two-year
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 2
term on the
Term to Expire End of December, 2001 (CC) Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and
- File 9-2-9 Vector Control District
Board, with term to expire
the end of December, 2001;
b) Set deadline for
receipt of applications on
Tuesday, December 7, 1999
at 12:00 Noon in the City
Clerk's Office, Room 209,
City Hall; and
c) Set date for interviews
of applicants at a Special
Meeting City Council
meeting to be held on
Monday, December 20, 1999,
commencing at
6:30 PM.
4. Resolution Proclaiming November 15, 1999 as RESOLUTION NO. 19526
-
America Recycles Day (CM) RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING
- File 110 NOVEMBER 15, 1999 AS
AMERICA RECYCLES DAY.
5. Annual Update on Investment Policy (MS) Accepted report.
- File 8-18 x 8-9
6. Resolution Amending Deferred Compensation Plan RESOLUTION NO. 10527
-
- File 7-4-5 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PLAN,
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 15,
1999.
7. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final
adoption of
NO. 1744 - "An Ordinance of the City Council of Ordinance No. 1744 -
"AN
the City of San Rafael, California, Amending ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL
Chapter 3.34 of the San Rafael Municipal Code OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL,
Establishing a Fee and Service Charge Revenue/ CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER
Cost Comparison System, by Revising Sections CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE
SAN RAFAEL
3.34.020(b), 3.34.030(d) and 3.34.040 (MS) MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A
- File 9-10-2 x 11-8 x 11-18 FEE AND SERVICE
CHARGE REVENUE/COST
COMPARISON SYSTEM, BY
REVISING SECTIONS
3.34.020(b), 3.34.030(d)
AND 3.34.040.
8. Resolution Approving Parcel Map of Subdivision RESOLUTION NO. 10528
-
Entitled "Parcel Map - Being a Subdivision of RESOLUTION APPROVING
A PARCEL
the Land Described in the Grant Deed Filed MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP
-
March 6, 1992 in O.R. 92-01574", AP #12-193- BEING A SUBDIVISION
OF THE
12 (Foster Property) (PW) - File 5-6-6 LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
GRANT DEED FILED MARCH 6,
1992 IN O.R. 92-015274",
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
(FOSTER PROPERTY - AP #12-
193-12).
9. Resolution Authorizing Agreement with Jones & RESOLUTION NO. 10529
-
Madhaven for Consulting Services Re: Terra Linda RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A
Pool Remodeling, Not to Exceed $60,000 (PW) PROPOSAL FROM JONES &
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 3
- File 4-1-511 x 12-15 x 9-3-65 MADHAVEN TO DESIGN PLANS
FOR THE "TERRA LINDA
RENOVATION" IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $60,000, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
(Commencing on 11/15/99
and ending on 05/15/2001).
10. Annual Parking Meter Holiday from Wednesday, Approved staff
recommendation:
November 24, 1999 through Saturday, December 25, City Council declared a
two-
1999 (RA) - File 11-18 hour parking meter
holiday for all two-hour
Downtown meters, and the
first two hours of parking
at the Third & "A" Street
Parking Structure for the
period of November 24,
1999 through December 25,
1999.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
11. PUBLIC HEARING - (CM) - File 13-1 x 9-3-16 x 9-3-30
a. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE
SALE OF SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS, ALSO KNOWN AS JUNK GUNS
b. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF
FIREARMS DEALERS
c. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL OF (1) THE CLASSIFICATION OF A FIREARM AS
A SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL; AND (2) THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF A
PERMIT FOR FIREARMS DEALERS.
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Explaining the procedure
that would be followed, he stated there would initially be a presentation
from staff, and then he would take public testimony, limiting each speaker
to three minutes in order to give everyone a chance to speak.
City Manager Gould explained the staff report would be given in three
parts; first, Lydia Romero, Assistant to the City Manager, would present
staff's report and recommendations; Police Chief Cam Sanchez would comment
on the proposals from a law enforcement standpoint; and Deputy City
Attorney Eric Davis would give his legal analysis of the two Ordinance and
the Resolution.
Assistant to the City Manager Lydia Romero stated the firearm regulation
measures being presented to Council were being brought forth at the request
of Councilmember Barbara Heller. She explained the first measure would
prohibit the sale of "Saturday Night Specials", or as they are commonly
known, junk guns, and the second measure would require firearm dealers to
obtain a local permit to sell firearms in San Rafael. In addition, she
noted staff was presenting a Resolution that would establish the appeal
process for firearm classification and firearm dealer permit denial and
revocation.
Ms. Romero reported that on November 2nd and 9th, the County of Marin
adopted two similar firearm regulations, noting that should Council adopt
the proposed Ordinances, there would be uniform regulation with the County.
She noted several measures have been signed by Governor Davis pertaining
to firearm regulation: SB 15 sponsored by Senator Pellanko restricts the
manufacture, importation, or sale of unsafe handguns, which do not meet
basic safety standards similar to those set by the National Importation
Standards. She noted this legislation would become law on January 1, 2001.
Additionally, the Federal government, in 1968, banned the importation of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 4
"Saturday Night Specials" into the United States. Ms. Romero also referred
to AB 106 and SB 130, which would require that firearms sold, transferred
or manufactured in the State be accompanied by both an improved firearm
safety device, and warning materials. She noted that legislation would
take effect January 1, 2002.
Ms. Romero stated the first Ordinance Council was being asked to consider
would add Chapter 8.37 to the San Rafael Municipal Code, and would prohibit
firearm dealers from offering, selling, displaying for sale, giving,
lending, or transferring ownership of any "Saturday Night Specials", also
known as junk guns. Ms. Romero explained, as outlined in the proposed
Ordinance, junk guns were defined as any gun made of inferior materials,
poor design construction, easily concealable, and lacking safety features.
She noted the Chief of Police was to post a roster of firearms that would
be prohibited under this Ordinance, and referred to Attachment A of the
staff report, which listed examples of the firearms that may be prohibited
by the adoption of this Ordinance. She stated the last major point
regarding this Ordinance was that it would sunset on January 1, 2000, when
implementation of State law takes effect. Ms. Romero pointed out this
proposed Ordinance differs from the County's in that the City's Ordinance
would delete the provision that would allow Peace Officers to use "Saturday
Night Specials" in the line of duty.
The second Ordinance for Council's consideration would allow the City to
regulate firearm dealers within the City limits, and would require firearm
dealers to obtain a permit, through the Chief of Police, in order to sell,
lease, or transfer firearms. Ms. Romero pointed out this would apply to
both new and current firearm dealers. She noted that under this Ordinance,
firearm dealers must provide the Chief of Police with information and
documentation, as outlined in the Ordinance, prior to a permit being
issued. She stated the requirement of the permit would ensure that firearm
dealers would hold all required licenses, possess the necessary insurance,
comply with zoning requirements, and operate in a building that complies
with required safety provisions. This Ordinance further requires permitted
dealers to equip or provide a trigger lock or similar locking device that
is designed to prevent unintentional discharge of a firearm that is sold.
She explained this provision, and only this provision, would sunset on
January 1, 2002, when AB 106 and SB 130 take effect. Ms. Romero stated the
second Ordinance would also establish a provision that ammunition sales be
recorded, again pointing out that the City's Ordinance would differ from
the County's Ordinance, in that the City would not require a thumbprint for
the purchase of ammunition.
Referring to an area of concern regarding the regulation of gun dealers in
residential areas, Ms. Romero reported the West End Neighborhood
Association had sent a letter indicating support of the regulation of
firearm dealers in residential areas. She noted this Ordinance did not
address that issue; however, if Council were to deem it appropriate to
examine that issue, staff would present possible zoning changes to the
Planning Commission for consideration, and then come before Council for
possible action.
Ms. Romero stated the final piece of the firearm package before Council
would be the appeal process procedure for firearm classification
reconsideration, and the denial or revocation of a firearm permit. As
noted earlier, she stated the Chief of Police would publish a roster of
firearms that would be prohibited by the junk gun Ordinance, and should a
firearms dealer or manufacturer dispute a firearm classification as a junk
gun, an appeal may be made. Should an applicant disagree with the appeal
decision, a final appeal may be made with the City Manager, and that
decision would be final. Ms. Romero stated that under the firearm
regulation, the Chief of Police may deny an application for a firearms
dealer permit, or revoke an existing permit, based on criteria established
by the Ordinance. The affected firearms dealer may submit an application
for reconsideration to the Chief of Police, and should the applicant
disagree with the decision, an appeal may be filed with the City Manager,
and again, the City Manager's decision will be final. Ms. Romero noted
that if Council chooses to adopt the firearms dealer regulations, staff
would develop a fee for the permitting process.
Police Chief Cam Sanchez stated that just as widespread possession of
firearms is an American fact today, so, too, is the widespread tragedy that
accompanies misuse of firearms. He noted that after reading the proposals
and discussing them with staff, he wanted to make clear that the goal of
their efforts, and the efforts of the Council, were not to remove weapons
from the City's residents and gun enthusiasts, or dealers who legitimately
have businesses in this community. He explained the goal of the first
Ordinance was to address the junk gun issue, an issue of guns that are
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 5
poorly manufactured, easily attainable, easily accessible, and easily
hidden. He believed the Council needed to take this step to assure the
City's legitimate business people, and the community at large, that the
City is concerned about their safety, and the regulation of safety issues,
such as these guns. He reiterated the City was not talking about removing
weapons from people; however, the City was definitely concerned about junk
guns, of which their are hundreds.
Chief Sanchez noted that during staff's study of this issue, members of his
Department made personal visits and telephone calls to the legitimate
business owners who deal in handguns, and he reported none of those
business owners sell junk guns. He believed that was all the more reason
to begin this campaign, and send a message to the community that, for
everyone's safety, those kinds of guns will never be allowed in the City of
San Rafael.
Chief Sanchez felt the numbers spoke for themselves, noting that when 4 out
of 5 handguns are traced back to crime scenes, that was a concern, and
should be a concern for everyone. He noted people have stated a weapon
does not have to be a junk gun, per se, to be used in a crime spree, and he
agreed; he also agreed with the fact that we were not having a crime wave
in the City of San Rafael. However, he stated that was not the issue,
noting the issue in the first proposal was to address the total elimination
of junk guns being so easily accessible, not only to those individuals who
would commit crimes, but to any resident who would decide to spend less
money and be harmed by a weapon that was not manufactured properly, and
according to specifications. Chief Sanchez stated the reason these guns
are made in the manner in which they are is because the manufacturers make
many of them. He noted it was amazing that all of the guns deemed to be
junk guns, and not allowed to be imported into this country, were being put
together in this State. He believed we were blessed in our city, with
regard to crime, and the use of guns in crimes. However, he also believed
this was the right opportunity to talk about banning guns that are
manufactured improperly.
Regarding the issue of ammunition, and addressing those businesses that
sell ammunition, Chief Sanchez acknowledged there currently was no
provision or policy to record the sales of ammunition. He noted that when
staff discussed this with the County, and the County decided to include the
fingerprinting, City staff felt that issue was not important enough to keep
in the City's Ordinance, and Chief Sanchez stated he was very comfortable
with that decision.
Referring to the second Ordinance, Chief Sanchez pointed out there
currently was no process, on the part of the Police Department, to regulate
gun dealers. He acknowledged the dealers do take out business licenses,
and go through ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) background checks, but
other than the business license, the Police Department has no record for
background on these businesses. Chief Sanchez reported the Police
Department had received several calls from people this week
regarding the necessity, and why the City had to do this. Chief Sanchez
believed this had to be done because the City certainly did not want an
illegitimate business to come into the City of San Rafael, and simply walk
in and take out a business permit. He stated that although they go through
background checks with ATF, he believed the Police Department needed to
take a little better hold of the gun dealers in our City, noting he
believed this was very important, as did the other Chiefs of Police and
City Managers within the County.
Chief Sanchez noted that as staff conducted their study and surveys of all
the dealers within the City, they found them to be very cooperative. He
reported they had spoken with the dealers about the trigger lock mechanism,
and, with regard to the junk gun issue, also talked about any indication
that guns were being sold on the street illegitimately, and the answer was
"No". Chief Sanchez stated he was not a gun expert, nor was the Sheriff.
He reported they had been in contact all week regarding the list of guns
included in the proposed Ordinance, and pointed out this was not a final
list, it was a list he, the Sheriff, and the other Police Chiefs had been
reviewing with a "fine tooth comb", along with their gun experts, which
they all have on their Police Departments. He stated the list would
require a very thorough review of the guns listed, which he believed was
necessary in order to come up with a fair and non-intrusive way to do
business with the City's business community. Chief Sanchez reiterated
staff was not before Council in an attempt to limit gun sales, but rather
to restrict the sales of what they consider to be "Saturday Night
Specials", junk guns, ill-manufactured materials that did not need to be on
the street.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 6
Chief Sanchez reported that when he met with the Department's gun experts,
he found they felt the same way, believing that junk guns had no business
being out on the street. He stated they were not deployed on the Police
Department, as either a primary or a back-up weapon, and to his knowledge,
the Officers in the Police Department do not own junk guns, personally. He
stated there were statistics regarding what certain guns do and do not do,
and how they are used and not used, and the debate was how you can tell if
a junk gun was used in a crime or not. However, he believed the easy
accessibility made it a problem for everyone in the community, and he urged
Council to pass both Ordinances. Chief Sanchez stated he also agreed with
the Resolution regarding the appeal process, noting he felt it was a fair,
reasonable way, and not an intrusive way, of regulating gun sales in the
City of San Rafael.
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis reported that aside from the policy
consideration in adopting the proposed Ordinances, his office had also
looked at the legal issues. With respect to the junk gun Ordinance, he
stated the issue was whether or not there was a preemption under State law
which might prevent the City from undertaking the adoption of the
Ordinance. He noted there were also Constitutional issues regarding due
process and equal protection; however, Mr. Davis stated his office has
determined the City can adopt the junk gun Ordinance. He reported that in
California, the courts ruled, in the California Rifle and Pistol
Association, Inc. versus the City of West Hollywood, that a junk gun
Ordinance, very similar to the one being proposed, was valid, was not
preempted by State law, and was not a Constitutional violation of due
process or equal protection.
Referring to the firearm regulation Ordinance, Mr. Davis stated the
question had been whether the City could legally adopt such an Ordinance in
the form in which it has been presented, and the answer was "Yes". He
reported the Court of Appeal in California, specifically in Sooter versus
the City of Lafayette, upheld a firearms regulation Ordinance very similar
to the one being presented to Council. He noted, again, it was held that
there was no preemption of local power to adopt such an Ordinance under
State law, nor was there any violation of the due process or equal
protection clauses of the Constitution. Therefore, in the decisions
reviewed by his office, there was nothing in State law which would prevent
the adoption of the Ordinances.
Addressing the Resolution before Council, Mr. Davis noted it provided an
appeal mechanism from determinations of junk gun classification, and from
denials of firearm permits, or revocation of firearm permits. Mr. Davis
stated that in staff's estimation, this Resolution would provide the
appropriate due process procedures needed to ensure that decisions are made
with all available information, and that there is an opportunity to have
those decisions reviewed in accordance with due process.
Mr. Davis stated staff did not see any legal obstacles to adopting the
Ordinances or the Resolution now before the Council.
Mayor Boro referred to Attachment B of the staff report, which lists the
thirteen federally licensed firearm dealers currently within San Rafael's
City limits, noting Chief Sanchez had reported his Department had
interviewed each of the firearm dealers. Mayor Boro asked for verification
that all of the dealers had responded that they were currently not selling
junk guns? Chief Sanchez stated that was correct. Mayor Boro clarified
that no one licensed to sell firearms in the City was selling junk guns;
therefore, the effect of this law was not to make any change in the current
practices of these dealers. Chief Sanchez stated that was correct.
Councilmember Miller pointed out the Police Chiefs of Marin County were
behind this 100%, as was the Police Department's gun expert. Mr. Miller
asked what Chief Sanchez' perception was concerning the support of the
Police Officers on the street? Chief Sanchez first noted he sits on the
Board of Directors of the California Police Chief's Association, who
overwhelmingly supported all the other cities which have already passed
these types of Ordinances. He noted they have taken a stand as Police
Chiefs, in the same manner the County has, and as Council was now being
asked to do.
Regarding his staff, Chief Sanchez stated he had spoken with several
members of the Department, many of whom are gun experts, hunters, and gun
enthusiasts. He reported they agreed the junk gun issue was important, and
that junk guns should not be made readily available. He stated they also
saw it as an Officer safety issue, noting that upon responding to calls
regarding a gun, it is another issue they have to think about, because junk
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 7
guns are easily concealed, and are cheap weapons that are not only unsafe
for the person committing the crime to handle, but also for the Officers
after they take control of the weapon. Chief Sanchez stated he believed
the Officers supported the regulations 100%, noting none of the Officers
personally own junk guns, and none have ever requested that he allow any of
the guns on the list to be authorized for use as an on-duty or backup
weapon.
Councilmember Miller noted Council was not, at this time, addressing the
issue of firearm dealers in residential areas, and he asked Community
Development Director Brown, if the Council should decide it wanted to
address that issue, what would the timeframe be like for staff to develop
and present, before the Planning Commission and then to Council, zoning law
changes explicitly prohibiting firearm dealers in residential
neighborhoods, and prohibiting firearm dealers from operating near
sensitive areas? Mr. Brown reported numerous cities in the Bay Area have
similar Ordinances, and he believed staff would be able to make a
presentation before the Planning Commission in January, and then return to
Council in February.
Councilmember Heller asked if the regulation regarding the record of
ammunition sales mirrored Federal law? Chief Sanchez stated, to his
knowledge, there currently was no law requiring the sale of ammunition to
be recorded, noting all of the firearm dealers they had spoken with had
also stated there was no policy for registering or recording ammunition
that is sold. Ms. Heller stated that when she had owned a sporting goods
store, they were required to keep records of ammunition sales, and she
received telephone calls, sometimes years later, asking if she still had
those records. Chief Sanchez noted that, currently, there was no policy.
He stated he believed it was intrusive, which was one of the reasons he had
not felt that requiring a thumbprint should be included in the Ordinance.
He pointed out that someone else could purchase the ammunition, UPS
delivers ammunition, and it would be very difficult to track.
Councilmember Phillips asked, if San Rafael currently has no dealers
selling junk guns, but there is a problem with junk guns, where do they
come from, and is the passage of this portion of the Ordinance going to, in
any way, affect that? Chief Sanchez stated these guns are sold over the
Internet, and one person can sell to another; however, he noted that in
interviewing the City's firearm dealers, it was quite evident they did not
want to waste their time on those types of weapons. He acknowledged the
Ordinance would not have a great effect in San Rafael, because the City
does not currently have much of a problem regarding junk guns. However, he
believed the bottom line was that the message should be sent that this will
never happen, and he believed the Ordinance would discourage illegitimate
sales if that message is stated upfront. Chief Sanchez stated he did not
believe the Ordinance would affect the current business people at all.
City Manager Gould pointed out that, in many ways, this was "bridge"
legislation, because State law does not take effect for two years. He
explained this was only to state that there would be no junk guns sold in
San Rafael between now and the time State law becomes effective.
Councilmember Cohen noted it was actually a one-year bridge on the sale of
junk guns, as State law would take effect on January 1, 2001, which was
thirteen months from now. He asked for the status of that legislation, and
whether it had been challenged? Ms. Romero stated she was unaware of any
legal challenges to the State legislation, noting it mirrored Federal
importation regulations. Mr. Cohen clarified the State regulations would
apply to domestic manufacturers, and would do substantially what the City's
Ordinance will do, but would do it for every dealer in California. Ms.
Romero stated that was correct.
Regarding the list that would be in effect for a year, Councilmember Cohen
noted the staff report states the intent would be to maintain a similar
roster of prohibited firearms between the City and the County. He noted
Chief Sanchez reported he had spoken with the County Sheriff, and asked if
there appeared to be any notion of trying to formalize that? He believed
it would make sense for the City and the County to maintain the same list.
Chief Sanchez stated that was the goal, to have uniformity throughout the
County, and while the other Police Chiefs had not yet had the opportunity
to present this to their Councils, the County Sheriff had made his
presentation, and he and Chief Sanchez concurred that uniformity was the
optimum word. Chief Sanchez noted he, the Sheriff, and the other Chiefs of
Police would be meeting with their gun experts to review the list, prior to
sending it out, and he pointed out that the list would be sent out
uniformly.
Mayor Boro invited public comment, stating he wished to allow as many
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 8
people to speak as wished to, and in order for all those who wished to
speak to have an opportunity to do so, he would limit each speaker to three
minutes.
Fielding Greaves, member of the NRA (National Rifle Association), the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America, and the American Federation of Police,
asked Chief Sanchez how many junk guns had been involved in crimes in San
Rafael during the past year? Chief Sanchez stated he did not have that
information. Mayor Boro asked, if there are thirteen firearm dealers in
the City, and they have stated they are not selling junk guns, why is Mr.
Greaves opposed to the Ordinance? Mr. Greaves asked, if it is a non-
problem, why is the City so intent on passing legislation? He felt this
was an imaginary problem, with an imaginary solution, noting the dealers
have stated they do not sell junk guns, and that they will not sell such
arms in this City.
Mr. Greaves pointed out the County claimed the reason for this legislation
was to generally make the County marching with the other jurisdictions that
have passed such legislation; however, he did not believe that was a decent
reason for passing legislation, just to stand in line and agree with
something that had been passed by someone else, somewhere else. Mr.
Greaves noted it had been stated that the County claims, as has the City,
that it needed the dealer regulation in order to mitigate the danger of
dealers who are violating the law; however, the Chief of Police was unable
to provide specifics regarding dealers who are violating the law;
therefore, he believed it was a non-problem until there is evidence that
there is a problem. Mr. Greaves suggested the dealers were already among
the most heavily regulated people in the United States, pointing out they
have to have an F.B.I. clearance before the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms) will issue them a Federal Firearms License, they
have to have a State Department of Justice Certificate, a State Franchise
Tax Board Re-sale Certificate, and a City license. He asked why the City
would want to pile on more bureaucracy and more red tape for those who are
already so well regulated.
Regarding ammunition sales, Mr. Greaves recalled there had been ammunition
registration from 1968 to 1986, and the reason it was repealed in 1986 was
because it did no good whatsoever, and despite the vast amount of paperwork
it created, and the vast amount of wasted productive man-hours, of both the
customers and the dealers, not one single state pointed to one single crime
that was solved as a result of all that paperwork. He asked why the City
would want to reinstitute that kind of thing? Mr. Greaves believed this
was a non-workable solution, being done only for the purpose of political
correctness. He stated this was something the City could not justify, as
there was no crime wave in San Rafael, no wave of car-jackings, or shoot-
outs in the streets.
Mayme Hubert, Chair of the Marin County Human Rights Commission, responding
to Mr. Greaves' remarks, stated boundaries were definitely permeable, and
what happens, statistically, within one jurisdiction is not necessarily the
entire story, because there is ebb and flow between the boundaries. She
believed that explained why guns were perceived to be a problem, whether or
not, statistically, in Marin County, at this moment, they actually are.
Ms. Hubert reported the Human Rights Commission passed a gun control
Resolution on September 14th, and sent letters to the County Board of
Supervisors and all the Mayors and Councilmembers, urging them to also pass
gun control Ordinances. She noted the Human Rights Commission's Resolution
had been stronger in its recommendations, as it prohibited assault weapons,
mandated trigger locks, required dealers to register and undergo background
checks, and addressed the issue of firearm dealers operating in residential
and sensitive areas.
Ms. Hubert stated the Human Rights Commission advocated for the Council to
pass the Ordinances as a first step, and to understand that Marin does not
have a wall around it, it is part of the larger North Bay society and
community, and part of the entire United States.
Darcy MacDonald, resident of San Rafael, felt the two Ordinances were
inherently dishonest, and he believed they had been mislabeled to lull the
public into complacency. Referring to the junk gun Ordinance, he agreed
that on the face of it, it sounded wonderful, stating that we had to try to
protect people from guns that were going to blow up in their hands and were
not safe to fire. However, he pointed out there were no standards for
determining what a junk gun is, and the classification of a junk gun would
be just what the Chief says it is. Mayor Boro pointed out Chief Sanchez
had stated that, working with the Sheriff, the other Police Chiefs, and
their gun experts, they would determine that and develop a list.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 9
Mr. MacDonald felt it was an arbitrary determination, and while the
Ordinance was supposed to address dangerous guns, he believed it could be
applied to any gun.
Mr. MacDonald also believed the appeal process was fraudulent, and the
burden was on the person who is appealing. He noted the person had to
appeal to the City, where the initial decision was made, yet it was also
the City that makes the final decision. He pointed out there was no appeal
to an arbitrary third party.\\
Regarding the second Ordinance concerning the regulation of firearms
dealers, Mr. MacDonald noted that sounded reasonable; however, upon reading
the Ordinance, he found it to be an Ordinance that regulated him, as a
private citizen. He stated the Second Amendment of the United States
Constitution gave him the right to keep and bear arms; however, if he goes
to a dealer to buy ammunition, which is legal, and something he has done
since he was thirteen years old, he will now have to give his name, age,
driver's license number, the type of ammunition and how much, and his
signature. He believed this was intimidation and harassment, an
infringement on his Constitutional rights, and was totally unnecessary.
Mr. MacDonald stated he was a law-abiding citizen, and had the right to buy
a box of .22 ammunition without a government snoop looking over his
shoulder. He stated he resented this, and it was an intrusion on his
rights, noting people's rights were gradually being chipped away.
Mr. MacDonald stated that if the Council passes these Ordinances, the City
will be laid wide open to a lawsuit, which meant his money, as he is a
taxpayer. He believed the Council had a fiduciary responsibility to
protect him, and to avoid lawsuits against the City.
Joyce Siegel, resident of San Rafael and a volunteer for Legal Community
Against Violence, a group which was formed after the 101 California Street
massacre, urged Council to vote in favor of passing these two Ordinances,
noting she has been working for more than three years, trying to get
Ordinances passed in Marin County which were sensible and did not take
anyone's rights away. Ms. Siegel stated she had been asked to deliver a
message from a mother whose son was a victim of gun violence, who stated
before a large contingent of NRA members in Denver, after the massacre at
Columbine High School, "We love our children more than the NRA people love
their guns. If you take one gun off the street, that's all I desire of
you".
Allister MacDonald, resident of Marin County and a retired law enforcement
officer of twenty-seven years, stated Chief Sanchez was incorrect
concerning buying firearms on the Internet, noting that violates the Gun
Control Act of 1968. Mr. MacDonald stated Benjamin Franklin had said it
best when he stated that the day people give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety, they deserve neither liberty nor safety. He
asked Council to consider that as they have the taxpayers' money, they
should show leadership in the form of stewardship, and not waste the
taxpayers' money on frivolous litigation that most likely would follow this
type of Ordinance. Mr. MacDonald pointed out staff had noted these laws
were preempted by Section 53071 of the California Government Code, which is
correct; however, no one addressed the fact that Title 18 of the United
States Gun Control Act of 1968, Section 926A, states, "No State, or any
political sub-division thereof, may create any system of registration of
firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions". He noted this was
current Federal law.
Referring to earlier comments made by the representative from the Human
Rights Commission, Mr. MacDonald noted she had stated she wanted some
uniformity, as the Sheriff's Department and other cities in the County were
enacting such regulations, and they should be the same from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. However, Mr. MacDonald pointed out that was exactly why the
State held exclusive rights of preemption, for the State to control these
regulations, and the cities do not have to deal with this kind of nonsense.
Mr. MacDonald noted Councilmember Heller had been correct, pointing out
that at one time it had been required to register ammunition; however, it
was such a absolute joke for law enforcement, because of the paperwork,
that they stopped doing it, as it did not solve the problem, and law
enforcement had other things to do. Mr. MacDonald stated legal counsel had
addressed the case in West Hollywood; however, he noted that case was
currently being challenged in court.
Regarding the regulation concerning trigger locks, Mr. MacDonald reported
that printed on the trigger locks is a warning which states, "Warning, a
firearm may discharge with this item in place", because trigger locks do
not always work 100% of the time. He asked, if Council passed the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 10
Ordinance and required people to have trigger locks, was Council also going
to indemnify the gun dealers who have to issue the trigger locks to their
customers, should their be an accidental discharge? Mr. MacDonald urged
Council not to allow the City of San Rafael to sound like elitists, where
only those who have money, can afford a firearm of greater value, or have
the right to protect themselves, noting there were commoners in the City,
as well.
Mark Baradat, gun dealer, stated there really was not much of a problem
with junk guns in San Rafael, or even in Marin County. He stated the
dealers in San Rafael did not sell those types of guns, as it just creates
more problems for them, with people coming back to them if they have a
problem with their gun. Mr. Baradat stated that while he does not have a
problem with the regulations against junk guns, he felt the real question
was, "What's next?" He asked, if all the gun dealers were taken out of the
town, and we got rid of the guns, did the City really think it was going to
stop all the crime, or the flow of junk guns into Marin? He pointed out
that in the year 2001 there would be all kinds of State legislation, which
will be even stricter than the provisions of these Ordinances. Regarding
trigger locks, he pointed out that most manufacturers are already required
by law, or will be, to provide trigger locks with their firearms, so when
someone purchases a new firearm it will come with a trigger lock, although,
whether people use them or not will be up to them.
Concerning the regulations on firearm dealers, Mr. Baradat noted the ATF
really works them over, requiring a background check, showing the lease for
a building or storefront, having a security system, and a letter from a
local law enforcement agency, and if not provided, the dealer cannot do
business in that county. In addition, the Department of Justice requires
various permits. He stated the dealers were already pretty well regulated,
and the regulations in these Ordinances were already going to be enacted by
the State. Mr. Baradat stated what concerned him was the fact that this
was just the beginning, noting it may come to where someone will come
before the Council and say people no longer need shotguns or rifles.
Terry Meck, member of the Bret Harte Neighborhood Association, stated that
while the Constitution provides for the right to bear arms, he did not
believe our forefathers anticipated, 200 years ago, how firearms were used
in today's society, and the amount of crime and the number of murders that
have taken place. He felt that while we have Federal laws allowing for the
right to bear arms, it was up to local leadership to provide necessary
restraints. He stated he did not believe the suburbs was the appropriate
place to sell guns, and was surprised to find out that there were over a
dozen dealers selling guns in the City. Mr. Meck stated he did not believe
the Ordinances went far enough, and he found it totally appalling that the
leaders and politicians cannot outlaw the sale of machine guns, let alone
something as insignificant as this. He stated he appreciated Council's
efforts to take these modest steps to provide these types of safeguards,
and urged them to vote in favor of the Ordinances.
Gary Hill, resident of Marin County, stated he was against gun control in
any form. In reading history, he believed we would have to bring back the
forefathers, the framers of the Constitution, to find out what they really
meant about a well-regulated militia. He recalled King George III marching
on Concord and Lexington with one objective in mind, to disarm the
colonialists, noting he who disarms a populace has a populace in their
grasp. Mr. Hill stated the Marxists knew this, and acknowledged they would
never be able to take over the United States, instead they would have to
"nibble" at us a little at a time, taking away our rights little by little,
because the people in the United States were too well armed. Mr. Hill
stated he was not concerned about the ban on junk guns, rather he was
concerned with where the regulations were going to stop. He reported he
was a former military policeman, noting he has known many patrolmen, and he
has not met one yet who was for gun control. He pointed out the quote,
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".
Peter Richmond, resident of Marin County, quoted, "A well-regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed". He noted our forefathers made that
statement over 200 years ago, and simply put, it meant they knew that to
ensure the continuance of the liberty they had fought so hard to attain, it
was imperative to have all able-bodied citizens take up arms in the
Nation's defense, at a moment's notice. However, they did not believe in
the idea that firearms should be available anywhere, and at any time, to
anyone who wants them. Mr. Richmond reported that over 40,000 Americans
were killed by firearms last year, 110 people every day; and while the gun
advocates tell us that guns do not kill people, people do, he suggested
asking how many people around the world killed people with hand guns last
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 11
year. He reported there were 36 people in Sweden, 33 in Great Britain, 128
in Canada, 13 in Australia, 16 in Japan, and in the United States, 30,495.
He noted in our Country, people armed with handguns committed over 1.1
million violent crimes, and in our Country, guns are the leading cause of
death for black males under the age of 35, 53% of the victims of spousal
murders die from gunshot wounds, and the annual firearm injury epidemic,
largely from handguns, is ten times larger than the polio epidemic in any
year of the first half of the entire Twentieth Century. He asked if
Americans consider mass murder to be a small price to pay for the
unfettered right to buy and sell guns? He did not believe they did, noting
these tragedies occur because, despite the wishes of the vast majority,
efforts to control the flow of weapons are among the most feeble in the
world. He felt the notion that James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights so
racists, sociopaths, and madmen could slaughter innocent men, women, and
children with assault weapons or handguns was one of the most contemptible
notions that an irresponsible minority has crammed down the throats of its
potential victims.
Mr. Richmond stated that in the last half of the last century, men with
guns stole our future by killing the best of our leaders, again and again,
and in one tragic year, both Marin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. He
believed that day after day, death upon death, they steal our dreams by
killing the people we love, and people have had enough. He stated we are
awash in guns of all types in our society today, and will likely not see an
end to their common existence in our time; however, the Ordinances now
being considered by Council were a small, haulting step in that direction.
Mr. Richmond implored the Council to change that from a haulting step to a
firm stride forward, to stop being intimidated by the gun lobby and its
sorry platoons, and to pass these laws so they might be a beacon to a
safer, saner society.
Richard Feldman, resident of San Rafael, stated he was confused by the
City's position concerning its desire for uniformity with the County, and
the position that it does not have to be in conformance with State pre-
emption law. Mr. Feldman noted the proposed Ordinance states that
according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, four out of five
handguns most frequently traced to crimes in 1995 were "Saturday Night
Specials". However, he noted the Bureau has stated publicly that its trace
statistics could not be used in this manner, for two reasons: first, before
1968 there were no dealer records of sales, so the vast majority of gun
sales were not recorded; and second, traces are not a mandatory aspect of a
criminal investigation, they are at the discretion of the investigating
officers. Therefore, the statistical meaning is destroyed, and it is
totally meaningless.
Mr. Feldman reported the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has
defined a "Saturday Night Special" as a gun with a retail price of less
than $50, a caliber of .32 or less, and a barrel length of less than 3
inches. He noted only one point was in common with the City's definition
of a "Saturday Night Special"; therefore, if in fact this definition and
the BATF's statistics are based on a different definition, the City is
actually banning a different set of weapons, which he did not understand.
In addition, he noted the City had indicated one of the purposes was to
ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City;
however, he asked what happens when low-energy, less lethal weapons are
replaced by better made, more lethal weapons? He believed this was an
important issue, noting the City might actually be causing more harm than
imagined.
Harry Winters, President of the West End Neighborhood Association, stated
the Association supports the proposals for a ban on junk guns and the
regulation of firearm dealers, which are now before the Council. He
reported that three years ago, San Rafael added gun dealers to a list of
businesses requiring a Use Permit from the City, noting that was at the
request of the Association, and was supported by the Federation of San
Rafael Neighborhoods. At that time, they asked that as a condition of any
Use Permit, the business of firearm dealers be limited to commercial
zoning, not in or near residential neighborhoods. He recalled that several
weeks ago the Association wrote and asked the City to consider such a
condition, as a specific requirement for gun dealers operating in San
Rafael, and he pointed out the staff report includes information which
states that 60 California jurisdictions have already adopted such
requirements. However, the staff report also states such a provision was
not included in the proposed Ordinance now before Council, and that such
zoning was the purview of the Planning Department staff, to act upon as
Council may direct. Mr. Winters asked Council, in any action they may take
at this time, to please direct Planning Department staff to pursue this
important matter.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 12
Mr. Winters believed any objections the Council might hear this evening
were unrelated to the proposed regulations, such as Second Amendment
rights, firearm ownership, enjoyment of target practice, and the like, were
not the issue. He stated firearm advocates and NRA supporters, of course,
opposed the proposals, noting they were notorious for uncompromising
opposition to any regulation involving firearms, even those most people
would consider reasonable. Mr. Winters stated such resistance was
addressed in a statement by Aristotle, while discussing how societies
govern themselves, and he read, "There is no force so destructive, so
deadly to civilized life, as fanaticism. It starts out with unbending
certainty, recklessly uncompromising, and ends up in the name of high
ideals, with savage murder".
James Porterfield, resident of Napa County, showed Council a trigger lock,
and an enlargement of the message on the back of the package which states,
"Do not install on a loaded gun". Referring to earlier questions by
Councilmember Heller, Mr. Porterfield reported the 1968 Gun Control Act,
which required her to track ammunition, was amended, and no longer requires
that ammunition sales be recorded.
Jerry Siebold, resident of Marin County, stated people did not have to know
the pressure of guns to know the difference between life and death.
Referring to the statistics that had been addressed earlier, he noted that
in addition to the 30,040 people killed 1996, there was also a large number
of mothers and fathers, accounting for another 60,080 people. He stated
the number of people hurt by the trauma of guns was geometric, and pointed
out we were talking about life, not rights, or numbers, or guns. Mr.
Siebold reported that on December 19, 1992, his stepson, Joe, and a friend
were walking home from a supermarket two blocks from their home. They were
held-up by two thugs with guns, and when his stepson tried to take the gun
away, he was shot and died. Responding to those who have cited history in
their arguments, Mr. Siebold reported only 4,000 people were lost during
the Revolutionary War; however, we now lose 4,000 every seven weeks. He
stated, in the end, life was the important thing.
Linda Bellatorre addressed the Council on behalf of the Federation of San
Rafael Neighborhoods, an umbrella group of neighborhood associations and
individuals south of Puerto Suello Hill. She stated they support both
Ordinances and the Resolution, and they felt it was important to bridge the
gap before the State Ordinances take effect. She recalled that as recently
as last Wednesday, they had been under the impression that the residential
component was also going to be included in the Ordinance, noting the
Federation had mailed notices to its members informing them of that fact.
Ms. Bellatorre stated the Federation believed it was critical that the
residential component be included in anything that happens, and she urged
Council to direct the Community Development Director to bring to the
Planning Commission a change in the zoning laws that would prohibit gun
sales in residential areas. She noted 29 cities in California presently
regulate and prohibit sales in residential areas, pointing out the
precedent has been set for such a regulation. Ms. Bellatorre also asked
Council to set a date certain for this item to be presented before the
Planning Commission, and when it would then come back before the Council.
Anthony Love, resident of San Rafael, read from the book, Origins of the
Bill of Rights, quoting, "Congress enacted the Uniform Militia Act of 1792.
It referred to the Militia as being of every free, able-bodied male
citizen of the respective states, age 18 to 45". Mr. Love stated he
believed that guns do not kill people, people do. He felt that if current
laws were strictly enforced crime would be reduced drastically, noting this
had been proven with Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia. He stated there
was not a need for new law, but there was a need to enforce existing laws.
He stated banning or limiting the use of firearms did not decrease crime,
rather it increased the crime rate. He reported in 1976 Washington, D.C.
enacted a virtual ban on hand guns, yet by 1991 the homicide rate had
tripled, pointing out those statistics had been provided by the F.B.I. Mr.
Love believed that by passing the proposed Ordinances, San Rafael will come
under the danger of a lawsuit, the same as Marin County will, now that the
County has passed these laws. He stated it was the City's duty to spend
taxpayers' money wisely, and as a taxpayer, he would hate to see money
wasted on a lawsuit that could be avoided.
Mr. Love stated that as a law-abiding citizen, and father of four, he would
not give up his natural right to protect his family, nor would he give up
his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He noted the Police, by
law, do not have to protect him, his family, or anyone in the Council
Chamber, and if his means of protection his family are interfered with, his
voice will be heard loudly at the voting polls. Mr. Love felt the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 13
Ordinances were vaguely written, were pure harassment, and treated law-
abiding, taxpaying citizens as criminals. He strongly urged each of the
Councilmembers to vote against the proposals.
Sue Lipschitz, resident of San Rafael, stated she was addressing Council as
a concerned citizens, and also as a member of the Bell Campaign, a
grassroots organization devoted to discouraging gun violence, supporting
the victims of gun violence, and encouraging lawmakers to enact reasonable
firearms regulations. She reported there were several members of the Marin
County Chapter of the Bell Campaign attending the meeting, to urge Council
to support the two proposed Ordinances. Ms. Lipschitz referred to the
survey of gun dealers in San Rafael, which indicated the dealers were asked
whether they had a policy against selling unsafe handguns. She noted it
was no surprise they all stated they did not sell unsafe handguns; however,
she felt it would be interesting to know if the dealers were shown the
proposed list of firearms that would be restricted, and whether they
presently or recently have had any of those handguns in their inventory.
Ms. Lipschitz noted Council had heard from opponents of the Ordinances that
the passage of these Ordinances might open the City to legal suits;
however, she pointed out the same Ordinances had been enacted by many
cities, and forty counties in the State of California, and have withstood
legal challenges; therefore, she did not believe they would leave the City
open to serious threats of liability.
Regarding the Ordinance banning the sale of junk guns, or "Saturday Night
Specials", Ms. Lipschitz noted opponents would argue the Ordinance simple
duplicates a law which has already been passed by the State; however, while
the State has banned those sales, the law does not go into effect until
January, 2001, more than a year from now. She asked how many people,
perhaps in our own community, could be killed by these guns during one
year, pointing out that, Nationwide in one year, 1996, forty thousand
people were killed by gun fire, 93 per day. Ms. Lipschitz noted San
Rafael which, along with Novato, had the largest number of gun dealers in
the County, could become a haven during the next year for those attempting
to purchase these unsafe weapons before the State law goes into effect.
Ms. Lipschitz stated that during the past two weeks the Marin County Board
of Supervisors passed two Ordinances similar to these, which apply to the
unincorporated areas of the County, and it was now up to the individual
cities to join the effort, to make these Ordinances effective. Ms.
Lipschitz urged Council to take the lead now, and stand up to violence in
our community.
Robin Whalen, resident of San Rafael, asked Council to support the proposed
Ordinances on gun regulation. She felt one group of citizens had been
overlooked in the flurry to wave a banner on either side of this issue, and
that was the children. She reported she had done some research, on behalf
of the children of our community, and she found, according to the
California Department of Health Services, that handguns are the number one
killer of children in California. She noted more children are killed by
handguns than by car crashes, disease, or drugs, and California holds the
dubious record of leading the Nation, both in unrelated deaths and the
number of handguns manufactured in the State. Ms. Whalen reported
California taxpayers pay for 80% of the medical cost for treatment of a
firearm related injury, pointing out that in 1983, the average cost was
$25,800 per victim treated.
Ms. Whalen reported that two weekends ago, she and a handful of colleagues
were able to talk with almost 400 residents about their feelings on these
proposed Ordinances; and the vast majority supported tightening current
laws; but some, sadly stated "What's the use?" She stated they have lost
hope that their government will make a better attempt at protecting them
from gun violence. Ms. Whalen asked Council to join with the other 60
California jurisdictions that have banned the sale of junk guns so far, and
to disregard the bullying, booing, and intimidating tactics the opposition
has been using to apply pressure on them, and instead hear what the
majority of the City's residents are asking for, which is sensible gun
control.
Leo Duprey, resident of Marin County, and former resident of Boston,
Massachusetts, noted the words of German philosopher Gerte had come to
mind as he sat in the back of the Council Chamber and observed what was
happening. Mr. Duprey quoted, "There is nothing more terrifying than
ignorance in action". Mr. Duprey stated he was frightened, because he was
addressing a body which represents, on a local level, the Government of the
United States of America. He referred to all of the elected officials, and
the people they use as counsel, including the Police Chief, the lawyers,
and all of the advisors, and the names of other government agencies that
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 14
were mentioned. Mr. Duprey stated that when the head of the Council
protects from questioning the City officials who have been listed as
experts and should have answers, members of the public cannot ask questions
because they are protected by the Council; however, they are both working
together, and he believed we were marching down the road to tyranny.
Judy Binsacca, representing the League of Women Voters, stated the League
was supporting the Ordinances based on a position adopted by the National
League of Women Voters at a convention in 1990. Reading from that
position, she quoted, "The League of Women Voters of the United States
believes that the proliferation of handguns in the United States is a major
health and safety threat to its citizens. The League supports strong
measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of these
weapons by private citizens. The League supports a ban on 'Saturday Night
Specials', enforcement of strict penalties for the improper possession of,
and crimes committed with, such handguns, and the allocation of resources
to better regulate and monitor gun dealers". Ms. Binsacca stated is was
very good news that San Rafael's local, elected officials are taking action
such as the one tonight, and they hoped to see that on the Federal level,
noting that while they have seen some of it, there has not been very much.
In addition, she pointed out that until California got a new Governor,
there had not been much luck at the State level, either, although perhaps
now it would be a new era in which some of the rules would be implemented.
However, she believed it was up to the local leaders to take such actions
at the grassroots level, in order to protect the health and safety of its
residents.
Ms. Binsacca noted the Council had heard from a number of the neighborhood
representatives regarding their support for what the City is doing, and the
League of Women Voters wanted to add their voice to that. She stated they
believed the action Council takes here, particularly with San Rafael being
the largest city in the County, would set a good example for the other
cities and towns in Marin County, and would add to the number of cities and
towns throughout the State that are taking these measures. She stated the
League applauded the City for that, and thanked the Councilmembers for
their concern regarding this issue.
Ryan Brendel, member of the NRA, stated no one present at the meeting was
for gun violence. He acknowledged guns were not full-proof or childproof,
they do shoot and kill people, and no matter what safety devises are put on
them, some people will use them while others will not, and it will not stop
children from being killed by guns. Regarding the sale of ammunition, Mr.
Brendel agreed ammunition could be obtained from many other places, from
outside the County of Marin, and people can even make their own ammunition,
and he noted someone who steals a gun, or gets a gun illegally, is not
going to give their fingerprint.
Mr. Brendel did not feel it was clear what a "Saturday Night Special" was,
noting the memorandum to Police Chief Sanchez from Officer John R. Huntoon,
regarding the method of how a gun will be tested to determine whether or
not it is a safe gun, states such a method had not yet been developed. Mr.
Brendel agreed "Saturday Night Specials" were concealable, they are cheaply
made, and they are cheap, although he pointed out a lot of people cannot
afford a $500 gun. He believed that if the City was going to regulate them
because they are cheaply made, they should do it for that reason, not
because they are concealable, because some people do need concealed
weapons. Mr. Brendel stated he believed it was wrong that the Police
Department was exempt from this. Mayor Boro clarified that within the City
of San Rafael, Police Officers were not exempt.
Peter Petrakis, resident of Mill Valley, urged Council not to pass these
firearm restrictions, stating they should prosecute criminals, not law-
abiding citizens. He recommended Council adopt a policy to enforce the
20,000 gun laws that are already on the books, and adopt a zero tolerance
for any criminal act, especially by a felon. He noted an earlier speaker
had commented on Project Exile in Virginia, and Mr. Petrakis explained that
in Virginia, felons disarmed themselves, because if they are caught with a
gun they go straight to jail. He believed that was what Council should do
if they want to lower crime, go after the felons, not law-abiding citizens.
He stated people need guns to defend themselves, noting there were 31
states which have passed "right to carry" laws, and in every one of those
states, crime has gone down. Mr. Petrakis urged Council to read the book
"More Guns, Less Crime", which he believed would tell the Councilmembers a
lot about gun control. Mr. Petrakis believed it was the poor people who
were going to be disarmed, and they were the ones who needed it.
Gregory Swanson reported he was an NRA instructor, and also worked for the
Department of Justice, giving tests so people can purchase a gun. Mr.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 15
Swanson gave the Councilmembers his card, and invited them to his shop,
located at Bullseye Indoor Shooting Range, so he could show them his side
of this issue.
Gloria MacDonald, retired school teacher, stated the last place she wanted
to be was standing before the Council, noting she has never spoken about
guns before. She stated she had grown up in a family where there were no
guns, but after an incident on New Year's Eve ten years ago involving her,
her husband and their ten-year old daughter, when she was very grateful
they had a gun, and it forever changed her thinking about guns.
Mrs. MacDonald believed there were three prongs; the Police Department, the
law-abiding citizen, and the criminal. She felt as though something was
by-passed, and we were jumping from Police Enforcement to the law-abiding
citizen, and she wondered what was being done about the criminals? She
stated she could see the City's point of view regarding junk guns; however,
just as an earlier speaker had stated the firearm dealers and gun
supporters were feeling intimidated and harassed, Ms. MacDonald noted she
was in favor of guns, and she, too, felt intimidated and harassed. She
stated she did not know if there was a meeting place for everyone, but she
felt the current legislation now being considered by the Council was wrong.
She stated it was not clear, particularly on what junk guns are.
Regarding the information that must be provided in order to purchase
ammunition, Mrs. MacDonald noted there was an entire page of questions
which must be filled-out by law-abiding citizens, and she did not feel this
was right, noting they have not had to do this in the past. She asked if,
perhaps, there was another way to tackle this problem, noting it seemed as
though everyone was going the same route; however, she believed there had
to be another way, and she hoped the City could find it.
Pat Newton, resident of Kentfield, thanked the Councilmembers for their
great devotion to the democratic process and the time they give, stating
there were many who were very appreciative of all they are doing. Ms.
Newton stated she did not feel the proposed legislation was strong enough,
and she would like to see much more done. She noted she was 73 years old,
and did not want to go out and buy a gun, she wanted to go home and feel
that she was safe without buying a gun and putting it in her house. She
believed it was possible that people could live that way in our Country.
Ms. Newton reported she has seen her grandchildren traumatized by the
violence in our society, and it was very saddening. She stated she wanted
to lend her support to this legislation, noting she was very happy about
it, and hoped we could get the Country back on track again.
David Golden, resident of San Francisco, stated he comes to San Rafael to
shoot his gun, because people cannot legally shoot a handgun in San
Francisco; therefore, he comes to Marin County to maintain safe shooting
skills. He stated he was likely the only person in the entire crowd to
admit to owning a junk gun, which should be put on the list. He noted a
trigger lock cannot be put on it because the gun cannot be unloaded, as
there is no magazine on it; however, he pointed out this gun had, at one
time, been a very standard Police back-up gun, although it is terrible to
shoot, and he stated he cannot get rid of it, because he would not want
someone else to have it.
Referring to the argument of junk guns being dangerous, Mr. Golden noted
there were a lot of lawyers who hate guns; however, if these guns really
blew up, and if they were really that dangerous, the lawyers would have
already sued all the manufacturers out of business. He stated what were
being called junk guns, recently renamed after being called "Saturday Night
Specials" were, basically, cheap guns. He pointed out there were cheap
cars, and asked if we should mandate that no one should drive a ten-year
old Honda Civic, because it would get crushed immediately by a Sports
Utility Vehicle? Mr. Golden stated poor people have a right to drive on
the road and get to work the same way rich people do, the same way poor
people have the right to have cheap guns, because they might be the only
ones they can afford. He asked if it was just for the well-to-do people,
who can whip out an American Express Gold Card, to set minimum price
standards to price guns out of the reach of poor people? Mr. Golden
pointed out that criminals will take any gun, in fact, they prefer the same
guns the Police like, noting they are their professional tools of trade.
He believed if Council were to pass this regulation, they would be denying
poor people the same right to protect themselves that well to do people
have.
Ken Jones, gun dealer in San Rafael, stated he sells guns out of his home,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 16
primarily because he does not stock them, he orders them, dealing primarily
with Police Officers and Federal Agents. He noted if a Federal Agency or
Police Officer wants a gun, he will order it for them. He stated he sells
perhaps two or three guns a month; however, he stated that if these two
Ordinances were enacted, the City would be putting him out of business.
Mr. Jones reported he had spent 21 years as a Federal Agent, and nine years
as a Police Officer; he knew guns, he liked guns, and he loved to shoot.
He stated that as he sells only two or three guns a month, the cost of the
mandatory liability insurance would put him out of business, and he
believed he had a right to do business in this Country, noting he was a
law-abiding citizen, and had been in San Rafael since 1978.
Kevin Wagner asked Council to look at the root of the problem, and what was
really going on here. He stated he was born and raised in Marin County,
and it has always been a liberal place. He believed the issue that needed
to be looked at was one of control, noting we were supposed to be a nation
of the people; however, infringements were slowly chipping away at people's
rights. He pointed out the Council was laying the footprints, and setting
the precedents that were going to allow the government to tromp on people,
noting this issue was one of people's basic rights, as a nation. In
addition, he believed the Council needed to look at the issue of education,
pointing out that perhaps back on the homestead people were brought up in
an environment where firearms were much more "up-front" for a child growing
up, while now it was video games on television. He stated the education
was not there, and he believed crime, violence, and hatred could all be
alleviated through proper education, noting he had taught his son about
guns, and the violence they can do when used by the wrong people for the
wrong means. Mr. Wagner stated he did not believe these laws were going to
stop any of that, there would still be instances like Columbine High
School, and people were still going to get whatever they want, if they have
a means and a motive. Therefore, he believed that if we started with
education, we could do this. Mr. Wagner stated that should his son go over
to a friend's house, and the friend pulls a gun out of his father's desk
drawer, he hoped his son would have the respect and knowledge, from the
education he has provided him, to know to do the right thing. He asked
Council not to set any footstones that will infringe on people's rights.
Steve Patterson, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated junk guns,
in his opinion, shoot people, kill people, and create great bodily harm.
He believed the junk gun Ordinance sends a message, and was good preemptive
legislation. He stated this was a quality of life issue for the residents
of San Rafael, and he hoped, if Council were to do this, that they would do
it right, and ban gun dealer permits in residential neighborhoods. He
reported the Federation had communicated electronically with neighborhood
leaders from throughout San Rafael about the legislation now before the
Council, indicating it would include trigger locks, and that gun permits
would be banned in neighborhoods. He reported, based on the feedback he
had received, that the ban in the neighborhoods was resoundingly supported,
and he hoped Council would consider a way to integrate that into this
legislation.
Mr. Patterson stated that with only thirteen gun dealers in San Rafael, he
had hoped more vigorous investigation would have taken place as to exactly
what they do with so called junk guns and "Saturday Night Specials". He
believed the question asked in the survey had been rather vague, and felt
that with the small number of dealers, an investigation of their records
could have taken place, or a statement under oath could have been taken.
Mr. Patterson noted the Council had heard a lot of speakers, and had been
incredibly patient, and he hoped the City would now move forward with this
legislation, including the neighborhood component, so other cities could
follow Council's leadership.
Mark Matthews, resident of Napa County, noted that during his years in the
Navy, he had been many places around the world, and seen many places that
were very safe because of their restrictive gun laws. However, he believed
people were not addressing the big problem, which is the criminal, not law-
abiding citizens. He did not feel it was fair that law-abiding citizens
were being singled out, and he urged Council to vote against the
initiatives now before them.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Boro referred to the issue of ammunition registration, and asked if
this was something the State was going to require next year? Police Chief
Sanchez stated it was not known whether the State was going to go that far
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 17
concerning the issue of ammunition. Mayor Boro asked what his opinion was
on that issue? Chief Sanchez stated he believed it would be critical to
attempt to trace the ammunition, although there were different ways to go
about doing this. He noted this was one of the biggest issues among the
other police chiefs in Marin County, reporting they had spent the majority
of their time discussing ammunition, because most dealers do not register
ammunition, and it was also easily obtainable by another person. Chief
Sanchez believed tracing ammunition was going to be very difficult, and he
did not have an answer at this time.
Mayor Boro addressed the issue of defining a junk gun, noting that if the
Council was going to regulate something, they needed to know what they were
regulating or prohibiting. He asked how the Police Department was going to
bring closure to this issue, so those in the community who have an interest
in this, as well as the Council, know exactly what is being enforced and
what type of guns are being described as junk guns? Chief Sanchez reported
he and the Sheriff had discussed the list contained in the staff report,
and were currently gathering information from their departments' gun
experts and the Department of Justice. Chief Sanchez pointed out the
Attorney General had just set forth a new committee regarding junk guns,
and they are studying a Statewide criteria for a list of junk guns. He
stated he and the Sheriff would be discussing that criteria with members of
the new committee next week, and then they would set the standards for
their departments.
Mayor Boro referred to earlier comments regarding the project in Virginia,
in which law enforcement was very proactive in dealing with people who have
committed crimes with guns. He requested Chief Sanchez return to Council
with more information on that project, noting he believed the people who
commit such crimes needed to be punished severely, and if there was a
program that worked, he would like to know more about it, and what it would
take to implement such a program in San Rafael. Chief Sanchez noted he and
the District Attorney had spoken about that issue last week, as well as the
issue of prosecution, and the utilization of junk guns when crimes are
committed.
Councilmember Heller referred to cases still under judicial review, noting
it had been her understanding that the West Hollywood ban had been upheld
by the Court of Appeal. Deputy City Attorney Davis reported the West
Hollywood case was heard in the Second District Court of Appeal, and while
that decision was final, there had been a request for review by the Supreme
Court of California, which was denied. Mr. Davis noted one of the earlier
speakers had referred to that case as still being open; however, Mr. Davis
believed the speaker may have been referring to litigation in another
district, noting, for example, there is other litigation in Sacramento,
where, at the trial level, there was a decision upholding the City of
Sacramento's junk gun ordinance, although that decision currently is
subject to appeal.
Councilmember Phillips noted that with regard to the record of ammunition
sales, reference had been made to such an Ordinance, either State or
Federal, being in place through 1986, at which time it was set-aside. He
asked for the history of that Ordinance, and what might have been learned
from that history, because he was not at all comfortable with this section
of the proposed Ordinance, as it seemed to be needless paperwork that would
not result in much. Chief Sanchez stated that when they are investigating
a criminal case, it was obviously a big benefit to have the actual bullet
that was fired from a gun used in a crime. He noted it would certainly
benefit the investigations to be able to identify a bullet that is taken
from a victim, or an intended victim, and tie it to the weapon itself.
Councilmember Phillips stated he could understand that; however, he
wondered whether it was at all practical, or feasible, to do that? He
asked, once a bullet is fired, is it that distinguishable, and traceable
back to the point of purchase? Chief Sanchez stated it certainly could be,
if the proper procedures were in place to find out where the ammunition was
originally taken from. He stated the initiation of that kind of
investigation was certainly doable; however, whether it would result in a
success story, and identify the actually buyer of the bullet, would be the
most difficult part.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was still troubled with the history,
noting this had created a great deal of paperwork and had been
discontinued, and he did not want to create the same problem with paperwork
if it was not going to be of significant value. Chief Sanchez stated it
would be of significant value. He noted when he and Deputy City Attorney
Davis had discussed the 1986 law, they had also discussed the issue of
paperwork. Chief Sanchez also pointed out the proposed regulation would
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 18
not require the thumbprint for identification; therefore, while it would
take a lot of work and require paperwork and man-hours, to identify the
actual bullet with the person who purchased it would be difficult.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was not certain how he would weight that
in evaluating whether it merits having the vendors keep track of all this.
Councilmember Phillips noted the comment had been made that perhaps those
with less means were the ones purchasing the cheaper weapons for
protection, and asked if there were any statistics that would indicate if
that is the case, or information that would indicate that more crime was
prevented, perhaps killings prevented, by poorer people having weapons? He
explained he was trying to measure whether that was a red herring, by which
the City would preclude poorer people from being able to defend themselves
by passing this law, or, was there real substance to that argument? Chief
Sanchez stated he did not know where they could ever find such a statistic,
noting the Police Department's criminal statistics do not include the
economic status of victims, witnesses, or suspects. He stated he would
find out if such statistics existed anywhere else, noting if anyone had
such a study it would likely be the Department of Justice; however, none of
the municipalities, or the Sheriff's Department, keep those types of
statistics. In trying to assess whether that was simply a red herring,
Councilmember Phillips asked Chief Sanchez if, in his opinion, the argument
had substance? Chief Sanchez stated, in his opinion, it did not.
Councilmember Cohen referred to legal challenges, noting there were
approximately forty jurisdictions within the State of California where such
Ordinances have been adopted. He asked if there had been any successful
legal challenges to those Ordinances, at any level of the court system?
Deputy City Attorney Davis stated that within the State of California, he
was not aware of any successful challenges. He reported there had been a
partial success in the City of Lafayette case, noting, as part of their
firearms regulation, they had included requirements with respect to
security provisions regarding the storage of weapons, and that particular
provision, which was not included in the Ordinance before Council, was held
invalid, because of State preemption, and a specific State statute which
already addressed that issue. Other than that instance, Mr. Davis stated
he was not aware of any State decisions, to date, that have invalidated any
of the other Ordinances. Councilmember Cohen stated the argument had been
made during earlier testimony that Federal law preempted any such
Ordinance. Mr. Davis stated he was not aware of any Federal Court of
Appeal cases that have invalidated gun Ordinances of the type now before
the Council.
Mayor Boro again referred to the issue of ammunition, stating he truly felt
the tracing of a particular bullet back to the person who bought it was
highly impractical, and further, there was also a provision which stated,
"...shall not apply to the sale of firearm ammunition by a firing range
licensed to do business in the City when the ammunition purchased is
expended on the premises of the range and not removed for use outside the
range premises". He stated he did not know how the City would ever
determine or control that. He noted this was a bridge approach to
something that was going to happen in a year, and he believed there were
bigger issues than ammunition. Mayor Boro recommended that as Council
discusses the proposed Ordinances, they seriously consider whether this
section should be included.
Councilmember Heller asked if the State regulated the registration or sale
of ammunition? Chief Sanchez stated it does not. She asked if the County
had put this provision in their Ordinance? Chief Sanchez stated the County
had included it. Councilmember Heller stated she disagreed with Mayor
Boro's recommendation, and believed that provision should remain in the
second proposed Ordinance. Explaining her position, she stated it all went
back to the children, noting in our culture and society, guns kill more
children in America than all natural causes. She pointed out that over
one-third of American homes have guns that are left unlocked and loaded.
She recalled she grew up with a gun in her family, and although she was
absolutely forbidden to touch the gun, she played with it, noting that when
guns are around, children play with them. She stated that was her feeling
concerning why she believed the Council needed to regulate the ability of
children to have access to guns.
Councilmember Heller stated she wanted the City to take one small step with
these Ordinances, even though they are bridge legislation. She
acknowledged this was a very emotional issue, but believed it was something
that could be looked at locally, and she felt this was a way to begin
educating everyone that guns are dangerous.
She noted adults educate themselves and are very careful; however, children
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 19
are not, and that was why she believed the Council had to put these two
Ordinances into effect.
a. The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 8.37 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO PROHIBITION OF THE SALE OF SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS,
ALSO KNOWN AS JUNK GUNS".
Councilmember Miller stated he would vote for these Ordinances, as well as
the Resolution, and encouraged Council to take up the request of the
neighborhoods to direct the Community Development Director to bring to the
Planning Commission and Council zoning law changes explicitly prohibiting
firearm dealers in residential neighborhoods, and prohibiting firearm
dealers from operating near sensitive areas.
He stated he did this for four principal reasons. First, the overwhelming
number of his constituents with whom he has spoken were in favor of the
increased regulation of these instruments of deadly force, which have been
described in the material in the staff report as the number one killer of
kids in California. Second, Chief of Police Cam Sanchez was strongly in
favor of these Ordinance and the Resolution, a position that is consistent
with that of all Marin law enforcement officials who have spoken on the
issue. Third, incontrovertible evidence proves that gun regulation
increases safety. As was noted in the New York Times on October 24, 1999,
a 7% drop in homicides last year was entirely attributable to a decrease in
killings committed with guns, according to a report released by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The decline appears to be the clearest evidence
yet that the recent efforts to reduce gun violence through new laws and
police pressure are working. There was also a 10% drop in robberies
carried out with guns, accounting for the biggest decrease in any one
category of crime. Fourth, these Ordinances infringe on no individual
rights, including that of self-protection. Even the two leading
Libertarian gun apologists, Lawrence Tribe of Harvard and Achilles Reid
Amar of Yale hold that the right to bear arms was certainly subject to
reasonable regulation in the interest of public safety. Laws that ban a
certain type of weapons, require safety devices on others, and otherwise
impose strict controls on guns, can pass Constitutional scrutiny. The
Constitution does not give individuals the unregulated right to bear arms.
A cursory look at more than a century of Supreme Court rulings on the
Second Amendment makes it clear there is no Constitutional right to the
individual possession of firearms. In Lewis vs. the United States, the
Court ruled the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep or bear a
firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
Councilmember Miller stated these Ordinances would enable the Council to
fulfill its responsibility to take proactive and preventative measures to
ensure the safety and protection of the public, in this case, by regulating
in a lawful and entirely appropriate manner the sale of firearms within the
City limits. Councilmember Miller stated, in an exercise of representative
democracy, he chose to fulfill the duty given to him by the voters of the
City, by emphatically voting for these Ordinances.
Councilmember Cohen stated that after listening carefully to the testimony,
reviewing the staff report, and speaking with a number of residents of San
Rafael, he agreed this was a public safety issue. He stated the evidence
presented, comments by staff, the position of the City's Police Chief, the
County Sheriff, and all the Police Chiefs in Marin County, made it very
clear there was a real issue of public safety at stake. Furthermore, he
stated he had listened very carefully to the arguments against the
Ordinances. Responding to a comment made earlier by Fielding Greaves,
asking whether or not the Councilmembers were experts, and could pass
technical judgment on the standards used in evaluating some of the weapons
on the list that are proposed to be banned, he stated the answer was, "No".
However, he stated he did not profess to be an expert in every aspect of
running every operation of the City, noting that was not what he was
elected to do; he was elected to set policy direction for the City, to hire
a competent City Manager, encourage him to hire competent staff, and listen
carefully to their best professional judgment. He stated that was what he
was doing now, noting he had trust in the City's Chief of Police, and noted
most of the residents of San Rafael whom he knows also have trust in Chief
Sanchez. Councilmember Cohen stated he would be guided heavily by Chief
Sanchez' advice, and he was not going to apologize for that position.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 20
Mr. Cohen noted he had listened carefully to the arguments against this,
and he did not agree that any regulation, whatsoever, of handguns was a
step toward tyranny. He stated he respected the right to that opinion by
those who so strongly held it; however, he did not hold to that view. He
believed Council had the right to regulate this in the interest of public
safety, just as they regulate traffic, access to tobacco, and a whole range
of other issues where compelling evidence
indicates public safety is at stake. Commenting on the strict
Constitutional construction of the argument regarding a militia and the
right to bear arms; he acknowledged Mr. Love had given a very articulate
speech about his rights, and his concern about protecting his family. Mr.
Cohen noted he respected that, and did not believe that what the Council
was passing would limit his abilities to do that. However, he noted Mr.
Love had made a statement which Mr. Cohen felt really captured why it was
that he did not buy the argument that the Council must strictly go by the
language as it is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
exhume the drafters of that document, and adhere to exactly what they said.
Mr. Cohen noted Mr. Love had defined "militia" by quoting, "every free,
able-bodied man", and Mr. Cohen explained that by using the word "free",
the drafters of that language did not mean everyone available, they meant
everyone not a slave. He stated we no longer permit the owning of slaves
in this Country, so we clearly have a different interpretation of the
language as viewed by the drafters of that document; therefore, he did not
believe that argument held up.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was not swayed by the argument that this was
a horrendous march of government against the people, noting every poll he
has seen indicates clearly that the people of California favor a reasonable
regulation over handguns, as well as automatic weapons. He believed a
majority of the people in the State, and certainly a majority of people in
our community, support the City's position on this matter.
Councilmember Phillips stated he suspected that regardless of the action
the Councilmembers might take, or the comments they make, it would not be
all-conclusive or all-persuasive to those who might have another view,
because he felt those who had expressed their viewpoints held those
viewpoints in strong stead, with good reason in their view. He noted he
owned several firearms, and hoped he had not been perceived, incorrectly,
as one who was adamantly opposed to gun matters. He believed there was a
central message, and noted a comment made earlier by Ryan Brendel, in which
he stated this Ordinance would not stop children from being killed. Mr.
Phillips acknowledged that was true; however, he wanted to send a message,
and start the process of people thinking about what we are doing to our
children, which he believed was the greatest crime our society has imposed
upon itself, the tolerance of violence, and perhaps making it glamorous in
television and movies. He noted it was unfortunate, for our community and
our Country, that we have fallen into that mindset. Mr. Phillips stated he
did not necessarily believe this was going to change much when people go to
work tomorrow; however, he wanted to send the message that people are
becoming less and less tolerant, as a Country, of the consequences of
firearms. He stated he was going to support this Ordinance, although with
his eyes open to the fact that it was not really the end-all. He stated he
looked to those who spoke in opposition to control, to look for other ways
to change that behavior, asking them, if this was not right, to tell us
what was right. He stated he was getting fed up with the position the
Councilmembers were in with regard to this issue; therefore, he asked them
to be constructive, and tell him if there were better ways of handling it.
He believed this was the best the Council had before them, at this moment,
and he was going to send that message, and hope it would be understood.
Councilmember Phillips stated the zoning issue was something he expected to
see come back before the Council, noting he did not want to see guns sold
in residential areas, or other sensitive areas, which he considered,
predominantly, to be schools.
Mayor Boro noted that four years ago, when he went through the first
Citizens' Police Academy, one of the things they got to do as part of the
course was to go to the shooting range and shoot. He recalled surprising
the members of the Police Department when they found out he actually knew
how to shoot, noting he shot in competition years ago, and he enjoys
shooting. Therefore, he stated that in some ways, he was torn regarding
some of these issues, although he was very strong on the issue of safety
and perception in the minds of the public, and the whole issue of junk
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 21
guns, and safety associated with guns. He stated everyone knew what has
been happening around the Country, pointing out we were not immune here in
San Rafael, and acknowledging what Council approves tonight may or may not
prevent something from happening. However, he believed it was important
that the Council, as leaders of the community, talk about issues such as
guns and safety, and have some level of regulation that makes sense, and
while not prohibiting people from having guns, does eliminate from the
streets those types of weapons that are dangerous, that fall into the hands
of people because they are cheap, and in turn, allow them to be used in
crimes. He stated he supported this issue, and while he felt it was a very
positive thing the Council was doing, he understood State law would take
place in approximately one year; however, he believed it was important that
the City be symbolic and take a stand. Mayor Boro agreed with
Councilmember Cohen that there was strong support in this City, and in this
State, for reasonable regulation of firearms, which he believed was what
they were talking about with the regulation now before the Council.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and pass Ordinance No. 1745 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
b. The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 8.38 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS DEALERS (as amended, to
delete reference to the recording of ammunition sales).
Councilmember Phillips acknowledged he was not an expert on this matter,
and agreed with Councilmember Cohen's comments with regard to relying upon
those who are. He stated he was still not persuaded at this point
concerning the recording of ammunition, although if Chief Sanchez were to
come back before the Council with further clarification, he would be
delighted to entertain that. However, at this point, he did not see the
practicality of the section pertaining to the record of ammunition sales,
noting it defied logic that a bullet could be traced back to its original
point of purchase. He also felt the City had to be cognizant of some of
the regulations that are imposed upon legitimate businesses, and certainly,
as defined, those dealers in the City, who are conducting a legitimate
business. He stated it seemed onerous, and without significant merit,
although he would entertain the issue again, at a later date, if that was
necessary, and if so persuaded, he would be comfortable in taking action at
that time. However, at this point, he was not persuaded that Section
8.38.075 was appropriate to be included in the Ordinance Council was about
to act upon.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Mayor Boro seconded, to amend the
Ordinance to delete Section 8.38.075. He also asked Chief Sanchez to
return to Council with information that might be more persuasive.
Mayor Boro stated he did not favor this amendment because it was going to
create a flood of recordkeeping, which he did not believe was really going
to prove anything if the records were ever investigated. He noted the
Federal law was suspended a few years ago because of that fact, and he
reiterated he found if very difficult to understand how someone could trace
the bullet used in a crime back to who purchased it. He understood that a
bullet could be traced back to a particular gun, but it was inconceivable
to him that it could be traced back to the actual person who purchased the
bullet. Mayor Boro again noted the proviso on Page 10, Item B, which
states, "The provisions of this section shall not apply to the sale of
firearm ammunition by a firing range licensed to do business in the City
when the ammunition so purchased is expended on the premises of the range
and not removed for use outside the range premises". He asked how the City
could enforce that? Mayor Boro also pointed out this provision was not
going to be made part of the new State law; therefore, it seemed
unproductive, and a form of harassment the City did not need.
Councilmember Heller asked if Council could come back at a later time and
add Section 8.38.075 to the Ordinance? She stated she disagreed with Mayor
Boro and Councilmember Phillips, and believed this provision should be
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 22
included. She reiterated she had sold ammunition, and received telephone
calls years and years later from parties trying to trace some of the
ammunition. She believed it would be a good thing to have a record of
where the ammunition was going.
City Manager Gould stated the issue of recordkeeping for ammunition sales
should have further research and analysis; therefore, if Council was to
take that provision out of the Ordinance this evening, and allow staff to
return at a later date with additional information, perhaps Council could
then reconsider the matter.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would be in favor of that approach, noting he
tended to favor an amendment deleting this Section. However, he was more
than willing to consider an amendment to the Ordinance at a future date,
and putting this language back into the Ordinance, once he had heard the
case for it. He acknowledged the case had been made for the banning of the
sale of junk guns in San Rafael, and he felt comfortable with the step
Council was taking. He noted there were some steps being taken by San
Rafael which were not going to be covered by State law, such as trigger
locks. He stated it was not entirely clear to him what legitimate purpose
this served, and he found it hard to believe that it would successfully
track someone who has committed a crime, simply by falling back to where
the ammunition was purchased.
Mayor Boro asked Council to vote on an amendment to the Proposed Ordinance,
extracting Section 8.38.075. Councilmember Phillips so moved and Mayor
Boro seconded, to delete Section 8.38.075 from the proposed Ordinance.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and pass Ordinance No. 1746 to print, as amended, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
c. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution re-establishing procedures for the reconsideration and appeal of
the classification of a firearm as a Saturday Night Special, and the denial
or revocation of a permit for firearms dealers.
RESOLUTION NO. 10530 - RESOLUTION RE-ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL OF (1) THE CLASSIFICATION
OF A FIREARM AS A SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL; AND (2) THE
DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE FIREARMS
DEALERS.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro stated is was also the sense of the Council that Planning
Department staff pursue the zoning issue. Councilmember Heller asked when
Council could expect staff to return with that item? Community Development
Director Brown proposed that staff would go before the Planning Commission
in January, and return to Council in February.
OLD BUSINESS:
12. AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR MENZIES
PARKING LOT (CM) - File 4-10-309 x 226 x 9-3-84
Mayor Boro announced this item was being carried over, without discussion,
for a maximum of one month.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 23
13. a. NATIONAL HOME CARE MONTH/CELEBRATION OF CITY'S LIBRARY - File 104
Mayor Boro announced he would be unable to attend two scheduled
events. He asked the Councilmembers to let his secretary know if
they would be interested in attending a celebration of the City's
Library on December 1st, and if they could represent the Council at a
meeting on Wednesday, November 17th at
1:00 PM to present a Proclamation for National Home Care month to
Marin Home Care.
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:10
PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1999
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/99 Page 23