The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10241995 - D9 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I.O.-01 Contra INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE c a FROM: Costa �A _.. October 2, 1995 County DATE: ?srJi`diic+`� c t SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REGULATE GUN DEALERS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. CONSIDER a report from the Community Development Director on the results of a survey of other jurisdictions which have gun control ordinances in effect regarding the enforcement costs for those ordinances. [Attachment#16] 2. , CONSIDER a report from the Community Development Director on the likely range of costs for a gun dealer to carry a one million dollar general liability policy.to cover any possible liability as a result of being a gun dealer. [Attachment#17] 3. CONSIDER a report from the County Counsel on legal challenges which have been mounted against similar gun control ordinances in other jurisdictions and the outcome or status of those challenges. [Attachment#18] 4. CONSIDER a report from the County Counsel on whether special-provisions can be included in the proposed ordinance to exempt gun collectors who collect but do not sell, trade or transport guns. [Attachment#19] 5. CONSIDER the State Police Chiefs' general position on gun control ordinances. [Attachment #20] 6. HOLD a closed session to confer with and receive legal counsel regarding the threat of litigation made at the October 2, 1995 Internal Operations Committee meeting as to ordinance adoption. [Attachment#21] CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE ER SIGNATURE (S)- ®RK De SAULNIE 41RO)GE ACTION OF BOARD ON October 24, 1995 APP OVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X See Addendum for Board action and vote. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS See addendurn I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. 4 County Administrator ATTESTED October 24, 1995 Contact: Director, GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: Community Development Director SUPERVI ORS AND COUNTY A MINISTRATOR County Counsel Health Services Director BY ,DEPUTY 1.0.-01 7. CONSIDER the other attachments provided to the Board by our Committee which our Committee received and considered at our meeting on October 2, 1995. [See Attachments #1 - 15] 8. CONSIDER any testimony from members of the general public on this subject. 9. DETERMINE whether to FIX a date for public hearings on the Ordinance (Attachment #2) regulating gun dealers in the unincorporated area of the County or REFER the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider a modified version of the Ordinance not previously considered. BACKGROUND: On January 24, 1995, Supervisor Rogers asked the Board of Supervisors to direct the County Counsel to prepare an Ordinance regulating the operation of gun dealers in the residential unincorporated area of the County. The Board actually "directed the County Counsel to prepare, in consultation with the Prevention staff in the Health Services Department, the Community Development Department and the Sheriff-Coroner, a draft Ordinance for Board consideration which would regulate firearms dealers in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County with a view toward moving in the direction of accomplishing the three following goals...". The goals were amended slightly as is reflected in the January 24, 1995 Board Order, a copy of which is attached for the Board's review. [Attachment#3] On May 2, 1995, the Board of Supervisors received the report from the Health Services Department entitled Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: Contra Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community. As is reflected in the May 2, 1995 Board Order, a copy of which is attached, the Board of Supervisors referred this report and the entire subject of gun control to our Committee. The Board also directed the County Counsel to make some additional changes to the proposed Ordinance. [Attachment #4] Since the Ordinance proposed to regulate land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County, staff interpreted these referrals to be an implicit referral to the County Planning Commission as well. The County Planning Commission held hearings on May 2, 1995 and June 6, 1995 on the proposed Ordinance. On June 27, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution by a 4:3 vote, recommending that the Ordinance be approved. [Attachment #1] In preparation for our Committee's hearing this item on October 2, 1995, staff prepared a mailing list of individuals who testified before the Planning Commission or who had contacted staff in the interim asking about the Ordinance. This list includes about 150 individuals. Each of these individuals has been provided a copy of the Ordinance. In addition, at the request of the opponents to the Ordinance, staff obtained a list from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of all gun dealers in Contra Costa County with federal firearms licenses. This list totals about 430 individuals or corporations. Each of these individuals was provided notice of our Committee's October 2, 1995 meeting and was provided a copy of the Ordinance and a copy of the Planning Commission's Resolution. Thus, nearly 600 individuals were provided notice of our Committee's October 2, 1995 meeting. On October 2, 1995, we met in the Board Chambers with about 75 individuals, Diana Silver, Deputy County Counsel, summarized the provisions of the proposed Ordinance as is outlined in her attached May 31, 1995 memorandum. She noted that the proposed Ordinance would: 1. Prohibit gun dealers in residential unincorporated areas of the County. 2. Require a land use permit for new gun dealers in non-residential unincorporated areas of the County. 2 I.O.-01 3. Require current gun dealers in non-residential unincorporated areas of the County to identify themselves, obtain a firearm dealers' license, demonstrate proof of insurance. 4. Require gun dealers in the non-residential unincorporated areas of the County to maintain certain records regarding ammunition sales and be subject to records inspections by the County. Dennis Barry outlined the hearings held by the Planning Commission, as noted above and the outcome reached by the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier, Mr. Barry indicated that he could not estimate the costs to enforce the Ordinance without knowing in more detail what the Board's direction would be regarding enforcement. He noted that the enforcement of all other current home industry regulations is done on a complaint-only basis. The cost of administration of the ordinance would be paid for by a fee imposed on all licensees. Andres Soto from the Health Services Department's Prevention Program, outlined the reasons why the Department is supporting the proposed Ordinance. The principal points made by Mr. Soto were: 1. The current proposed Ordinance was stimulated by concern about the injuries and death caused by firearms in the County. r 2. Staff from the-Prevention Program examined the data and determined that there was a significant problem. 3. It was determined that because of State preemption in some aspects of firearms sales the use of a gun permit and use of the County's zoning and land use authority was the most appropriate method to pursue. 4. The firearms issue is now being approached as a public health issue in addition to a law enforcement issue. Mr. Soto distributed an editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine on this subject. [Attachment#12] In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier, Mr. Soto indicated that the County Police Chiefs' Association had deferred to their statewide association's statement regarding gun control ordinance generally, rather than specifically endorsing the proposed Ordinance. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers, Mr. Westman indicated that gun dealers would continue to be prohibited from selling guns in residential unincorporated areas of the County; the Ordinance would clarify current interpretation of the code. In non- residential areas, existing gun dealers would have to obtain a license, provide proof of insurance, maintain records but would otherwise be "grand-fathered" under the Ordinance. New gun dealers in non-residential unincorporated areas of the County would be required to obtain a land use permit in order to operate. This would include specified physical separation from other gun dealers and from schools and other specified facilities. Jerry Avalos, of the National Rifle Association (Brentwood Members' Council) outlined the reasons he and many others are opposed to the Ordinance. The principal points made by Mr. Avalos are: 1. There is no evidence that current gun dealers are violating current laws or are generating any complaints. 2. There is no data to demonstrate that violence would be reduced by this proposed ordinance. 3 1.0.-01 3. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not aware of any problem caused by gun dealers in the County. 4. Only a small number of gun dealers are guilty of record keeping problems. 5. This is an attempt to zone all gun dealers out of existence, even in commercial districts. 6. Registering ammunition is not an effective law enforcement tool. Mr. Avalos recommended that the County follow the proposals advanced by Dr. Edgar A. Suter. [Attachment#11] In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier, Mr. Avalos indicated that most residential gun dealers do not maintain any inventory and simply facilitate the catalog purchase of a gun by a customer who is generally a well-known friend. Supervisor Rogers asked that testimony focus on what is before the Committee and summarized the proposed Ordinance as being one which would: Apply only in the unincorporated area of the County. Restate existing law that residential gun dealers are not in compliance with County law. Impose strict zoning restrictions on new gun dealers that want to set up shop in commercial areas. Does not impose the same zoning requirements on existing gun dealer businesses in commercial areas. Supervisor DeSaulnier indicated that while he wants to do what is best in order to make the community safer and wants to curb the spread of guns in the community. He indicated that he is not sure that the proposed Ordinance is the best mechanism for accomplishing this objective. Our Committee then took testimony from 44 individuals, as is noted on the attached supplement to this Committee report. [Attachment #22] At the conclusion of all public testimony, we noted that a number of additional individuals had submitted cards indicating that they did not wish to spear but indicated their support of or opposition to the proposed Ordinance. Our Committee had the following questions to which we sought additional information and which we have asked to have reported back to the Board of Supervisors when the Board hears this report, as is outlined in the first six recommendations above: 1. What administrative and enforcement costs have other jurisdictions with similar ordinances incurred? 2. What is the cost of the one million dollars in general liability insurance we are asking gun dealers to carry pursuant to this ordinance? 3. What legal challenges have been made to similar ordinances in other jurisdictions and what has the outcome or the current status of those legal challenges been to date? 4. What special provisions can be included in the proposed ordinance to exempt gun dealers who are only collectors and do not otherwise trade, sell or transport guns as do most other gun dealers? 4 I.O.-01 5. What is the position paper which has been adopted by the State Police Chiefs' Association and which was referred to in our hearings? 6. What advice can the County Counsel provide the Board in closed session regarding the likelihood of a successful legal challenge to the proposed ordinance? Attached are responses to these questions which we asked staff to respond to at the time this report went to the Board of Supervisors. Until we are able to receive and review answers to these questions, our Committee is not in a position to make a detailed recommendation regarding adoption of the proposed ordinance. However, with answers to all of these questions, we hope that the Board will be in a position to determine this question. All of the attachments to this report, which represent documents we considered at the hearing on October 2, 1995, are detailed in the following listing of attachments: ATTACHMENTS TO INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REGULATE GUN DEALERS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY 1. The Resolution which the Planning Commission adopted on June 27, 1995 by a 4:3 vote. 2. Copy of the memo from the County Counsel's Office dated May 31, 1995 to which is attached a copy of the proposed Ordinance. 3. Copy of the January 24, 1995 Board Order requesting preparation of the proposed Ordinance. 4. Copy of the May 2, 1995 Board Order referring this subject matter to the Internal Operations Committee, making additional changes to the Ordinance and receiving a copy of the Health Services Department's report entitled Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: Contra Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community. t 5. A May 26, 1995 letter from the California Wellness Foundation calling to your attention specific policy steps which the Foundation recommends be taken locally to stop the epidemic of handgun violence against California kids. 6. A May 31, 1995 letter from the Contra Costa Psychological Association urging adoption of the Ordinance and endorsing the Health Services Department's Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: publication. 7. A July 13, 1995 Resolution adopted by the Democratic Party of Contra Costa County which was forwarded to us by Supervisor Bishop's office on July 31, 1995. The Resolution supports the essential features of the proposed Ordinance. 8. A September 12, 1995 letter from Jack L. Robbins opposing the proposed Ordinance. 9. A September 19, 1995 letter from the Countywide Youth Commission indicating that the Commission, by a vote of 15:3, supports the proposed Ordinance. 10. A September 25, 1995 letter and attachments from Steve Baumbach opposing the proposed Ordinance. 11. A September 12, 1995 letter and proposal from "Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc." - opposing and doing an analysis on the Health Services Department's Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: document. 5 I.O.-01 12. An editorial from the September 21, 1995 New England Journal of Medicine entitled "A Partisan Assault of Science - The Threat to the CDC", signed by Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D. 13. A letter dated October 2, 1995 from Joan Lautenberger submitted at the Internal Operations Committee hearing on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, to which is attached a June 5, 1995 statement made to the Planning Commission by the League of Women Voters, both of which support the proposed Ordinance. 14. A written statement submitted at the Internal Operations Committee hearing by Richard Graham of Antioch opposing the proposed Ordinance. 15. A written statement submitted at the Internal Operations Committee hearing by Colton Meyer of Walnut Creek. 16. A report from the Community Development Director on the results of a survey of other jurisdictions which have gun control ordinances in effect regarding the enforcement costs for those ordinances. 17. A report from the Community Development Director on the likely range of costs for a gun dealer to carry a one million dollar general liability policy to cover any possible liability as a result of being a gun dealer. 18. A report from the County Counsel on legal challenges which have been mounted against similar gun control ordinances in other jurisdictions and the outcome or status of those challenges. 19. A report from the County Counsel on whether special provisions can be included in the proposed ordinance to exempt gun collectors who collect but do not sell, trade or transport guns. 20. A copy of the State Police Chiefs' general position on gun control ordinances. 21. A copy of a letter from the Contra Costa County Police Chiefs' Association on their position regarding gun control ordinances and the State Police Chiefs' position. 22. A summary of the testimony received by the Internal Operations Committee on October 2, 1995. I i 6 ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.9 OCTOBER 24, 1999 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the recommendations of the Internal Operations Committee pertaining to a proposed ordinance regulating gun dealers in the unincorporated areas of the County. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the matter. The following persons presented testimony: Warren Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner, Contra Costa County, against the ordinance; Verle Hendrickson, P.O. Box 5412, Concord, against the ordinance; Joe Boyd, 3065 Richmond Parkway #101, Richmond, United Teachers of Richmond, in favor of the ordinance; Shirley Yee, P.O. Box 6406, Concord, in favor of the ordinance; Herman Rellar, 5557 Via Ensenada, Concord, against the ordinance; Edgar A. Suter, M.D., 5201 Norris Canyon Road, #140, San Ramon, for the ordinance; Jerry Avalos, 2351 Sequoia Drive, Antioch, NRA Members' Council, against the ordinance; Peter Rast-Leaa, P.O. Box 783, Blairsden, against the ordinance; Sharlee Butte, 1419 Brett Court,Pinole, against the ordinance; W.F. Butte, 1419 Brett Court, Pinole, against the ordinance; George Wilson, 4829 Ridgeview Drive, Antioch, against the ordinance; Mike Hass, 3867 LaColina Road, El Sobrante, against the ordinance; Tim Haas, 3867 LaColina Road,iEl Sobrante, against the ordinance; Marylee Guinon, 910 Mt. View, Lafayette, in support of the ordinance; Ben Wright, 3408 Garrow Road, Antioch, against the ordinance; Joan Lautenberger, 3979 Peardale, Lafayette, for the ordinance; Betty Brown, 44 Beverly Road, Kensington, for the ordinance; George Steffner, 3348 Johnson Road, Lafayette, against the ordinance; Jeff Straus, 145 Cafeto Court, Walnut Creek; Colton Meyer, 2031 Doris Avenue, Walnut Creek, against the ordinance; Deborah Dias, 2600 Barrett Avenue, Richmond, in favor of the ordinance; Carolyn Herbertson, 3440 Viking Drive, Sacramento, against the ordinance; Griffin Dix, 2 Highland Boulevard, Kensington, in favor of the ordinance; Benjamin Estrada, 2420 Lowell #B, Richmond, in favor of the ordinance; Richard Graham, 407 Harlow Drive, Antioch, against the ordinance; Yan Pawlak, 280 Mountaire Parkway, Clayton, in support of the ordinance; Randall Duckett, 124-A Medburn Street, Concord, against the ordinance; Marguerite Kauble, 725 Kendall! Crockett, agains the ordinance; Dr. Arthur F. Billy, 136 Via Monte, Walnut Creek, against the ordinance; Jon Kubokawa, 2620 Biscay Way, Walnut Creek, in support of the ordinance; Robert Fahey, 4538 Dam Road, El Sobrante, against the ordinance; John Geisness, 2002 Radcliffe Court, Martinez, against the ordinance; Bill Maggore, 3606 Brook Street, Lafayette, against the ordinance; George Ely, 3711 Highland, Lafayette, against the ordinance; Carolyn Ashe Stokes, 90 Estatesl Drive, Orinda, against the ordinance; Eric Gorowitz, San Francisco, in support of the ordinance; Steve E. Forbes, 1842 Court, Concord, against the ordinance; Jeanette Daniel, 1848 Pierce Court, Concord, for the ordinance; Steve Kavanaugh, 4174 Sequoia Drive, Oakley, against the ordinance; John Fleming, 201 Amherst Avenue, Kensington, against the ordinance; Terry Stone, P.O. Box 35, Oakley, against the ordinance; Jody Rellar, 5557 Via Ensenada,Concord, against the ordinance; Nathan Zeuff, 18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 205, San Ramon, in opposition; Frank Brunotts, 2744 San Carlos Drive, Walnut Creek, in support of the ordinance; Linda Baker, 2203 Greenfield Drive, Pittsburg, in support of the ordinance; Jack Singleton, 19097 Vannoy Court, Castro Valley, against the ordinance. The Chair read comments on speaker cards from persons who did not wish to speak. The public hearing was closed. Dr. Walker, Health Services Department, spoke on the Soto Study. Supervisor Rogers moved to declare the Board's intent to place the matter on the next ballot and hold a hearing on the matter on November 14, 1995. Supervisor Smith seconded the motion. The Board discussed the motion. Supervisor Torlakson moved a substitute motion to send a letter informing agencies of the ordinance. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion provided the Board would discuss putting the matter on the ballot. The board discussed the substitute motion. The vote on the substitute motion was: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, and Torlakson NOES: Supervisor Smith ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a letter suggested by Supervisor Torlakson is AUTHORIZED to be sent to the Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, requesting information on license renewal procedures, enforcement procedures, and expected non-renewal rates in the coming year and requesting that they review the Federal firearms licenses issued in Contra Costa County and that permits which conflict with local laws be revoked; and November 14, 1995, at 3:30 p.m. is FIXED for hearing on a proposed Ordinance to regulate gun dealers in the unincorporated area of the County and a discussion of related proposed actions. ATTACHMENT # 1 Resolution No. 26-1995 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CONMUSSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATION FINDINGS AND RECONiM ENDATIONS ON ORDINANCE CODE AMENDMENT PROHIBITING THE COM IERCIAL SALE OF FIRE ARMS AND AMMUNITION IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, on January 23, 1995, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors directed County Counsel to prepare in consultation with the Prevention Staff of the Health Services Department,the Community Department and the Sheriff-Corner, and return to the Board of Supervisors, a draft ordinance which would regulate firearms dealers in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, with a view toward moving in the direction of accomplishing the three following goals: a. Proximity to education, day care and recreation facilities, places that have on-sight alcohol sales, places of worship and places where children are likely to congregate. b. No prior record of violence-related offenses. C. Maintenance of at least V million in liability insurance. d. Adequate safe storage security and lighting systems as determined through on-sight inspection by the appropriate officials. e. Creating a local gun dealer permit issued by the Sheriff; and WHEREAS,since this is a County initiated addition to the Zoning Ordinance intended to prohibit the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition in residential districts and for the purpose of establishing compliance with the 04ifornia Environmental Quality Act, this activity is not a project subject to CEQA, pursuant to Section #15061 (B) (3), it can be seen with a certainty that adoption of the proposed ordinance could not have a significant effect on the environment because it has no potential to change any aspect of the physical environment; and WHEREAS,after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission for Tuesday,May 2, 1995,whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WI1EREAS, on May 2, 1995, the County Planning Commission CONTINUED the public hearing to the meeting of June 6, 1995; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 1995, after considerable testimony and discussion, the County Planning Commission CLOSED the public hearing declaring their intent to render a decision at their June 27,. 1995 meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 1995, the County Planning Commission after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and 4. w S -2- Resolution No. 26-1995 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, that the draft ordinance, as amended and presented by the Planning Staff, be APPROVED by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners-Clark, Gaddis,Branton, Wong. NOES: Commissioners-Hanecak, Straus,Terrell. ABSENT: Conunissioners-None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners-None. Secretary of the Planning Commission, Contra Costa.County- State of California. . ATTACHMENT # 2 COUNTY CO UNSEL'S OFF/CE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: May 31, 1995 To: Internale Operations' Committee c/o Claude Van Mart County Administ ator's Office- : � From: Victor"J. _Westman, 'County Counsel ' -By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy Count"Co Re - Revised Draft of` rearms and Ammunition Dealers Ordinance Pursuant- to the Board's May 2, 1995 directions, we have redrafted the attached proposed ordinance regulating firearms and ammunition sales in the unincorporated -area of the'county. As requested, the revised ordinance provides that the Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Department ("GMEDA") , rather than the Sheriff, will be the local licensing authority for purposes of issuing local firearms dealer licenses as provided by Penal Code section 12071. If GMEDA is to administer a 12071 licensing program, consideration (at some point) should be given to implementation staffing. The revised ordinance provides requirements for an application for a local firearms dealer license (§ 82-36 . 804) as well as conditions of approval for issuance of such a •license. (§ 82-36 . 806) The license is valid for one year (Pen. Code § 12071 (a) (6) ) but may be renewed for additional one year period upon submission of a new, application and payment of a fee (§ 82-36 . 810 ; Penal Code § 12071 (a) (7) ) . By requiring a new application each year for renewal, annual reporting -is assured. In addition, a definition of firearms has been added (82-36.206) which is identical to the definition in Richmond's firearms dealer ordinance . The definition of ammunition (82-36 . 208) is taken from the Los Angeles ordinance. A recent California Attorney General Opinion states "we have no doubt that regulating firearms sales is beyond ,the reach of local governments . " (77 Ops. Atty. Gen. 147, 150 (1994) ) The Attorney General' s Opinion noted that cities and counties are charged with execution of the state' s program for licensing of firearm dealers bL their role is "ministerial in nature . " (Id, citing Pen. Code § 12073 This opinion concluded, however, that a city or county is not preempted by state law from adopting an ordinance which requires Internal Operations Committee 2 May 31 1995 ammunition vendors within its jurisdiction to record and maintain identification information with respect to each purchaser. For this reason, we have added an article which provides for record keeping and inspection of records for ammunition sales. (Article 82-36. 10) This article is based on similar ordinances regulating ammunition sales adopted recently in the city.of Los Angeles and Pasadena. Pursuant to the Board's May 2, 1995 direction, we have included a fingerprinting requirement for ammunition sales (82-36.1002) . Neither ,the..Los. Angeles,nor the,Pasadena ordinances contain a fingerprinting requirement: The Attorney Generah's opinion did,-not discuss fingerprinting nor, are.;.we aware of any ,reported cases which address thin. issue. . ;, One =of the .conditons-,.::of ..approval for _the .local firearms ;'.dealer license ls.' that ,tale !licensee is '.required.to sell or Otherwise•;provide each f rearm-with-a trigger lock.or similar device that ,is designed to prevent. the unintentional discharge of the firearm (§ 82-36.806) . Although trigger locks apparently are required�"by other local ordinances (e.g. San Francisco and Lafayette) ,- and are relatively ,inexpensive, it is possible in light Of- the attorney .general Is .opinion cited above that a trigger lock requirement may be perceived as an attempt to regulate firearms sales rather than merely the exercise of the county' s police power to control..its zoning. We note that the local superior court has, as part of its i,ziitial ruling, denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of Lafayette's firearms dealer ordinance pending a trial on the merits of the .ordinance. As part of its preliminary ruling, the superior court upheld the triggerlock or similar device requirement against a challenge on preemption grounds. We understand that the- court indicated disagreement with the above cited attorney general's opinion. The Los Angeles and Pasadena ordinances provide for. administration by the local law enforcement agency (i.e. the local police department) . The 'draft of this ordinance, however, specifies that GMEDA will administer the ammunition sales provisions rather than the Sheriff. The revised ordinance requires applicants for land use permits and firearms dealer. licenses to obtain $1, 000,000 in liability insurance (82-36 .606 (1) , -land use permit; 82-36 . 804 (9) , firearms dealer license).. This insurance requirement is based on similar requirements in the Richmond and Lafayette ordinances. We note that a number of conditions for the firearms dealer license have been inserted into this revised ordinance which are not expressly allowed under Penal Code section 12071 . Such additional conditions, however, are not expressly prohibited by Penal Code section 12071 . Internal Operations Committee 3 May 31, 1995 Although we have referred to state law in the revised ordinance, we have attempted not to restate or duplicate state law as it has been held that otherwise valid local legislation which duplicates, contradicts or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly, or by legislative implication, constitutes a conflict with state law and is preempted by such law and is void (Sherwin-Williams V. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4th Cal-4th 893) . For this reason, we have not expressly required a gun sales reporting requirement since a detailed statutory process for reporting gun sales to the .California Department of Justice and local chief of police is provided by state law (Pen. Code § 12076) nor have we expressly provided for a theft reporting requirement .or other requirements specifically provided by statute, but have referenced such .statutory requirements for informational purposes only. (see sections 82-36.606. and 82-36.804, citing Pen. Code § ' 12071(b) (13) ) . We have indicated above the new significant .::changes in the attached revised:.draft of the .firearms dealer, ordinance We note that the earlier draft ordinance previously provided and still provides that: 1) firearms sales and ammunition sales are not allowed in residential districts (82-4 .240 (8) ; 2) a land use permit is required before any new firearms dealer may conduct sales in a zoning district where they would be otherwise allowed (82-36. 602) ; 3) previously legally established but now nonconforming firearms dealers may continue such use if they obtain a firearms dealer license within 90 days of the effective date of chapter 82-36 (82- 36 . 204) ; 4) additional findings must be made before a land use permit may be issued to allow firearms sales (in addition to the general requirements for land use permits (82-36 .604) ; and 5) a permittee. must comply with insurance and other requirements in order to keep an issued land use permit in full force and effect (82-36 . 606) DJS/amc cc: Supervisors, District Offices Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director Attn: Dennis Barry Health Services Department Attn: Andres Soto djs-3\a:\f:re-am:--mem ORDINANCE NO. 95- DRAPI (Sale of Firearms) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text from the enacted provisions of the County Ordinance Code. ) SECTION 1. Section 82-4.240 is amended to read as follows: 82-4.240 Home Occupation. "Home occupation" is an activity customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling, by a person residing 'in the dwelling unit, which 'is clearly a secondary and incidental use of such dwelling as a residence. The use must not change the residential character of the dwelling or area and shall meet the following conditions : (1) There shall be no merchandise or services for sale except that produced from or made on the premises. (2) The use shall not generate vehicular traffic in - excess of that normally associated with single family residential use. (3) Not more than one room or twenty-five percent of the habitable floor area of the principal structure, whichever is greater, shall be used for the home occupation. Garage areas and areas within accessory buildings shall not be considered as being habitable floor area. (4) There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation. (5) No exterior signs shall be used. ORDINANCE NO. 95 - (6). No noise, odor, dust, fumes, vibration, smoke, electrical interference or other interference with the residential use of adjacent properties shall be created. (7) No persons shall be employed, except the applicant, in the conduct of the home occupation. (8) No sale of firearms or ammunition is allowed or permitted as *a home occupation in a residentially zoned' district.' (Ords. 95- S 1, 1781, . 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469 : prior code § 8102 (m) : Ords. 1269, 1274, 1224, 9390 933, 382) . - SECTION •II. Chapter 82-36 is added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code to read as follows: CHAPTER. 82-36 SALE OF FIREARMS Article 82-36 . 2 General 82-36 .202 Purpose. This chapter requires and provides criteria for the consideration and approval of land use permits and firearms dealer licenses before the sale of firearms will be permitted in any nonresidential land use zoning district of this county. The county finds it necessary to establish land use permit, and firearms, dealer license requirements and criteria in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to regulate the sale of firearms in the unincorporated area. This chapter alone does not allow or permit sales of firearms, but .only applies - to sales of firearms where otherwise allowed or permitted within an ORDINANCE NO. 95 - involved applicable nonresidential land use zoning district . This chapter does not authorize the sale of firearms in any nonresidential land use district where they are not otherwise allowed or permitted by the applicable involved zoning districts regulations. (Ord. 95- § 2 . ) 82-36 .204 Non Conforming Use Upon the effective date t 1995) of this chapter, any person who` claims' or believes that he or she has established a''legal non=conforming use to conduct firearms sales, includin4 "sales ''of`"ammunition ``sha1T, within ninety days of the effective date of this chapter, provide written evidence describing the extent and scope of such use to the Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Department ("GMEDA") and. obtain a firearms dealer license as provided in article 82-36 .8 . To the extent such legal non- conforming use has been established in accordance with this section and continued after the effective date of this chapter, all applicable state and federal permits• and licenses must be obtained and maintained in full force and effect and the use may not be increased, enlarged or expanded without a land use permit as provided in this chapter. (Ord. 95- § 2 . ) 82-36 . 206 . Firearm. "Firearm" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon or modified -to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the•Jorce of explosion ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 3 or other means of combustion. (Ord. 95- 2 . ) 82-36 .208 . Ammunition. The term "ammunition, " as used in this chapter, shall include any ammunition for use in any pistol or revolver from which is expelled a projectile by the force of explosion or other form of combustion. (Ord. 95- § 2 . ) 82-36.2 0, firearm Dealer. The term firearms dealer, as used in this chapter, .,shall_mean any person who is engaged in the retail sale .of firearms and/or. ammunition. (Ord. 95- § 2. ) iT Article '82-36.4 Applications Article 82-36.402 Application Contents . In addition to the applicable requirements of chapters 26-2 and 82-6 and the involved nonresidential zoning district, an application for a land use permit to sell firearms, including ammunition, shall contain the following information: (1) A description of where the proposed firearm sales is to be located on the subject property, including a descriptiofr of the building or structure within which the sale of firearms is to take place; (2) The true.,.nameand. comglete �.addres.s of each owner and tenant of the building or structure within which the sale of firearms is to take place; ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 4 (3) A description of all the firearms, including ammunition, proposed to be sold; and (4) A description of the security measures planned at the premises to provide for the protection of the premises and the goods to be sold thereon; (5) The identification of any existing firearm dealer sales sites located within 500 feet of the applicant's proposed sales Site. F'...0 A.f r ..r w✓ r5 t;e4aiIIiLn 5.•i.a'.. 1... \... . .. r .< ,, (6) Evidence regarding the manner in which the .applicant intends .to satisfy the liability insurance requirement of section . 82-3.6.6.06,(1),, includingcurrent insurance policies and limits of coverage therein. (Ord. 95- § 2. ) Article 82-36 .6 Land Use Permits 82-36 .602 Requirement No sale of firearms, including ammunition, shall be allowed unless and until a land use .permit is first obtained pursuant to this chapter and maintained in full force and effect. (Ord. 95 - § 2 . ) 82-36 . 604 Additional Findings. In addition to the- findings established in article 26-2 .20, and section 82-6 .002, no land use permit to allow the sale of firearms, including ammunition, shall be issued unless the following findings are made: (1) The district in which the firearm sales is to take place ORDINANCE NO. 95 - S is not a residentially zoned area; and the proposed site is not located within 500 feet of a residentially zoned area; (2) The firearm sales will not take place in a location which is within 500 feet of a school, daycare, park, establishments that have on-site or off-site alcohol sales, places of worship or an existing firearm dealer's sales site; (3) The applicant has demonstrated that the location in which' the firearm sales are to take place will have adequate safe storage, .security and -a lighting .system. (Ord. 95 § 2, ) 82=36.606 Comoliance. fi In orderfora land use permit issued under the provisions of this chapter to become effective and remain operable and in full force, the applicant at all times shall : (1) Obtain and maintain at least $1, 000, 000 . 00 in liability insurance; (2) Within 30 days of obtaining a .land use permit and prior. to any sales, first obtain a local firearms dealer license from the Director of Growth Management and Economic Development ( "GMEDA" ) , which will not be issued except upon proof of a land use permit obtained in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Such a license will be considered for issuance pursuant to guidelines to be established by GMEDA_ and in accord with criteria set forth in article 82-36.8 and maintained in full force and effect; (3) Maintain a record of ammunition purchases as provided in article 82-36 . 10 . ORDINANCE N0. 95 - 6 (4) Comply with all state and federal statutory requirements for the sale of firearms and ammunition and reporting of firearm sales (Pen. Code § 12076) , including the provisions of California Penal Code sections 12070 and 12071-, including but not limited to the statutory requirement that all thefts of firearms be reported within 48 hours of discovery to the Sheriff (Pen. Code § 12071 (b) (13) ) ,. and within thirty days of a .written request by GMEDA, provide proof of such compliance. (Ord. 95 - § 2 ..) .82=U'.:608" "Grantnci. Land use permits -for the ..sale of firearms as allowed in this chapter and variance permits to modify the provisions of this article may be granted as provided and required by this chapter and in accordance with chapters 26-2 and 82-6 . (Ord. 95 - § 2-. ) Article 82-36 .8 . Firearms Dealer Licenses. 82-36 . 802 Licensing Authority. The Director of Growth Management and Economic Development Agency ( "GMEDA") is designated as the local licensing agent for purposes of Penal Code section 12071, relating to firearm sales. As the local licensing agent, GMEDA will, as he or she deems necessary, administer applicable provisions relating to •firearm sales (Pen. Code §§ 12070, 12071) and establish guidelines for the issuance of local firearms dealer licenses in accordance with criteria established by Penal Code and as provided in section 82-36 . 804 . The applicant shall pay ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 7 compensatory fees and costs for such permit as established by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to recommendation of GMEDA. (Ord. 95 82-36.804 Local Firearms Dealer Licenses . In accordance with the provisions of Penal Code section 12671, GMEDA, as the local licensing authority; shall accept applications for,and may grant licenses valid for one year (Pen. Code S 12071 (a) (6) } permitting the tetail sale 'of firearms and ammunition in...the,unincorporated x . area of the county where otherwise allowed by the involved zoning district, provided that a written application containing the following is 'submitted to and approved by GMEDA: (1) The name, age, and address of the applicant; (2) The address of the proposed location for which the license is required, *together with the business name, if any; (3) Proof of a possessory interest in the property at which the proposed business will be conducted in the form of ownership, lease, license or other entitlement to operate at such location and the written consent of the owner of record of the real property; (4) Proof of compliance with all federal and state =licensing laws, including but not ..limited to the provisions of California Penal Code section 12011 requiring reporting of thefts (Pen. Code § 12071 (b) (13) ) , and security storage requirements for each firearm (Pen. Code §§ 120.71 (b) (14) , (c) (3) ) ; (5) Proof of the issuance of a land use permit at the proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 - g location, or in the alternative, proof of compliance with the provisions of section 82-36 .204 for the establishment of a legal non-conforming use; (6) Information relating to licenses or permits relating to other weapons sought by the applicant from other jurisdictions, i,,acluding, but not limited to date of application and whether each application resulted in issuance of a license; (7) Information relating to every revocation of a 'license or, permit relating to firearms, including but not limited,to .date and circumstances of the revocation; (8) Applicant's agreement to indemnify, defend, release and hold harmless the county, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against all claims, losses costs, damages and liabilities of .any kind, including attorney fees, arising in any manner out of the applicant' s negligence or intentional or willful misconduct. (9) Certification of satisfaction of insurance requirements under section 82-36 . 606 (1) ; and (10) Payment of nonrefundable compensatory fees for administering this chapter in amounts to be established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. (Ord. 95 - _ 2 . ) 82-36 .806 . Conditions of Approval . In addition to other requirements and conditions of this chapter, a firearms dealer license is subject to the following conditions, the breach of any of which is sufficient cause for revocation of the license by ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 9 GMEDA: (1). The business shall be carried on only in the building located at the street address shown on the license. (2) Compliance with all requirements of applicable state and federal law relating to firearm sales, including provisions relating to manner of delivery of firearms,* age and identity requirements for purchasers, storage of firearms, recordingand reporting of firearms sales transactions, and posting of required notices on the premises. (Pen. Code S§ 120711 12076) (3) The- licensee shall not sell., . Tease or otherwise transfer a firearm' without also selling or otherwise providing with each firearm a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unintentional discharge of the f irearm; and (4) The licensee shall maintain a record of all ammunition sales as provided in article 82-36. 10; and (5) The licensee shall obtain and maintain any necessary local licenses, including a business license . (Ord. 95 - § 2 . ) 82-36 . 808 . Grounds for License Denial . GMEDA may deny the issuance or renewal of a firearm dealer' s license when one or more of the following conditions exist: (1) The applicant is under 21 years of age; (2) The applicant is not licensed as required by federal, state and local law; (3) The applicant has had a firearms permit -or license ORDINANCE NO. 95 - previously revoked or denied for good cause within the immediately preceding two years; (4) The applicant has made a false or misleading statement of a material fact or omission of a material fact in the application for a firearm dealer' s license; or (5) The operation of the business as proposed would not comply with federal, state and county ordinances, including but not limited to the California Penal Code and applicable building and fire safety regulations. . (Ord. 95 - § 2 . ) 82-36 .810 . Renewability of Firearms Dealer license. A firearms dealer license expires one year after the day of issuance. A license may be renewed for additional one year periods upon the payment of the application fee and licensee' s submission of a new written application for renewal which includes the information required by 82-36 . 804 . Upon receipt of the fee and new application, GMEDA will review the application and render a decision pursuant to the provisions of this article for initial license application. Such application for renewal must be received by GMEDA no later than 45 days before the expiration of the. current license. (Ord. 95 - § 2 . ) Article 82-36 . 10 Records of Ammunition Sales . 82-36 . 1002 . Record of Ammunition Sales . No firearm dealer shall sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any ammunition ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 1_ -- without at the time of purchase recording the following' information on a form to be prescribed by GMEDA: the date of the transaction, the name, address and date of birth of the transferee, the transferee' s driver' s license or other identification number and the state in which it was issued, the brand, type and amount of ammunition transferred, the transferee's signatures, and a right thumb print or set of fingerprints otherwise available from the transferee. (Ord. 95 - § 2. ) 8 Z-3.6-100C. Inspection of Records. The records required ,by" , this section shall be maintained on the firearm dealer's premises for a period of not . less than two (2) years from the date of the - recorded transfer. Said records shall be subject to inspection at any time during normal business hours by GMEDA or his or her designee. _(Ord. 95 - § 2 . ) 82-36 . 1006 . Maintenance of Records. No person shall knowingly make a false entry in, or fail to make a required entry in, or fail to maintain in the required manner records prepared in accordance herewith. (Ord. 95 - § 2. ) Article 82-36 . 12 . Nonassignability and Severability. 82-36 . 1202 . Nonassignability. A firearms dealer license issued under this chapter is not assignable . An attempt to assign ORDINANCE NO. 95 - 12 a firearms dealer license renders the license void. (Ord. 95 2 . } 82-36 .1204 . Severability. If a, part of this chapter is held to be invalid, the remaining portions of this chapter are not affected. (Ord. 95 - 2. ) SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors, voting for and. against it in the a newspaper published in this County. (Gov. Code H 25123 & 25124 . ) PASSED ON by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board and County Administrator By: Deputy Board Chair [SEAL] djs-31A:\fircarms.ard ORDINANCE NO. 95 l� i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTACHMENT # 3 FROM: SUPERVISOR JIM ROGERS DATE: January 23, 1995 County+�ou� SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COUNTY ORDINANCE REGULATING FIREARMS DEALERS IN RESIDENTIAL UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT the County Counsel to prepare, in consultation with the Prevention staff in the Health Services Department, the Community Development Department and the Sheriff-Coroner, and return to the Board of Supervisors, a draft Ordinance which would regulate firearms dealers in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County with a view toward moving in the direction of accomplishing the three following goals: 0 Prohibiting firearms dealers in all residentially zoned areas . - 0 Making firearms dealers subject to a conditional use permit process with conditions involving: • Proximity to education, day care, and recreation facilities, places that have on-sight and off-sight alcohol sales, places of worship] and places where children are likely to congregate. 0 No prior record of violence-related offenses. • Maintenance of at least $1 million in liability insurance. • Adequate, safe storage, security and lighting systems as determined through on-sight inspection by the appropriate officials. 0 Creating a local gun dealer permit issued by the Sheriff. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C LIA MITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): y ACTION OF BOARD ON- January 24 , 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X The Board APPROVED the above recommendation, adding"near another gun dealer" and "in residential areas" to the places where firearm dealers would be subject to a conditional use permit process. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ��' ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. q G ATTESTED / / / S Contact: PHIL BA CHELOR. RK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY -2- BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department and the PACT Violence Prevention Coalition have been working with a number of cities on their adoption of local ordinances regulating firearms dealers . To date, the cities of Antioch, Lafayette, Pinole, and San Pablo have adopted these ordinances . The City of Richmond is scheduled to have a public hearing for adoption of the ordinance on February 6, 1995 . I believe that it is important for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a similar ordinance, both because it covers the large unincorporated areas of the County and therefore affects a large number of dealers, and because it will also lend more credibility to the work of the Health Services Prevention staff and the PACT Violence Prevention Coalition as they begin to work with other cities in the County. Attached is the current study prepared by the PACT Violence Prevention Coalition on the Status of Compliance With Existing Gun Dealer Laws and the report on Policy Options for Local Government. This study is being expanded and updated and will be released in a couple of weeks . However, it is clear from the attached report that we have a significant compliance problem with gun dealers in residential areas of the County. Over half of the gun dealers in the unincorporated area of the County who have Federal Firearms Licenses have not obtained a business license as is required by the State. Nearly 9 out of 10 gun dealers in the incorporated area of the County ( 119 out of 133) who have Federal Firearms Licenses are located in residential areas of the County, hence the use of the term "kitchen-table" gun dealers . The survey which was conducted by the PACT Violence Prevention Coalition indicates that in Contra Costa County there is a high degree of non-compliance with local, state, and federal gun laws . There are 661 gun dealers in this County who have Federal Firearms Licenses . Yet, only 372 of these dealers are known to and therefore report their gun sales to the State of California as they are required to do. This leaves 289 gun dealers (43. 7% of the total) who have Federal Firearms Licenses but are not reporting their gun sales to the State. In view of the alarming results of this survey and in an effort to better protect our citizens from the violence which is caused by firearms, I am making the above recommendation. cc: County Administrator County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Community Development Director Health Services Director Larry Cohen, Prevention Program, HSD PREVENTION PROGRAM Resources for A Public Health Policy Response to Gun Violence in Local Communities Compiled by the Public Information Staff Contra Costa County Health Services Department Prevention Program, May 1994 The enclosed materials were researched and produced by staff of the Prevention Program with funding from two U.S. Department of Health and Human Services grants, one from the Office of Minority Health and the other from Maternal and Child Health Division. Additional support was provided by a California Emergency Medical Services Authority grant earmarked for data collection and analysis of gun related injuries in Contra Costa County. The enclosed materials were developed for use in Contra Costa County by policy makers, the news media, and other health department personnel who are working to prevent the tragedy of gun injuries and deaths. The Prevention Program, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, is an interdisciplinary public health program that focuses on the prevention of violence, childhood injuries, and chronic disease. Rather than create new, stand-alone programs, the Prevention Program coordinates, cultivates and links existing community resources in a systems approach. The Program has a national reputation for establishing and developing effective, health-related, community coalitions. 75 Santa Barbara Road Pleasant Hill California 94523 510 0 646 0 6511 510 0" 646 0 6520 �Qw ACT REPORT ON THE STATUS OF P For violence Prevention GUN DEALERS IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • • • 0 ■ • • • ■ • • ■ • ■ • s o AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS: Policy♦ Action♦ Collaboration Training A STUDY OF COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING STATE LAWS Participating AND MUNICIPAL CODES Organizations: Battered Women's Alternatives Contra Costa county During the past decade there has been a dramatic rise in violence in Health Services Contra Costa County, particularly in the West County region. The Department Prevention ACT Violence Prevention Coalition has identified the reduction of Program P - firearms as a way to significantly decrease the number of injuries and East Bay center for the Performing Arts deaths in West County communities. The decision to focus on firearms led to an examination of policies and regulations that can be developed Familial Unidas locally to reduce the.flow of firearms into a community. Girls,Inc. For the most part, guns used in the commission of crimes are not Lao Family Community Development legal obtained through al means. This conclusion is based on the fact that in the majority of firearm homicides and assaults, the weapons are not Opportunity West recovered, but in the cases where a weapon is recovered and traced by Rape Crisis Center law enforcement, the weapon, while illegally possessed by the criminal, Richmond was originally purchased legally. Police Activities League West contra costa In preparing this report, PACT examined laws and regulations Youth service Bureau pertaining to the sale and acquisition of firearms, as well as a number of policies that have been adopted in neighboring communities. After looking at both the federal and state firearms laws to understand how Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) and the State of California Gun Dealer Permits are obtained, PACT surveyed the compliance status of gun dealers in specific areas of Contra Costa County. This research has produced results indicating a high percentage of non- compliance and a lack of enforcement of the current state and local laws. The Contra Costa County Health Services Department's Violence Prevention Project works with a community based coalition called PACT(Policy, Action, Collaboration, and Training). In partnership with nine community agencies, PACT works to reduce violence in three West County communities:Richmond, North Richmond and San Pablo. PACT is funded by federal grants from the office Maternal and Child Health and the Office of Minority Health. The project is administered by the Contra Costa Health Services Department's Prevention Program. A Prevention Program report outlining a variety of local initiatives and options, "Firearms Control: Policy Options for Local Jurisdictions" is also attached. Richmond Health Center 100-38th Street♦Room 1604♦Richmond,CA 94804♦510/374-3797 FAX 510/374-3976 CCC-Firearms Policy&Dealer Regulation FEDERAL AND STATE FIREARMS DEALER LAWS I. Federal Firearms License To obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (BATF) the applicant must complete a two-page form. The applicant must indicate which of seven types of federal firearms licenses he or she wishes to obtain, identify any zoning prohibitions or permit requirements, and certify that he or she is not a member of an FFL prohibited class, e.g. felon or ex-felon, fugitive, drug addict, undocumented immigrant, under 21 years of age, mentally ill, dishonorably discharged from the military, etc. The BATF has 240-agents assigned to process applications and monitor the more than 220,000 FFL holders nationwide. The BATF readily acknowledges that it is drastically understaffed and it relies on the good faith of applicants who certify themselves. II. California Gun Dealer Permit The California Penal Code 12071 states that, for a California gun dealer to be in compliance with state law the dealer must possess four items: 1. A valid Federal Firearms License. 2. Any regulatory or business license, or licenses, required by local government. (These can be valid for only one year and must state "Valid for Retail Sales of Firearms." The license must be signed by the local authority, or a letter from the local authority stating that "no local permit is required" may be substituted. 3. A valid seller's permit issued by the State Board of Equalization. 4. A certificate of eligibility issued by the California Department of Justice (DOJ). Failure to comply with the California law is punishable as a misdemeanor. This section of the Penal Code also allows local jurisdictions to assess fees to recover the costs of processing local licenses and it carries a stipulation that the business can only be conducted in the buildings designated by the license. Furthermore, a gun dealer must register their sales on a Dealer Record of Sale form that can only be obtained from the DOJ. METHODOLOGY In January 1994, PACT decided to survey the county's unincorporated areas and five West County cities to get an exact picture of the status of compliance. To assess the degree of compliance by persons possessing Federal Firearms Licenses PACT obtained a list of FFL licensees in Contra Costa County from the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriff's Department obtained their list from the State Department of Justice. This list contained 372 names. 2 CCC-Firearms Policy&Dealer Regulation Subsequently, PACT obtained a list of FFL licensees in Contra Costa County directly from the BATF. The federal list contains 661 licensees. This is a difference of 289 gun dealers in the county who have not even identified themselves to the state DOJ. By itself, this is alarming because it suggests that 43.7 percent, or nearly half of the 661 gun dealers in Contra Costa County are conducting sales without reporting them to the state. PACT used the BATF figures to produce a list broken out by city and unincorporated areas. The lists were then sent to the planning and business license departments of each of the five municipalities in West Contra Costa County. The planning departments were asked to identify which addresses were in residentially or commercially zoned areas. The business license departments were asked to identify which of the addresses had business licenses to conduct a firearms business at that site. City staff were generally interested and cooperative. Each city processes the gun dealers' licenses somewhat differently, resulting in varying levels of knowledge regarding responsibility for enforcement. FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY Cities # of FFLs # not w/ Bus Lic. # in Res. zone El Cerrito 12 7 6 Hercules 11 8 11 Pinole 18 15 16 Richmond 38 35 27 San Pablo 16 12 8 TOTALS 95* 77 (81.5%) 68 (71.6%) Unincorporated 133 FFLs 77 not w/ Bus Lic.(57.9%) 119 (89.4%) in Res zone Two cities have situations that are particularly interesting. In the City of El Cerrito, there is a Police Department Sergeant who annually obtains a list from the BATF and sends letters to the licensees to verify their existence. If they do not respond, she then will make a site visit, as time allows, to determine if the licensee is still in operation. She reports that this process can take several months. The City of Richmond has an existing ordinance called the "Dealers in Concealable Firearms." This ordinance prohibits residential dealers, requires a special permit and does not have a grandfather clause (so it will not allow dealers with pre-existing permits to continue to operate in the manner they did prior to adoption of the ordinance). Since its passage in 1991, there has not been a single permit issued under this ordinance. x The number of dealers in the incorporated area of West Contra Costa County (95) is 14.4% of the total number of federally licensed gun dealers in Contra Costa County. 3 CCC-Firearms Policy&Dealer Regulation CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The survey indicates that in Contra Costa County there is a high degree of non-compliance with local, state, and federal gun laws. The fact that there are 289 gun dealers who are unknown to the state, and therefore not reporting sales to the state, indicates a potentially large source for illegal sales in the area. The high numbers of FFL licensees not possessing business permits indicates another potential source of criminal gun sales. In terms of law enforcement, the cities and the county seem to put a low priority on FFL licensees and their widespread failure to comply with federal firearms laws. The researchers found a general-lack of knowledge and understanding of the pertinent laws and no clear assignment for various departments to enforce the laws. The researchers learned that municipal and county staff see gun-related issues as a law enforcement matter. While violations of the Penal..Code.statutes.are a.law-enforcement responsibility, a collaborative effort on the part of law enforcement, city planning staff, and various licensing departments would produce a safer and more efficient and responsible system of regulation. Therefore, the PACT Violence Prevention Coalition recommends that Contra Costa County government and the cities throughout the county pass ordinances prohibiting gun dealerships in residential areas and requiring the possession of a local gun dealer permit. PACT also recommends that municipalities use their business licensing powers to impose more stringent conditions on applicants for permits. This added step may well serve as a deterrent to gun dealers who are not serious about complying with the law. 4 P A FIREARMS CONTROL: 13cm C ir For Violence Preventi o n POLICY OPTIONS FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS * a * a00 ■ ♦ ■ a ♦ ■ ♦ ■ ♦ ■ • Policy d Action* Collaboration Training Participating organizations: This overview of local options is an introduction to actions that can be Battered Women's taken by communities to strengthen local gun dealer regulations. By Alternatives building alliances between community organizations, government Contra Costa County departments, and elected officials, it is possible to garner support for Health Services many of these options. Ultimately, such collaboration can significantly Department Prevenram reduce the availability of guns and the violence associated with guns. East Bay Center for the Performing Arts BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Familias Unidas Girls,Inc. For several years, public health practitioners of violence prevention have been examining the role of firearms in intentional and Lao Family Community unintentional injuries. Recent research suggests a significant connection Development J gg g between the availability of firearms and rates of injuries attributable to Opportunity West them. The relatively easy access to firearms in the United States has Rape Crisis Center resulted in homicide and suicide numbers that are far higher than in any Richmond other industrialized nation. Police Activities League Locally, some residents have sought out public policy avenues that West Contra Costa y would enable them to increase their ability to regulate access to Youth Service Bureau �.., firearms and ammunition in their communities. In United States jurisprudential history, the Cruikshank (1876) and the Presser (1886) decisions established that the language of the Second Amendment defines only the limitations of the Federal government to regulate a state's rights to maintain a "well regulated militia". The Miller (1939) decision confirmed that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to bear arms, but only a collective right through a reasonable relationship to a state militia. In California, and most other states, the state's militia is the National Guard. The case of Quilici v. Morton Grove (1982) established that the Second Amendment permits local communities to pass any firearms restrictions they deem necessary as long as they are not prohibited by the state from doing so. This paper was prepared by the PACT Violence Prevention Coalition, a West Contra Costa County community based coalition working in partnership with the Contra Costa County Health Services Department to reduce violence throughout the community. PACT is funded by federal grants from the office Maternal and Child Health and the Office of Minority Health, and administered by the Contra Costa Health Services Department's Prevention Program. This is a living document that will be updated as new information becomes available. March 1994. Itis It III- ltd H(,.kItIt Cellit-I100-38th Slreel ♦Room 1604 4 Richmond,CA 94804♦510/374-3797♦FAX 510/374-3976 CCC-Fircartns Policy&Dealer Regulation In response to the Quilici v. Morton Grove decision, the National Rifle Association (NRA) promoted a policy initiative of its own -- state pre-emption laws. State pre-emption laws prohibit local jurisdictions, i.e. cities and counties, from passing regulations regarding the sale, manufacture, or distribution of firearms that are stricter than state laws. Lobbyists for the NRA influenced California, and forty other states, to pass such pre-emption laws. In exploring what can be done at the local level, a number of municipalities have passed zoning and business license legislation to restrict where and how firearms dealers can operate. Some examples of the types of requirements set forth in local legislation have included: various fees to recover license processing costs, significant levels of liability insurance, issuance of special gun dealer permits from the police, and safe storage and firearm safety training requirements. These have been implemented with the specific intent to limit the number of gun dealers in communities. In the San Francisco Bay Area, these .ordinances have been passed primarily through the initiative of_individual-elected officials and have not yet encountered any significant opposition. Additionally, as a result of increased public pressure,the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), the federal agency that issues the Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL), and the State of California Department of Justice (DOJ) are both preparing to change their regulations regarding the issuance of permits in the near future. The Clinton Administration is supporting specific provisions of the Senate Crime Bill (SB 1607) currently being considered by Congress. If passed, this bill would require FFL applicants to certify to the BATF compliance with all state and local laws and to notify the chief local law enforcement officer in their jurisdiction of their intent to conduct a firearms business. SB 1607 would also require licensees to comply with all local business ordinances and would direct the BATF to inform local governments of all licenses issued in their jurisdiction. Currently, State of California laws require that any firearm transaction be recorded on a state form called the Dealer Record Of Sale (DROS) and that the completed form then be forwarded by the seller to the State Department of Justice. The DOJ, on its own, is discontinuing the use of existing DROS form books, thus requiring that every dealer purchase the new DROS forms. Under the new regulations, any dealer requesting a new set of DROS books must show proof of compliance with local ordinances. These upcoming measures make the passage of pertinent local ordinances a matter of some urgency. The PACT Coalition is recommending that zoning and business license ordinances, similar to those passed by other communities in the state, and resolutions regarding pre-emption and national gun policy be passed by the County Board of Supervisors and the various municipalities of Contra Costa County. This would result in the implementation of meaningful policies restricting gun dealers county-wide, and send a signal to state and federal legislators that the people of Contra Costa County want greater control over firearms sales in their community and that they are willing to enact meaningful restrictions at the local level despite the existence of state pre-emption laws. 6 CCC-Firearms Policy&Dealer Regulation LOCAL JURISDICTION POWERS: SPECIFIC STRATEGIES As stated above, local jurisdictions can regulate the sale of firearms through their local zoning and business licensing authorities. Additionally, of course, local jurisdictions are completely free to pass advisory resolutions regarding any issue or piece of legislation and to send such resolutions to state and federal lawmakers. The following is a list of the areas of legislation that have already been adopted or are being considered by a growing number of local jurisdictions. I. Zoning and Business Regulations A. Prohibit gun dealers from operating in or near residentially zoned areas. Some jurisdictions have a simple residential zone ban, but San Francisco has adopted a ban excluding gun dealers from operating within 1500 feet of a residentially zoned area. In other localities dealers are restricted or banned from locating within 1000 or 1500 feet of schools, day care centers, parks and recreation facilities, bars, other gun dealers, or any other places deemed appropriate. B. Require all gun dealers to register with, and obtain a gun dealer's permit from the Police or Sheriffs Department. Such a policy would require a background check of the applicant to ensure that he or she is in compliance with all pertinent state and federal laws and is not a member of any class deemed appropriate for exclusion, e.g. convicted felons; persons under 21 years old; persons convicted of drug, firearms, certain alcohol or violence related offenses; persons previously having had Gun Dealer Permits revoked; and persons under restrictions of restraining orders. Such background investigations could include on-sits inspection of the facilities by appropriate departments to ensure code compliance prior to issuance of the permit. C. Require gun dealers to maintain appropriate levels of liability insurance as a condition of doing business. Several cities have already enacted this requirement. While the level of liability insurance required is arbitrary, generally the amount has been set at $1 million to $1.5 million. This amount has been determined to be a sufficient level of insurance for this type of business by several Bay Area communities. D. Require specific safety and security standards be established and maintained as a condition of doing business. A policy to establish standards for the display and storage of firearms and ammunition, and the type of security alarm and lighting systems on-site can provide additional protection for customers as well as dealers, and can deter would-be thieves. 7 CCC-Firearm Policy&Dealer Regulation Communities can also: mandate that trigger locks be sold with handguns, prohibit the sale of exploding or expanding ammunition, and require proof that the gun dealer and purchaser have completed certified safety classes. E. Establish fees sufficient to recover the costs of processing applications, monitoring permit holders, and enforcing all the provisions of the ordinances. This provision would encourage cross departmental cooperation on enforcement by generating revenues to pay for staff time to participate regularly on an enforcement team. This team would review existing dealers and new applicants for compliance with the ordinance. This would result in personnel from multiple departments developing expertise on the firearms issue and establish accountability of enforcement within their respective departments. U. Pre-emption related resolutions A. Pass a resolution requesting the state legislature to rescind the pre-emption laws. "Home Rule" has long been a fundamental principle and practice in public health. The Home Rule concept suggests that local communities develop and implement measures.deemed appropriate to address specific local health problems. The passage of various forms of smoking restriction ordinances by Contra Costa County and the county's municipalities is an important local example of this principle and practice. While it is true that all sectors of our society suffer from firearm violence, it is also true that some communities experience greater levels of firearm violence than others. Pre-emption has hampered local jurisdictions from developing comprehensive local gun restriction measures. Thus state pre-emption laws area direct contravention of the fundamental public health principle and practice of Home Rule. As the number of local jurisdictions passing resolutions to repeal state pre-emption grows, the state legislature will be under increasing pressure to act or to pass significant and strong state-wide gun restriction legislation. B. Pass a resolution requesting the state legislature to permit local jurisdictions to collect ammunition surcharges. Revenues from these surcharges could be used to support violence prevention and domestic violence prevention programs. It could also have the effect of reducing the amount of ammunition that individuals might purchase. Ill. Additional local ordinance options A. Pass a Firearms Discharge Ordinance. This type of ordinance could include language that holds parents responsible if their children discharge firearms, bans discharge of firearms in public places, and increases penalties for the discharge of firearms in places where children are likely 8 CCC-Firearms Policy&Dealer Regulation to be present. Additionally, any firearm discharged in violation of the ordinance could be declared a nuisance, thereby compelling the surrender and destruction of the firearm. IV. Additional resolution options A. Pass a resolution calling for the development and implementation of a comprehensive national gun policy. Organizations such as the Violence Policy Center, Cease Fire Education Project and Handgun-Control, Inc. have proposed national gun policies, from which this paper has selected the following recommendations. Ideally, a national gun policy should have these areas of focus: 1. Restrictions on Gun Possession These include a waiting period of at least seven days for firearms buyers; background and fingerprint checks and safety training for license applicants; registration of handgun transfers; special licenses for the possession of gun arsenals; and higher surtaxes on handguns and ammunition. There should also be a strict ban on gun possession by those convicted of violent misdemeanors, including spousal or child abuse. 2. Restrictions on Sellers/ Dealers These include significantly higher annual fees for Federal Firearms Licenses (at least $1000); more rigorous background checks on gun dealers; background checks on gun store employees; federal licenses for ammunition dealers; and bans on the sale of firearms at gun shows. Assault rifles and handguns must be banned from future sale except for military and law-enforcement personnel. 3. Regulation of Firearms Manufacturers and Importers This includes a ban on the importation and manufacture of semiautomatic assault rifles, Saturday Night Special handguns, and non-sporting ammunition. The ATF must be empowered to operate as a health and safety agency, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with the ability to: set safety standards for firearms, monitor compliance with such standards and issue recalls of defective firearms; restrict the availability of specific firearms and firearm products when appropriate—such as where products present an unreasonable risk of death or injury, and no feasible safety standard would adequately reduce the risk; and take immediate action to stop the sale and distribution of firearms or firearm products found to be "imminent hazards." Research compiled by Judith Feinsen, Karen Kraut and Andres Soto on behalf of the PACT Violence Prevention Coalition, a project of the Prevention Program, Contra Costa County Health Services Department. 9 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Supervisor Tom Powers and o —' Costa Supervisor Jeff Smith q County DATE: April 26, 1994 0" `T SUBJECT: Ordinance banning residential gun dealers SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommendation Direct County Counsel to draft an ordinance for Board consideration which will: (1) Prohibit the sale of all firearms in residentially zoned neighborhoods or within 1000 feet of such zones in the County. (2) Restrict the sale of firearms in unincorporated areas within 1000 feet of schools,daycare centers,parks and recreation facilities. (3) Require firearms dealers to register with and obtain a gun.dealces.permit from the Sheriffs Department. (4) Establish a fee to recover the costs of processing applications,monitoring permit holders, and enforcing all the provisions of the ordinance. Background The Health Services Department recently issued a status report on federally licensed firearms dealers operating in Contra Costa County. The report indicates that there 661 federal firearms licensees in Contra Costa County. Only 372 of these licensees have been issued a State Certificate of Eligibility. This means that nearly 50%of the licensees are not complying with the law that requires the reporting of all sales to the Department of Justice,which also conducts the criminal background check. The findings of the survey indicate that in the unincorporated areas of the county there aro 133 federal firearms licensees and that 119(89A%)of them are operating in residentially zoned areas. Seventy-seven(57.9%) aro operating without a business license. According to a recent article in the Contra Costa Times,our county has more gun dealers than gas stations,supermarkets and public schools combined. In 1992,firearm injury deaths nearly doubled motor vehicle injury deaths in Contra Costa County. The percentage of total homicides due to firearms is higher in Contra Costa County(74%)than Alameda County(72.6%.) Restricting the sale of firearms in residential areas is something local jurisdictions can do, through local zoning ordinances,and several cities have already.adopted such measures. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(Sk ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER PREVENTION PROGRAM Firearm Injuries in Contra Costa County ■ Since 1968 the number of motor vehicle related deaths in the United States has been decreasing, while the number of firearm deaths has been increasing. Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, January 28, 1994, Vol. 43, No. 3. ■ In Contra Costa County,-firearm injury deaths,-oau— irrbercd—inti;:vehick;-injury;deaths in 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Indeed, in 1992, firearm injury deaths (115) nearly doubled motor vehicle injury deaths (68). Source: California Department of Health Services, Vital Statistics. ■ In Richmond, handgun injuries accounted for approximately one-half to three-fourths of all homicides between 1988 and 1992. In 1993, over 90% of all Richmond homicides were due to handgun injuries. Source: California Department of Justice (1988-1992); Richmond Police Department (1993). ■ Approximately three-fourths of all homicides to Contra Costa County residents result from firearm injuries. Source: California Department of Health Services, Vital Statistics. Homicides to Contra Costa, Alameda`and San Francisco Residents and Percentage Due to Firearm Injuries, 1992 County Population Total # of Homicide Total # of % of Total Homicide 1990 Census Homicides Rate* Homicides Homicides Rate* from (from all from due to Firearm weapons) Firearms Firearms Nuries Contra 803,732 85 10.6 63 74.1% 7.8 Costa Alameda 1,279,182 215 16.8 156 72.6% 12.2 San 723,959 107 14.8 57 53.3% 7.9 Francisco * Rates are calculated per 100,000 populations Source: California Department of Health Services, Vita? Statistics. The statistics in this packet were prepared on behalf of die Contra Costa Health Services Prevention Program by Heather McLaughlin, Coordinator of the Firearm Injury Reporting, Surveillance and Tracking (FIRST) System. 4/1/94 hm disk wp2 miscpp\injdeath.tbl 75 Santa. n3arbara Koad FIca5ant Hill California 94525 Cots Costa Count` ,He`aith ` services `fie.. art,ment :- 510 0 646 0 6511 ® 510 0 646 0 6520 OAI • ;f ll ./ 411 1., +i1�i1�11•11•••i••,1•�ti�'aci:;��::ai::• • • .111.•1•�Iii;1i•1.i1i•�i1�i1••111,f 1 1.1.11•�•1••1•1•i1•11•f•ft 1 .• ii•i1•t/1iifi1•1.1••Ii1••�ifit .♦ 11, ♦ •1, fi •t,♦ •1.11�•�•i�••f�•i.�i+•I�i•�1 j � • i•i1.1,•1••1.1,•1•it1,t1•ii s i� . .. �II,t1 i1.1,•i i1•t i111fi-' �� ' •i1/1•ii1••••1•11•1••i•�� f i i• tii• ffl i�p %� �• '�•i,11•t1•i,11•t1•it�� r l�/ ' 1,Ii1♦ ♦t 1 f111 •�II i1•i1•i••ii••ft I /111�11•i,¢ �: 70 �l OV/ �^ 0 0 CD ^ '^l v C_ , CD O \ O O jw --% z rn CD o � cr O "t CD 3 9 a % CO) o � y� � 3 W �. o a m 3 %Z C: C CD 49 c. cl CL CD iw CD r. f-+ CD Cl) CD j Its CO cn !! u,uutuulu� {;n,�t n,i_!_t it tett nuttrwcu !Nitt ttftttt6{IYttl■NltttttttlN^ N �tlNt t A ItIN �tttlttlq�11�t6ttt114�I�it��t 1 w 3 -, w OR7 m m z —1 0 z 0 70 a VIII .. CD cl) OD CA) 3- Z3 00 0 0 . v G -o � fl mm � o � O i w c C� o-AG 0 0 o� N t co FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BY CITY AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS .The following data has been obtained by analyzing the list of Federal Firearms Licensees in Contra Costa County. This list was obtained by the Contra Costa County Health Services Prevention Program, PACT' for Violence Prevention Coalition, from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in San Francisco. For the purposes of this breakout, the list of Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) was entered directly as received from the BATF with adesignation as to whether the address listed was in an incorporated city area or an unincorportated area of the county. The cities are listed alphabetically. Foi: some cities there are two numbers listed. One is for the total numbers of FFI-s in the incorporated area of the city, the other is the total listed, including unincorporated areas, as being within the zip code designation of that particular city. An asterisk indicates that this community is unincorporated and is not an independent city. CITY # OF FFLs IN CITY TOTAL # F—FIA IN AM Alamo* 3 3 Antioch 72 73 Bethel Island* 3 3 Brentwood 9 11 Byron* 6 6 Canyon* 1 1 Clayton 2 7 - Clyde* 1 1 Concord 91 93 Crockett* 4 4 Danville 6 33 El Cerrito 13 13 El Sobrante* 18 18 Hercules 11 11 Kensington* 3 3 Knightson* I 1 Lafayette 18 19 Martinez 37 47 Moraga 6 6 Oakley* 28 28 Orinda 17 17 Pacheco* 2 2 Pinole 18 18 . Pittsburg 48 61 Pleasant Bill 27 27 Richmond 38 40 Rodeo* 10 10 San Pablo 16 27 San Ramon 30 30 Walnut Creek 33 49 Totals 592 662 Total # of FFLs - CC County 662 Total # FFls - Cities 592 Total # FFLs - Unincorporated 141 Any ordinances that involve gun dealers have to be enacted by the appropriate local jurisdiction. In the case of Contra Costa County, action taken by by the Board of Supervisors would have effect in the unincorporated areas only (those areas marked with an asterik). 2 � m a m �'fir` �,.� �► '�1 m V -a w N 9 � vO WINS Z IVA Z Z o .. 2. � N j I ATTACHMENT # 4 -� i THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _ May 2, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Report on Gun Dealers The Board received the report of the Health Services Department entitled "Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: Contra Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community. " Andres Soto commented on the scope of the report relative, to zoning and business regulations; pre-emption of related resolutions to include requesting the State Legislature to rescind firearms pre-emption laws and to permit local jurisdictions to collect ammunition surcharges; and local ordinance options such as a firearms discharge ordinance and/or an ordinance banning or regulating gun shows in the area. In addition the report proposed the adoption of resolutions to provide for a penalty for carrying a loaded concealed firearm without a permit, government regulation on the manufacture and sale of Saturday Night Specials, and a request for the development and implementation of a comprehensive national gun policy. Joseph Hogan, 237 Corliss Drive, Moraga, spoke on the need for community control of gun sales and the proposals contained in the report. At the conclusion of the discussion on the report, the Board REAFFIRMED its position of January 23, 1995, on the need for an ordinance regulating firearms dealers in residential areas of the County. The Board ACCEPTED the report and`\REFERRED the report and entire issue pertinent to gun control to the Internal , Operations .Committee with direction to the Committee to coordinate the solicitation of input from the Countywide Youth Commission, the City/County Relations Committee, the Police Chiefs' Association, and other appropriate agencies, .committees, commissions, etc. ; and to coordinate a survey of known gun dealers operating out of their homes that would provide information on the number of dealers having a business license as well as the type and quantity of firearms and ammunition sold by them. The Board DIRECTED County Counsel to research the legality of tagging ammunition in order to identify the purchaser should the need arise. May 2 , 1995, No. 2.3 Gun Control Report Page 2 The Board further DIRECTED County Counsel to add the following three provisions to the proposed ordinance: 1) Require any person purchasing ammunition to provide his/her name, address, type of ammunition, quantity of ammunition, signature, and finger prints; 2) Require trigger-locks on guns; and 3) Require gun dealers to report the loss or theft of guns. In conclusion, the Board REQUESTED the County Administrator to report as soon as possible on current State legislation concerning gun control. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the data shown. G ATTESTED: '? 7 PHIL BATCHS R,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Admin I Q A Deputy 4. cc: County Administrator Internal Operations Committee County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Community Development Director s Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: Contra. Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community Acknowledgements This paper was prepared by PACT (Policy, Action, Collaboration and Training) for Violence Preven- tion, a Contra Costa County community coalition based in the West County communities of Rich- mond, North Richmond and San Pablo. The coalition, in partnership with the Contra Costa Health Services Department, conducts leadership training for African American, Laotian and Latino youth; researches and analyzes local intentional injury data; develops policies for regulating local firearms dealers; and coordinates multi-cultural forums and events. PACT receives funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Maternal and Child Health and Office of Minority Health. Additional support is provided by the Contra Costa County Health Services De- partment. In 1994, the Contra Costa Health Services Prevention Program assisted the county Board of Supervi- sors in developing a countywide Action Plan for Violence Prevention which was placed before the voters. The plan was approved by 78.8 percent of voters, paving the way for the implementation of 25 recommendations including the establishment of a countywide task force appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: Contra Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community was published in March, 1995 by the Contra Costa Health Services Department Preven- tion Program. Researchers:Judith Feinsen, Karen Kraut, and Andres Soto. Editors: Fidelito Cortes and Susan Swift. Special thanks to: Scott Daly, Robin Goldman, Steve Harris, Amy Hill, Heather McLaughlin, Amy Merchant, and Molly White. The PACT for Violence Prevention Coalition is grateful to many Contra Costa County and municipal staff for their assistance with data collection. For additional copies, or permission to reprint, please address your request to Public Information, Prevention Program, 75 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, or call (510) 646-6511. Other materials on violence and violence prevention are also available from the Prevention Program. TakingAim at Gun Dealers: Contra Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community Executive Summary n 1992, there were nearly twice as many Costa lawmakers and community organizations firearm injury deaths as motor vehicle became concerned about what could be done to injury deaths in Contra Costa County. In addi- regulate access to firearms and ammunition in their tion to the human suffering, treating firearm injuries communities. California is one of 41 states with strains the resources of trauma centers and emer- pre-emption laws which prohibit local jurisdictions gency rooms, and burdens the entire health care from passing ordinances on gun sales and distribu- system. tion that are stricter than state laws. However, Recent research suggests a significant connec- despite California's pre-emption laws, local zoning tion between the availability of guns and rates of and business regulation of firearms dealers is permit- firearm injury. Firearm availability is directly related ted. to the number of gun dealers in a community and Communities seeking to regulate the gun the laws governing their activities. Reducing the dealers in their areas, therefore, are able to pursue number of dealers is one type of action endorsed by the adoption of zoning, business permit, and 78.8 percent of Contra Costa voters who, in No- conditional-use ordinances. These various forms of vember 1994, passed Measure C advocating the regulation may be used to bar gun dealers from adoption of a Countywide Action Plan for Violence operating in residential zones, require dealers to Prevention. obtain local permits, and impose safety and security Federal law requires gun dealers to obtain a standards on gun dealers as a condition of doing Federal Firearms License (FFL) from the Bureau of business. Communities can also pass resolutions Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). According to asking state legislators to rescind pre-emption laws the'ATF, as of December 1994, there were 700 FFL or calling for a comprehensive, national gun policy. holders in Contra Costa. California law requires that As of publication,March 1995, five cities in gun dealers in the state have a valid FFL, a local Contra Costa had adopted ordinances regulating the business license, a seller's permit from the State operation and location of gun dealers under their Board of Equalization and a Certificate of Eligibility jurisdiction. In addition to the municipalities (COE) from the state Department of Justice. A COE (Antioch, Lafayette, Pinole, Richmond and San is important because it requires gun dealers to make Pablo) that have passed ordinances, the county state-mandated background checks on prospective Board of Supervisors is currently developing an buyers during a 15-day waiting period. ordinance that will regulate dealers throughout the According to a survey conducted by the Contra unincorporated regions of the county. Costa County Health Services Department, of the The development of meaningful policies county's 700 gun dealers, only 238 had COEs. restricting gun dealers sends a signal to state and Furthermore, 573 gun dealers operated in residen- federal legislators that the people of Contra Costa tially-zoned areas and 509 did not have local business County want greater control over firearms sales in licenses. their community, and that they are willing to enact After discovering that a large number of gun meaningful restrictions at the local level despite the dealers were out of compliance with state and local existence of state pre-emption laws. laws, and were operating in residential areas, Contra The Dimensions of Firearm Violence oppression, and mental health; the six risk factors are alcohol and other drugs, media, witnessing acts of By the year 2003, the number of firearm-related violence, incarceration, community deterioration, deaths is projected to surpass the number of motor and firearms. To combat such a complex problem, vehicle-related deaths nationwide, making firearms violence prevention practitioners are working in the number one cause of injury-related death in the coalitions that address the problem with a multifac- United States (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly eted approach. Report, 1994). The Spectrum of Prevention (fig. 2) is one In Northern California's Contra Costa County, such approach. Across the United States, commu- firearm injury deaths exceeded motor vehicle injury nity organizations and health departments recognize deaths in 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. In 1993, the value of working on a number of levels at the there were nearly twice as many firearm injury same time. While educating individuals about alternatives to violence, which is the goal of many Fig. I: Injury Deaths by Mechanism conflict resolution pro- Contra Costa County, 1993 grams, a violence preven- Fire/Burns =5 (1.1%) tion group may also be Firearms = 147 (33.1%) Falls =39 (8.81/o) working at the policy level, by coordinating Source: California efforts to change local and Department of Health Drowning =23 (5.2%) state laws, for example. Services, Vital Statistics Section ut/Pierce = 14 (3.2%) Cher Transport = 11 (2.5%) Availability of Strangulation/Suffoc =25 (5.6% Firearms is Part of the Problem Motor Vehicles =8.5 (19.1%) n = 444 For several years, practi Other 19 (4.3%) Poisoning =76 (17.190) tioners of violence = prevention have been examining the role of deaths (147) as motor vehicle injury deaths (85) in firearms in injuries. In 1993, firearms accounted for the county (fig. 1). 102 homicides, 40 suicides and 5 unintentional The epidemic of firearm violence exacts a deaths in Contra Costa. Firearms were the number heavy toll, not just from those nearest the victims, one killer of children between the ages of 10 and 14 but also from society at large. The average cost of from 1988 to 1992. National statistics reveal that for medical treatment for a gunshot wound is $33,000 every death, there are seven non-fatal firearm (Rice et al, 1989), of which 80 percent is paid for by injuries (Rice et al, 1989). taxpayers (Wintemute et al, 1992). Treating firearm Currently in the U.S. there are 210 million injuries strains the resources of trauma centers and firearms in private possession. Research has shown emergency rooms, and burdens the entire health care that firearm availability is directly related to the system. number of gun dealers in a community, and the laws that regulate their activities (Sloan et al, 1988). Minimal federal and state regulation of firearm sales, A Public Health Approach to Gun Violence and lax enforcement of these regulations, has As distinct from a criminal justice response to gun contributed to an explosive growth in the number violence, which focuses on the perpetrator after the of gun dealers, which increased by 95,000 from act has been committed, public health investigates 1971 to 1991 (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and ways to prevent firearm injuries by analyzing the Firearms, 1991). The flow of firearms into commu- environment in which such violence takes place. nities has risen accordingly (California Department Public health has identified three root causes of Justice, 1993). and five risk factors that make violence more likely to occur. The three root causes are economics, 2 Reducing the Number of Dealers an applicant must complete a two-page form. The applicant indicates which of seven types of federal Alarmed by rising levels of violence in the commu- firearms licenses he or she wishes to obtain and nity, the Contra Costa Health Department collected identifies any local zoning prohibitions or permit and analyzed data which revealed that firearms were requirements. The applicant also certifies that he or the primary source of injury death in the county. she is not a felon or ex-felon, fugitive, drug addict, Responding to data and community concern, the undocumented immigrant, under 21 years of age, PACT for Violence Prevention Coalition began to , mentally in, or dishonorably discharged from the focus more on the problem of firearms. PACT, military—any of which automatically disqualifies the working closely with the Health Department's applicant. The ATF readily acknowledges that it is Prevention Program, determined that the regulation understaffed and relies upon the good faith of of gun dealers was a significant component of a applicants to certify themselves; no proof is re- multifaceted effort to decrease firearm injuries and qulr(Zd. death. Since the summer of 1994, PACT and the Prevention Program have worked with Figure 2:The Spectrum of Prevention local jurisdictions in the county to increase government regulation of gun dealers. A to the d major contribution evelopment of local ordinances was a survey of Contra Costa'sgun dealers conducted by PACT in June 1994 and January 1995. Changing Organizational Practices While data from the survey tends to .... ............ bolster the need for stricter regulation and NO, , q., ........... enforcement, local governments are currently prohibited by state pre-emption laws from passing gun-related legislation that is stronger ..... ...... dfu .............. than the state's. This paper incorporates findings from that survey with recommendeu local policy options that are not precluded by state pre-emption laws. The survey assesses the level of gun dealer compliance with state law, reveals how many dealers operate in residentially zoned areas, and reports on the number of dealers operat- The ATF currently has 240 inspectors assigned ing without business licenses. Information compiled to process applications and monitor more than in this paper can be helpful to communities seeking 197,532 FFL holders nationwide; in California, the to regulate the circulation of firearms in their areas. ATF has a staff of 40-45 inspectors who are respon- To assess compliance, health department staff sible for more than 16,000 California FFL holders first investigated existing laws. This section exam- (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1994). ines Federal Firearm Licenses (FFLs), which all U.S. firearms dealers must possess, and California Penal Il. California Gun Dealer Law Code 12071, which regulates firearms dealers in the California Penal Code 12071 states that to be in state. compliance with state law, a California Run dealer must possess: Existing Federal and State Firearms 1. A valid Federal Firearms License. Dealer Laws 2. Any regulatory or business license, or licenses, required by local government. Usually valid for one year, these licenses must state "Valid for I. Federal Firearms Licenses Retail Sales of Firearms." The license must be To obtain a Federal Firearms License from the signed by the local authority,ority, at may be substituted Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), by a letter from the local authority stating that "no 3 Finally, gun dealers must Fig. 3: Homicides by Weapon register their sales on Dealer Record Richmond, CA 1988-1993 of Sale forms that can only be obtained from the DOJ. 100% NINE'ONNI, Status of Local Gun Dealers' Jill 80% Compliance With State Law 60% B Other After researching federal and state ' ® Knife firearms laws to understand how 51EDother Gun'IN Federal Firearms Licenses and State 40% .28 I Handgun of California Gun Dealer Permits are 21 obtained, the Contra Costa survey 20 20% analyzed the level of compliance by gun dealers in all areas of Contra Costa County. a 0% Mps First staff obtained a list of 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Contra Costa gun dealers from the r Contra Costa County She ills Rg- Firearm Yloleneeand;Cun Dealers' �n Richmond Department, which obtained its list The Cary of Richmondn western'Contra Costa County; has been a f om the state DOJ. This list is a copy of the state's record of Contra particularly hard h;t by fzreain c�olence (fid 3) In 1993, #npre than 9Q Costa Certificate of Eligibility percent of all harrucides�n IZichmcind Wert caused by firearms, and of holders who number 238 in the ::the 52•frrearm homicides that year;all but one resulted from the ue of� ' handgun county. Pis of December 1394,:there„were 37;Federat )~firearms License Staff then obtained a list of FFL ” licensees in Contra Costa County (PFL) holders ul Richmond. twenty snt licensees had naCertificate of directly from the ATF. The federal Ehg7b�ty from the scare,and 36 were aperatFng tri residential neighbor : , hoods ;:.For the praxixruty of these gun dealers to Richmond schools, list contained 700 names, or 462 lease see the'ma in A enciix�1? p pp more licensees than the state's list. The Gty of Richmond is t�nej of fiireContra Casta`cities that hake: This means that there are 462 strengthened the regulation"> fguri dealers rn their areas As ofiVlarch Contra Costa gun dealers who have 1995,the cities of Antiaeh,Lafaye ;Pinole and San Pahl©had adapted, federal licenses, but who have not orduaances that prohibat;gttn dealers from©perating�n`resdennally obtained their Certificates of Eligi- oned:areas,.impose safety and security standards as a ronduian of darig bility from the state Department of business, and requtte,a local gun dealer pernut with a set;.fee to¢duet, . Justice. the casts of enforcement These numbers are alarming because they indicate that two-thirds of dealers in the county (66%) are local permit is required." selling guns without reporting their sales to the 3. A valid seller's permit issued by the State state. More importantly, without a Certificate of Board of Equalization. A seller's permit requires gun Eligibility from the Department of Justice, these gun dealers to remit sales taxes from gun sales to the dealers cannot perform the necessary background state. checks on prospective customers, thus increasing the 4. A Certificate of Eligibility (COE) issued by likelihood that weapons are being sold to unquali- the California Department of Justice (DOJ). fied individuals. Failure to comply with state law is punishable Gun dealers who do not have COEs are also as a misdemeanor. Penal Code 12071 also allows not likely to have seller's permits from the state local jurisdictions to assess fees to recover the costs Board of Equalization. This means that sales taxes of processing local licenses, and carries a stipulation are probably not being collected on a significant that business can only be conducted in the building number of gun purchases, representing a potentially specifically designated in the license. large revenue loss to the state. 4 The issue of non-compliance is often cited at The Miller (1939) decision confirmed that the public hearings as one of the primary reasons that Second Amendment does not guarantee an indi- localities need to begin developing and enforcing vidual the right to bear arms, but only a collective restrictions on dealers. (See Appendix A for a table right through a reasonable relationship to a state of figures detailing the status of compliance of gun militia. The case of Quilici v. Morton Grove (1982) dealers with state law, for each Contra Costa established that the Second Amendment permits the County city and the unincorporated areas.) passage of firearms restrictions by local communities, as long as they are not prohibited by the state from doing so. Contra Costa Gun Dealers Located in In response to the Quilici v. Morton Grove Residential Areas or Operating Without decision, the National Rifle Association (NRA) Business Licenses promoted a policy initiative of its own: state pre- emption laws. The efforts of NRA lobbyists resulted After checking the ATF lists against the state COE in the adoption of state pre-emption in California lists, the ATF lists were sent to the planning and and 40 other states. California's firearms business license departments of each municipality. pre- emption laws prohibit local jurisdictions, i.e. cities Planning departments were asked to identify which and counties, from imposing laws or regulations addresses were located in residentially-zoned areas. regarding possession, sale, manufacture, or distribu- The business license departments were asked to tion of firearms that are stricter than state laws. identify which of the addressees had licenses to In exploring what can be done at the local operate a firearms business at the listed address. level, a number of municipalities have successfully The survey ascertained that 82 percent of gun adopted zoning and business license ordinances to dealers in the county operated in residentially-zoned restrict where and how firearms dealers can operate. areas and 73 percent didnot possess the required Some examples of the types of requirements set business licenses (see Appendix A). The high forth in local legislation include: fees to recover number of dealers who have not paid for business business license processing costs, requirements for licenses represents a significant loss of revenue to liability insurance, limitations on the operation's local governments. proximity to sensitive areas, banning operation in Using the addresses supplied by gun dealers in residential neighborhoods, issuance of special gun their FFL applications, this survey also developed dealer permits from the police, and safe storage and maps of Contra Costa County cities and unincorpo- firearm safety training requirements. rated areas showing the location of local gun dealers Some local initiatives have been designed with and their proximity to the schools in each area (for the intent of ultimately limiting the number of gun an example, see Appendices B and C). dealers in communities. In Oakland, such restric- tions resulted in a reduction from 117 to 8 dealers. Local Jurisdictions Consider Policy Options In the San Francisco Bay Area, such ordinances have been pursued and adopted through the persis- In Contra Costa County, public officials and con- tence of individual elected representatives, commu- cerned residents sought public policy avenues that nity coalitions, and, more recently, health depart- would allow them to regulate availability and access ment staff. To date, none of the ordinances has to firearms and ammunition in their communities. encountered any significant legal opposition. This impetus led to an examination of two key legal issues, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Consti- tution and state pre-emption. Local jurisdiction Powers: Specific Strategies In United States jurisprudential history, the As stated above, local jurisdictions can regulate gun Cruikshank (1876) and the Presser (1886) decisions dealers through their local zoning and business established that the language of the Second Amend- licensing authorities. The following is a list of local ment defines the limitations of the federal govern- regulations that have been adopted or are being ment in restricting a state's rights to maintain a considered by a number of Contra Costa cities. "well regulated militia." As a result of the National Additionally, of course, local jurisdictions are at Guard Act of 1902, all state militias were formalized liberty to pass advisory resolutions directed at state under the authority of the National Guard in each and federal lawmakers. state. 5 I. Zoning and Business Regulations Communities can also mandate dealers to sell trigger locks with handguns, prohibit the sale of A. Prohibit gun dealers from operating in or near exploding or expanding ammunition, and require residentially zoned areas. proof that the gun dealer and purchaser have com- Some jurisdictions have a simple residential zone pleted certified safety classes. ban, but San Francisco has gone farther by banning gun dealers from operating within 1500 feet of a E. Establish fees sufficient to recover the costs of residentially-zoned area. This extends by nearly processing applications, monitoring permit holders, one-third mile the boundaries of the restricted area. and enforcing all the provisions of the ordinances. In other localities, dealers are restricted or banned This provision would encourage cooperation on from locating within 500, 1000, or 1500 feet of enforcement by generating revenues to pay for staff" schools, day care centers, parks and recreational time to participate regularly on an enforcement facilities, other gun dealers, or places that sell team. This team would ideally be composed of alcohol. police officers, fire marshals, building inspectors, business license inspectors, city planning staff. The B. Require all gun dealers to register with, and purview of the team would be to review the com- obtain a gun dealer's permit from, the Police or pliance of existing dealers and new applicants. Such Sheriff's Department an approach would result in personnel from a Such a policy would require a background check of variety of departments developing a shared under- the applicant to ensure that he or she is in compli- standing of firearms regulation and could lead to ance with all pertinent state and federal laws and is increased accountability for enforcement. not a member of any class deemed appropriate for exclusion, e.g. convicted felons; persons under 21 years old; persons convicted of drug, firearms, II. Pre-emption Related Resolutions certain alcohol or violence-related offenses; persons A. Pass a resolution requesting the state legislature who previously had a gun dealer permit revoked; to rescind firearms pre-emption laws. and persons under restrictions of restraining orders. "Home Rule" has long been a fundamental prin- Such background investigations could include on- ciple and practice in public health. The Home Rule site inspection of dealer facilities by appropriate concept embraces decision-making by localities on departments to ensure code compliance prior to matters affecting them directly. In the case of issuance of the permit. firearms, public health endorses local development C. Require gun dealers to maintain appropriate and implementation of measures deemed appropri- levels of liability insurance as a condition of doing ate to address injuries through the regulation of firearms by the affected community. The passage of business. smoking restriction ordinances by Contra Costa Several cities have already enacted this requirement. County and the county's municipalities is an impor- While an appropriate level of liability insurance is tant local example of this principle and practice. not easy to calculate, the amount of$1 million to I While it is true that all sectors of our society $1.5 million has been determined by several Bay suffer from firearm violence, it is also true that some Area communities to be a sufficient level of insur- communities experience greater levels of firearm ance for this type of business. violence than others. Pre-emption has hampered local jurisdictions from developing appropriate local D. Require specific safety and security standards be gun restriction measures. Thus, state pre-emption established and maintained as a condition of doing laws are a direct contravention of the fundamental business. public health principle and practice of Home Rule. Conditional-use permits specify safety standards, As the number of local jurisdictions passing resolu- such as requirements for the display and storage of tions to repeal state pre-emption grows, the state firearms and ammunition, and the type of security, legislature will be under increasing pressure to alarm and lighting systems. These measures aim to overturn pre-emption or to pass stringent statewide provide additional protection for customers, as well gun restriction legislation. as dealers, and can help reduce thefts. 6 B. Pass a resolution requesting the state legislature to permit local jurisdictions to collect MOdelgGuR Deal+ar Ot!diriances ammunition surcharges. 10, For most Contra Costa communities, streligtiieniiig Icical` On November 8, 1994, Contra Costa voters ,;gun dealer regulations involves adoptmg a set of acdi approved an advisory measure calling on the state nances that include some caxibination of the folliwing. l legislature to impose a state surcharge on ammu- nition and gun sales. The measure passed with 70 !! Amend exstang zoning ardtnant:es, b}r percent of the vote. A Prohibiting gun dealers'fram locating within It Revenues from such surcharges could be number*'of feet a£a residentially zoned district, used to support violence prevention and domestic B sT,rrilubtting gun dealers from Ivating within violence prevention programs. The surcharges number*'of feet o a sckoal iar daycareentr, SubhG could also reduce the amount of ammunition that park or playground, ar other recreational area where individuals might purchase. children are likely;to gather and,', C Prohib;ting gun dealers from Ic�ating•Vtirithiii x' number* of feet.o£another gun dealer, a place that III. Additional Local Ordinance Options .sells or serves alccihol, cit a place<af wa'rship. A. Pass a firearms discharge ordinance. II Amend "existing conditional-use pemtt This type of ordinance could include language ordinances, by requiring that gun dealers' that holds parents responsible if their children A Be at least1 years old, .' discharge firearms, bans discharge of firearms in B C3perate iri camplanGe with£edral, state and localss public places, and increases penalties for the jaws, discharge of firearms in places where children are C. Have no prior Grixxiinal convictions, especially a£ likely to be present. Additionally, any firearm violence=related o;r &rearm-related crimes, discharged in violation of the ordinance could be D Have an adequate security system£ar business declared a nuisance, thereby compelling the prerru.. surrender and destruction of the firearm. E Have adequate lighting aside ss and Outside busitzess premises, B. Pass an ordinance banning or regulating gun F, `-Have sa£e'and%secure storage £or flrearixis, shows in the area. G Maintain at least1 mllhon liability Insurance, Restricting or banning public gun shows would H Sell a trigger lack with each handgun, l .Sellammunition only£ar;the type ofweapai'i . utilize the same process as passing zoning, busi- o Sell no ex laden ore andm bullets, ness and conditional-use ordinances that currently J p g := gxs� ss regulate gun dealers. K Sell no c11ps that hold more than 6 bulletsIs sIss, MZ Ill :Estabitsh a gu`ri deafer permit, that requires... IV. Additional Resolution Options <A Gun dealer to be in corriphance with local ordi= n'otice's. A. Pass a resolution calling for the state legislature B":Permits to,be issued by the Chief of Police cif that to change the penalty for carrying a loaded, particularurisdictan concealed firearm without a permit from C A permit fee that would help defray the cost of misdemeanor to felony. enforcement, including paying frit the time of the FirE Department, Police"Department, Building; ` Inspectcirs,=etc �. B. Pass a resolution asking the state legislature to increase government regulation on the manufacture *Among Bay Area eointnuniaes.that have enacted zpning and sale of Saturday Night Specials. regulatiorts this number ranges#tom 25Q to 150Q feet C. Pass a resolution calling for the development and the following: implementation of a comprehensive national gun policy. 1. Restrictions on Gun Possession. These Organizations such as the Violence Policy include a waiting period of at least seven days for Center and Handgun Control, Inc. have proposed firearms buyers, background and fingerprint checks national gun policies. Based on their proposals, a and safety training for license applicants, registration comprehensive national gun policy could include 7 of handgun transfers, special licenses for the posses- future sale to all citizens except military and law- sion of gun arsenals, and higher surtaxes'on hand- enforcement personnel. guns and ammunition. Ensure that all states prohibit 3. Regulation of Firearms Manufacturers and possession by those convicted of violent misde- Importers. This includes a ban on the importation meanors, including spousal or child abuse, and those and manufacture of semiautomatic assault rifles, under restraining order(s). Saturday Night Special handguns, and non-sporting 2. Restrictions on Dealers. These include ammunition. The ATF must be empowered to significantly higher annual fees for Federal Firearms operate as a health and safety agency, such as the Licenses (at least $1000; a 3-year license currently Consumer Product Safety Commission or the costs only $200), more rigorous background checks National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on gun dealers, background checks on gun store with the ability to set safety standards for firearms, employees, federal licenses for ammunition dealers, monitor compliance with such standards and issue and bans on the sale of firearms at gun shows. recalls of defective firearms, and restrict the avail- Assault rifles and handguns could be banned from ability of specific firearms and firearm products Tailoring Ordinances to Local Conditions The process of enacting local gun dential zone an exemption from a stronger firearm regulations. The dealer ordinances varies from coin- new ordinance that would prohibit most effective solution to muniry to community. In some ar- such operation. A grandfather clause hopscotching is the adoption by the eas, gun dealer ordinances may pass can also be applied to a conditional- neighboring communities of a par- unopposed; in other communities, use permit ordinance, allowing deal- ticular region -- a county, for in- there may be considerable opposi- ers to operate under the previous stance,or two or more neighboring tion from gun dealers, gun owners, unregulated conditions and exempt- counties--of gun dealer ordinances and the manufacturers of guns and ing these dealers from new and that are generally consistent. Such a aminunition. The language in local tougher safety, security or liability regional approach is the most effec- ordinances will also vary,since com- standards. tive way to reduce the availability of munities delegate ordinance writing Grandfather clauses, however, firearms. tasks to different government offices. may be mitigated by sunset clauses, Allies and Adversaries abound such as the planning department, which limit the duration of such ex- where the emotional issue of guns, business license department, or a emptions to a future time when the represented by gun victims and gun city attorney or county counsel.The dealer's current permit or license ex- owners, is brought into public dis- following terms and issues may there- pires. This means that dealers would course. In efforts to regulate dealers fore come up in the process of writ- only be covered by grandfather clauses possible allies include health care ing the regulations. until the expiration dates of their old providers;realtors;local business as- Political pressure from oppo- permits. When their permits expire, sociations; law enforcement agen- nents of gun regulation may result in they would have to abide by the new cies; educators; student and other the inclusion of a grandfather clause ordinances. youth groups;women's groups;par- in the ordinance.Grandfather clauses Moratoriums are sometimes used ents; victim and survivor groups; allow dealers with existing permits by local businesses, including gun domestic violence and sexual as- to continue operating in the same dealers in commercial areas, to stop sault organizations; suicide preven- manner in which they operated prior gun dealers from moving to their tion and other mental health groups; to the adoption of a new ordinance. areas. This becomes a relevant con- religious organizations, peace In other words,a grandfather clause sideration when gun dealers are groups;and elected representatives. exempts certain existing dealers from banned by zoning ordinance from Likely adversaries include gun deal- an ordinance's newer, more strin- operating in residential areas, creat- ers and manufacturers,and pro-gun gent regulations. ing the possibility of a gun dealer organizations such as shooting clubs A grandfather clause may, for exodus to commercial areas. and the National Rifle Association example, be written into a zoning Hopscotehing occurs when gun (NRA). regulation, giving dealers who have deal,:rs move their operations from been operating in a particular resi- one community to another to avoid 8 when appropriate (such as when products present an clear imperative for various departments to enforce unreasonable risk of death or injury, and no feasible the laws. A collaborative effort, therefore, on the safety standard would adequately reduce the risk). part of law enforcement, city planning, and licensing ATF would be empowered under such agency departments would produce a safer, more efficient status with the authority to stop the sale and distri- and responsible system of regulation. bution of firearms or firearm products found to be The Prevention Program and the PACT for "imminent hazards." Violence Prevention Coalition have been working with county government and the cities throughout the county to pass ordinances that prohibit gun Conclusions and Recommendations dealerships in residential areas and require the In Contra Costa County there is a high degree of possession of local gun dealer permits. PACT non-compliance with state and local gun laws. The recommends that municipalities use their business fact that there are 462 gun dealers who are un- licensing powers to impose more stringent condi- known to the state, and therefore not reporting sales tions on applicants for permits. Additionally, resolu- to the state, indicates a great potential for illegal sales tions regarding state pre-emption and national gun in the county. The high percentage of FFL licensees policy could be passed by the county Board of not possessing business permits, as the survey of Supervisors and the various municipalities of Contra Contra Costa County gun dealers reveals, indicates Costa County. another potential source of criminal gun sales. In combination, these actions send a signal to Like most counties and cities in the state, in state and federal legislators that the people of Contra the past Contra Costa law enforcement has placed a Costa want greater control over firearm sales in low priority on policing FFL licensees and their their communities, and that they are willing to widespread failure to comply with firearms laws. enact meaningful restrictions at the local level The researchers found a general lack of knowledge despite the existence of state pre-emption laws. and understanding of the pertinent laws, and no References Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. 1991. Compli- Sloan,J.H., Kellerman, A.L.,Reay,D.T. et al. 1988. ance Operation Fact Book. Washington,DC. "Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and --1995. Telephone conversation. Figures as of homicide: a tale of two cities." New England December 1994. Journal of Medicine 319:1256-62. California Department of Justice. 1993. Automated firearms Sullivan, M., Balogh,J., Starkey, M., and McLaughlin, H. system Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) count by 1994. Profile of Violent Injury in Contra Costa county, 1986 through March 1993. County. Pleasant Hill, CA: Contra Costa County Health Services Department Prevention Program. Contra Costa County Health Services Department Preven- tion Program. 1994. Preventing Violence in Teret, S.P., DeFrancesco S.,Bailey, L.A. 1993. "Gun Contra Costa County:A Countywide Action Plan deaths and home rule: a case for local regulation of and a Framework for Action. Pleasant Hill, CA. a local public health problem."American Journal of Preventive Medicine 9Suppl 1:44-46. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1994. "Deaths resulting from firearm-and motor-vehicle-related Wintemute, G.J., Wright, M.A. 1992. "Initial and subse- injuries—United States, 1968-1991." 43(3):37-42. quent hospital costs of firearm injuries."Journal of Trauma 33:556-560. Pacific Center for Violence Prevention. 1994. Preventing Youth Violence. Policy papers and fact sheets. Rice, D.P., MacKenzie,E.J. and Assoc. 1989. Cost of Injury in the United States:A Report to Congress. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Health and Aging, University of California, and Injury Prevention Center,Johns Hopkins University. 9 Organizations with Resources for Youth Alive/Teens on Target Preventing Gun Violence Summit Medical Center South Pavilion 4th Floor Advocacy Institute and Gun Violence Project 350 Hawthorne Avenue 1707 L. Street, N.W. Ste. 400 Oakland, CA 94609 Washington,D.C. 20036 510/450-6225 202/659-8475 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Members of the PACT (POlicy,Action, 221 Main Street Collaboration and Tminin for Violence San Francisco, CA 94105 415/744-9429 Prevention Coalition California Department of Justice, Firearms Program Battered Women's AlternativesP,O. Box 6406 P.O.Box 820200 Sacramento, CA 94203 Concord, CA 945245 916/227-3500 10/229-0885 The Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids East Bay Center for the Performing Arts 339 11th Street 454 Las Gallinas Avenue Ste. 177 San Rafael, CA 94903-34618 Richmond, CA 94801 415/331-3337 510/234-5624 Children's Defense Fund, Familas Unidas205 39th Street Gun Violence Prevention Program Richmond, CA 94805 25 E. Street N.W. Washington,D.C. 20001 510/412-5930 202/662-3645 Lao Family Community Development Children's Safety Network 3230 McDonald Avenue A 94804 C ,on mhhd 200 15th Street N. Ste. 1074 Richmond, d, C Arlington,VA 22201 44 703/524-7802 Opportunity West Handgun Control Inc. 3720 Barrett AvenueRichmond, CA 94805 Legal Community Against Violence Richmond, C 101 California Street Ste. 1075 12 San Francisco, CA 94110 Prevention Program 415/433-3535 75 Santa Barbara Road HELP Network Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 c/o The Children's Memorial Medical Center 510/646-6511 2300 Children's Plaza#88 Chicago, IL 60614 Rape Crisis Center 312/880-3826 2023 Vale Road San Pablo, CA 94806 Violence Policy Center 510/237-0113 1300 N. Street N.W. Washington,D.C. 20005 Richmond Police Activities League 202/822-8200 3230 McDonald Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 Women Against Gun Violence 510/215-3331 3012 Summit Ste. 3670 Summit Medical Center West County Youth Service Bureau Oakland, CA 94609 263 South 11th Street 510/444-6191 Richmond, CA 94804 510/215-4670 10 Appendix A Survey of Gun Dealers in Contra Costa County The following data show the number of gun dealers in each city, and in the county unincorporated areas, who have Certificates of Eligibility, local business licenses, or who operate in residential areas. These were obtained and analyzed by the Contra Costa County Health Services Prevention Program and the PACT for Violence Prevention Coalition. City # of FFLs # w/ COE # w/ bus. # in Res. lic. area Antioch 62 25 (40.3%) 21 (33.9%) 50 (80.6%) Brentwood 09 04 (44.5%) 02 (22.2%) 09 (100%) Clayton 05 03 (60%) 00 (0%) 05 (100%) Concord 95 25 (26.3%) 28 (29.5%) 80 (84.2%) Danville 26 14 (53.8%) 03 (11.5%) 22 (84.6%) El Cerrito 15 04 (26.7%) 04 (26.7%) 08 (53.3%) Hercules 10 04 (40%) 02 (20%) 10 (100%) Lafayette 21 04 (19%) 01 (4.8%) 13. (62%) Martinez 35 26 (74.3%) 07 (20%) 30 (85.7%) Moraga 05 01 (20%) 00 (0%) 05 (100%) Orinda 19 05 (26.3%) 00 (0%) 11 (57.9%) Pinole 15 03 (20%) 01 (6.7%) 15 (100%) Pittsburg 40 10 (25%) 05 (12.5%) 34 (85%) Pleasant Hill 26 10 (38.5%) 08 (30.8%) 22 (84.6%) Richmond 37 11 (29.7%) 02 (5.4%) 36 (97.3%) San Pablo 19 14 (73.7%) 06 (31.6%) 11 (57.9%) San Ramon 29 09 (31%) 05 (17.2%) 20 (69%) Walnut Creek 42 22 (52.3%) 22 (52.3%) 29 (69%) Incorporated 510 194 (38%) 117 (22.9%) 410 (80.1%) Areas Unincorporated Areas 190 44 (23.2%) 74 (39%) 163 (85.8) Total 700 238 (34%) 191 (27.3%) 573 (81.8%) • . . - / � ;il �� '�� € i .� • �/ /'�, �,�� :�. _., ;�� ram � .�;: i .., .�' ��I� I � � X11: �� II�C �.. �I�° �� 1 �s1I� �l _ W� • ��, '4�� 1 �i ��i� - i1 `� � � �` t . e�� . . . , : , ��, ail � �� r • I ...:, � � ��II �_ � 6 ' ' � � � � � � :,_ . . �� ) .�1 V -r+ v r, � 'ti�� •.•.�%��::� L� ti III %i ��T II�A��\ .An 1 •lye ��1 IIIL.��% ` � �• • :. IIIIIIIIII��a��Ill`�1 �'•IIIIIIIP �� 11i1�,�� i" IIII�d11P��_o� • l�1��: � Y Illlllll��y;� ■fir i�ii��:ii oil Appendix D m y_ ,�— co Orn Ln r asZ :3 S2 CIN t n N to o c� 00 .r lz tn O ° N s L 1 � C to y N 09 E E as co 0 C4 G � O L f1! E S 9�b � L O N $ coV 2 o bk E LL r L $ ATTACHMENT # 5 The California Wellness Foundation € i � F g 1 I Ty � RECEWED d May 26, 1995 r JUS! I IQ�S Mr. Claude Van Marter Lr�Ly�4Ts County Administration OFFICE 651 Pine Street-- 11th Floor OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Van Marter: On February 22, over 1,500 opinion leaders from across California and Washington, DC were joined together through the videoconference, "First Aid for What's Killing Our Kids--A Prescription for Prevention." During the ninety-minute transmission to 18 sites across the state, policy makers, community leaders, law enforcement officials and health care professionals discussed four specific policy options that could help stop the epidemic of handgun violence against California kids: • Banning Saturday Night Specials; • Increasing the Penalty on Carrying a Concealed Handgun; • Home Rule for Handgun Regulation; and, • Regulation of Handguns as a Consumer Product. Local discussions followed, with members of each community talking about local strategies. New alliances were formed. Existing coalitions were energized. Over 350 participants, representing a variety of organizations, asked to be included in the Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids Directory, a draft of which is enclosed. Please check to see if your organization is listed. If it isn't, and you wish to be included, return the enclosed response form so we may add you to the final version which will be mailed to you in the fall. Over the last three months, the Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids has received numerous requests for more information about the policy options and ways to become involved. The materials in this packet have been specially prepared to respond to your interest and concern. In addition to the directory, enclosed you will find: ♦ a report on the videoconference, with facts on the policy options and legislative updates as well as a summary of each local meeting. We hope you will share this report with your colleagues and acquaintances; and, 6320 Canoga Avenue,Suite 1700 Woodland Hills,California 91367 0 818.593.6600 FAX 818.593.6614 o recent polling data, including public attitudes toward the four prevention- oriented policy options presented at the videoconference. I know you will feel encouraged by the polling results, which clearly demonstrate that a strong majority of Californians support the policy options listed above. I know there is a lot of information in this packet, but please take the time to review the materials and look over the enclosed response form, which includes four opportunities for those of you who want to take next steps to prevent handgun violence against kids: 1. RSVP to June 2, 1995 Regional Meetings. On June 2, there will be four regional meetings where opinion leaders, policy makers and activists will hear from local community delegations about next steps to continue the momentum to find policy solutions to this epidemic. 2. Videoconference Tape Reproduction. If you were unable to attend the event, or if you attended and would like a copy of the videoconference, the campaign has produced an edited, sixty-minute version which can be ordered at a cost of$13 if shipping within California or $12 for out-of-state orders. 3. Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids Directory. A form is provided if you, or the organization you represent, want to be listed in the upcoming statewide directory. 4. Pacific Center for Violence Prevention FAX/E-MAIL ALERT. To be kept up-to-date on emerging policy issues, note your fax and/or e-mail address on the response form, and the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention will include you on a special fax and e-mail alert list. On behalf of The California Wellness Foundation, thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I hope we have the opportunity to work together in the future toward our mutual goal of reducing handgun violence against our youth. Sincerely, Gary L.Yates Interim President and COO Enclosures: *The Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids: A Report on the February 22, 1995 Statewide Videoconference *Preventing Handgun Violence: A Survey of California and National Opinion *Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids: A Draft Directory *"Four Opportunities to Be Involved" response form and envelope • ATTACHMENT # 6 lot CONTRA COSTA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATI.,.-- 1855 San Miguel Drive, Suite 26 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (510)256-9696 DAVID D. O'GRADY, PH.D. President R=C E IV I=r!o { MAY 3 11995 'CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ax., 31, 1995 CONTRA COSTA CO. 3oard of Supervisors Contra Costa County =`1 Pare Stn^et, Room 105 4artincz, CA 94553 Pear Si:-�and Madames: Firearm deaths are one of the most serious public health problems our society faces ,!(,)W. Firearms are the seventh .leading cause of death in the US.t Each year more 'alifornians are killed by firearms than by motor vehicle accidents.' In Contra Costa ''runty; ,crimes committed. with. than 'increased dramatically in the past decade. '011hough the population has increased only 22%from 1983 to 1992, armed robbery is up assault with firearms is up?4367c;homicide with firearms is up 247%. 3,4 I he Board of the Contra Costa Psychological Association seeks your action to address 'us maj(:)r problem. While we recognize that effective solutions will require long-term .:ffort and multiple approaches, the Board of Supervisors can have an important impact aow by implementing the model gun dealer ordinances proposed in the report "Taking Aim A',Gun Dealers," which was prepared by the county Health Services Department. The Contra Costa Psychological Association, a chapter of the California Psychological ,ssociation, represents 120 licensed psychologists practicing in the county. Our :sociation i.s interested it .his matter because as health professionals we are deeply ".r;:Arn.-d .:'•,om the prohlern Df viole�rt hPhavior trt our (-.nmm.,tnities, and e believe the rc�rx)scd regulations would help to safeguard the health and safety of our citizens. "rie;efore, the strongly urge your support of these ordinances. People do not need gun dealers operating in their neighborhoods. In fact, they are :.:!most certainly safer without them. Research shows clearly that the easy accessibility to ajts is associated with increased risk of death because most firearm deaths result from ;-eopie acting impulsively on their passions of the moment when a firearm is readily ailabie. The ready availability of firearms in the home is associated with an increased risk of uicide in the home,according to controlled behavioral research. Some people say that' if :.:ancone wants to kill himself, he'll find a way--gun or no gun--so there is no point in nutin� access to guns. ,This is plain Nsrong. Most suicides are impulsive acts of !c.s ara.tion, and making it more difficult or time consuming is often all a person needs to : ian!__ his :hind and look for solutions. 5 While most suicide attempts with drugs or knives fail, it is rare for attempts with guns } fail. Handguns and loaded guns in the home are significant risk factors for suicide even n people with no apparent psychiatric disorder.$ 9 Easy access to guns also contributes to our growing problem of homicide. Contrary to popular belief, most homicides are not committed during a robbery or other felony but during an argument. The fact is, in well over half of all homicides the victims are killed by someone they know during an argument or nonfelonious circumstance.10, 11 Such impulsive violence might be prevented with more difficult access to guns. Because of our concern about firearm violence, the Contra Costa Psychological Association recently sponsored the Gun Awareness Project, a gun exchange and educational program which aimed to decrease the number of firearms in Contra Costa `ounty, educate: the public about the dangers of firearm ownership, and train people in •iealthv alternatives in managing ancar aril re-1-ing conflicts. i'r'e believe that by supporting these gun dealer ordinances we can also help save lives. We strongly urge you to support the model gun dealer ordinances proposed in the report "Taking Aim At Gun Dealers." nc rely, r David D. O'Grady, P LD. resident, Contra Costa 6gical Association i. Journal of the American Medical Association.. Gun-related violence increasingly viewed as public health challenge, 257, 9, 1992. California Department of Health 3. Department of Justice, State of California 4. Contra Costa County Demographer 5. Kellerman, AL &Reay, DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. New England Journal of Medicine, 314, 1986. 6. Kellerman, A.L. et a). Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine. 329, 1993. a't. Su_:Icie In t ie h:�nie in reiaiiu:� ic:�gun o,v;-aelship. New England Journal of Medicine, 467, 1992. X. Brent, D.A. et al. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 21, 1991. Q. Brent, D.A. et al. Firearms and adolescent suicide. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 147, 10, 1993. Rand, MR. Handgun crime victims. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.. US Department of Justice, 1990. 11. Mercy, JA et al. Fatal violence among spouses in the USA 1976-1985. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 1989. Percent Increase in Crimes Committed with Guns in Contra Costa County Over 10 Years (1983-92) t."D0 2 241% 47% 00 50 95% 50 22% 0 Population Robbery Assault Homicide Sources: Contra Costa County Demographer Department of Justice, State of California _ ��TEL ATTACHMENT# 7 S �� BOARD CON"rK, c�dCLE B:StK)P y�,t►uwaatwci TO: Ctaode Van Mattes FROM: Patr;cia A.Rosenberg / DATE: July 31, 1945 RE: Cons#iiatioaot Anwadvneat re•Jury Ret'orm (SCA 24); lite Democratic Party of Contra Costs C9%Katy Resalntiou Per the following,Gayle has,ag til tU#t ii,o ak the 3W 7, 1995 letter from Senator Charles M.Calderon to yp f;fo�r s,ftctur rd�bf.S dads - for B&&W diseussian. Gayle is i�n+ggfipb�t•+0#S;PA 24 w4icch wvo ri*111"oU-Vnnuimous inry verdicts. sX. Following is a plation from The Aemomtie'Party,OICCosta county S lw re a rs is Re'RvAd didrt Gjy1e, is askiog that this rtsehili to go 41*., , gnat Operations Committee far r,�Vveiv. F- Thank you for yhar attention to these-regacats. is CROW CANYON COURT tt20• SAN"A mW cAuFoFtNK94583-16" • TEREPROW(510)M4M • Fi►MULE(510)MAw TEL No . Jul 31 ,95 10:31 No .002 P .03 000cre4to 4 8 co ON Costa C00 548 Maln Street,Sulte 106, Martinez,CA 94553 (510)370-9410 To: Supervisor Gayle Bishop From: Contra Costa County Democratic Centrad Committee Date: Tiny 13, 1995 Re: Resolution Supporting Measure Before Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to Prohibit Gun Dealers in Residential Areas WHEREAS it is easier for home gun dealers to send weapons into the black market than for established gun stores to do so, WHEREAS homicides increase when more gems become available and decrease when fewer guns am available, WHEREAS children are killing children in Contra Costa Counter, AND WfIEREAS other cities in the County and.the Bay Area have passed similar legislation to limit gun sales, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Democratic Party ofContra Costa County supports the regulation which would prohibit gun dealers from operating in wsidential areas in unincorporated parts of the county, prohibiting new gun stores within 500 ft.of a residential neighborhood, school,park,liquor store, ckuch or other gun dealers,and require gun dealers to have$1 million dollars in liability insurance- BE IT FURTHER PJRSDLVED that the Contra Costa.Planning Commission and Board of Supen isors be informed of our position. Marshall Walker Ili Nagara)a Rao Lawana Preston Gary Eborhart Chair Vice Chair Secretary Treasurer — i ATTACHMENT # 8 23480 Marsh Creek Rd. Brentwood, CA 94513 Sept. 12, 1.995 Claude L. Van Marter Assistant County Administrator -- - County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 11 th Floor �17p i lQgS Martinez, CA 94553-1229 j OFFICE OF Dear Mr. Van Marter: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR I am writing to once again voice my strong objection to any type of county ordinance which would regulate legitimate gun dealers in the unincorporated areas of the county. Four years ago I established a small firearms and reloading business and have gradually been building this business up in anticipation of retirement, in a few years, from my present position as an Assistant Deputy Associate Director at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.„ I have a fictitious business license, a county business license, state tax permit, permit to store and sell smokeless powder, a FFL (I was inspected by the BATF in 12/93 as part of the renewal process), a certificate of elgibility from the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to sell firearms, and am now a licensed course provider and course instructor by DOJ to teach the fiearms safety course required to purchase a handgun. I have spent considerable time and resources on my business and am proud of the service I am able to give my customers; this includes minor gunsmithing. California has among the toughest gun laws in the United States; keeping up with changes to these laws and new laws takes significant administrative effort. Contra Costa County does not need to go after the legitimate gun dealers such as myself but instead crack down on the illegitimate people who are not complying with the myriad of state and county rules to operate a business. In fact state preemption laws prevent a county from regulating firearms sales--such requirements as 1 M$ liability insurance are definitely an attempt to do so. Myself and many other legitimate dealers are considering filing a class action law suit against the county if such an ordinance is passed. I strongly resent putting a new government bureaucracy in place, paid for by me as a taxpayer, to fund such an ordinance when there is no value added. What problem is the county trying to solve? Discussions with the Brentwood police chief and Sheriff Rupf indicate there have been no problems with legitimate gun dealers selling out of their homes. Certainly any supervisors personal prejudice against firearms has no place in this discussion. Since I have a regular full job, I cannot attend the hearing on October 2, 1995. 1 would appreciate this letter_being read into the formal record as a strong objection to your proposed county ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, �� 's Jack L. Rob ins cc: Burke Critchfield, attorney-at-law County AdministratorContra Board of Supervisors c a Jim Rogers Co V t County Administration Building 1st District 651 Pine Street,11th Floor Jeff Smith Martinez,California 94553-1229 County 2nd District (510)646-4080 Gayle Bishop FAX: (510)646-4098 3rd District SEAQ Phil Batchelor �)t , County Administrator Mark DeSaulnier 4th District Tom Torlakson 5th District September 25, 1995 ca:.; s�cduhT` Jack L. Robbins 23480 March Creek Road Brentwood, CA 94513 Dear'Mr. Robbins: Thank you for your letter dated September 12, 1995 outlining your reasons for opposing the proposed Ordinance to regulate gun dealers in the residential unincorporated areas of the County. We will make your letter a part of the record at the hearing on October 2, 1995 as you requested, and I will advise you of what action the Committee takes at the conclusion of the hearing. Very truly yours, Claude L. Van Marter Assistant County Administrator CLVM':amb Van9-45-95 cc: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier _ Supervisor Jim Rogers Warren E. Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner Mark Finucane, Health Services Director Wendel Brunner, M.D., Public Health Director. Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Nancy Baer, Director, Prevention Program, HSD Andres Soto, Prevention Program HSD Dennis Barry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department ATTACHMENT # 9 510 i , i i -- - CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE YOUTH COMMISSION established in 1995 ;lam n �CJI1T9 TO: Board of Supervisors ,mt FROM: Countywide Youth Commission 1995 DATE: September 19, 1995 0.4 SUBJECT: Recommendation on Proposed Gun Dealer Ordinance On July 26, 1995, after staff reports, public testimony, and discussion, the Countywide Youth Commission voted 15 to 3 to recommend adoption of the Gun Dealer Ordinance by the Board of Supervisors. The idea that this ordinance would strengthen the existing gun dealer ordinance was appealing to the Commissioners who felt that extra enforcement is needed in Contra Costa County to help curb the increase of violence trend through the easy accessibility of weapons, especially to youth. As you are all aware, youth violence by guns is a severe problem in parts of Contra Costa County; and while it is understood that it is illegal for the gun dealers to sell to minors, it is known that it is relatively easy for a minor to obtain a gun. Kids are killing kids, and the commissioners felt that all measures need to be taken by the Board of Supervisors to control the availability of guns to citizens. 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110, Concord, CA 94520-4817. (510) 646-5763; (510) 646-5767 (fax) 09/25/98 11:24 'T510 659 4813 STATE FARM INS. ATTACHMENT # 10 { Claude Van Marter, Thank you for sending roe the update on the pending ordinance concerning (regulating firearm dealers. T an oppoeed to the ordinance in general because it infringes an the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens by creating undue .financial hardship on dealers, which will in turn be passed on to the customers. This has became the latest tactic in the gun control movement to prohibit honest r .law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. ' Aside from my general disagreement with the ordinance I would like to {point out to you and the Hoard of Supervisors that item C concerning the i ;liability insurance is unnecessary and probably the most blatant attempt at !foisting undue financial burden on dealers. The Dangerous Weapons Control Law manual provided by the State Department of Justice clearly states in the 'Public Policy of State, section 2, paragraph (b) and t c A, page 99, that a person, specifically a dealer in paragraph (b), who transfers a .firearm in } accordance with Section 12082 of the Penal Code can not incur any civil t iliability from misuse of that firearm. If a dealer transfers a firearm not in ;accordance with Section 12082 of the Penal Code that dealer would be violating s state and federal laws, which would result in the denial of the claim by an `insurance compnaay on the grounds that criminal acts are specifically excluded -by the policy. I have included copies of the Public Policy of State and the exclusion pages of the business insurance policy the company I work for sells. I have consulted with our claim litigation counsel and they advise me the areas I marked on the exclusion pages is sufficient when coupled with the extensive regulation in the area of firearm sales to deny a olaim. Further I contacted several agents from my company and other insurers .finding no one who mould provide coverage for this type business, I suspect the underwriting staffs are aware cif the civil immunity provided by low and no company offers this product. Thank you, STEVE SAUMBACH 09/25/95 11:25 0510 659 4813 STATE FARM INS. @003 7 t 3 1 14 BELSHAW ST ANTIOCH, CA 94509 (510)706-.1520 cc; Jerry Avalos NRA Jake Williams CC Times Dick Graham KRA Tom Kamm KSFO Radio Michael SavageKSFO Radio 09/25/95 11:26 $'510 859 4813 STATE FARM INS. QOD4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEIVDENT 1994 PART 4, TITLE 2, California Penal Code IIANG�xx"US WEAPONS CONTROL LAW (INCLUDES LAW THROUGH THE 1993 PORTION OF THE 1992-93 REGULAR SESSION OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE) 1rberty and,tustke ' • un&rlaw r Distributed by BUREAU OF CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION AND INFORMATION P.O.BOX 820200 Sacramento, California 94203-0200 09/25/95 11:26 '$510 659 4813 STATE FARM INS. IM005 of a firearm that is so substantially similar in which are two or more inches long and which can physical properties to an existing firearm as to be released automatically by a flick of a button, lead a reasonable person to conclude that the pressure on the handle,flip of the wrist or other replica is a firearm. mechanical device, or is released by the weight . of the blade or by any type of mechanism Sniperucopes whatsoever. For purposes of this section"passenger's or 468. Any person who knowingly buys,sells, driver's area"means that part of a motor vehicle receives, disposes of conceals, or has in his which is designed to carry the driver and possession a sniperscope shall be guilty of a passengers, including any interior compartment misdemeanor,punishable by a fine not to exceed or space therein. one thousand dollars($1,+000)or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year,or by both such fine and imprisonment. PUBLIC POLICY OF STATE As used in this section, sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance Pwwanf to Chapter 1180 of the Skdutes of 1988 designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared Sec. 1. The Legislature finds and declares as light source and electronic telescope,enables the follows: operator thereofto visually determine and locate (a) The law on the transfer of firearms"as the presence of objects during the nighttime. defined-in Section 12001 of the Penal Code is This section shall not prohibit the authorized unclear as it relatesto nondealertransfers between use or possession ofsuc h sniperscopeby a member' private parties. It has been stated in judicial of the armed forces of the United States or by decisions that on pure private transfers the 15- police officers,peace officers,or law enforcement day statutory waiting period must elapse prior to officers authorized by the properly constituted delivery of the firearm and that the parties must authorities for the enforcement of law or personally know each other. Therefore, ordinances;nor shall this section prohibit the use subdivision(e)as added to Section 12072 of the or possession of such sniperscope when used Penal Code by this act is merely declaratory of solely for scientific research or educational existing law. purposes. (b) The Legislature further recognizes that there is no explicitly recognized statutory Switchblade Knives procedure whereby law-abiding citizens may transferapistol,revohw,orotherfirearm capable 653k. Every person who possesses in the of being concealed upon the person through passenger's or driver's area of any motor vehicle dealers and obtain the protection afforded by in any public place or place open to the public law.A procedure for the transfer ofthese firearms carries upon his or her person,and every person is recognized under federal law and in other who sells,offers for sale,exposes for sale,loans, states and has been found to be of benefit to transfers, or gives to any other person a firearm owners lawenforceinenkandthegeneral switchblade knife having.a blade over two inches communit . Therefore, the egi n . in length is guilty of a misdemeanor. en ing subdivision (d) of Section 12072 of For purposes of this section a"switchblade the Penal Cade and adding Section 12082 to the knife' is a knife having the appearance of a Penal o e rnten s to give aw a w ing citizens pocketknife, and shall include a spring-blade the express statutory option of going through knife, snap-blade knife, gravity knife or any dealers to process their firearm transfers and to other similar type knife, the blade or blades of encourage the use of that process. 99 09/25/95 11:28 V510 659 4813 STATE FARR INS. 006 Section 12 of Chapter 951 ofthe Statutes of to in Penal Code Section 12073,may be obtained 1991 amends Section 2 of Chapter 1180 of the by contacting the Department of justice at(916) Statutes of 1988 as follows: 227-3703 for cost ofthe register and remitting a check or money order in that amount to the State Sec. 2. TheL4slaturedeclaresthefollowing of California, P. O. Box 820200, Sacramento, to be the public policy of this state: California 9+4203-0200. (a) No person who buys or is transferred a firearm that was conducted through a person To insure prompt service when ordering acting under Section 12082 or 12094ofthePenal registers: Code shall incur any civil liability for any illicit use or possession ofthe firearm prior to his or her i. Include a copy of your: taking possession of"firearm if the person had Federal Firearms License; o knowled of that conduct. Certificate of Eligibility', and F7(b) No person holding a license un Section Local license to sell firearms at retail 12071 of the Penal Code when transferring as described in Penal Code Section pursuant,to Section 12082 ofthe Penal 12071. Code shall assurne any civil liability beyond that existing at the time of the effective date of this 2. Type or print"DROS Register" below section when the person sells or transfers any your return address on the envelope. firearms out ofhis or her own stock,ifthat person otherwise complies with Section 12082 of the 3. Specify that you are ordering either the Penal Code.No pawn actingas a dealerpursuant registerforPistols/RevolversorRifles/Shotguns, to Section 12071 of the Penal Code who is or both. transferring firearms for third parties pursuant to Section 12082 of the Penal Code and which 4. Use your business address as a return firearms are not out of his or her own stock shall address and not your P.O.Box shm registers are assume any civil liability for any defects in those shipped by common carrier_ firearms unless he or she has actual knowledge of the defect. C) No person who transfers a firearm through ORDERING"CALL IFGRNIA a dealer licensed pursuant to Section 12071 ofthe FIREARMS LAWS"PAMPHLET Penal Code in accordance with Section 12082 of thepenal Code,or through a local law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12084 of the Penal Pursuant to Section 12080 of the California Code, and otherwise complies with Article 3 Penal Code the "California Firearms Laws" (commencing with Section 12070)of Chapter 1 pamphlet is available from the Department of of Trifle 2 of Part 4 of the Penal Code shall incur Justice for$2.00 per copy(the price includes the any civil liability for subsequent misuse of the cost of postage and handling). To order copies firearm by the transferee of that firearm if he or please remit a check or money order to: she had no knowledge of the misuse prior to the tran r California Firearms Laws {d)The declarations contained in this section Department of Justice are declaratory of existing law. P.O.Box 820200 Sacramento, CA 94203-0200 ORDERING DEALER'S RECORD Make checks or money orders payable to the OF SALE REGISTERS Department of Justice. A 13ealces Record of Sale Register,referred A 99 1 0510 059 4813 STATE FARN111007 �U5l�ESS STATE FARM INSURANCE PQLI�Y ji �J STATE FARM FIRE AND - CASUALTY-COMPANY STATE FARM.GENERAL i-IOME pFFICES. BLU►C�M4SNGTONr 11,i.fNOiS 09/25/95 11:29 0510 559 4813 STATE FARM INS. (A 008 SECTION I PROPERTY COVERAGES (cont.) 2. The amount of "extra expense" loss will be deter- a. delay in rebuilding, repairing or replacing the -mined based on: property or resuming "operations", due to in- terference at the location of the rebuilding, a. all expenses that exceed the normal operating repair or replacement by strikers or other per- expenses that would have been incurred by sons; or 'operations" during the"period of restoration" if no accidental direct physical loss had oc- b- suspension, lapse or cancellation of any li- curred. We will deduct from the total of such cense,lease or contract, But if the suspension, expenses: lapse or cancellation is directly caused by the suspension of "operations", we will cover (1) the salvage value that remains of any such loss that affects your "business income" property bought for temporary use dur- during the 'period of restoration"; ing the "period of restoration", once "operations" are resumed; and 2. any "extra expense": (2) any "extra expense" that is paid for by a. caused by suspension, lapse or cancellation other insurance,except for insurance that of any license, lease or contract beyond the is written subject to the same plan, "period of restoration"; or terms, conditions and provisions as this insurance; b. to repair or replace any property or research, replace or restore the lost information on b. all necessary expenses that reduce the "busi- damaged valuable papers and records that ness income" loss that otherwise would have does not reduce the amount of extra ex- been incurred. pense otherwise payable under this coverage; Exclusions 3. any other consequential loss; or 4. loss caused by seizure or destruction of property We will not pay for: by order of governmental authority. But we will pay for acts of destruction ordered by governmental 1. any "extra expense" or increase of "business in-- authority and taken at the time of a fire to prevent come` loss caused by: . its spread. SECTION i LOSSES INSURED AND LOSSES NOT INSURED LOSSES cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of INSURED the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted con- currently or in any sequence with the excluded We insure for accidental direct physical loss to property event to produce the loss: covered under this policy unless the loss is: a. the enforcement of any ordinance or law: 1. limited in the PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LIMI- TATIONS section; or (1) regulating the construction, use or repair of any property; or 2. excluded in the LOSSES NOT INSURED section that follows. (2) repairing the tearing down of any prop- erty, including the cost of removing its LOSSES debris; NOT INSURED b, earth movement, meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding or contracting of earth, all 1. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss whether combined with water or not. Earth which would not have occurred in the absence of movement includes but is not limited to one or more of the following excluded events. We earthquake, landslide, erosion, and subsidence do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the but does not include sinkhole collapse- 6 FDRM 3 09/25/95 11:30 90510 658 4813 STATE FARM INS. 1009 SECTION i LOSSES INSURED AND LOSSES NOT INSURED (cont.) But if accidental direct physical loss by fire, (b) basements, whether paved or not; explosion other than explosion of a volcano, or theft or building glass breakage results, we will pay for that resulting loss; (c) doors, windows or other openings. C. volcanic eruption, explosion or effusion. But But if accidental direct physical loss by fire. if accidental direct physical loss by fire, ex- explosion, theft, building glass breakage or plosion other than explosion of a volcano, leakage of water from a fire protective system theft, building glass breakage or "volcanic results, we will pay for that resulting loss; action results, we will pay for that resulting loss. e. seizure or destruction of property by order of "Volcanic action" means accidental direct governmental authority. physical loss to covered property resulting from the eruption of a volcano when the loss But we will pay for acts of destruction ordered is caused by: by governmental authority and taken at the time of a fire to prevent its spread, if the fire (1) airborne volcanic blast or airborne shock would be covered under this policy; waves; f. nuclear hazard, meaning any nuclear reaction, (2) ash, dust or particulate matter, or radiation or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled or how- (3) lava flow. ever caused, or any consequence of any of these. lass caused by the nuclear hazard will All volcanic eruptions that occur within any not be considered loss caused by fire, explo- 72-hour period will constitute a single occur- sion or smoke. rence. We will not pay for the cost of removing ash, But if accidental direct physical loss by fire dust or particulate matter resulting from the results, we will pay for that resulting loss; eruption of a volcano that does not cause ac- cidental direct physical loss to covered prop- g. the failure of power or other utility service erty; supplied to the described premises, however caused, if the failure occurs away from the d. water, such as: described premises. (1) flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal But if accidental direct physical loss by an in- waves, overflow of any body of water or sured loss results, we will pay for that result- their spray, all whether driven by wind ing foss; or not; h, war and military action, including: (2) mudslide or mudffow; (3) water that backs up from a sewer or drain (1) undeclared or civil war; or enters into and overflows from within {2) a sump pump, sump pump well or any warlike action by 'a military force, in- other system designed to remove sub- eluding action in hindering or defending against er actual o expected attack by surface water drained from the founda- any government, sovereign or other au- tion area; or thority using military personnel or other (4) natural water below the surface of the agents; or ground', including water which exerts pressure on, or seeps or leaks through: (3) insurrection, rebellion, revolution, usurped power or action taken by gov- (a) foundations, walls, floors or paved ernmental authority in hindering or de- surfaces, fending against any of these. 7 FORM 3 09125/95 11:31 '$510 659 4813 STATE FARM INS. 010 SECTION I LOSSES INSURED AND LOSSES NOT INSURED (cont.) 2. We do not insure for doss either consisting of, or But if accidental direct physical loss by any directly and immediately caused by, one or more of of the "Specified Causes of Loss" or by the following: building glass breakage results,we will pay for that resulting loss; a. artificially generated electric current, including electric arcing,that disturbs electrical devices, i. causes of loss to personal property: appliances or wires. (1) dampness or dryness of atmosphere; But if accidental direct physical loss by fire results, we will pay for that resulting loss; (2) changes in or extremes of temperature; or b. delay, loss of use or loss of market; (3) marring or scratching. C. smoke, vapor or gas from agricultural smudg- ing or industrial operations; But if accidental direct physical loss by any of the "Specified Causes of Loss" or by d. smog, wear, tear, rust, corrosion, fungus, building glass breakage results,we will pay-for mold, decay, deterioration, hidden or latent that resulting loss; defect or any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself. j. explosion of steam boilers, steam pipes,steam engines or steam turbines owned or leased by But if accidental direct physicaf loss by any you, or operated under your control. of the "Specified Causes of Loss" or by building glass breakage results,we will pay for But if accidental direct physical loss by fire or that resulting loss; combustion explosion results, we will pay for that resulting loss. We will also pay for loss e. the presence, release, discharge or dispersal caused by the explosion of gases or fuel of pollutants, meaning any solid, liquid, within the furnace of any fired vessel or within gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, in- the flues or passages through which the gases cluding vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, of combustion pass; chemicals and waste, except as provided in the Pollutant Clean Up and Removal Exten- k. continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of sion of Coverage, water that occurs over a period of time; But if accidental direct physical loss by any 1. water that leaks or flows from plumbing, of the "Specified Causes of Loss" or by heating, air conditioning or other equipment building glass breakage results,we will pay for (except fire protective systems) caused by that resulting loss; freezing, unless: f. settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or ex- (1) you do your best to maintain heat in the pansion, building or structure; or But if accidental direct physical loss by any (2) you drain the equipment and shut off the of the "Specified Causes of Loss" or by water supply if the heat is not main- building glass breakage results,we will pay for tained; that resulting loss; m_ dishonest or criminal act occurring at any time\ g. insects, birds, rodents or Other animals, by you, any of your,partners, employees, di- rectors, trustees, authorized representatives or But if accidental direct physical loss by any anyone to whom you entrust the property for of the "Specified Causes of Loss" or by any purpose whether acting alone or in building glass breakage results,we will pay for collusion with others. that resulting loss; This exclusion does not apply to acts of de- h. mechanical breakdown, including rupture or struction by your employees; but theft by em- bursting caused by centriiugal force. ployees is not covered; 8 FORM 3 09/25/95 1.1:32 051.0 559 4813 STATE FARK INS. (Moll SECTION I LOSSES INSURED AND LOSSES NOT INSURED (cont.) n. voluntary parting with any property by you or ganization or governmental body whether in- anyone else to whom you have entrusted the' tentional, wrongful, negligent or without fault; property if induced to do so by any fraudulent scheme,trick, device or false pretense; b, faulty. inadequate, unsound or defective: c unexplained or mysterious disappearance of (1) planning, zoning, development, survey- property, or shortage of property disclosed on ing, siting; taking inventory; p. collapse,except as provided in the Extensions (2) design, specifications, workmanship, re- of Coverage. pair, construction, renovation, remodel- ing, grading, compaction; But if accidental direct physical loss by an in- sured loss results at the described premises, (3) materials used in repair, construction, we will pay for that resulting loss. renovation or remodeling; or 3. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss (4) maintenance; consisting of one or more of the items below. Fur- ther, we do not insure for loss described in para- graphs 1. and 2. immediately above regardless of t part or all of any property (including land, s whether one or more of the following: (a) directly structures or improvements of any kind) on or or indirectly cause, contribute to or aggravate the off the described premises. loss; or (b) occur before, at the same time, or after the loss or any other Cause of the Goss: But if accidental direct physical loss results from items 3.a. and 3.b., we will pay for that resulting a. conduct, acts or decisions, including the fail- toss unless the resulting loss is itself one of the ure to act or decide, of any person, group, or- lasses not insured in this section. SECTION I EXTENSIONS OF COVERAGE EXTENSIONS OF deductible in this policy applicable to that COVERAGE loss. Subject to the terms and conditions applicable to But if: Section t of this policy, the following Extensions of Coverage apply separately to each location scheduled in {t} the sum of lass and debris removal - the Declarations. But the amount of insurance afforded pease exceeds the Coverage A and Cov erage f3 limit of insurance;or on any one scheduled location will not be more than the limit of insurance specified in each Extension of Cover- age if a limit is included in the extension. (2) the debris removal expense exceeds the amount payable under the 25% debris removal coverage limitation described in 1. Debris Removal. paragraph b. above; a. We will pay your expense to remove debris of we will pay up to an additional $5,000 for covered property caused by an insured loss each location in any one occurrence for debris that occurs during the policy period. The ex- removal expense. penses will be paid only if they are reported to us within 180 days after either the date of C. This Extension of Coverage does not apply to accidental direct physical loss or the termi- costs to: nation of this policy,whichever is earlier. (1) extract pollutants (meaning any solid, b. The most we will pay for debris removal ex- liquid. gaseous or thermal irritant or pense is 25%of the sum of the amount we pay contaminant, including vapor, soot, for the accidental direct physical loss plus the fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste) from land or water; or g FORM 3 ATTACHMENT #11 Li 5201 Norr. Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc. San Ramon, CA 94583 USA Edgar A. Suter MD, National Chair a 510.277.0333 FAX 510.277.1283 e-mail DIPRinc@aol.com J September 12, 1995 An Open Letter and Proposals to the Contra Costa ounty. . u ervisors to Reduce Violence in Our Community. Dear Contra Costa County Supervisors, ' There are some effective measures that Contra Costa County.may Make to reallocate existent resources to reduce the supply of crime guns. (1) Utilize the resources of the existent California Department of Justice "Firearms Dealer Compliance Inspection Program" - Under existent law(CPC 12070 et seq.)and funded by California's gun dealers themselves the California Department of Justice has established the Firearms Dealer Compliance Inspection Program (FDCIP). As outlined in the appended September 6, 1995 letter from the manager.of FDCIP,.Ms.Michelle Dille,it is the mandate of theFDC1P to investigate Federal Firearms Licensees to ensure compliance with existent federal,state, and local law. As_wehave notedin Aur appended monograph,Targeting Deceit-An Analysis of the Report on Residential Firearms Dealers and Ammunition Registration in Contra Costa County,California Penal Code§ 12070-provides 12 subsections,each of which details multiple exceptions to the requirement for Federal Firearms Licensees to possess a California Department of Justice Certificate of Eligibility(COE).-So,con=to the gross deceptions of Mr.Soto et al.in their report,"Taking Aim at Gun Dealers," possessing a Federal Firearms License(EFL)without the COE is not presumptive evidence of wrongdoing. Contra Costa County may avail itself of the already existent authority, mechanisms,and funding under FDCIP to ensure that Contra Costa County FFLs fall into the exempt categories. If investigation uncovers wrongdoing, such as.illegal gun dealing, the authority,mechanisms,and funding are already in place to prosecute-the perpetrators. While we do not encourage draconian punishment for innocent paperwork or inadvertent technical violations,we certainly encourage the prosecution of illegal gun dealing. Interestingly;the City of San Martin in Santa Clara County recently performed such an investigation and discovered-that all of their Federal Firearms Licensees were in compliance with the law. No illegal activities were found. (2) To the extent possible, identify and prosecute the source of every crime gun retrieved in Contra Costa County As repeated studies by the National Institute of Justice have shown, only 7% of crime handguns are obtained in retail gun transactions. For this reason,it is most unlikely that investigating retail gun dealers will uncover a source of crime guns. Further,because residential gun dealers are typically low volume outlets and because they invite their 2 An Open Letter and Proposals to the Contra Costa County Supervisors to Reduce Violence in Our Community customers into their homes,they are more security conscious,more likely to know their customers, and,so are less likely to be tricked into straw gun sales(a qualified buyer illegally acting as agent to purchase guns for unqualified,criminal buyers). Rather than squandering resources on unlikely sources of crime guns,it is more sensible to target the important known source of crime guns-the black market in stolen or"borrowed" guns. When criminals in Contra Costa County are caught with,guns,find the source!of those guns. Expectedly,most traces of crime guns will"dead end,"finding only the last J lawful owner from whom the crime gun was stolen,but,if there are illegal sources of crime guns in Contra Costa County,this is the way to find it,not by wasting time,effort, and money badgering legitimate gun dealers. By way of analogy,if we wanted to find drug kingpins,would we start by searching the homes of every law-abiding citizen in Contra Costa County or would we begin by .investigating known street level drug dealers? When a crime gun was stolen from a lawful owner,prosecute the criminal for possession of stolen property and do not plea bargain away the gun charges. When an illegal source of crime guns is uncovered,prosecute and do notlep a bargain away the gun charges. When a gun is used in the commission of a crime,prosecute and do not plea bargain away the gun charges. If convicted of such gun charges,encourage the judges of Contra Costa County to make the sentences sequential rather than concurrent with other sentencing. The only "gun control"shown to be significantly effective is sentence enhancement for the criminal use of guns,but.such.laws.work only if the charges are not plea bargained away by prosecutors. (3) Cease funding Mr. Andr6s Soto and his politicized and ineffectual department - Mr. Andres Soto is a Board Member of the Violence Policy Center,an extremist organization so rabid in its pursuit of gun prohibition that it broke away from Handgun Control Inc. as too moderate. Mr.Soto's proposals to the Contra Costa County Supervisors mirror exactly the incremental approach to gun prohibition espoused by the Washington DC Violence Policy Center in their strategy paper,Cease Fire. . We cannot imagine the Contra Costa County Supervisors appointing and funding a 9 rational Rifle Association Board Member to direct official gun policy in.this county. It is J no more appropriate to appoint and fund an extremist such as Mr. Soto to such a position. As our appended monograph makes crystal clear,Mr. Soto [and his department],in pursuit J of the Violence Policy Center's goals,have offered outdated data,misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods both in testimony and in the report,"Taking Aim at Gun Dealers." ? Despite the California Attorney General's explicit opinion on the subject,Mr. Soto and his department have encouraged city governments to scoff at California state.law,the statute preempting the regulation of guns and gun sales. As a result,Mr. Soto has embroiled taxpayers in an expensive lawsuit. Until recently,Mr. Soto and his department,by their own description, have enjoyed over$500,000 funding annually, but with what result? Lies, lawsuits, and ongoing violence. The taxpayer's money is better spent elsewhere. 3 An Open Letter and Proposals to the Contra Costa County Supervisors to Reduce Violence in Our Community Please do not be misled by the old data,misrepresentations,and outright falsehoods in Mr. j Soto's Taking Aim at Gun Dealers. Please do not be seduced by the false promise of a "quick fix"into ignoring the issues of the state's preemption of regulating gun sales. If Contra Costa County wants to"do something"about gun violence,"do something" effective,"do something"legal,"do something"that does not violate state preemption,"do something"that targets criminals,not legitimate small businessmen,"do something" x supported by all good citizens,including the 50% of Contra Costa residents who are gun y owners. We stand ready to assist you in every way to enact effective,legal,and constitutional t approaches to reducing gun violence by fighting criminals,but we will resist you in every legal way possible if you target legitimate gun owners and gun dealers. Please do not hesitate to call upon us for assistance. All the resources of our national physician think tank are at your disposal. Respectfully. Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research,Inc. Exhibits(2) J t A 1 31 J DANIEL E. LUNGREN State of California Attorney.General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS P.O. BOX 820200 SACRAMENTO, CA 94203-0200 (916) 227-3703 September 6 , 1995 Edgar Suter, M.D. 5201 Norris Canyon Rd. , Ste. 140 San Ramon, CA 94583 -, RE: Department of Justice Firearms Centralized List and Compliance Inspection Program Dear Dr. Suter: This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ) Centralized List of firearms dealers and the Compliance Inspection, Program. Centralized List Pursuant to Penal Code (PC) Section 12071, all firearms dealers who sell, leas-e, or transfer firearms in California must meet the following licensing requirements : • Possess a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL) . • Possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility issued by the Department of Justice. . • Possess a valid .business and/or regulatory license(s) required by the local licensing authority, or a letter from the local jurisdiction' stating there is no local license and they do not otherwise regulate or restrict the sale of firearms . r ' Be recorded on D0J1s Centralized List. The requirement for firearms dealers to be placed on the -, centralized list became effective January 1, 1995 and only dealers that have been placed on the centralized list may lawfully engage in the sale or transfer of firearms . It is the dealer' s ongoing responsibility to. provide DOJ with renewed copies of their FFL and local license(s ) . If D0J1s records indicate expiration of any of the licenses, the dealer will be subject to removal from the centralized list until confirmation of license renewal is received by DOJ. 227-3703 September 51 1995 Page 2 Firearms Dealer Compliance Inspection Program 1 Pursuant to PC Section 12071(f) , DOJ has established an on- site inspection program to ensure dealers are complying with federal and state laws and regulations regarding firearms sales and transfers . DOJ Firearms Program staff have implemented the necessary procedures and are currently conducting inspections of firearms dealers . The following steps are included in a typical compliance inspection: Verify that the dealer is fully licensed pursuant to PC Section 12071 . Verify that the dealer maintains records required by federal law (Forms 4473 and the Acquisition and Disposition Record) . • Verify that the dealer maintains Dealer Record of Sales Registers as required by state law. Check these records against current inventory. J • Verify that all signs are posted as required by PC Section 12071 . A • Verify that the business meets storage and security requirements pursuant to PC Section 12071 . • Verify that no handguns, imitation handguns, o'r placards advertising the sale or transfer of handguns are displayed where they can readily be seen from outside the premises . • Verify that the dealer is complying with all Basic Firearms Safety Certificate procedures and requirements as specified in PC Sections 12800-12809 for all handgun sales or transfers . As authorized by statute, firearms dealers are assessed an ~ annual fee of $85 . 00 to cover the cost of maintaining the centralized list and the costs of the firearms dealer inspection program. 227-3703 September 5 , 1995 Page 3 Enclosed are copies of two publications the DOJ makes available each year, the Dangerous Weapons Control Law and the California Firearms Laws . We hope the above information is helpful . If you have any questions' or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact the Firearms Program at ( 916 ) 227-3703 . Sincerely, DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General A az MICHELLE DILLE, Manager Firearms Information Services MD:BR:tm: 023 l "7 1 J J Targeting Deceit - An Analysis of the Report on Residential Firearms Dealers and Ammunition ,Registration in Contra Costa County June 6, 1995 Targeting Deceit - An Analysis of the Report on Residential Firearms Dealers and Ammunition Registration in Contra Costa County 3 researched and compiled by Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc. i a non-profit corporation 5201 Norris Canyon Road#140 San Ramon CA 94583 June 6, 1995 i Executive Summary • According to Richmond Police Department data, the number of homicides more than doubled after a 1989 ban on residential gun dealers and institution of stringent restrictions on storefront dealers. • According to the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,eighteen years of national ammunition registration(required by the Gun Control Act of 1968 until repeal in 1986) "had no substantial law enforcement value." •According to the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,about half of licensed gun dealers have no inventory and sell no guns. • According to the National Institute of Justice,93% of crime handguns are not obtained from gun dealers. • • According to the California Department of Justice,there are 6 major categories of Federal Firearms Licensees who do not need a California Certificate of Eligibility, so possession of a Federal Firearms License without a Certificate of Eligibility is not presumptive evidence of illegal gun sales. • According to the California Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,residential firearms dealers are not a problem. • According to state law, the funding and mechanisms already exist to identify and prosecute illegal gun sales and violations of gun dealer laws. • According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, guns are the safest and most effective means of protection. • According to the most recent of several large and carefully designed research studies, every year about 2.5 million Americans use guns to protect themselves and their families, J saving an estimated 400,000 lives per year. • Guns save ten times the number of lives lost to guns. Guns prevent injuries. Guns reduce medical costs because lives are saved and injuries are prevented. Guns save money because property is protected. • According to the California Attorney General,it is illegal under California law for local jurisdictions to attempt to regulate firearms sales through the use of zoning ordinances. l • The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban have not presented even one example of J criminal activity by Contra Costa County gun dealers,whether residential or store-front dealers. ! •The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban have claimed, but presented no evidence J that Contra Costa County gun dealers are illegally providing crime guns. • The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban have not presented even one research - study demonstrating that a ban on gun dealers results in a reduction.in crime, violence, or accident because no such study exists. • The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban claimed that a 1988 study by Sloan, Kellermann, et al. found a relationship between the number of gun dealers and the 11 availability of crime guns, but that study made no mention whatsoever of gun dealers and drew no such conclusion. • "Taking Aim at Guy:Dealers: Contra Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community"contains numerous and gross errors regarding key facts and laws. • As Mr. Andr6s Soto, one of Taking Aim's auihors, has advised one of our researchers, over$425,000 of tax money has been spent annually by the group that produced Taking Aim , yet the report concealed key facts, misrepresented existent law,made false research citations,used demonstrably false"data,"and ignored the preponderance of existent data. Taking Aim's claims Taking Aim claims that 1)residential firearms dealers are a cause of gun violence,2) two-thirds of residential firearms dealers are operating illegally, 3)banning residential firearms dealers would reduce violence and 4) ammunition registration would assist the police in solving crimes. Considerable evidence rebuts all four claims relevant in this local policy forum and this evidence is addressed here. Considerable evidence rebuts other of Taking Aim's claims more appropriately addressed in a national public policy forum,but that evidence on national matters is addressed elsewhere. A eighteen years of ammunition registration in the US The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, among its many provisions affecting the entire nation,required the registration of all ammunition capable of being used in a handgun (based on the premise that most crime guns are handguns),even if the ammunition was to be used in a rifle. Because many rifles use cartridges(e.g. .22 Long Rifle, .357 Magnum, 9mm, .44 Magnum,etc.)that can also be used in pistols,the law effectively required the ' registration not only of handgun ammunition,but also the registration of much rifle ammunition. Though the ammunition registration requirement was in effect for eighteen years,federal agencies repeatedly testified that the requirement had"no substantial law enforcement value." In several Congressional hearings,ammunition registration was found useless as a law enforcement tool and an expensive and unjustifiable burden on law-abiding gun dealers and owners. For these reasons,as the Congressional record shows, the ammunition registration requirement was repealed by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Additionally,the Congressional committees concluded that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms abused the rights of law-abiding citizens and focused more on entrapment of innocent gun collectors than the enforcement of laws against illegal gun. trafficking and possession of guns by criminals. the regulation of California's gun dealers Existent federal and California law stringently regulates gun dealers and gun sales. There is extensive oversight and enforcement of those laws. The proponents of banning residential gun dealers speculate, but offer no evidence that Contra Costa County residential gun dealers are a significant source- or even a minor source - of crime guns. If illegal activity can be identified,existent law can be used to prosecute and punish the wrongdoers. Further, a readily available and formal opinion of the California Attorney Generall states that under California Penal Code §53071 local agencies are prohibited from regulating gun sales. Though local jurisdictions may not legally regulate gun sales and gun dealers, the opinion encourages the participation of local jurisdictions in the oversight and enforcement of extensive existent law. Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research provides similar encouragement,noting that the necessary funding already exists. No new local laws are needed,desirable, or legal. The authors of Taking Aim, Soto,Feinsen and Kraut, stated"To date,none of the [local gun dealer] ordinances has [sic] encountered any significant legal opposition." Their confidence is undeserved and their opinion is debatable,particularly in view of the existent lawsuit and the Attorney General's opinion. It would seem a prudent exercise of fiduciary responsibility for the Contra Costa County Supervisors to await the outcome of the existent lawsuit,rather than enacting suspect ordinances and incurring additional avoidable expense to Contra Costa County's taxpayers. a fabricated citation Soto, Feinsen and Kraut claimed that a study by Sloan,Kellermann et al.2 "has shown i that firearm availability is directly related to the number of gun dealers in a community, and the laws that regulate their activities." This claim is a blatant falsehood. It can be readily and independently confirmed that the Sloan-Kellermann made no such study and reached no such conclusion. Their study does not mention gun dealers even once. There is no peer-reviewed research showing that restricting gun dealers results in crime or violence reductions. In fact,homicide in Richmond, CA more than doubled after the institution in 1989 of the type of residential firearm dealer restrictions proposed by the .authors of Taking Aim. outdated data One of Taking Aim's authors,Mr.Andres Soto,has promoted a residential firearm dealer ban for at least one year. He has repeatedly been presented the question,"What data exists showing that residential gun dealers are a cause of crime or a source of crime guns? One year and over$425,000 later,Mr. Soto has provided no such data. In view of Mr. Soto's ardent support for his proposal,it is difficult to imagine that he would ti conceal any supporng data if it existed or could be developed. Mr. Soto and his colleagues have presented outdated data suggesting that there are 700 Federal Firearms Licensees in Contra Costa County. According to the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms(BATS,as of 4/1/95 there are 437 Federal Firearms Licensees (including 5 pawnbrokers) in Contra Costa County.3 Mr. Soto and his colleagues have presented outdated data stating that 238 of Contra Costa County's"700"Federal Firearms Licensees held California State Certificates of 1 Lungren D.Attorney General Opinion i94-212.Ops Cal Any Gen.July 7,1994;77: 147-154. 2 Sloan JH,Kellermann AL,Reay DT,et al."Handgun Regulations,Crime,Assaults,and Homicide:A Tale of Two Cities."N Engl J Med 1988;319: 1256-62. 1 3 Anderson D,Public Information Officer,Regulatory Section,Western Division,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms.personal communication.May 22,1995. iv Eligibility (COE). Further, they falsely suggest that because some Licensees do not have COE that this is evidence of illegal gun sales. As of May 22, 1995, the Firearms Licensing and Permit Section of the California Department of Justice notes 137 COE holders in Contra Costa County,4 calling attention to at least six categories (discussed in detail in the body of this report) of Federal Firearms Licensees who are not required under current law to possess COE. For this reason,having a Federal Firearms Licensee without a Certificate of Eligibility is not presumptive evidence of illegal gun sales or other wrongdoing. deceit Mr: Soto has been personally and repeatedly informed of the several exempt categories Q informed why the disparity between the number of Federal Firearms Licensees and holders of COE cannot be honestly used as presumptive evidence of wrongdoing. As an author of Taking Aim,he has apparently ignored and concealed that information. It appears that he has knowingly attempted to deceive the public and the Contra Costa County Supervisors and used federal and local tax money in order to advance his personal political agenda. The dramatic drop in the numbers of legal gun dealers is evidence that existent law and enforcement is quite effectively reducing the number of Federal Firearms Licensees in Contra Costa County. Whether or not this reduction is desirable is debatable, but the observation of the reduction is indisputable. Still,neither Mr. Soto nor any of his co- authors have provided any evidence that a significant number- or even any- of the previous or current Contra Costa County gun dealers are or were engaged in illegal gun sales. no evidence of illegal activity by Contra Costa County gun dealers If Mr. Soto and his colleagues can belatedly provide evidence of illegal activity or if any illegal gun sales are discovered in the future, state laws and funding already exist to identify, apprehend,and prosecute violators at no cost to Contra Costa County. Among, other provisions, California Penal Code§12071 imposes a fee upon COE applicants, creating a fund available to local agencies to ensure compliance with state laws regulating firearms dealers and firearms sales. To reiterate,if violations of state gun laws or gun dealer laws exist,the funding and mechanisms already exist to identify, apprehend, and prosecute the perpetrators. No new laws are necessary. No new expenditures are necessary or,from a taxpayer's perspective,desirable. .epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Taking Aim noted that teens and young adults are at highest risk of homicide, but failed to note that, in every study that has examined the issue,more than two-thirds of homicide "victims"are drug dealers or their customers. We have become used to the hysterical fearmongering of the gun ban lobby,claims that all age groups, all socioeconomic groups, and all areas are suffering from an"epidemic of violence." As a review of the data detailed graphically in this report shows, the claims of an"epidemic" are false. The outbreak of violence is almost completely limited to inner city teens and young adults 4 Hilburn D,Firearms Licensing and Permits Section,California Department of Justice.personal communication. May 22, 1995. v involved with the illicit drug trade. Of course, the rare mass murder and deaths of the minority of truly innocent victims, especially children, are highly sensationalized by the opportunistic gun ban lobby and a sympathetic media. It bears repeating- Good citizens who do not sell or use illicit drugs have very low risk of homicide. guns save lives, prevent injuries, reduce medical costs, and protect property As a matter of sensible and responsible public policy, it is important to note that guns are used protectively far more often than guns are misused. Every year about 2.5 million Americans use.guns to protect themselves and their families, saving an estimated 400,000 lives per year.5 Guns save ten times the number of lives lost to guns. Guns prevent injuries. Guns save money because property is protected.Guns reduce medical costs because lives are saved and injuries are prevented. Guns are the safest and most effective means of protection. n ' criminals Ignore gun laws, so disarming the innocent victims costs lives Gun laws do not affect the lawless. 'Those who ignore laws against rape,murder, and =; drug trafficking ignore existent gun laws and will ignore new gun laws. It is only good citizens who obey gun laws, so it is only good citizens,the innocent victims, who are inconvenienced or disarmed by gun laws. The only confidently predictable outcome of a residential gun dealer ban will be that the costs of doing business will be passed on to consumers, so guns in Contra Costa County will become more expensive. So, poor people will be disproportionately affected. More than the rich, the poor will be impeded or denied access to the safest and most effective means of protection. Disamiing these innocent victims is a policy that costs more-not fewer- lives. �i r t f 5 Kleck G and Gertz M.Armed resistance to crime:the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun.Journal of Criminal Law&Criminology.Summer 1995:86.forthcoming. 1 Guns and the Public Health In 1662 the Armarium Urguentum recommended treatment of gunshot and other wounds: If the wound is large, the weapon with which the patient has been wounded should be anointed daily; otherwise,every two or three days. The weapon should F! be kept in pure linen and a warm place but not too hot,nor squalid, lest the patient i ' suffer harm.6 r Three centuries later some public health"experts"are still treating the weapon instead of !^ the wound. When it was discovered that mosquitoes carried yellow fever,public health experts did not dispatch armies of men with white coats and tweezers to pluck the mouth parts from mosquitoes. They sent armies of laborers to drain the swamps where the mosquitoes bred. If there is any kernel of truth in a public health approach to gun violence, it is that we should"drain the swamp"where the illicit drug trade has infected,primarily, the inner city. The drug trade has become so profitable that some immoral people will kill to reap those profits. We should eliminate the causes of violence-disrupted families, fatherless children adrift, media violence,a valueless,bureaucratically top-heavy educational "system,"government policy that encourages dependency and discourages responsibility - and not waste time,effort,and money sending men with"white coats and tweezers"(or even blue coats and badges)to pluck guns from honest citizens,gun shops, or home gun dealers. The chief strategists of the gun ban lobby have attempted to reframe the debate as a "public health"issue rather than a crime issue'precisely because they have recognized, as much of the'-public has recognized, that two decades of criminological research has shown the bankruptcy of the claim that gun control reduces crime or violence.$ U Grassroots citizen activists have made legislators familiar with that research, making the legislative``front door"approach to gun bans largely unsuccessful, so gun ban strategists have recently concentrated upon the"back door"approach, advising tactics such as 1 increasing bureaucratic paperwork for gun and ammunition dealers and purchasers, 1 exorbitant taxation on dealers, guns,and ammunition,restrictive zoning ordinances, contrived application of environmental or consumer product safety statutes, and ® expanding liability litigation.? Using the"scatter-gun"approach,Taking Aim recommended virtually all of the Handgun Control Inc.party line. f � ty 6 Kopel DB.Guns,germs,and science:public health approaches to gun control.Presentation to the College of Public Health,University of Oklahoma,Health Sciences Center,Oklahoma City,OK.October 14, 1994. 7 Sugarmann J and Rand K.Cease Fire-A comprehensive strategy to reduce violence.Washington DC:Violence Policy Center. 1993. 8 Suter EA.Guns in the medical literature-a failure of peer review.Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia.March 1994;83: 133-48. 2 homicide and the illicit drug trade The only discernible kernel of truth in Taking Aim is that Contra Costa County is like the rest of the nation. Inner-city teens and young adults,drug dealers and drug users, are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators9 and victims 10 of violence in our society. Heinous crimes by callous and feralized youths no longer shock us. Far from being"innocent children,"an alarming two-thirds of gun homicides are of teens and young adults in the drug trade.11,12,13 With massive expenditures, increasing infringements of civil rights,and even the use of US Armed Forces, the War on Drugs has reduced casual,recreational drug use, but done little to reduce hard-core drug trade in the inner cities. It has been repeated so often that there is an"epidemic of violence,"few question the claim or examine the actual data. The data show that gun accident fatality rates are hovering at an all time 1OW14 and analysis of recent homicide rates for which demographics are available show a relatively stable to slightly declining trend for every segment of American society except inner city teenagers and young adults primarily involved in illicit drug trafficking.8.15 [See Appendix,Graphs 1-51 suicide Of the 38,000 annual American gun deaths, a majority are suicides. This has caused advocates of gun prohibition to note that gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates,but they fail to note a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust,etc.). It is also worth reviewing the high suicide rates in countries that have draconian gun bans. [See Appendix,Graphs 6 &7] The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates.16 People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more socially acceptable that we should cede resources to measures that only shift the means of suicide,but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths? 9 Bureau of Justice Statistics,US Department of Justice.Guns and crime.Washington DC:US Government Printing Office.April 1994;NCJ-147003. 10 Federal Bureau of Investigation,US Department of Justice.Uniform crime reports:crime in the United States t 1992.Washington DC:US Government Printing Office.1993. 11 McGonigal MD,Cole J,Schwab W,Kauder DR,Rotondo MF,and Angood PB.Urban firearms deaths:a five- year perspective.J Trauma.1993;35(4):532-36. 12 Hutson HR,Anglin D,and Pratts MJ.Adolescents and children injured or killed in drive-by shootings in Los Angeles.N Engl J Med.1994;330:324-27. 13 Suter EA,Waters WC,Murray GB,et al."Violence in America-Effective Solutions."Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia."June 1995. 14 National Safety Council.Accident facts 1992.Chicago:National Safety Council.1993. 15 Centers for Disease Control."Homicide Surveillance,1979-1988."Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. May 29, 1992;41(SS-3):1-35. 16 Kleck G.Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America. New York:Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. r 3 international comparisons - a brief observation It is worth noting that most of the countries with which America is often compared, including Japan and the United Kingdom, have not only strict gun laws, but extensive limitations on other personal freedoms. Warrantless search and seizure,coerced confessions, police intrusions,prolonged incarceration without charges, and other infringements of protections that Americans often take for granted are the rule, not the exception in those countries.17 It is also worth reviewing intentional fatality rates (homicide plus suicide), as a measure of violence,to discover that the United States compares quite favorably with Asian and European paragons of"gun control utopia." [See Appendix,Graphs 111 "taking aim" at gun dealers and truth, but not crime j "Taking Aim at Gun Dealers" is aptly named; while taking aim at gun dealers, unfortunately the report does not take aim at the"black market"in guns or other major Z sources of crime guns. According to the National Institute of Justice, 93% of crime handguns are not obtained from gun dealers,18 so controls on gun dealers will have an expectedly small,if any,impact of crime guns. Neither does Taking Aim offer proposals that have any significant chance of reducing crime,violence,or injuries. Sadly, because it contains so many distortions and inaccuracies,the report should be entitled"Taking Aim at the Truth." The numerous misstatements of fact, of research, and of existent law are, at best,evidence of the incompetence of the authors and,at worst,evidence of willful intent to misrepresent the facts and to deceive public officials and the public. Taking Aim is a political hit piece that has cost the taxpayers dearly. j t 17 Kopel DB.The Samurai,The Mountie,and the Cowboy:Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other. Democracies?New York:Prometheus Press. 1992. 18 Wright JD and Rossi PH.Armed and considered dangerous:a survey of felons and their firearms.Hawthorne, NY:Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. 3 4 Richmond CA a case study of gun dealer restrictions in Contra Costa County In 1989 the City Council of Richmond CA enacted an ordinance that, according to Richmond's City Attorney who drafted the ordinance, initially focused upon sales of handguns and"made it nigh impossible to engage in home occupation business in selling firearms."19. The ordinance, as detailed in Municipal Code of the City of Richmond Chapter 7.100 et seq. and Municipal Code of the City of Richmond§15.04.190, now completely bans residential gun dealers;requires a conditional use permit for store-front gun dealers; requires a police investigation beyond the already-required federal and state investigations;requires a permit application process in which the fees exceed current federal and state fees combined; enacted storage,display,and security requirements; enacted compliance inspections for Building,Fire,Health,and other Codes; and more. Following enactment of the 1989 ordinance,the number of homicides in Richmond more than doubled and has never returned to levels noted prior to the ordinance20 The percentage of homicides committed with a gun also leaped. Obviously,the restrictions on gun dealers resulted in no discernible benefit for public safety. ` Homicides in Richmond CA 1985-1994 . Home gun dealer ban enacted in 1989 Year Gun Total Homicides Homicides 1985 11 (55%) 20 I 1986 17 (81%) 21 1987 10 (55%) 18 1988 24 (75%) 32 1989 33 (82%) 40. t 1990 25 (69%) 36 1991 47 (76%) 62 1992 39 (85%) 46 1993 51 (93%) 55 1994 28 (54%) 52 data courtesy of Sergeant Anthony Zanetelli,,Homicide Division,Richmond Police Department 19 Judkins J,City Attorney,City of Richmond CA.personal communication.May 25, 1995. 20 Zanetelli A,Sergeant,Homicide Division,Richmond Police Department,personal communication.May 25& June 1, 1995. 5 Richmond CA Homicides 70 Home gun dealer ban 60 and store-front gun <»<< dealer restrictions 50 :h #< enacted in 1989 «, 30 x. k . 20 ,: ` .x 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 J Gun Homicides E Non-Gun Homicides Ammunition Registration a case study of useless law The federal Gun Control Act of 1968,among its many provisions affecting the entire nation,required the registration of all ammunition capable of being used in a handgun (based on the premise that most crime guns are handguns),even if the ammunition was to be used in a rifle. Because many rifles use cartridges(e.g. .22 Long Rifle, .357 Magnum, 9mm, .44 Magnum,etc.)that can also be used in pistols,the law effectively required the registration not only of handgun ammunition,but also the registration of much rifle ammunition. Though the ammunition registration requirement was in effect for eighteen years,federal agencies repeatedly testified that the requirement had"no substantial law enforcement value." In 1975,Rex D. Davis,Director of the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms, testified to the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, Committee of the Judiciary, US Senate that: [BATF is] on record to the extent that the sale of ammunition has not proven to be a very effective enforcement tool. Obviously they have no serial numbers or other identifying features beyond the fact of a brand name of the producer of the ammunition; a box of ammunition or an individual shell cannot be associated with the purchaser.... So, we have had a very limited number of cases in which a 6 suspect was identified or the evidence against him was fortified through ammunition records.21 In 1986, Edward T. Stevenson,Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement and Operations, US Treasury Department,testified in support of repealing the ammunition registration requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968: More specifically, the bill would repeal the ammunition record keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act,that the Department has recognized, have l no substantial law enforcement value, since ammunition is not generally traceable through licensee records 22 In 1986, Stephen Higgins,Director of the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,in a report to his superiors at the Department of the Treasury stated: 1 The Bureau [of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms] and the Department[of the j Treasury] have recognized that the current recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value. In addition, their ' elimination would remove an unnecessary recordkeeping burden from licensee. Felons and other proscribed persons would still be prohibited from transporting or receiving ammunition in commerce.23 Besides its uselessness in law enforcement,the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms supported repeal of the ammunition registration requirements because they felt the requirement interfered with"the rights of law-abiding citizens." They noted that ammunition registration placed"undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition,possession,or use of firearms."23[p.11371. We find it remarkable that the authors of Taking Aim have.been heavily funded with tax money for several years,yet were either unaware of-or chose to conceal- that this nation j conducted an eighteen year experiment with ammunition registration, that ammunition registration was found to be virtually useless to law enforcement and an undue burden on law-abiding citizens. The California Attorney General believes that an ammunition registration ordinance would be allowable under current California preemption statutes,1 but the authors of Taking Aim have offered no data or studies explaining why a county ammunition ordinance would be an effective law enforcement tool when,in eighteen years,national ammunition registration was not an effective tool. In the face of eighteen years of hard evidence of the burden on law-abiding citizens and the ineffectiveness in law enforcement, the authors of Taking Aim owe us more than their unsupported opinion. 21 Davis Rex D,Director,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,US Department of the Treasury.in Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency,Committee of the Judiciary,US Senate.Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency,Committee of the Judiciary,US Senate,Ninety-Fourth Congress, First Session,Pursuant to S.Res.72,Section 12,Investigation of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States,Oversight of the 1968 Gun Control Act-The Escalating Rate of Handgun Violence.Volume 1.April 23,July 22,October 28, 1975. Washington DC:US Government Printing Office.1976.p.116. 22 Stevenson Edward T,Deputy Assistant Secretary,Enforcement and Operations,US Treasury Department. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary,US House of Representatives,Ninety-Ninth Congress,First and Second Sessions on Legislation to Modify the 1968 Gun Control Act,October 28,30,November 9, 1985;February 19 and 27 1986.Part 2.Washington DC:US Government Printing Office. 1986.p. 1138. Y 23 Higgins S,Director,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,US Department of the Treasury.Memorandum to Assistant Secretary,Enforcement and Operations,US Treasury Department.CC-34,270. February 10, 1986.page 1. i 3 i 7 Fundamental Flaws "costs only" analysis ignores the lives saved by guns Taking Aim makes much of the costs of gun violence, but did not even make a perfunctory effort to assess how many lives are saved by guns. This, of course, is a familiar problem with the political tracts of the anti-self-defense lobby. Since Sarah24 and Jim Brady25 of Handgun Control Inc. have denied the legitimacy of self-defense with a gun,their refusal and the refusal of their devotees to discuss the millions of Americans who have protected themselves with guns is understandable. The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study26 showed that doctors' negligence kills 180,000 Americans every year 27 five times the number of Americans who die from guns, ' but doctors are not deemed a deadly public menace because they saves millions more ' lives than they take---and so it is with guns. A conservative estimate from the largest scale,methodologically sound study to date, the = study by Kleck and Gertz, suggests that there are 2.5 million protective uses of guns by adults annually.5 As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every gun tragedy sensationalized,dozens are averted by guns,but go unreported. 1 Whether or not"newsworthy,"honest scientific method begs accounting of the benefits of guns-enumeration of the lives saved,the injuries prevented,the medical costs saved, and the property protected. Such an accounting is absent from Taking Aim. The protective benefits of guns-and the politicized"science"that has been used to j 24 Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc.:"To me,the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.'in JacksonT."Keeping the Battle.Alive:'Tampa Tribune.October 21,1993.page unknown. t 25 James Brady of Handgun Control Inc.:"Question:Aren't any handguns defensible? James Brady:For target shooting,that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home,that's why we have police departments."in Brady J(no relation)."In Step with:James Brady."Washington Post.Parade Magazine.June 26, 1994.p.18. 26 Harvard Medical Practice Study.Report to the State of New York.Cambridge MA:Harvard Medical School. 1990. 27 Leape LL.Error in medicine.JAMA.1994;272(23):1851-57. i v 8 underestimate or totally deny those benefits and to exaggerate the costs of guns - have been extensively reviewed. 8,16,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 As ten studies have shown,in any year, about 1 to 2.5 million Americans use guns to protect themselves and their families. and about 400,000 of those defenders believe that they would almost certainly have lost their lives if they had not had a gun for defense.5,16 Even if only one-tenth of those defenders are correct, the lives saved by guns would still be more numerous than the lives lost to guns. The flaws in the only study to suggest - otherwise, the outlier data of the National Crime Victimization Survey(NCVS), have been discussed elsewhere.5,35 Briefly, the NCVS is a study of victimization,not defense, and,by its design,undercounts the most numerous types of defensive gun use(e.g. women protecting against domestic attacks). As additional sources of undercount error, the NCVS is the only such survey conducted by law enforcement and the only study in which the respondents are denied anonymity. When any statistic,such as the NCVS count of defensive gun use,is at odds with every other measurement,it is discarded.5 Nonetheless,even those US Bureau of Justice Statistics samples show that defense with a ' gun results in fewer injuries to the defender(17.4%)than resisting with less powerful means (knives,40.3%; other weapon,22%; physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.) and in fewer injuries than not resisting at all(24.7%).16[Table 4.41 Guns are the safest and most effective means of self defense. This is particularly important to women, the elderly,the physically challenged,those who are most vulnerable to vicious and bigger male predators. [See Appendix,Graphs 8 &9] These benefits can be weighed against the human costs of guns-recently about 38,000 gun deaths from all causes and about 65,000 additional serious injuries annually(the remainder of gun injuries were so minor as to require no hospital treatment at all). Totaling all gun deaths,injuries, and criminal mischief with guns leads to a generous estimate of about 1 million criminal misuses of guns annually (involving less than one- half of 1% of America's more than 200-million guns)16,30 So, all things considered, the human benefits of guns at least equal and likely exceed the costs of guns to society by a factor of 2.5. A 28 Kates DB,Lattimer JK,Murray GB,Cassem EH,Schaffer HE,and Southwick L.Gun control:epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda.University of Tennessee Law Review.Spring 1995. 29 Kates DB,Lattimer JK,and Cottrol RJ.Public health literature on firearms—a critique of overt mendacity.a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology annual meeting.New Orleans,LA.November 5,1992. 30 Blackman PH.The federal factoid factory on firearms and violence:a review of CDC research and politics.a paper.presented to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.Chicago 1L.March 8-12,1994. 31 . Blackman PH.Criminology's-astrology:the Center for Disease Control approach to public health research on firearms and violence..a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology.Baltimore,MD November 7-10, 1990. 32 Blackman PH.Children and firearms:lies the CDC loves..a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology.New Orleans,LA.November 4-7,1992. 33 Suter E.`Assault weapons'revisited—an analysis of the AMA report.Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia.May 1994;83:281-89. 34 Wright JD.and Rossi PH.Weapons,crime,and violence in America:executive summary.Washington,DC:.US Dept.of Justice,National Institute of Justice.1981. y 35 Kellermann A,Kleck G,and Suter E.Letters to the Editor.Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia.June 1994;83:42-47. • 9 Economic Analysis The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately$1.5-billion per year36 - about 0.16% of America's$900-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of lost lifetime earnings- assuming that gangsters,drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers,factory workers, and other good Americans- to generate inflated claims of$20-billion or more in"costs.1136 One recent study went so far as to claim the"costs"of work time lost while workers gossip about gun violence.37 What evidence is there that the average homicide decedent can be fairly compared to the average worker,that average wages should be attributed to homicide victims? What fraction of homicide victims are actually"innocent children"who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society,more than two-thirds of gun homicide"victims"are involved with drug trafficking or have evidence of ante-mortem illicit drug use.11,12 In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide"victims"had a criminal record,averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.12 Such active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering,but also an average economic toll of$400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison."38 Itis nota slander on the few truly innocent- and highly sensationalized-victims to note that the overwhelming predominance of homicide"victims"are as predatory and socially aberrant as the perpetrators of homicide. Cost-benefit analysis is necessarily a bit hardhearted, and, though repugnant for physicians to consider monetary savings alone, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely force us to address the"costs"of gun violence.. So, we are forced to notice that,in cutting their violent"careers"short,the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of$4.5 billion annually- three times the declared"costs"of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the$4.5 billion does not include the additional financial savings from the innocent lives saved,injuries prevented,medical costs averted, and property protected by guns. If the"average cost of medical treatment for a gunshot wound is $33,000,"as Taking Aim claims, then$33,000 is saved for each gunshot wound prevented when a defender uses a gun for protection. If we applied the prohibitionists' methods37 to compute the savings by guns,we would find that the annual savings approach$1/2 trillion,about 10% of the US Gross Domestic Product. We perform this exercise only to demonstrate that all such "virtual reality"estimates of"indirect"costs and savings are inflated and to condemn them all as meaningless. Whether by human or economic measure,we conclude that guns offer, a substantial net benefit to our society. Some"quality of life"benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership,are not easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult(whether by bureaucratic paperwork,exorbitant taxation, zoning laws,contrived ? 36 Max W and Rice DP.Shooting in the dark:estimating the cost of firearm injuries.Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85. 37 Nieto M,Dunstan R,and Koehler GA.Firearm-related violence in California:incidence and economic costs. Sacramento CA:California Research Bureau,California State Library.October 1994. 38 Zedlewski EW.Making confinement decisions-research in brief.Washington DC:National Institute of Justice, U.S.Department of Justice.July 1987. 10 application of environmental or consumer product safety statutes,reframing the debate as a"public health"issue, or outright bans- the current tactics of the anti-self-defense lobby7) will reduce violence. No matter what tactics are used by the anti-self-defense lobby to incrementally achieve citizen disarmament,it is only good citizens and honest gun dealers who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington,DC,etc.),disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more-not - fewer- lives. Police Protection Criminals do not announce their intentions and police resources are stretched, so it is unsurprising that the police rarely arrive in time to prevent death or injury from much violent crime. Many are surprised,however,to discover that the police do not have any legal obligation-not even a theoretical obligation-to provide protection to individuals, * even if in immediate danger. The police are only obligated to provide some unspecified • level of general protection to the community at large.39,40,41,42,43 It is a bitter irony indeed that, at the same time the police are relieved of responsibility for our protection, • we are forced to depend upon their protection. We are often told that we may not and - should not have the same tools that the police say they need to protect themselves from the same criminals who threaten us. Gun ban advocates routinely portray good citizens with guns as inept and dangerous,but good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals16 and they do it with a better safety record than the police. About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person-about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.44 Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.44 We can explain why the citizen record is better than the police (the police usually come upon a scene in progress where it may not be clear who is attacker and who is defender; also,the police,unlike defenders, must close to handcuff the arrestee),but the simple truth remains:citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves, their families,and their communities. Impeding the access of good citizens to the safest and most effective means of defense, guns,by the measures proposed in Taking Aim would cost more-not fewer- lives. Disarming good citizens, the innocent victims,is not a policy that saves lives. J 39 Hartzler v.City of San Jose,App:,120 Cal.Rptr.5(1975). 40 warren v.District of Columbia,D.C.App.,444 A.2d.1(1981). 41 South v.Maryland,59 U.S.(HOW )396,15 L.Ed.,433(1856). 42 Bowers v.DeVito,U.S.Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit,686F.2d.616(1882). 43 Besides case law,statutes relieve the police of any responsibility to provide protection to individual citizens,for 3 example,California Government Code§845.Failure to provide police protection— Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or,if police protection service is provided,for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. 44 Cramer C and Kopel D.Shall issue:the new wave of concealed handgun pen-nit laws.Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper.October 17, 1994. s 11 failing to target the source of crime guns Taking Aim makes much of residential gun dealers, but did not even make a perfunctory effort to present any evidence whatsoever that even one such dealer illegally provided a single crime gun. It is unlikely that the authors of Taking Aim could develop any significant data suggesting residential gun dealers are a significant source of crime guns, because residential and store-front gun dealers combined account for only a small percentage of crime guns. The largest scientific study of the source of crime guns was conducted by the National Institute of Justice,a branch of the US Department of Justice. The report of that study showed only 7% of criminals' handguns are obtained from retail sources.18 For this reason,controls on retail gun sales cannot be expected to reduce criminals' access to guns much,if at all. As the experience with the Brady Law shows, denial of retail gun sales to felons only diverts criminals into the"black market"or other sources of crime guns. Ironically,since residential gun dealers generally conduct few transactions and invite customers into their homes, they are more likely to know and trust their customers than the average store-front gun dealer. President Clinton and his administration have spotlighted violent crime and demanded draconian gun restrictions as a"solution." The administration's lack of action,however, belies its rhetoric. Senators Orrin Hatch and Robert Dole have inquired of Attorney General Janet Reno why, according to the Administrative Office of the US Courts, prosecutions have actually declined 5% overall and,in the case of gun crimes, prosecutions have declined 23%,under the Clinton-Reno administration)45 _Despite exaggerated claims of the success of the Brady Law,46 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)has acknowledged that the little existent evidence is only anecdotal.47 If fact, almost all of Brady Law background check discoveries of"thousands of possible felons"are errors. Many are innocents whose names are similar to felons. Misdemeanor-raffic convictions,citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs are the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as"potential"felons 48 Of the minuscule number of actual felons identified by J Brady Law background checks, the Department of Justice has discovered four cases that were"prosecutable,"but not one has been prosecuted49 Instead, those felons are merely displaced into the"black market." In such circumstance,the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers (residential or otherwise)who are not the source of crime guns,is it not more reasonable-though admittedly more difficult-to target the real source of crime guns?It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than ? 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead,we believe enforcement . t 45 Hatch O and Dole R,US Senators.letter to US Attorney General Janet Reno.November 3,1994. t 46 Aborn R,President of Handgun Control Inc.Letter to the editor.Washington Post.September 30,1994. 47 Howlett D.Jury still out on success of the Brady Law.USA Today.December 28, 1994. p A-2. 48 Halbrook SP.Another look at the Brady Law.Washington Post.October 8, 1994.p A-18. 49 Hams J,Assistant Attorney General,US Department of Justice.Statement to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice,Committee on the Judiciary,US House of Representatives concerning federal firearms prosecutions. September 20, 1994. r r Oi 12 effort should focus on targeting the long illegal"black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society. Disarming violent criminals is a policy that saves lives. Targeting the"black market" in guns is a policy that saves lives. State Preemption and "Home Rule" During the debate on the Brady Bill,Handgun Control Inc. and others in the gun prohibition lobby claimed that preemptive federal law was necessary because"home rule"resulted in different state laws on waiting periods and background checks, a "patchwork"of laws. They claimed that the"patchwork"made gun laws ineffective. ' Since state preemption laws have been an impediment to passage of more restrictive gun laws like those proposed by Taking Aim, the gun prohibition lobby sees no problem with a"patchwork"of laws and, in fact, as part of its inaptly-named"Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws,"Handgun Control Inc. proposes the dismantling of uniform state gun laws. It would appear that, logic and consistency notwithstanding,the gun prohibition lobby would like to have it both ways. Innocent gun owners traveling to an unfamiliar part of the state should not be snared in a net of conflicting gun laws. We do not wish to see good citizens prosecuted or incarcerated because of non-violent technical violations of local laws of which such travelers could not possibly have any knowledge. Misrepresenting the Facts Is it too easy to buy guns or be a gun dealer in California? Taking Aim - "Minimal federal and state regulation of firearms sales, and lax enforcement of these regulations, has contributed to an explosive growth in the number of gun dealers..." Fact- Contrary to the claim of"lax enforcement,"two US Senate subcommittee investigated the tactics used by the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms [hereinafter,"BATF"] and found otherwise. A report to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1982 found: Based upon these hearings it is apparent that enforcement tactics made possible, by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally,legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress adopted the Gun.Control Act [of 1968] with the primary objective of limiting access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.... The Subcommittee received evidence that BATF has primarily devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension... of individuals who lack all criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have repeatedly enticed gun collectors into 13 making a small number of sales- often as few as four- from their personal collections Although each of the sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the agents then charged the collector with having "engaged in the business"of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the collectors secured acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agent of the Bureau have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential defendant upon the ground that he intended to use it in that violation of the law. In several cases, the agents have refused to return the collection even after acquittal by jury. The defendant,under existing law is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees, therefore,...an individual who has spent thousands of dollars establishing his innocence of the criminal charges is required to spend thousands more... without hope of securing any redress. This,of course,has given the enforcing agency •� ' enormous bargaining power in refusing to return confiscated firearms. Evidence i received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution demonstrated that Bureau agents have tended to concentrate upon collector's items rather.than"criminal . street guns." The Subcommittee on the Constitution has also obtained evidence of a variety of other misdirected conduct by agents and supervisors of the Bureau. In several cases, the Bureau has sought conviction for supposed technical violation based upon policies and interpretations of law which the Bureau had not published in the Federal Register.... In these and similar areas,the Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense,but of 5 U.S.C. §552, which was intended to prevent"secret lawmaking"by administrative bodies. The practices, amply documented in hearings before this Subcommittee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States 3 It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens. It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably searching and seizing private property. It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens without regard for their right to due process of law.50 So, in 1982 it was the unanimous conclusion of a US Senate subcommittee that,far from lax,enforcement of gun laws has been overzealous and that,rather than targeting the real source of crime guns, innocent citizens have been targeted to inflate arrest and seizure quotas. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that, since 1982, laws have become more stringent and BATF abuses more common and more deadly. 50 U.S.Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.The right to keep and bear arms:report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.United States Congress.97th.Congress.2nd.Session.February 1982.p.20-24. 14 Much press has vilified low-volume gun dealers,pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a"proliferation of guns on our streets"is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all.51 Obviously Federal Firearm Licensees who have no guns and sell no guns are not a source of, as the hysterical sound bite goes,"a proliferation of guns on the street." The Congressional Record reports the testimony of abuse of law-abiding gun collectors and gun dealers. Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 [FOPA] documented that the high number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. As previously cited,prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as four guns per year at gun shows,claiming that they were unlicensed,and therefore illegal,gun dealers.To avoid such harassment and prosecution,thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby decry the paperwork t monster BATF created. Fact-California has the most stringent gun laws of any US state. California has the -+ most stringent regulation and oversight of gun dealers,the longest waiting period in the nation, the most extensive gun ownership and purchase records of any state, training requirements and testing before allowing hunting or the purchase of handguns,bans on military style firearms, and so on. Interestingly with each increment of lengthened waiting period,increased crime rates followed, skyrocketing well beyond the national average after California's waiting period was extended to 15 days. The graph on the following page shows marked increases in California's homicide rate(compared with the rest of the nation,"US-Cal. Murder Rate") with each increase in California's waiting period. This is further evidence suggesting that restrictive gun laws only disarm good citizens, the innocent victims. Restrictive gun laws do not appear to save lives. Is there any control over California gun dealers? J Taking Aim - "The applicant... identifies any local zoning prohibitions or permit requirements.The applicant also certifies that he or she is not a felon or ex-felon, fugitive,drug addict,undocumented immigrant,under 21 years of age,mentally ill, or dishonorably discharged from the military... no proof is required." Fact- Besides providing two sets of fingerprints,in an investigation that takes two months or more,all applicants for a Federal Firearms License [FFL] undergo an FBI background check and are required to give evidence that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer[CLEO] for their business location has been notified of the applicant's intent to engage in the gun business-so that the CLEO may investigate the applicant further and to ensure that all local requirements are met. Additionally,in"high crime"areas like Contra Costa County,each and every FFL applicant is personally interviewed by a BATF Inspector to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with all state, federal, and local laws before the license is issued. i s r 51 Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,US Department of the Treasury.ATF News..Washington DC: Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms.FY-93-38.1993. d 7 06. 6 8. >% «S 8 8. "0 L8. EM 98. S8.Css O IO to, a £8, r C Eel c� � L8. 111 1 08. ca i.in I I I I III I 1111111111HII IIIIIIIII6L. d OL. ..: m L L. 9 L. .� N SL. O L� C OL. n- � 11111111 fill 1 111111111 1 111 TOR C •"= oil 69. NEEEIM 1111111111111 11 U cn ss. .o c 9. cv 99. = 99. O b9. Z9, V L9. 09, l.t 6 S. 8 S. LS. � 9S, � :..� ss. C VS. £S, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �O �7 N O 00 (D 4 N O T- r T- T- SAea u1 poPed BuIlleM ig uol3elnd0d 000`OOL/sjepanyy .i 15 Fact- Federal Firearms Licensees are subject to.unannounced inspections by federal and state agents. They are routinely inspected for license renewals, any time a crime gun is traced to a dealer, and any time there is reason to suspect illegal activity. Fact- California gun dealers are also required to undergo additional fingerprinting, a criminal background check (California disqualifies applicants for misdemeanors that are not disqualifying under federal law), mental health record check,restraining order check, and to provide a copy of a local business license and California Board of Equalization Seller's Permit, and evidence that the dealer is in compliance with all local laws. All I these materials and hefty fees are necessary to obtain the California Certificate of Eligibility(COE). _T Are residential gun dealers selling guns illegally? Taking Aim-Based on the observation that not all Federal Firearms Licensees have a COE, Taking Aim concluded that"...two thirds of gun dealers in the county (66%) are selling guns without reporting their sales to the state." 1 Fact- Federal Firearms Licensees who are inactive and conducting no business t (averaging 43% of gun.dealers nationally)are not required to possess a COE. Fact- Importers,manufacturers,wholesalers, gunsmiths,and Type 03 (Curios and Relics) Federal Firearms Licensees are not required to possess a COE. Bankruptcy trustees,estate executors, and others who may be required to transfer firearms need neither the FFL or the COE. Similarly, holding an FFL but not a Board of Equalization Seller's Permit is not evidence that, as Taking Aim claimed,"sales taxes are probably not being collected on a significant number of gun purchases....." Is existent law regarding illegal gun sales too lax? Taking Aim-"Failure to comply with state[gun dealer Certificate of Eligibility] law.is -' punishable as a misdemeanor." Fact- Violations of the California Certificate of Eligibility law are felonies with hard time penalties prescribed. Fact- If a Federal Firearms Licensee is engaging in retail gun sales without holding a valid Certificate of Eligibility,they are committing Federal and state felonies. Prosecute them. Convict them. Punish them. Fact- If a Federal Firearms Licensee is selling guns to minors,felons, addicts, or other disqualified buyers,they are committing Federal and state felonies. Prosecute them. Convict them. Incarcerate them. Fact- If a Federal Firearms Licensee is engaging in"straw sales" (knowingly selling a gun to a disqualified buyer by using a"qualified"intermediary), they are committing Federal and state felonies. Prosecute them. Convict them. Incarcerate them. d 16 Has Mr. Soto concealed the truth? Taking Aim - "The issue of non-compliance is often cited at public hearings as one of the primary reasons that localities need to begin developing and enforcing restrictions on dealers." Fact-Mr. Aridrds Soto was present at the first such hearings in Contra Costa County (Lafayette,June 1994). At the Lafayette hearings, Mr. Soto was present when several citizens'testified as to the numerous legitimate reasons why not every FFL held a COE. The authors and contributors to this report personally and repeatedly informed Mr. Soto of the several exempt categories and informed him why the disparity between the number of Federal Firearms Licensees and holders of COE cannot be honestly used as presumptive evidence of wrongdoing. In less than a year has Mr. Soto forgotten the repeated reminders?Why has he failed to acknowledge or explore these reasons?... was jj $425,000 per year in funding insufficient to obtain accurate or current data?... or has Mr. t - Soto knowingly concealed the truth in order to fan the flames of anti-gun hysteria and to advance his personal political agenda using tax money? r. f , Who Is really costing us money? Taking Aim -"The high number of dealers who have not paid for business licenses [73%] represents a significant loss of revenue to local governments." Fact Though presented as fact,this claim is highly speculative. Even if none of the FFLs were gunsmiths,collectors,or inactive,the loss of revenue to local governments would amount to approximately$13,000 which is less than 3% of Mr. Soto's $425,000-plus annual budget- for a department that was commissioned to provide, but did not provide, accurate information on gun violence. ' - Is there an'individual right to keep and bear arms? Taking Aim - "The Miller(1939)decision confirmed that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to bear arms,but only a collective right through a reasonable relationship to a state militia." LFact- There is no US Supreme Court case that even once mentions a"collective right." In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged a pre-existent("pre-existent," r� rather than"granted"by the Constitution) individual right5453,54,55S6 to keep and bear L3 military-style56weapons. The familiar contention that there is no individual right to arms derives partly from a common misunderstanding-of the constitutional"militia." Advocates of"broad-based 52 Presser v.Illinois. 116 U.S.252(1886).at 265. 53 U.S.v.Cruickshank.92 U.S.542(1876). 54 Miller v.Texas 153 U.S.535(1894). 55 Roberston v.Baldwin 165 U.S.275(1897). 56 Miller v.U.S..307 U.S. 174(1938). ON 17 gun control,'157,58,59 including the authors of Taking Aim, emphasize merely the mention of"militia," but historians, legal scholars, and Supreme Court Justices agree that, "The y `militia' was the entire adult male citizenry," so that"one purpose of the Founders having been to guarantee the arms of the militia,they accomplished that purpose by guaranteeing the arms of the individuals who made up the militia."60, Adherents of the"states' right only" theory of the Second Amendment assert their position without examining the implications of their own theory. A full understanding of the"states' right only"theory leads to conclusions that will make its proponents even more uncomfortable than if they accepted the individual right theory.61 An honest application of the"states' right only"theory, according to the rationale advanced by its ' own adherents,57-59 demands not merely armed state militias, but full military parity for the states. In these times of tension between the states and the federal government,gun prohibitionists should rethink the advisability of promoting a theory that would return the t US to armed confederacy. Further,as Reynolds and Kates discuss,citizen disarmament would not necessarily be an'outcome of an honest application of the"states' right only" theory of the Second Amendment.61 That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the individual right,but done little to protect that right,is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. It has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African- Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim that"no court has ever overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds"is not only false(Nunn v.State 62 and in re: Brickey63 overturned gun laws on Second Amendment grounds),but is also the equivalent of a morally indefensible claim in 1950 that"no court has ever overturned a segregation law." Supreme Court decisions havebeen thoroughly reviewed in the legal literature. Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles,thirty-five note the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the individual right to keep and bear arms64 and only four claim the 57 Vernick JS'and Teret SP.Firearms and health:the right to be armed with accurate information about the second amendment.Am.J.Public Health.1993;83(12):1773-77. 58 Henigan DA.Arms,anarchy and the second amendment.Valparaiso U.Law Review.Fall 1991;26: 107-129. 59 Ehrman K and Henigan D.The second amendment.in the 20th century:have you seen your militia lately?Univ. Dayton Law Review.1989;15:5-58.; 60 Van Alstyne W.The second amendment and the personal right to arms.Duke Law Journal.*1994;43(6): 1236- 55. 61 Reynolds GH and Kates DB.The second amendment and states rights:a thought experiment.College of William and Mary Law Review.Summer 1995. 62 Nunn v.State.lGa.243(1846). ' 63 in re:Brickey.8 Idaho 597,70 P.609(1902). 64 Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W.The second amendment and the personal right to arms.Duke Law Journal:1994;43(6): 1236-55.; Amar AR.The bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment.Yale Law Journal.1992; 101: 1193-1284.;Winter 1992;9: 87-104.;Scarry E. War and the social contract:the right to bear arms.Univ.Penn.Law Rev.1991; 139(5): 1257- 1316.;Williams DL.Civic republicanism and the citizen militia:the terrifying second amendment.Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.;Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT.The second amendment:toward an Afro-Americanist reconsideration.The Georgetown Law Journal.December 1991:80;309-61.;Amar AR.The bill of rights as a constitution Yale Law Journal.1991; 100(5): 1131-1210.;Levinson S.The embarrassing second amendment.Yale 18 right is only a collective right of the states (three of these four are authored or co-authored Law Journal. 1989;99:637-659.;Kates D.The second amendment:a dialogue.Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986;49:143.;Malcolm JL.Essay review.George Washington U.Law Review.1986;54:452-464.;Fussner FS.Essay review.Constitutional Commentary.1986;3:582-8.;Shalhope RE.The armed citizen in the early republic.Law and Contemporary Problems.1986;49:125-141.;Halbrook S.What the framers intended:a linguistic interpretation of the second amendment.Law and Contemporary Problems.1986;49:151-162.;Kates D.Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the second amendment.Michigan Law Review.1983;82:203-73.Halbrook S.The right to bear arms in the first state Bills of Rights:Pennsylvania,North Carolina,Vermont,and Massachusetts.Vermont Law Review 1985;10:255-320.;Halbrook S.The right of the people or the power of the state:bearing arms,arming militias,and the second amendment.Valparaiso Law Review.1991;26:131-207.;Tahmassebi SB.Gun control and racism.George Mason Univ.Civil Rights Law Journal.Winter 1991;2(1):67-99.;Reynolds GH.The right to keep and bear arms under the Tennessee Constitution.Tennessee Law Review.Winter 1994;61:2.Bordenet TM.The right to possess arms:the intent of the Framers of the second amendment.U.W.L.A.L.Review.1990;21:1.30.;Moncure T. Who is the militia-the Virginia ratifying convention and the right to bear arms.Lincoln Law Review.1990;19:1-25; Lund N.The second amendment,political liberty and the right to self-preservation.Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.;Morgan E-Assault rifle legislation:unwise and unconstitutional.American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990;17:143-174.;Dowlut,R.Federal and state constitutional guarantees to arms.Univ.Dayton Law Review.1989.; 15(1):59-89.;Halbrook SP.Encroachments of the crown on the liberty of the subject:pre-revolutionary origins of the second amendment.Univ.Dayton Law Review.1989;15(1):91-124.;Hardy DT.The second amendment and the historiography of the Bill of Rights.Journal of Law and Politics.Summer 1987;4(1):1-62.;Hardy DT.Armed citizens, citizen armies:toward a jurisprudence of the second amendment.Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.1986; 9:559-638.;Dowlut R.The current relevancy of keeping and bearing arms.Univ.Baltimore-Law Forum.1984;15:30- 32.;Malcolm JL.The right of the people to keep and bear arms:The Common Law Tradition.Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.;Dowlut R.The right to arms:does the Constitution or the predilection of judges reign?Oklahoma Law Review.1983;36:65-105.;Caplan DI.The right of the individual to keep and bear arms: a recent judicial trend.Detroit College of Law Review.1982;789-823.;Halbrook SP.To keep and bear'their private arms'Northern Kentucky Law Review.1982;10(1):13-39.;Gottlieb A.Gun ownership:a constitutional right.Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.;Gardiner R.To preserve liberty--a look at the.right to keep and bear arms. Northern Kentucky Law Review.1982; 10(1):63-96.;Kluin KF.Note.Gun control:is it a legal and effective means of controlling firearms in the United States?Washburn Law Journal 1982;21:244264.;Halbrook S.The jurisprudence of the second and fourteenth amendments.George Mason U.Civil Rights Law Review.1981;4:1-69.Wagner JR. Comment:gun control legislation and the intent of the second amendment:to what extent is there an individual right to keep and bear arms?Villanova Law Review.1992;37:1407-1459. The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL.To keep and bear arms:the origins of an Anglo-American right.Cambridge MA:Harvard U.Press.1994.; Cottrol R.Gun control and the Constitution(3 volume set).New York City:Garland.1993.;Cramer CE.For the defense of themselves and the state:the original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms. Westport CT:Praeger Publishers.1994.Cottrol R and Diamond R.Public safety and the right to bear arms.in Bodenhamer D and Ely J.After 200 years;the Bill of Rights in modern America.Indiana U.Press.1993.;Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court.Oxford U.Press.1992.(entry on the Second Amendment);Foner E and Garrity J.Reader's companion to American history.Houghton Mifflin.1991.477-78.(entry on"Guns and Gun t Control");Kates D."Minimalist interpretation of the second amendment"in E.Hickok,editor.The Bill of Rights: original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville:U.Press of Virginia.1991.;Halbrook S.The original understanding of the second amendment.in E.Hickok,editor.The Bill of Rights:original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville:U.Press of Virginia.1991.;Young DE.The origin of the second amendment.Golden Oak Books.1991.;Halbrook S.A right to bear arms:state and federal Bills of Rights and constitutional guarantees. i Greenwood.1989.;Levy LW,Original intent and the Framers'constitution.Macmillan.1988.;Hardy D.Origins and development of the second amendment.Blacksmith.1986.; Levy LW,Karst KL,and Mahoney DJ.Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.New York:Macmillan.1986.(entry on the Second Amendment);Halbrook S.That every man be armed:the evolution of a constitutional right.Albuquerque,NM:U.New Mexico Press.1984.; Marina. ' Weapons,technology and legitimacy:The second amendment in global perspective.and Halbrook S.The second amendment as a phenomenon of classical political philosophy.--both in Kates D(ed.).Firearms and violence.San Francisco:Pacific Research Institute.1984.;U.S.Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.The right to keep and bear arms:report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.United States Congress.97th. Congress.2nd.Session.February 1982. regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes RL.On misreading John Bingham and the fourteenth amendment.Yale Law Journal.1993; 103:57-104.; 19 by employees of the anti-self-defense lobby and the fourth is authored by a politician).65 So, the substance of"states' right only"scholarship consists of four articles by employees and politicians of the gun ban lobby and an offhand remark in a television interview with former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger: "[I]f I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment.... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud,I repeat the word,fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."66 Interestingly, in 1982, while Burger was US Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Morton 1 Grove case67 offered the Court an opportunity to speak definitively on the right to keep and bear arms,but the Court"denied cert,"declining to accept the case or to speak on the issue. Since a majority of Supreme Court Justices declined to hear the Morton Grove case,perhaps they found Burger's claim of"fraud"unconvincing and were content with the existent case law supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms. One would never guess such a precedential and scholarly mismatch from the casual ' misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their"states' right only"theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century"gun control"debate- a concept of ' which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any irikling.68,69,70,71,72,73 Though the gun control debate has focused on the Second Amendment, legal scholarship also finds support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Ninth Amendment 65 The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D.The second amendment in the 20th century:have you seen your militia lately?Univ.Dayton Law Review.1989;15:5-58.;Henigan DA.Arms,anarchy and the second amendment.Valparaiso U.Law Review. Fall 1991;26: 107-129.;Fields S.Guns,crime and the negligent gun owner.Northern Kentucky Law Review.1982; 10(1): 141-162.;and Spannaus W.State firearms regulation and the second amendment.Hamline Law Review.1983; 6:383-408. In addition,see: Beschle.Reconsidering the second amendment:constitutional protection for a right of security.Hamline Law Review. 1986;9:69.(conceding that the Amendment does guarantee a right of personal security,but arguing that personal security can constitutionally be implemented by banning and confiscating all guns). 66 Burger W,US Supreme Court Chief Justice(1969-86).on MacNeil Lehrer News Hour.December 17,1991. 67 Quilici v.Village of Morton Grove,532 F.Supp.1169(N.D.Ill.1981),aff d 695 F.2d 261(7th Cir.1982),cert. denied 104 S.Ct.194(1983). 68 Kates D.Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the second amendment.Michigan Law Review. 1983;82:203-73. 69 U.S.Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.The right to keep and bear anus:report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.United States Congress.97th.Congress.2nd.Session.February 1982. 70 Malcolm JL.To keep and bear anus:the origins of an Anglo-American right.Cambridge MA:Harvard U. Press.1994. 71 Halbrook SP.That every man be armed-the evolution of a constitutional right.Albuquerque NM:University of New Mexico Press. 1984. s 72 Cramer CE.For the defense of themselves and the state:the original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.Westport CT&London,England:Praeger.1994. 73 Kates D.The second amendment and the ideology of self-protection.Constitutional Commentary.Winter 1992; 9:87-104. 20 "unenumerated"rights,74 Fourteenth Amendment"due process" and "equal protection" rights,75,76,77,78 and natural rights theory.73 Also, in the absence of explicit delegated -? powers, the Tenth Amendment guarantees that the powers are reserved to the States and the people, 79 making several provisions of the Brady Law unconstitutional.80 US v. Miller The US Supreme Court's decision in the Miller case is often misrepresented. The phrase "collective right"or similar verbiage appears nowhere in the Miller decision. The Supreme Court's decisions uniformly recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right,from the nineteenth century decisions through the 1990 Verdugo- Urquidez81 in which the US Supreme Court,expressly referring to the Second Amendment, as well as the First and Fourth,held that"the people"means"citizens"and is to be construed alike wherever it appears in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court's only extended treatment of the Second Amendment is the 1938 U.S. v. Miller case 56 No brief was filed to support the individual right view because Miller died before the case was heard in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately the language of the Miller decision is narrow and the case's full importhas proved difficult to comprehend, especially for readers antipathetic to the individual right view which the Court accepted. The facts of the case must be reviewed. Miller had been charged with possession of a "sawed-off"shotgun for which he had not paid the tax required under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller filed a"bare bones"motion asserting that the Act violated the Second Amendment. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the case. The United States pursued an appeal. Miller died before the appeal reached the Supreme Court. 74 Johnson NJ.Beyond the second amendment:an individual right to arms viewed through the ninth amendment. Rutgers Law Journal.Fall 1992;24(1): 1-81. 75 Curtis M.No state shall abridge.Durham NC:Duke.1986.pp.52,53,56,72,88,140-1 and 164. 76 Amar AR.The Bill of Rights and the fourteenth amendment.The Yale Law Journal.1992;101: 1193-1284. J 77 Aynes RL.On misreading John Bingham and the fourteenth amendment.Yale Law Journal. 1993;103:57-104. 78 Halbrook S.Freedmen,firearms,and the fourteenth amendment.in That every man be armed:the evolution of a constitutional right.Albuquerque,NM:U.of New Mexico Press.1984. Chap.5. 79 New York v.United States.112 Sup.CLRptr.2408(1992). 80 18 USC§922(s)(2),the portion of the Brady Law that orders State-created chief law enforcement officers to search available records and to ascertain the legality of handgun transactions,has been held unconstitutional in Printz v. t United States.,854 F.Supp.1503(D.Mont.)1994).appeal pending(9th Cir.No.94-36193);Mack v.United States, 856 F.Supp.1372(D.Ariz.),appeal pending(9th Cir.No.94-16940);McGee v.United States,863 F.Supp.321(S.D. Miss.1994),appeal pending(5th Cir No.94-60518);Frank v.United States,860 F.Supp.1030(D.VL 1994);Romero v.United States;Romero v.United States No.94-0419,W.D.La.(Dec.8,1994).Romero also held that§922(s)(6) (B)and(C),which require chief law enforcement officers to destroy records of handgun transactions and to write letters explaining denials,unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment Koog v.United States,852 F.Supp.1376(W.D.Tex. 1994),appeal pending(5th Cu.No.94-50562),the only district court opinion to uphold all of§922(s),argues that the latest US Supreme Court precedent on the Tenth Amendment is contradictory and makes logical leap[s].Id.at 1381,1386 n.20. 81 U.S.v.Verdugo-Urquidez.494 U.S.259(1990). 21 The Miller case's salient points may be briefly summarized: (1) Reading of the brief filed by the United States shows that it urged the collective right view on the Supreme Court,82 which failed to accept that view even though no brief was filed opposing it; (2) On the contrary, the Court accepted that Miller could invoke the Second Amendment to attack the constitutionality of a federal tax on sawed-off shotguns, even though Miller was not a member of the National Guard or any formal state militia; but(3) As Miller had failed to present evidence in the trial court that a sawed-off shotgun was a militia-type weapon, the Court remanded the case to the lower court where Miller would have the chance to present any such evidence that he might have. (The Court was not aware of Miller's death; the Court knew only that Miller had not filed a brief supporting his position). In other words,the Miller case accepts that ordinary citizens may invoke the Second Amendment against gun laws and upheld an individual right to own military weapons. The Supreme Court had only stated they had no knowledge of whether or not a"sawed- off' shotgun was such a protected military weapon. The Miller case does indicate that there are types of arms which the Second Amendment does not protect,namely, weapons unsuitable for military service. Conclusion and Recommendations Taking Aim, as we have shown,is flawed in its entirety. It is full of misinformation, half- truths, and gross deceptions. It honestly represents neither the law,nor research. It misrepresents the only peer-reviewed research it cites,then ignores decades of other readily available research on guns and gun violence. It promotes a ban on home gun dealers that would be illegal under existent state preemption statutes and promotes ammunition registration that would be legal,but useless and burdensome, under state preemption statutes. It recommends a panoply of other draconian gun control measures that, after review and testimony on available data and research,have already been considered and-rejected at state and national Ievels. Worse and possibly criminally, Taking Aim was produced with vast amounts of our federal and local tax money. The fruits of our labors,our tax money, are being used to subvert our civil rights and to promote illegal,dangerous,and even deadly public policy. We recommend that the Contra Costa County.Board of Supervisors reject the recommendations of Taking Aim and sever all contracts with Taking Aim's authors. Further, in view of the apparent politicized,incompetent,and deceptive nature of Taking Aim,we recommend that the Board investigate Mr. Andres Soto,his co-authors, his department, and their financial affairs in contemplation of civil action and criminal charges regarding the possible political use and misappropriation of tax money. We suggest that the Grand Jury be convened to review these matters. t T 82 Cottrol R.Gun Control and the Constitution.New York:Garland.1993.Introduction,p.xxvii. Homicide Rates 1979-1988 per 100,00 population from Centers for Disease Control. 'Homicide Surveillance,1979-19x8." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. May 29,1992;41(88.3):1.35. 40 35 30 • ----o--- White 25 —f—Black 20 -- "—'K Total 15 10 —r .----- 0------o------o------ o-- - -. 5 _ -- 0 0 I 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 i I Graph 1 Selected Homicide Rates Comparison per 100,00 population 250 I 227 from Bleck G.Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America. Hawthorne XY:Aldine de Grupter.1991.;Fingerhut I A Ingram DD,Feldman JJ."Firearm Homicide Among Black Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties:Comparison of Death Rates in Two Periods,1983 through 1985 and 1987 1 200 th u h 1989."JAM4 1992 267:3054-5 .•HammettM. Poverty owe " arro anion ` omits e Famil Surveillance-United States,194 M 87 through 1989."MWR. y May 29,1992.41(SS•3).;and FBI.'Uniform Crime Reports Disruption -Crime in the United States,1991."1992.Washington DC: TelevisionUS Government Printing Office.p.12. Violence 5o Loss of I Values 122 Drugs 1 i Racism l i loo f I Gun Ownership is already 50 completely banned for these 24 teens 7 10 0 ................... Washington Inner City Rural Black Rural White Overall US DC Black Black Male Male Male Male Teens Middle-/age I Graph 2 20th. Century US Homicide and Suicide Rates per 100,00 population from Grove RD.Hetzel AK Vital Statistics Rates in the United States 1900-1960.Washington DC:National Center for Health Statistics.1968.and Vital Statistics of the United States.Hyattsville MD:National Center for Health .Statistics.Individual volumes for 1961 through 1991. alcohol SUICIDE RATE alcohol prohibition Per 18 prohibition repealed 100,000 POPULATION 16 _____ HOMICIDE RATE per 100,000 POPULATION 14 12 10 N 8 r.� �v � /Gun J Control 6 �` / Actol / 1968 4' 2 I v 0 O Q .O N O O V a0 N t0 O sr a0 N t0 O v m N to O O c0 O O T O NN N t7 t7 VC r in to t0 t0 t0 (� n O to CO O1 O tT O O '01 O T m T T O O 01 01 of 07to T T O r � � r r .- r Graph 3 I _'7 20th.Century US Firearm Accident Rates per 100,00 population 1 3.5 Gom N.tiaul s.retr Cound,Accidtiu F«a.199R 3 1 - ' 2-5 2 1.5 —== 0.5 --`- — - - - --__ _ _ __-_=_- at O� O� O� Of m m m m a� OI O1 OI (n OI Of T 01 OI T 1 Graph 4 I Children's Accidental Deaths, 1991 from National Safety Council.Accident Facts 1991.1992. 2500 2266 2000- 9 0-4 Years 1500- IM 5-14 Years 1 ' 1000 005 589 608 515 467 500 231 79 50 95 0 Motor Drowning Burns Suffocation Guns vehicles iGraph 5 International Suicide Rates Comparison from World Health Organization,1989 i 4s 44.9 ' 40 35 31.6 5 countries with modest gun control 30. 30' 25.7 25.2 25 24.5 20.920,519.8 1 20 17 16.8 16.8 y I 15 14.514.4 14.3 i � 12.3122 12 11.8 10.410.1 10 9.7 9.1 7.6 6.7 6. 6 5.6 � 5 4.3 { 1.7 0.3 0 2` +c c m v (12 3n 31ac mm E m m d YA c v >, m C o m v vm v a � m m nto oa c c r aa A tia om ma va m ,m�V3 :3 C mo Y3 3 io m T L< ZN H l L < V N r W W m t U C Z W a W Z o < U) L U) Graph 6 Suicide Method Lethality from Kleck G. Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America.Hawthorne,NY Aldine de Gruyter.1993.Table 6.2. 90% 8096 80% 77% °. i I 70% 60% 50°l0 40% 30% 20% a 10°/a 0% I• to = V O in O. L O CA to FiG C O V O 00 C COa m E � CS Graph 7 Rates of Crime Completion by Victim's Method of Protection from Klerk G.Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America.Hawthorne,NY.Aldine de Gruyter.1993.Table 4.4. so°.6 e9% B0% 70% 60% 51% 50% 49% 50% 401/6 31% 29% i 30% a 20% 10% 0% 0 • O LR m0U @ tJt qq m9 E 9 N om t+o'O Co> m p L F@ O H O d L O cat Zm O Z i � m i Graph 8 Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection from 10eck G. Point Blank.,Guns and Violence in Ame ica:Hawtbome,NY:Aldine de Gr yter.1993. Table 4.4. e 60 51% 49% 50% 40% 40% 31% 30% ei 25% 22°k 20% 17% 10°io 1 AD% m O $•d � C CL d• _F� � � 1 �C E c m '. 92 3mQ Lia 9 _ L w O Z= Z Graph 9 l International Homicide Rates Comparison from World Health Organization,1989 140 29.4 126.2 120 ' I 100 countries with modest gun control 80 60 49.4 40 7 28.3 26.8 20 10.8 10 9.6 7 6.4 6.2.5.7 3,3 2.7 2.6 2.22 2 2 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 12 12 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 I 0 T a 3 c `�n a < o a c ¢ a ' ° E 'D to v m m of m v > a eo' v m m R c m 2 Lx f0 tT L R A N N R ti .0 A ti R N R O Q A N jp 'C C C Y U d 2 6' _ IG c0 �° C C R ' R L W CO U U) U. = C U ; 7 O d U 7 H NO y lT Oi a) O 7 E d p F Y 7 U) N N C W d N U = tJ m < 3 ° C "4w Z < 70 L = d a WU U 0 G Z y d C < Z 3 c W CS S C 0 U) Graph 10 International Intentional Fatality (Homicide + Suicide) Rates Comparison from World Health Organization,1989 160 140 120 countries with modest gun control ® Suicide Rates (per 100,000) 100 Homicide Rates (per 100,000) 80 60 40 - 20 EM 10 in M EM 0 3 m W m c d T c 2 y c E x-c m c c r m c m ti > E m c E 3 m w = vi 'rn > m c Y m c to (ry 0 LL N ¢ 3 = ° m y LL W � — c ' Z U i j � c N Y d W C7 0 i U) 3 _ m — m W lL U N m H Q C Z cCM O ? Z W t 0 0 " � W i Graph 11 t I Representative State Homicide Rates from FBI Uniform Crime Reports 90 80.6 . Severely Restrictive Gun Controls 80 70 60 50 40 Permissive Gun Controls 30 2014.2 12. 11.3 11.7 10.6 01 10 2.6 2 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.1 0 IC Y A N 'O N A A O R N A O `u E >° o ° 10 ¢ c° o L° °° R s e _ 3 _ - 2` to c :2 m - p U Z U O N =N o 0 O Z t Graph 12 ATTACHMENT # 12 Vol. 333 No. 12 EDIT0ALkLS 793 A PARTISAN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE supporters wish to stop research that could be used to underriiine their policies. The National Rifle Associa- The Threat to the CDC tion has tried hard to intimidate researchers who study gun-related injuries," but Doctors for Integrity in Re- . ONE of the agencies singled out for elimination in the search and Public Policy has been even more blatant: recent spate of Congressional budget cutting was the In a revealing message on the Internet it crowed, National Center for injury Prevention and Control "Good-bye CDC!" and entreated, "Please help us end (NCIPC), a part of the Centers for Disease Control the bogus `public health' assault on our civil rights."13 and Prevention (CDC).' Given the wide swath of the According to this group, the NCIPC produces"incom- r.uts under consideration, perhaps this relatively new petent and politicirc d science." The organization [tics center was just one more to get in the way of the con- also maintained that journal editors who publish re- gressional scythes. Yet, there is reason to believe that search on tate risks associated with firearms are asiased the NCIPC, which conducts and supports research-on and have abusc;d the public trust.',""It not only urged injury,was far more selectively targeted. people to contact key leaders in Congress, but also Ten years ago an Institute of Medicine report cited tried to intimidate the staff of the CDC by threatening injuries as a critical threat to the health of the public.2 to investigate there for lobbying while on:the job. The The report identified the organizations working in var- doctors' group has produced no credible arguments ious aspects of' injury control and recommended that against research on gun-related injuries. lis chief criti- one federal agency, the CDC,coordinate national inju- cisms of such research appeared in the Journal of the ry-control efforts. The agency was to focus research, Afedical Association of Georgia, whose physician-editor disseminate findings rapidly, and prevent duplicative has published opinion pieces consistent with the views work. In a commentary.published in the Journal seven of the National Rifle Association.20 In tlhe,)gyne 1995 years ago, two investigators from the CDC proposed edition, for example, lie published what has been de- that injuries from firearms could be studied by epide- scribed as a"blatantly political column"211 by tJ.S. Rep- miologic and other scientific methods traditionally used resentative Bob Barr', considered an advocate of lega- to investigate other dangers to the public health.3 The izing the sale and manufacture'of assault weapons,and NCIPC was founded in 1992 and given the responsibil- another by a freelance wriie.r fostering the notion that ity of carrying out and coordinating injury control for gun-control laws violate the Second Amcndnhcnt.". 794 '1111;NEM 1:NOLAND,It UIMAl.OF MEDIGINE, St pt.21, 1995 parison to the magnitude.of the problem.The NCIPC 3, Mercy JA,Houk VN.Firearm injuries:-a call for science_N Engl J Med 1988;319:1283-5. serves a vital!}" Important function and, in my view, 4. Kassirer JP.Guns in the household.N Engl J Med 1993;329:1117-9. should be preserved. 5. Blackman PH.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl J Med 1992;326: The threat to the NCIPC raises several questions 1157-8. 6. Idem.Guns and homicide in the home.N Engl J Med 1994;330:366. that need answers: (1) What are the connections be- 7; Suter EA.Guns in the medical literature-a failure of peer review,J Med tureen the Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Assoc Ga 1994;83:133-48. 8. Suter EA,Waters WC IV,Murray GB,Violence in America-effective so- Policy and the gun lobby? (2) Does the group investi- lotions.J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:253-61. gate "Integrity" 1n research on subjects other than 9. Kopel DB.Guns,germs,and science:public health approaches to gun con- guns? (3) What are the connections between the Hcri_ trot.J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:269-73. #age foundation and the gun lobby? (4) How much !0. Taubes G.Violence epidemiologists test the hazards of gun ownership.Sci- ence 1992;259:213-5. C11111);li tt support (lo cack of (tic Congressional oppo-, 1l. Reno J.Violence is a global health issue.Closing presentation of the Re- ncnts of the CDC receive from the gull lobby? (5) flow sponding to Crisis Conference of the National Council for International Health,June 28,1995,Washington,D.C. much money does lie gun lobby spend altogether Oil Iz. Lis J,Deparuncnt of Domestic Policy Studies,Heritage Foundation,Achiev- such Issues? ing fiscal responsibility within the Department of Health and Human Serv- Regrettably,the NCIPC story is yet another example ices,Statement to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor.Health &human Services,Education.January 12,1995,Washington,D.C. of t Ile Corrupting Influctlec that powerful lobbies for 13. Suter EA.Internet message re.Doctors for integrity in Research and Public special interests can exert on members of Congress by Policy Newsletter.May 1,1995. 14. McDonald RR.Q&A with Wayne LaPiene,Executive Vice President and tying financial support in election campaigns to partic- CEO of the National Rifle Association.Atlanta Journal and Constitution. ular votes. In this instance, it is science that is at the July 8,1995:A2. mercy of this deplorable system; by continuing to per- 15. Kent C.Fate hinges on money,politics:CDC injury Prevention center caught up in controversy over gun control.American Medical News.June 26,1995: mit the votes of our elected representatives to be bought, 3. we threaten research that could greatly benefit our 16. NRA firing blanks at CDC.Atlanta Journal and Constitution.June 4,1995: health, especially that of our children. Where is the II 6.17. Briefing report to Congressional Committees.Public health services:agen- outcry against these machinations of the gun lobby? cies use different approaches to protect public against disease and injury. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, April 29, 1994. (GAO/ Ji;Rolm7 P. KAss1xER, M.D. FIUIIS-94-85BR.) 18. Department of Health acid Human Services,Office of inspector General.In- REFERENCES jury control.(0EI-02-9240310.)November, 1991.Washington,D.C.:De- patment of Health and Human Services, 1991. . L Cancatreat resolution on the budget - f=iscal Year 1996.Report of the 19. Suter EA.Effectsof restrictive handgun laws.N Engl I Med 1992;326:1159- Committee on the Budget,House of Representatives,to accompany H.Con. 60, Res.67,Washington,D.C.:Government Printing Office.May 15,1995.(Re- 20. Guns in Georgia:journal with disregard for life.Atlanta Journal and Consti- port 104-120.) lotion.June 18.1995:86. 3. Committee on Trauma Research,Commission on Life Sciences,National 21. Barr B.Crime control or gun control?J Med Assoc Ga 1995;94:279. Research Council,institute of Medicine. Injury in America:a continuing 22. McDonald RR.Medical journal editor resigns over gun stance.Atlanta Jour- public health problem,tt;ashingion,D.C.:National Academy Press, 1995, not and Constitution.July 20,1995:AOn. WHEN DISABILITY BENEFITS MAKE partment of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. PATIENTS SICKER Sharp riscs ill cocaine use,symptom severity,and rates of psychiatric hospitalization were observed during the SCt11Z0PHRr•,NIA and addiction are two disordersthatfirst week of each month,coincident with the arrival of are difficult to treat,holt when combined-resulting in government checks (median amount, $645) from the a compound condition,or"dual diagnosis"-each dis- VA or the Social Security Administration (SSA). order usually complicates the other. Drugs and alcohol The SSA directs a means-tested welfare program for may exacerbate hallucinations and delusions, and the the disabled, called` Supplemental Security Income cognitive and social deficits of schizophrenia can make (SSI), which has 'recently bome under congressional people especially vulnerable to substance abuse and less and public scrutiny.'A#cumber of federal invdAigatiotzs able to benefit from standard treatment of addiction.'2 have specifically examined the problem of addicted Treating patients with dual diagnoses is challenging benefit recipients who spend their disability payments enough, but it bccotlics even more daunting when pa- on-drugs sc These investigations relied on anecdotal ev- tients use their disability checks to buy drugs and alto- idenee since documentation of the phenomenon was hot. In this issue of the Journal, Shancr and colleagues unavailable at the time. describe a cohort of cocaine-dependent schizophrenic The study by Shaner et at. now offers systematic veterans wilo spent some or all of their monthly disabil- data on the misuse of disability payments and the de- it}'income.-in most Cases,their sole source of support: structive effects of this misuse on the health of the re- -On cocaine, aggravating their symptoms. cipicnts. The study also underscores the relation be For.15 weeks, Alit, authors collcctcd data ail 105 pa- twcen welfare policy and health and suggests a process tients attcn(ling a(111,11-diagnosis e hylic at alt urban De.- of social ialrogencsis: the inadvertent exacerbation of Vol. 333 No. 12 EDITORIALS 793 A PARTISAN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE supporters wish to stop research that could be used to undermine their policies. The National Rifle Associa- The Threat to the CDC tion has tried hard to intimidate researchers who study gun-related injuries,1' but Doctors for Integrity in Re- ONE of the agencies singled out for elimination in the search and Public Policy has been even more blatant. recent spate of Congressional budget cutting was the In a revealing message on the Internet it crowed, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control "Good-bye CDC!" and entreated, "Please help its end _ (NCIPC), a part of the Centers for Disease Control" the bogus `public health' assault on.our civil rights."" and Prevention (CDC).' Given the wide swath of the According to this group, the NCIPC produces "incom- cuts under consideration, perhap* this relatively new pctcnt and politicized science." 'I'll(, organization bas center was just one more to get in the way of the con- also maintained that journal editors who publish re- gressional scythes. Yet, there is reason to believe that search on the risks associated with firearms are d)iased the NCIPC, which conducts and supports rescarch_on and have abused the public trust.'-'" It not.only urged injury,was far more selectively targeted. people to contact key leaders in Congress, but also Ten years ago an Institute of Medicine report cited tried to intimidate the staff of the CDC by threatening injuries as a critical threat to the health of the public.2 to investigate them for lobbying while on:the job. The The report identified the organizations working in var- doctors' group has produced no credible arguments ious aspects of injury control and recommended that against research on gun-related injuries. Iis chief criti- one federal agency, the CDC,coordinate national inju- cisms of such research appeared in the ,Journal of llie ry-control efforts. The agency was to focus research, Medical Associalion of Georgia, whose physician-editor disseminate findings rapidly, and prevent duplicative has published opinion pieces consistent with the vieWs work. In a commentary.publislned in the journal seven of the National Rifle Association.20 In the June 1995 years ago, two investigators from the CDC proposed edition, for example, lie published vdiat has been de- that injuries from firearms could be studied by epide- scribed as a"blatantly political colu111111120 by U.S. Rep- miologic and other scientific methods traditionally used resentative Bob Barr, considered an advocate of legal- to investigate other dangers to the public health.' The izing the sale and manufacture of assault weapons,and NCIPC was founded in 1992 and given the responsibil- another by a freelance writer fostering the notion that ity of carrying out and coordinating injury control for gun-control laws violate the Second Amenidnie t.%o.2i the nation. One year later, I urged that support for re- This editor has since been replacrd."-'- search on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries What is troublesome about all this is the lack oC pub- be increased.' Over the past decade, many epidemio- lie attention to an attack that strikes at the very heart logic studies published in peer-reviewed journals have of scientific research. There is an innplicit suggestion demonstrated that firearms,especially handguns,are a that the kind of research that NCIPC supports will be public health menace. Despite howls of protest from disallowed. Too few journalists and investigativc rc- the National Rifle Association and its surrogates about porters have paid attention to this issue, and policy the validity of these studies,S ' epidemiologic research makers and public health officials have also been silent. on the prevention of injuries—including injuries from The Allanla Conslitulion published two editorials in guns — has achieved both scientific credibility and June 1995: One pointed to the partisan, nonscientific public recognition.10,11 papers published by the editor of the:fuurnal cf'llre.tled- The current attacks on the NCIPC and the CDC icalAssocialion of Georgia,and the other to the many rea- have come from a spokesman for the Heritage Founda- sons for supporting the NCIPC.16.20 The American tion (a conservative think tank), the Doctors for Integ- Medical Association, in its campaign against family vi- rity in Research and Public Policy(an anti–gun-control olence,also supported the preservation of the NCIPC.", physicians' group); and the National Rifle Associa- Nonetheless,these efforts have not succeeded in calling tion.12'I6 The most recent argument for eliminating the attention to what appears to be a political assault on a NCIPC is that the research it supports is duplicated single domain of scientific investigation. by other federal agencies and by industry. This point No one can dispute that injuries carry with them has been raised before,yet the General Accounting Of- enormous human and financial costs. They are the fice and the Office of the Inspector General of the leading cause of death and disability in children and Department of' health and Human Services have de- young adults. Programs to prevent such injuries cart be clared it to be without foundation.'7,'" CDC-sponsored effective, but they require data to focus their eflorts. In researchers have published hundreds of useful studies its brief history, the NCIPC has funded eight local in- on injuries sustained in fires, drownings, bicycle and jury-zonti•ol research centers,conducted and supported car crashes, and poisonings. Although studies of fire- research on the causes and prevention of many kinds of arm-related injuries constitute only a small fraction of injuries, set up community-based interventions to min- this research, they have become the narrow target of imize injuries, and provided guidance on prevention at the offensive against all the injury-related research at state and local levels. Although it is reasonable to ex- the CDC. pect all federal agencies to share in budget cuts,federal It appears that the National Rifle Association and its support of injury-related research is minuscule in com- 794 •1'III;NEW ENC:I.ANDJOURNAI.61:ME.DIC:INE, Sept.21, 1295 parison to the magnitude_of the problem.The NCIPC 3. Mercy JA,Houk VN.1-trearm injuries:a call for science.N Engl 1 Med 1988.319:1283-5. serves a vitally important function and, in my view, 4, Kassirer JI?Guns in the household.N Engl J Med 1993;329:1117-9, Should be preserved. 5. Blackman PH.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl J Med 1992;326: The threat to the NCIPC raises several questions 1157-8. 6. Idem.Guns and homicide in the home.N Engl 1 Med 1994;330:366. that need answers: (1) What are file connections be- 7; Suter EA.Guns in the medical literature-a failure of peer review.J Med tween the Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Assoc Ga 1994;83:133-48. Policy and the gun lobby? (2) Does the group investi- 8• Suter EA,Waters WC IV,Murray GB.Violence in America-effective so- iutions-J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:253-61. gate "integrity" in research on Subjects other than 9. Kopel DB.Guns,germs,and science:public health approaches to gun con- guns? (3) What are the connections bctwecn the Iicri- trot.1 Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:269-73. tape Foundation and the gull lobby? (4) 11oLV much10. Taubcs G.Violence epidemiologists test the hazards of gun ownership.Sci- ence 1992;259:213-5. eatllpalgn Stlltp(trt (lo CaC}i of the C611grCSSittnal oppo- 11, Remo J.Violence is a global health issue.Closing presentation of the Re- nelits of the CDC feccive from 1lie gu,l lobby? (5) flow sponding to Crisis Conference of the National Council for International Health,June 28,1995,Washington,D.C. much rnoilCy does tile. gunlol)iy spend altogether oil 12. Lis J,Department of Darncstic Policy Studies,Heritage roundation.Achiev- such is-tics? ing fiscal responsibility within the Department of Health and human Serv- Regrettably,the NCIPC Story is yet another example ices.Statement to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,Health &Human Services,Education,January 12,1995,Washington,D.C. of the Corrupting influence (fiat powerful lobbies for 13. Suter EA.Internet message re.Doctors for integrity in Research and Public special interests call exert on members of Congress by Policy Newsletter.May 1,1995. 14. McDonald RR.Q&A with Wayne LaPierre,Executive Vice Ptesident and tying financial support in election campaigns to partic- CEO of the National Rifle Association.Atlanta Journal and Constitution, ular Dotes. In this instance, it is science that is at the July 8,1995:A2. mercy of this deplorable system; by continuing to per- 15. Kent C.Fate hinges on money.politics.CDC injury prevention center caught up in controversy over gun control.American Medical News.lune 26,1995: mit the votes of our elected representatives to be bought, - 3. we threaten research that Could greatly benefit our 16. NRA firing blanks at CDC.Atlanta Journal and Constitution.lune 4,1995: health, especially that of our children. Where is the B6. 17. Briefing report to Congressional Committees.Public health services:agen- outcry against these machinations of the gull lobby? cies use different approaches to protect public against disease and injury. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, April 29, 1994. (GAO/ j1,RontE P. KAssiRER, M.D. HERS-94-851311.) 18. Department of Health and Human Services;office of inspector General.in- REFERENCES jury control.(OEI.02-92-00310.)November, 1991-Washington,D.C.:De- partment of Health and Human Services,1991. 1. Coni urre nt resolution on the budget -Fiscal Year 1996. Repan of the 19. Suter EA.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl 1 Med 1992;326:1159- Committee on the Budget.I louse of Representatives,to accompany H.Con. 60. Res.67.Washington.D.C.:Government Printing Office,May 15,1995.(Re- 20. Guns in Georgia:journal with disregard for life.Atlanta Journal and Consti- port 104.120.) tution.June I&1995:B6. 2. Commitice on Trauma Research,Corn niksion on Life Sciences,National 21. Barr B.Crime control or gun control?J Med Assoc Ga 1995;94:279. Research Council,Institute of Medicine, Injury in America:'a continuing 22. McDonald RR.Medical journal editor resigns over gun stance.Atlanta Jour- public health problem.Washington,D.C.:National Academy Press, 1985, nal and Constitulion.July 20, 1995:1 OD. NVHEN DISABILITY BENEFITS MAKE partmcilt of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. PATIENTS SICKER Sharp rises in cocaine use,symptom severity,and rates of psychiatric hospitalization were observed during the SCIIIZ(MIIRENIA and addiction are two disorders that first week of each month,coincident with the arrival of are difficult to treat,but when combined-resulting in government checks (median amount, $645) from the a compound condition,or"dual diagnosis"-each dis- VA or the Social Security Administration (SSA). order usually complicates the other. Drugs and alcohol The SSA directs a means-tested welfare program for may exacerbate hallucinations and delusions, and the the disabled, called Supplemental Security Income cognitive and social deficits of schizophrenia can make (SSI), which has "recently tome under congi-essional people especially vulnerable to substance abuse and less and public scrutiiiy.4 A humber of federal investigations able to benefit from standard treatment of addiction.'2 have specifically examined the problem of addicted Treating patients with dual diagnoses is challenging benefit recipients who spend their disability payments enough, but it bcconics even more daunting when pa- on drugs5•f These investigations relied on anecdotal ev- tients use their disability=checks to buy drugs and alto- idence since documentation of the phenomenon was hot. In this issue of the Journal, Shancr and colleagues unavailable at the time. describe a contort of cocaine-dependent schizophrenic The study by Shaner et at. now offers systematic veterans Lt?ho spent some or all of their monthly disabil- data on the misuse of disability payments and the de- ity,income -in most Cases,their Sole Source of support structive effects of this misuse on the health of the re-` -oil Cocaine, aggravating their symptoms.3 cipients. The study also underscores the relation be- For J 5 wccks, the authors col}cOvd data on 105 pa- twcen welfare policy and health and suggests a process tients attending a dual-diagnosis clinic at an urban Dc of social iatrogcnesis: tic inadvertent exacerbation of Vol. 333 No. 12 EDITORIALS ' 793 .0 A PARTISAN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE supporters wish to stop research that could be used to undermine their policies. The National Rifle Associa- The Threat to the CDC tion has tried hard to intimidate researchers"vho study gun-related injuries,1Q but Doctors for Integrity in Re- ONE of the agencies singled out for elimination in the search and Public Policy has been even more blatant. recent spate of Congressional budget cutting was the In a revealing message on the Internet it crowed, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control "Good-bye CDC!" and entreated, "Please help its end (NCIPC), a part of the Centers for Disease Control" the bogus `public health' assault on.our civil rights."" and Prevention (CDC).' Given the wide swath of the According to this group, the NCIPC produces "irnconn- cuts raider consideration, perhap4 this rehitively new petcnt and 1>ulitie;izccl science." The organization has center was just one more to get in the way of the con- also maintained that journal editors who publish re- gressional scythes. Yet, there is reason to believe that search on the risks associated with firearms are-biased the NCIPC,which conducts and supports research-on and have abused the public trust.'," ' It not only urged injury,was far more selectively targeted. people to contact key leaders in Congress, but also Ten years ago an Institute of Medicine report cited triedto intimidate the staff of the CDC by threatening injuries as a critical threat to the health of the public? to investigate them for lobbying while on,the job.Tile The report identified the organizations working in var- doctors' group has produced no credible arguments ious aspects of' injury control and recommended that against research on gun-related injuries. lis chief criti- one federal agency, the CDC,coordinate national inju- cisms of such research appeared in the journal of Ilse r.y-control efforts. The agency was to focus research, Medical Association of Georgia, whose physician-editor disseminate findings rapidly, and prevent duplicative has published opinion pieces consistent with the views work. In a commentary.published in the journal seven of the National Rifle Association.20 In the June 1995 years ago, two investigators from the CDC proposed edition, for example, lie published what has been de- that injuries from firearms could be studied by epide- scribed as a"blatantly political column"2°by U.S. Rep- miologic and other scientific methods traditionally used resentative Bob Barr, considered all advocate of legal- to investigate other dangers to the public health.'The izing the sale and manufacture of assault weapons,and NCIPC was founded in 1992 and given the responsibil- another by a freelance wriier fostering the notion that ity of carrying out and coordinating injury control for gun-control laws violate the Second Amendment. the nation. One year later, I urged-that support for re- This editor has since been repiacrd=2 search oil the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries What is troublesome about all this is the lack of pub- be increased.' Over the past decade, many epidemio- tic attention to all attack that strikes at the very heart logic studies published in peer-reviewed journals have of scientific research. There is all implicit suggestion demonstrated that firearms,especially handguns,are a that the kind of research that NCIPC supports will be public health menace. Despite howls of protest from disallowed. Too few journalists and investigative re- the National Rifle Association and its surrogates about porters have paid attention to this issue, and policy the.validity of these studies,5 (' epidemiologic research makers and public health officials have also been silent. on the prevention of injuries—including injuries from The Allanla Conslilution published two editorials in guns — has achieved both scientific credibility and June 1995: One pointed to the partisan, nonscientific public recognition.10,11 papers publisht-A by the editor of tic fournal cJ*111t•Med- Thc current attacks on the NCR'C and the CDC ical Associalion oj'Georgia, and the other to the many rca- have come from a spokesman for the Heritage Founda- sons for supporting the NCIPC.16•20 The American tion (a conservative think tank),the Doctors for Integ- Medical Association, in its campaign against family vi- rity in Research and Public Policy(an anti—gun-control ofence,also supported the preservation of the NCIPC.'' physicians' group); and the National Rifle Associa- Nonetheless,these efforts have not succeeded in calling tion.""'The most recent argument for eliminating the attention to what appears to be a political assault on a NCIPC is that the research it supports is duplicated single domain of scientific investigation. by other federal agencies and by industry. This point No one can dispute that injuries carry with thein has been raised before,yet the General Accounting Of- enormous human and financial costs. They are the fice and the Office of the Inspector General of the leading cause of death and disability in children and Department of health and Human Services have de- youltg adults. Programs to prevent Such injurics earl be clared it to be without foundation."-"' CDC-sponsored aective,but.they require data to focus their eflurts. In researchers have published hundreds of useful studies its brief history, the NCIPC has funded eight local in- on injuries sustained in fires, drownings, bicycle and jury-zontrol research centers,conducted and supported car crashes, and poisonings. Although studies of fire- research on the causes and prevention of many kinds of arm-related injuries constitute only a stnall fraction of injuries,set up community-based interventions to min- this research, they have become the narrow target of imine injuries, and provided guidance on prevention at the offensive against all the injury-related research at state and local levels. Although it is reasonable to ex- the CDC. pect all federal agencies to share in budget cuts,tcdcral It appears that the National Rifle Association and its support of injury-related research is mitntrscalc ill cotu- 79.1 TI IE,NEW 1'.N(;I.ANI),IUURNAI.Ol- Ml-"I)IC:IN1; Sept.21,1995 parison to the magnitude,of the problem.Tile NCIPC 3. Mercy IA,Houk VN-l^trearm'injuries:a call for science.N Engl 1 Med 1988;319:1283-5. serves a vitally important function and, in my view, 4. Kassirer JP.Guns in the houschotd.N Engl J Med 1993-.329:1117-9. should be preserved. 5. Blackman PH.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl I Med 1992;326: The threat to the NCIPC raises several questions 1157-8. 6. idem.Guns and homicide in the home.N Eagl J Med 1994;330:366. that need answers: (1) What are the Connections be,- 7; Suter EA,Guns in the medical literature-a failure of Acer review,J Med tween the Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Assoc Ga 1994;83:133-48. 8. Suter EA,Waters WC IV,Murray GB.Violence in America-effective so- Policy and the gun lobby? (2) Does the group investi- lutions.J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:253-61. gate "integrity" in research on subjects other than 9. Kopel DB.Guns,germs,and science:public health approaches to gun con- guns? (3) What are the connections between the lieri- trol.J Mea Assoc Ga 1995;84:269-73. tagC 1'olmdat i()n and the gun lobby? (4) I'Iow much 10. Taubes G.Violence epidemiologists test the hazards of gun ownership.Sci- ence 1992;258:213-5. call)pattin suppot-t do c.11C.11 of tile, congressional opp()- It. Reno J.Violence is a global health issue.Closing presentation of the Re- netus ofthe CDC receive from (he,.gull lobby? (5) 1"low sponding to Crisis Conference of the National Council for International Health,June 28,1995,Washington,D.C. much rnQt1C}' does the gun ICtbh)' spend altogether on12. Lis J.Department of Domestic Policy Studies,Heritage Foundation.Achiev- such Issues? ing fiscal responsibility within the Depariment of Health and Human Scrv- RCgrCttably,(lie i�CIPC Story is yet another example, ices.Statement tothel3ouseAppropriations Subcommittee onLabor,health &Human Services,Education,January 12,1995,Washington,D.C. of the. corritpting Influence that powerful lobbies for 13. Suter EA.Internet message re.Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public special interests can exert on members of Congress by Policy Newsletter.May I,1995. 14. McDonald RR.Q&A with Wayne LaPiene,Executive Vice President and tying financial support in election campaigns to partte- CEOof the National Rifle Association.Atlanta Journal and Constitution. ular cotes. In this instance, it is science that is at the July 8,1995:A2. mercy of this deplorable system; by Continuing to per- 15. Kent C.Fate hinges on money,politics:CDC injury prevention center caught up in controversy over gun control.American Medical News.lune 26,1995: mit the votes of our elected representatives to be bought, 3. we threaten research that could greatly benefit our 16. NRA firing blanks at CDC.Atlanta Journal and Constitution.June 4,1995: health especial]), that of our children. Where is the B6. B6.17. Briefing report to Congressional Committees-Public health services:ager- outcry against these machinations of file gull lobby? cies use different approaches to protect public against disease and injury. - Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, April 29. 1994. (GAO/ Ji,ROMI; P. KASSiRER, M.D. FiEIJS-94-85BR,) 18. Department of Health and Human Services,Office of Inspector General.In- REFERENCES jury control,(OEl-02-92-00310.)November, 1991.Washington,D.C.:De- p:irtment of Health and"Human Services,1991. t. (t ni StlTent resolution on the budget - Fiscal Year 1996. Repent of the t9. Suter EA.Effects of restrictive handgun laws,N Engl I Med 1992;326:1159- Committee on the Budget.I louse of Representatives,to accompany H.Con. 60. Res.67.Washington,D.C.:Government Printing Office,May t 5,1995.(Re- 20. Guns in Georgic.journal with disregard for life.Atlanta Journal and Consti- port 104-120:) tution.June 18,1995:136. 2. Committee on Trauma Research,Commission on Life Sciences,National 21. Barr B.Crime control or gun control?J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:279. Research Council,Institute of Medicine. Injury in America:a continuing 22. McDonald RR.Medical journal editor resigns over gun stance.Atlanta Jour- public health problem.Washington,D.C.:National Academy Press, 1985. nal and Constitution.July 20, 1995:1 OD. WHEN DISABILITY BENEFITS MAKE partment of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. PATIENTS SICKER Sharp rises in cocaine use,symptom severity,and rates of psychiatric hospitalization were observed during the SCI IIZ0 PIIRENIA and addiction are two disorders that first week of each month,coincident with the arrival of are difficult to treat,but When combined-resulting in government checks (median amount, $645) from the a compound condition,or"dual diagnosis"-each dis- VA or the Social Security Administration (SSA). order usually complicates the other. Drugs and alcohol The SSA directs a means-tested welfare program for may exacerbate hallucinations and delusions, and the the disabled, called Supplemental Security Income cognitive and social deficits of schizophrenia can make (SSI), which has recently tome under congressional people especially vulnerable to substance abuse and less and public scrutiiiy.4 A Number of federal invesUgatiotis able to benefit from standard treatment of addiction.'2 have specifically "examined the problem of addicted Treating patients with dual diagnoses is challenging benefit recipients who spend their disability payments enough, but it becomes even more daunting when pa- oil drugs s,e These investigations relied on anecdotal ev- tients use their disability checks to buy drugs and alco- idence since documentation of the phenomenon was bol. In this issue of the Journal,Shaner and colleagues unavailable at the time. describe a coliort of cocaine-dependent schizophrenic The study by Shatter et at. now offers systelriatic veterans who spent Some or all of their monthly disabil- data on the misuse of disability payments and the de- ity income-in most cases,their sole source of support structive effects of this misuse on the health of the re- oil cocaine, aggravating their symptoms cipients. Tile study also underscores the relation be- For"15 weeks, die. aut)ors r.ollcole l data tin 105 Ila- twcen welfare policy and health and suggests a process tientsaUcnding a dual-diagnosis clinic at an urban De- of social iatrogcncsis: the inadvertent cxaccrbation of 9.1 Vol. 333 No. 12 EDRTORIALS 193 A PARTISAN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE supporters wish to stop research that could be used to undermine their policies. The National Rills; Associa- The Threat to the CDC tion has tried hard to intimidate researchers who study gun-related injuries,1° but Doctors for Integrity in Re- ONE of the agencies singled out for elimination in the search and Public Policy has been even more blatant: recent spate of Congressional budget cutting was the In a revealing message on the Internet it crowed, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control "Good-bye CDC"" and entreated, "Please help us end (NCIPC), a part of the Centers for Disease Control the bogus `public health' assault on our civil rights."" and Prevention (CDC).' Given the wide swath of the According to this group, the NCIPC produces "inconi- cuts under consideration, perhaps this relatively new petent and politicized science." The organization has center was just one more to get in the way of the con- also maintained that journal editors who publish re- gressional scythes. Yet, there is reason to believe that search on the risks associated with firearms are-biased the NCIPC, which conducts and supports research-on and have abused the public trust.'-' " It not. only urged injury,was far more selectively targeted. people to contact key leaders in Congress, but also Zen years ago an Institute of Medicine report cited tried to intimidate the stail'of the CDC by threatening injuries as a critical threat to the health of the public.2 to investigate them for lobbying while on:tltc job. The The report identified the organizations working in var- doctors' group has, produced no credible arguments ions aspects of injury control and recommended that against research on gun-related injuries. lis chief criti- one federal agency, the CDC,coordinate national inju- cisms of such research appeared in the ,journal of the ry-control efforts. The agency was to focus research, Medical Association of Georgia, whose physician-editor disseminate findings rapidly, and prevent duplicative has published opinion pieces consistent with the views work. In a commentary.published in the Journal seven of the National Rifle Association.2" In the,June 1995 years ago, two investigators from the CDC proposed edition, for example, lie published what has been de- that injuries from firearms could be studied by epide- scribed as a"blatantly political column"2"by U.S. Rep- miologic and other scientific methods traditionally used resentadve Bob Barr, considered an advocate of legal- to investigateother dangers to the public health.' The izing the sale and manufacture of assault weapons,and NCIPC was founded in 1992 and given the responsibil- another by freelance writer fostering the notion that" ity of carrying out and coordinating injury control for gun-control laws violate the Second Amendment 9.20=`1 the nation. One year later, I urged that support for re- This editor leas since been replaced.'--' search on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries What is troublesome:about all this is the lack c,l'pub- be increased.' Over the past decade, many epidemio- lie attention to an attack that strikes at the very heart logic studies published in peer-reviewed journals have of scientific research. There is an implicit suggestion demonstrated that firearms,especially handguns,are a that the kind of research that NCIPC supports will be public health menace. Despite howls of protest from disallowed. Too few journalists and investigative re- the National Rifle Association and its surrogates about porters have paid attention to this issue, and policy the validity of these studies,'-'o epidemiologic research makers and public health officials have also been silent. on the prevention of injuries--including injuries from The Atlanta Constitution published two editorials in guns — has achieved both scientific credibility and June 1995: One pointed to the partisan, nonscientific public recognition."," papers published by=the editor of'the jrurrutl c�'lltr.l(:rl- The current attacks on the NCIPC and the CDC ical Association oj'Georgia, and the other to the niauy rea- have come from a spokesman for the Heritage Founda- sons for supporting the NCIPC."'•'-" The American tion (a conservative think tank), the Doctors for Integ- Medical Association, in its campaign against family vi- rity in Research and Public Policy(an anti–gun-control olence,also supported the preservation of the NCIPC.'' physicians' group); and the National Rifle Associa- Nonetheless,these efforts have not succeeded in calling tion.,"-'6 The most recent argument for eliminating the attention to what appears to be a political assault on a ' NCIPC is that the research it supports is duplicated single domain of scientific investigation. by other federal agencies and by industry. This point No one can dispute that injuries carry with them has been raised before,yet the General Accounting Of- enormous human and financial costs. They are the Tice and the Office of the Inspector General of the leading cause of death and disability in children and Department oh Health and hIuman Services have de- young adults. Programs to prevent such injuries cart he clared it to be without foundation.'..'" CDC-sponsored effective,but they require data to focus their efforts. In researchers have published hundreds of useful studies its brief history, the NCIPC has funded eight local in- on injuries sustained in fires, drownings, bicycle and jury-zontrol research centers,conducted and supported car crashes, and poisonings. Although studies of fire- research on the causes and prevention of inany kinds of arm-related injuries constitute only a small fraction of injuries, set up community-based interventions to min- this research, they have become the narrow target of imine injuries, and provided guidance on prevention at the offensive against all the injury-related research at state and local levels. Although it is reasonable to ex- the CDC. pact all federal agencies to share in budget cuts,federal It appears that the National Rifle Association and its support of injury-related research is nunuscule 111 ccfui- 794 •t'I I1:NE.W I:N(;I.ANI),IOUItNAI,t)l-Mi:llICINI; Sept.21,1995 parison to the magnitude of the problem.The NCIPC 3, Mercy JA.Houk VN.Firearm injuries:a call for science.N Engt J Mcd 1988;319:1283-5. serves a vitally important function and, III my view, 4, Kacsirer JP.Guns in the household.N Engl l Med 2993;329:1117-9. should be preserved. 5. Blackman Pit.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl l Med 1992;326: The threat to the NCIPC raises several questions 1157-8. 6. Idem.Guns and homicide in the home.N Engl J Med 1994;330366. that need answers: (1) What are the connections be- 7; Suter EA.Guns in the medical literature-a failure of peer review.J Med tween the Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Assoc Ga 1994;83;133-48. 8. Suter EA,Waters WC IV,Murray GB.Violence in America-effective so- Pokey and the gun lobby? (2) DOCS the group iilvCSt!- tutions.J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:253-61- gate "integrity" In research on Subjects other than 9. Kopel DB.Guns,germs,and science:public health approaches to gun con- guns? (3) What are the connections between the Heri- trol.J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:269-71 t ifie l't}tlridat tori and tl}e gun tObl>y? ( ') How much 10. Taubcs G.Violence epidemiologists test the hazards of gun ownership.Sci- ence 1992;258:213-5. Campaign support do eacll of tile, collgressional oppo- li. Reno 1.Violence is a global health'issue.Closing presentation of the Re- nctits of the CDC receive from ille.gull lobby? (5) How sponding to Crisis Conference of the National Council for international Health,June 28,4995,Washington,D.C. much money (Toes the gild 10bby SpClld allogClhC._t' On 12. Lis J.Departntart of Domestic Policy Studies,Heritage Foundation,Achiev- such Issues? ing fiscal responsibility within the Department of Health and Human Scrv- Regrettably,the NCIPC story is yet another example ices.Statement to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,Health &Human Services,Education,January 12,1995,Washington,D.C. of the corrupting-inflocrice that powerful lobbies for 13. Suter EA.Internet message re.Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Special interests call exert oil members of Congress by Policy Newsletter.May I,1995. tying financial support in election campaigns to parUc- 14. McDonald RR.Q&A with Wayne LaPietTe,Executive Vice President and CEO of the National Rifle Association.Atlanta Journal and Constitution. ular votes. In this instance, it is science that is at the July 8,1995:A2. mercy of this deplorable system; by Continuing to per- 15. Kent C.Fate hinges on money,politics.CDC injury prevention center caught up in controversy over gun control.American Medical News.June 26,1995: mit the votes of our elected representatives to be bought, 3. we threaten research that could greatly benefit our 16. NRA firing blanks at CDC.Atlanta Journal and Constitution.June 4,1995: health, especially that of our children. Where is the B6. 17. Briefing report to Congressional Committees.Public health services:agen- outcry against these machinations of the gun lobby? cies use different approaches to protect public against disease and injury. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, April 29, 1994. (GAO/ Ji:ROME P. KASSIRER, M.D. FiCIIS-94-850R.) 18. Department of flealth and Human Services,Office of lnspector General.In- REFERENCES jury control.(OEI-02-92-00310.)November,1991.Washington,D.C.:De- partment of Health and Human Services,199 L 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget - Fiscal Year 1996. Report of the 19. Suter E-A.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl l Med 1992;326:1159- Committee on the Budget.I louse of Representatives,to accompany H.Con. 60, Res.67.NVashington,D.C.:Government Printing Office,May 15,1995.(Re- 20. Guns in Georgia:journal with disregard for life.Atlanta Journal and Consti- port 104-120.) tution.June 18,1995:86. ?. Committee on Trauma Research,Commission on Life Sciences,National 21. Barr B.Crime control or gun control?J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:279. Research Council.Institute of Medicine.Injury in America:a continuing 22. McDonald RR.Medical journal editor resigns over gun stance.Atlanta Jour- public health problem.Washington.D.C.:National Academy Press, 1985. nal and Constitution.July 20,1995:101). WHEN DISABILITY BENEFITS MAKE partmcnt of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. PATIENTS SICKER Sharp rises in cocaine use,symptom severity,and rates of psychiatric hospitalization were observed during the SCIIIZOMIRENIA and addiction are two disorders that first week of each,month,coincident with the arrival of are difficult to treat,but when combined-resulting in government checks (median amount, $645) from the a compound condition,or"dual diagnosis"-each dis- VA or the Social Security Administration (SSA). order usually complicates the other. Drugs and alcohol The SSA directs a means-tested welfare program for may exacerbate hallucinations and delusions, and the the disabled, called Supplemental Security Income cognitive and social deficits of schizophrenia can make (SSI), which has recently come under congressional people especially vulnerable to substance abuse and less and public scrutiiiy.4 A humber of federal invdAigatiotts able to benefit from standard treatment of addiction.'.2 have specifically examined the problem of addicted Treating patients with diiai diagnoses is challenging benefit recipients who spend their disability payments enough, but it becomes even more daunting when pa- on drugs 5,s These investigations relied on anecdotal ev- tients use their disability checks to buy drugs and alto- idence since documentation of the phenomenon was hol.Ill this issue of the Journal, Shaner and colleagues unavailable at the tithe. describe a cohort of cocaine-dependent schizophrenic The study by Shaner et al. now offers systematic veterans v(llo spent sonic or all of their monthly disabil- data on the misuse of disability payments and the de- ity income-in most cases,their sole source of support structive effects of this misuse on the health of the re- Oil cocaille.,aggravating (licit-symptoms. cipients. The study also underscores the relation be- For 15 weeks, t.ltc authors collcctcd data otl 105 Ila- tweed welfare policy and health an(l suggests a process tiell(s<tt(ellding a dual-diagnosis clinic,at all urban De- of social iatrogemcsis: the iiiadvertent exacerbation of Vol. 333 No. 12 GDITOIt1AU 793 A PARTISAN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE supporters wish to stop research that could be used to undermine their policies. The National Rifle Associa- The Threat to the CDC tion has tried hard to intimidate researchers who study gun-related injuries,i° but Doctors for Integrity in Re- ONE of the agencies singled out for elimination in the search and Public Policy has been even more blatant: recent spate of Congressional budget cutting was.the In a revealing message on the Internet it crowed, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control "Good-bye CDC!" and entreated, "Please help its end (NCIPC), a part of the Centers for Disease Control the bogus `public health' assault on our civil rights."" and Prevention (CDC).' Given the wide swath of the According to this group, the NCIPC produces "iitc0111- cuts under consideration, perhap� this relatively new potent and politicized science." The organization has center was just one more to get in the way of the con- also maintained that journal editors who publish re- gressional scythes. Yet, there is reason to Relieve that search oat tate risks associated with firearms are d.liased the NCIPC, which conducts and supports research-on and have abused the public trust.'-"" It not only urged injury, was far more selectively targeted. people to contact key leaders in Congress, but also Ten years ago an Institute of Medicine report cited tried to intimidate the staff"of the CDC by threatening injuries as a critical threat to the health of the public.2 to investigate theca for lobbying while on the job. The The report.identified the organizations working in var- doctors' group has produced no credible arguutents ions aspects of injury control and recommended that against research on gun-related injuries. lis chief criti- one federal agency, the CDC,coordinate national inju- cisms of such research appeared in the Journal of the ry-control efforts. The agency was to focus research, Medical Association of Georgia, whose physician-editor disseminate findings rapidly, and prevent duplicative has published opinion pieces consistent with the views work. In a commentarypublished in the Journal seven of the National Rifle Association.21 In the June 1995 years ago, two investigators from the CDC proposed edition, for example, he published what has been de- that injuries froth firearms could be studied by epide- scribed as a"blatantly political column"211 by U.S. Rep- miologic and other scientific methods traditionally used resentative Bob Barr, considered an advocate of legal- to investigate other dangers to the public health."The izing the sale and manufacture of assault weapons,and NCIPC was founded in 1992 and given the responsibil- another by a freelance writer fostering the notion that ity of carrying out and coordinating injury control for gun-control laws violate the Second Amendtncnt.10�2 .2t the nation. One year later, I urged that support for re- This editor has since been replaced.22 search on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries What is troublcsorne about all this is the lack 01'puh- be increased.' Over the past decade, many epidemio- lit attention to an attack that strikes at the very heart logic studies.published in peer-reviewed journals have of scientific research. There is an implicit suggestion demonstrated that firearms,especially handguns,are a that the kind of research that NCIPC supports will be public health menace. Despite howls of protest from disallowed. Too few journalists and investigative re- the National Rifle Association and its surrogates about porters have paid attention to this issue, and policy the validity of these studies,5-10 epidemiologic research makers and public health officials have also been silent. on the prevention of injuries—including injuries from The Atlanta Co slitution published two editorials in guns — has achieved both scientific credibility and June 1995: One pointed to the partisan, nonscientific public recognition.10.11 papers published by the editor of the Journal cY'lhe.M al- The current attacks on the NCll'C and the CDC ical Associalion ofGeogia, and the other to the nilly rea- have come from a spokesman for the Heritage Founda- sons for supporting the NCIPC.'6'0 The American tion (a conservative think tank),the Doctors for Integ- Medical Association, in its campaign against family vi- rity in Research and Public Policy(an anti–gun-control olence,also supported the preservation of the NCIPC.'' physicians' group); and the National Rifle Associa- Nonetheless,these efforts have not succeeded in calling tion.l246 The most recent argument for eliminating the attention to what appears to be a political assault on a NCIPC is that the research it supports is duplicated single domain of scientific investigation. by other federal agencies and by industry. This point No one can dispute that injuries carry with thein has been raised before,yet the General Accounting Of- enormous human and financial costs. They are the fice and the Office of the Inspector General of the leading cause of death and disability in children and Department of Health and human Services have de- yuung adults. Programs to prevent such injuries can be clared it to be without foundation.'70"CDC-sponsored effective,but they require data to focus their efforts. In researchers have published hundreds of useful studies its brief history, the: NCIPC has funded eight local in- on injuries sustained in fires, drownings, bicycle and jury-zontrol research centers,conducted and supported car crashes, and poisonings. Although studies of fire- research on the causes and prevention of many kinds of arm-related injuries constitute only a small fraction of injuries, set up comnutniiy-based interventions to min- this research, they have become the narrow target of imize injuries, and provided guidance on prevention at the offensive against all the injury-related research at state and local levels. Although it is reasonable to ex the CDC. pect all federal agencies to share in budget cuts,federal It appears that the National Rifle Association and its support of iniury-related research is minuscules ill Cool- 794 THE'NEW IMiL.ADJ )URNALOF MEDICINE.. Sept.21, 1905 parison to the magnitude_of the problem.Tile NCIPC 3. Mercy JA,Houk VN-Firearm injuries:a call for science-N Engl J Med 1998;319:1293-5. serves a vitally important function and, in my view, 4. Kassirer JP Guns in the household.N Engl J Med 1993;329:1117-9. should be preserved. S. Blackman Pit.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl J Med 1992;326: Tile threat to Lhe NCIPC raises several questions 1157-8. 6. Idem.Guns and homicide in the home.N Engl J Med 1994;330:36& that need answers: (1).What are the Connections be- 7; Suter EA.Guns in the medical literature-a failure of peer review.J Mod tween the Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Assoc Ga 1994;83:133-48. 8. Suter EA,Waters WC 1V,Murray GB.Violence in America-effective so- Fahey and the gun lobby? (2) Docs the group irivesti- lutions.J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:253-61. gate "integrity" in research on subjects other than 9. Kopel DB.Guns,germs,and science:public health approaches to gun con- guns? (3) What are the connections between the Fieri_ trot.J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:269-71 t age 1 oundat toll and floe gtin id)bl>y? (4) I Ioiv much 10. Taubcs G.Violence epidemiologists test the hazards of gun ownership.Sci- cncc 1992;2_59:213-5. Canll)at+4rtl support do each of tile. congressional oppo- I L Reno J.Violatce is a global health issue.Closing presentation of the Re- I, to Crisis Conference of the National Council for international rents of(Ile CDC receive from the gun lobby.? (5) 1low Hcattbr,June 28,1995,Washington.D.C. much moncy does the gun lobby spend altogethet• on 12. Lis J,Department of Domestic Policy Studies,Heritage Foundation.Achiev- such issues? ing fiscal responsibility within the Department of fiealth and human Serv- ices.Statement to(Ire House Appropriations Subcommittee onLabor.licalth Regrettably,EhCNCIPC story is yet another example &Human Services,Education,January 12,1995,Washington,D.C. of tile. Corrupting inhuenCC that powerful lobbies for 13. Suter EA,Internet message re.Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public special interests Can exert on members of Congress by Policy Newsletter.May 1,1995. 14. McDonald RR.Q&A with Wayne LaPierre,Executive Vice President and lying financial support Ill election Campaigns to partic- CEL)of the National Rifle Association.Atlanta Journal and Constitution. ular votes. In this instance, it is science that is at the July 8,1995:A2. mercy of this deplorable system; by Continuing to per- 15. Kent C.Fate hinges on money.politics:CDC injury prevention center caught up in controversy over gun control.American Medical News.June 26,1995: mit the votes of our elected representatives to be bought, 3. we threaten research that could greatly benefit our 16. NRA firing blanks at CDC.Atlanta Journal and Constitution,June 4,1995: health, especially, that of our children. Where is the 86. 1 ) 17. Briefing report to Congressional Committees.Public health services:ager- , outcry against these machinations of the gun lobby? cies use different approaches to protect public against disease and iniury. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, April 29, 1994. (GAO/ JEaonll; P. KnssntrR, M.D. HEiiS-94-856R.) 18. Department of Health and Human Services;Office of Inspector General.In- REFERENCES jury control.(OE1.02-92-00310.)Novembcy 1991.Washington,D.C.:De- partment of Health and Human Services,1991. I. Coneurrctu resolution on the budget- Fiscal Year 1996. Report of the 19. Suter EA.Effects of restrictive handgun laws.N Engl J Med 1992;326:1159- Committee on the Budget.I iouse or Representatives,to accompany H.Con. 60, Res.67.Washington.D.C.:Government Printing Office,May 15,1995.(Re- 20. Gums in Georgia:journal with disregard for life.Atlanta Journal and Consti- port 104-120.) tution.June 18,1995:86, 2. Committee on Tmuma'Rescarch,Connnission on Life Sciences,National 21. Barr B.Crime control or gun control?J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84:279. Research Council,Institute of Medicine.Injury in America:a continuing 22. McDonald RR.Medical journal editor resigns over gun stance.Atlanta Jour- public health problem.Washington,D.C.:National Academy Press, 1985, nal and Constitution.July 20, 1995:1 OD. WHEN DISABILITY BENEFITS MAKE partment of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. PATIENTS SICKER Sharp rises in eoeainc use,symptom severity, and rales of psychiatric hospitalization were observed during the SCIIIZ.OPtIRF,NIA and addiction are two disorders that- first week of each month,coincident with the arrival of are difficult to treat,but when combined-resulting in government checks (median amount, $645) from the a compound condition,or"dual diagnosis"-each dis- VA or the Social Security Administration (SSA). order usually complicates the other. Drugs and alcohol The SSA directs a means-tested welfare program for may exacerbate hallucinations and delusions, and the . the disabled, called Supplemental Security Income cognitive and social deficits of schizophrenia can make (SSI), which has recently come under eongressional people especially vulnerable to substance abuse and less and public seruliiiy.4 A Number of federal investigations able to benefit from standard treatment of addiction.i,2 have specifically examined the problem of addicted Treating patients with dt'ial diagnoses is challenging benefit recipients who spend their disability payments enough, but it becomes even more daunting when pa- on drugs.5,"These investigations retied on anecdotal ev- tients.use their disability checks to buy drugs and alco- idence since documentation of the phenomenon was hot. In this issue of the journal, Shaner and colleagues unavailable at the time. I - describe a cohort of cocaine-dependent schizophrenic The study by Shaner et al. now offers systematic veterans who spent some or all of their montllly..disabil- data on the inisuse of disability payments and the de- it),income-in most.Cases,their sole source of support structivc effects of this misuse on the health of the re- -on cocaine, aggravating (heir syniptoms.3 cipicnts. The study also underscores the relation be- For_15 weeks, the authors, collcovd data oil 10.5 pa- tween welfare policy and health and suggests a process tients attending a(111,11-diagnosis clinic at."an urban De- of Social iatrogencsis: tale loadvelrt(-nt exacerbation of ATTACHMENT # 13 i INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE-10/02195 ` — - - - -- -- ---- --We are here today to consider issues of moment. That is to say momentious issues. The ordinance before us concerning firearms dealers is far more than a public safety Issue or a regulating Issue. It Is a direct assault on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It is a direct assualt on the California Firearms Preemtion Law of 1969. It is a direct assault on the Constitutionally protected rights of American citizens living in Contra Costa County. An unamerican elitest group of people that hate the Constitution of this country, have taken over the Public Health Dept. They have framed what they think Is a real "cute"argument for making gun prohibition a public health issue. What Is ingenious and cute about this Is that it allows people that hate the Constitution to use the tax money of hard working Americans to take away the rights of these hard working Americans. Andres' Soto, In a moment of extraordinary candor told one of us that his goal Is to watch while police hold us and our families down and take away our guns using our own tax money to do it. Can there be anything more unamerican than this? We pay his salary so he can work full time to this end. If you haven't heard him say this,you have only to read"Taking Aim At Gun Dealers". He wrote it and expresses the same desires. Now I love this document..."Taking Aim"and have asked many people to get a copy and read it. I love it because it is exhibit "A"In the attempt to take away the rights of American citizens. Taking Alm lays out a blueprint and the Intent of violating the Second Amendment In spirit and fact by attempting to slide around It, not by direct attack. An Infringement Is a violation. If nothing else It Is Infringed If not openly violated. But the arrogance and over-confidence is there in simple terms. Understandable by all. A blueprint to violate the state preemption law Is also set forth. Clear intent to violate without being sued. Clear Intent to break the law without being held accoutable for It. We In Contra Costa County Intend to hold these and all unamerican elitists accountable for this assault on our precious freedoms. The arguement Is made, that since there is so much violence, even deaths caused by firearms,that we must have greater and greater restrictions on our Second Amendent freedoms. We have a 2% criminal element in our society that is responsible,for over 95% of the crime in our society. So the solution according to the Health Department and Jim Rogers and other Idiots in the county government, is to treat the 98% of our society that obey the law as criminals. We can't be trusted, the reasoning goes. We are guilty until proven innocent and are still guilty. As I said, I love "Taking Aim': It has not only a blueprint for violating the Second Amendment and the State preemption law, but an outline for harassing firearms dealers out of business. The clear Intent of this endeavor, Is not to enhance public safety, but to put business men and women out of business. I love the arrogance that admits to wrongfully attacking a group of people and trying to tell us it is the right thing to do. Let's look at "Taking Alm"for just a minute more. It has only three correct facts in it. The number of A.T.F. agents Is correct, the homocide rate In Richmond is correct, and it is true that residential dealers live In residential areas. Not much of a product to pay our hard earned tax money for, but there is a significance In the homoclde rate In Richmond. Since 1989, when Richmond violated the rights of the citizens of Richmond with more heavy handed and draconian gun control, the homoclde rate more than doubled and came close to tripling. Interesting, Jim Rogers was elected on an anti-gun platform while all this was going on. Since more gun control made things so much worse, I guess the theory goes,more gun control is needed. I am here not only to represent the FFL Holders of Contra Costa County, but also Gun Owners of California.As a member of G.O.C. I will tell you that we have been studying these issues,The reason Jim Rogers is supporting the violation of the rights of the citizens of this county Is for his own personal gain and aggrandizement. This Is nothing more than a political ploy on his part to get elected to the upcoming Bates vacancy In the Assembly. He doesn't know or care anything about the safety of his constituents, only his own political advancement. If he did care, he would do something about the unprecedented slaughter going on In Richmond. Instead he balled out and ran for Supervisor. Now he wants the rest of us to get slaughtered so he can move to the Assembly. Sadly, African-American men Is the group that Is being slaughtered In far greater numbers by this racist gun.control In Richmond, than any other group of people. The answer Is to let law abiding African-Americans defend themselves, not to take away the means to defend themselves. Jim Rogers continues to campaign on taking away the rights of American citizens. Maybe he'll be satisfied when he has all the power like a modern day King George and American citizens are modern day colonists with no rights and no way to protect them. What is particularly galling Is that he uses the Health Department as a campaign committee and Andres'Soto as a campaign manager. This.blatant conflict of Interest Is a shameful display of dishonesty and may be a violation of Section 1913 of Title 18 of U.S. code. Can we expect any better from a man whose own business partners have to sue him to get paid. We used to be a nation of laws, but now are a nation of scoundrels. Everytime we come here to discuss this issue we are deluged with the pathetic, paranoid, psychotic hoplophobic. The mob that wants mob rule. For this and many other reasons we feel we must sue the county. Here is a brief outline of the laws that are being violated: 1. The Second Amendment to the Constitution. 2. The Calif. Firearm Preemption Law of 1969. 3. The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. 4.Section 1913 of Title 18 of U.S. Code. A few half-baked attempts at quoting cases and precedents by the corrupt lawyers employed for this purpose by the county were sent to us in our Information packets. The fact that other communities, like Los Angelos allowed their local government to break the law by taking away the rights of their citizens and didn't challenge them, doesn't mean we won't. We Intend to set precedent with our own law suit. We Intend to take it higher than the local corrupt liberal courts. I contacted a legal foundation that Is looking for a Second Amendment case big enough to take on. One of my questions to them was If they were Interested In taking this at least as high as the State Supreme Court. They are. They are currently reviewing over 300 pages of material and their executive director has expressed great interest In the case. It only remains for this ordinance to pass for us to start discussions In earnest. As you know legal foundations don't charge their clients as donations have already paid for the lawyers services. We have means of raising$20,000 Immediately and up to and maybe beyond half a million dollars in the future. We are going to "talk the talk'; "walk the walk".and "these boots are gonna walk all over you": Obviously, I will be disappointed If this ordinance fails to pass. But I told you I would be fair. To avoid suit the county must do the following: 1. Vote down the proposed ordinance. 2. Remove land use restrictions on firearms sales. 3. Remove firearms sales resrtictions from the H.0,U.P. 4. Pass a resolution delegating all firearms regulation to the state,and get out of the gun control business. Otherwise the defendents in this case will be: 1. The four planning commissioners that voted for this atrocity. C� �, �.�o n�s� ��PA x�o•�� +AM 2. Jim Rogers 3.Andres'Soto 4. Dr. Walker 5. The Contra Costa County Health Dept. 6. Contra Costa County 7. Any supervisors that vote for the ordinance. And here's what's going to happen if it passes: 1. Censure of Republican supervisors by the Republican Central Committee. 2. Massive fund raising to support activities to remove unamerican politicians from office and to discredit them so they can never be elected again to anything. 3. The law suit mentioned above. 4. Phone banks during elections against Jim Rogers and those like him. 5. Mailers and flyers Into anti-gun politicians areas during elections. b 6. Precint walks. Finally, here Is a list of those groups 1 have personally contacted for assistance who are opposed to this ordinance: 1. The National Rifle Association. When we raise$50,000 dollars, they will match it. 2. Gun Owners of California and America. 3. Calif. Rifle and Pistol Association. 4. Diablo Rod and Gun Club-708 local members. 5. United Sportsman Inc. and the seven clubs that m& there. 6. Safari Club International. Last year they donated $50,000 to the cause of stopping gun-control. 7. Richmond Rod and Gun Club. 8. Brentwood Rod and Gun Club-500 members. 9. Veale Tract Hunting Perserve-1000 members. 10. Hastings Is. Hunting Perserve-almost 3000 members. 11. Birds Landing Hunting Perserve. You can see why I want to go forward with the suit and these actions. The time Is now. The organizstional work has been done and we can get the funds and free lawyers. If we don't do It now, we'll Just have to do it later. Many of the gun owners are anxious that this ordinance will pass. I keep telling them we have more to lose if it doesn't pass. You decide. You've given us an opportunity to unite the community and for this I thank you. ATTACHMENT # 14 THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF DIABLO VALLEY 500 ST, MARY'S ROAD, LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA 94549 {99} 283.2235 October 2, 1995 Statement to Internal Operations Committee . Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County " From: League of Woken Voters of Diablo Valley Re: Support for the Resolution of the Planning Commission on findings and recommendations on Ordinance code amendment prohib- iting the commercial sale of fire arms and ammunition in residen- tial districts (No. 26-1995) . The League of Women Voters , in accordance with its statement of June 5, 1995 to the Planning Commission , supports the moderate measures cited in this resolution . _ LWV recognizes that the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the U . S . is a major health and safety threat to its citizens . It supports allocation of resources to better regulate and moni- tor gun dealers,. The five measures recommended in the resolution are intended to contribute to the safety of our citizens and communities . - In conclusion , we believe the ordinance modifications are a reasonable approach to . protecting the public safety while allow- ing responsible gun sales and ownership . Joan Lautenberger Vice-President League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley f attachment : LWV June., 5 , 1995 statement . to , P1annng Commis. -19J Alamo Antioch • Bethel Island ' Brentwood Byron i Canyon • Clayton + Concord " Danville Diablo • Lafayette Martinez • Moraga • Oakley • Orinda • Pacheco • Pittsburg • Pleasant Hill " Rossmoor • San Ramon • Walnut Creek THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS,OF DIABLO VALLEY June 5, 1995 500 ST.MARY'S ROAD,#14,THE BOARDROOM,LAFAYETTE,CALIFORNIA 94549(510)283-2235 Statement to Contra Costa County Planning Commission From: League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley and of Richmond Area Re: Proposed Changes to Zoning Ordinance Regarding Sales of Firearms and Ammunition The League of Women Voters believes that the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the United States is a major health and safety threat to its citizens. In Contra Costa County in 1992, 115 deaths were due to firearms compared to only 68 from motor vehicles. In 1991, more California children died from handguns than from car crashes, diseases,or drugs. In a survey conducted for the California Wellness Foundation in January 1995, 59%of those surveyed wanted local communities to have the right to regulate handguns. The League of Women Voters supports allocation of resources to better regulate and monitor gun dealers. We also support policies and programs that ensure the safety of all children, including violence prevention. Therefore we support the proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance in concept and in particular we support: 1)restricting the business sale of firearms and ammunition to commercially zoned areas not within proximity of where children congregate such as schools(we would like more information on where sales would be permitted if all the restrictions in part two of Additional Findings were in effect); 2) requiring gun dealers to acquire and maintain all applicable state and federal permits and licenses; 3) requiring new applicants to meet conditions including: a. describing security measures protecting the goods to be sold b_ providing evidence of satisfying liability insurance requirements c. no evidence of a conviction for a crime involving violence(we trust that a search of the applicant's criminal record would be conducted as part of the permit process) In conclusion,we believe the ordinance modifications are a reasonable approach to protecting the public safety while allowing responsible gun sales and ownership. i Ernestine DeFalco Dorothy McMichael President Co-President League of Women Voters League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley Richmond Area cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Alamo•Antioch•Bay Point•Bethel Island•Brentwood•Byron•Canyon•Gayton•Concord•Danville•Diablo•Discovery Bay Knightsen•Lafayette•Martinez•Moraga•Oakley•Orinda•Pacheco•Pittsburg•Pleasant Hill•San Ramon 9 Walnut Creek ATTACHMENT # 15 THUNDERFO T ARMS October 1, 1995 Mr. Claude L. Van Marter Assistant County Administrator County Administration Building - 11th Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Van Marter: Thank you for your letter of September 25, 1995, regarding the hearing to be held on Monday, October 2 . I hope to attend the hearing and have an opportunity to speak. However, I am also submitting written comments since I assume the time allotted to each speaker may be limited. I apologize for the late submittal of these comments; however, since your letter was not received until the 28th, and I have since been out of town on business, I have not been able to respond sooner. I hold a Federal Firearms License, a state Certificate of Eligibility, a Contra Costa County Business License, and a resale license. I am also on the California Department of Justice' s list of fully licensed firearms dealers and a::: thus subject to inspection by the DOJ. Prior to my last renewal of my FFL, I successfully passed an on-site inspection and audit of my records by the BATF. I operate my business to the best of my ability in full compliance with all state and federal firearms laws . The primary focus of my business, Thunderfoot Arms, is on antique and curio and relic type firearms . Antique firearms are those manufactured in 1898 or prior and are generally black powder. Curio and relic firearms must be at least 50 years old except in P. 0. Box 5751, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone (510) 934-2617 Fax (510) 934-0652 FFL No. 9-68-007-01-48-66265 special cases as certified by the BATF. I also sell a limited number of modern firearms on special order to people I know. For security reasons, since I operate out of my home, I sell by advertisement in periodicals to or through other dealers or to individuals where allowed by law. Thus my business does not generate traffic or otherwise cause a disturbance to my neighbors . Because I operate a small volume business and comply with state and federal laws, this ordinance will drive me out of business, and thus deprive me of what I had hoped to be a small contribution to my retirement income. The cost of liability insurance alone would be prohibitive, without consideration for the licensing fees, which I am sure will be significant . I am sure that my circumstances are representative of most of the small, legitimate firearms dealers in the county, including many with storefronts . If, as is alleged but not substantiated, there are dealers selling firearms in violation of state and federal law, this ordinance will be of no effect . Anyone who would risk taking on the BATF is not likely to worry about a county ordinance! I suspect, however, there are few, if any, such violators, and that most of those who hold FFL' s but lack other licenses are not buying or selling firearms . If they are, they should be prosecuted under existing laws . This ordinance is not only unnecessary but would be ineffective. As a taxpayer in Contra Costa County, I have another concern. This ordinance, if passed, will be litigated. The legal costs to the taxpayers may be significant, in a time of tight budgets when critical services are being cut . If the county prevails, the only effect will have been to drive a few legitimate businesses out of business . This ordinance is not, in fact, about gun dealers . The purpose of the ordinance, as described in the Health Department report, "Taking Aim at Gun Dealers : Contra Costa' s Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community, " is to restrict legitimate ownership of firearms in Contra Costa County by limiting supply. To this end, it will be ineffective, although it could result in the diversion of some sales tax revenues to other counties . There will be no affect on crime or health and public safety. In fact, by diverting funds from social services to legal costs, the factors which promote crime and violence may actually increase. The Health Department report cites the support for Measure C on the November 1994 ballot as support for this ordinance. This may be misconstrued. Measure C was a "motherhood and apple pie" measure with something for everyone. The fact that people voted for it does not necessarily imply that they supported all parts of it, but only that they wanted something done about the increasing levels of violence . We all do. However, I believe most people want _things done that will be effective. Votors are losing patience with politicians who pass ineffective laws that they know will not be enforced simply so they can say that they have "done something. " If Contra Costa County seriously wants to reduce the criminal and negligent use of firearms, without adversely affecting the rights of its law abiding citizens, the shooting community would like to work with you. There is no group more concerned with the misuse of firearms than the members of organizations such as the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the NRA. Let us work together to find solutions we can all live with, rather than waste time and money litigating an ordinance which punishes the law abiding while ignoring the law breakers . Thank you for the opportunity to comment . Sincerely, Colton W. Meyer ATTACHMENT # 16 ATTACHMENT # 17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 18, 1995 TO: Board of Su ervisors FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP Deputy Director SUBJECT: Report on the Costs of Administering and Enforcing the Proposed Gun Dealers Ordinance: Cost of Enforcement: Attachment #16; Cost of Insurance: Attachment #17. At the request of the Internal Operations Committee staff has investigated the costs of administering and enforcing the proposed Gun Dealers Ordinance. In addition, the Committee asked staff to determine the cost for general liability insurance for $1,000,000.00 coverage. The following report responds to these requests. A. Administrative and Enforcement Costs The level of cost would be a function of the level of enforcement desired by the Board of Supervisors. If current procedures were followed, investigation and enforcement would be on a complaint basis and would be fitted within the overall enforcement program priorities. For licensing purposes, we would need to hire someone with some expertise in this area. The individual would have to develop procedures to process applications for licenses and to confirm "grandfather" status. In addition, they would conduct investigations for the Growth Management & Economic Development Agency Director following complaints of violations. The cost of this person would be approximately half of a full time position fully burdened with fringe benefits, amounting to approximately $25,000 to $35,000 per year. The cost of processing applications would be covered by fees. 1 Page Two If the Board of Supervisors determines to carry out a comprehensive code enforcement program in this area, the costs would be substantially higher. The estimated cost for such a program would be on the order of $150,000. Such a program would entail identifying a list of gun dealers in residential areas, investigating and confirming the continuing violation of the code and a process of either criminal or civil court action in the event that voluntary compliance could not be obtained. Such a program would be very labor intensive. The cost would include enforcement personnel from Community Development Department staff, Building Inspection enforcement staff, County Counsel staff and other legal costs. The Internal Operations Committee has directed staff to look into what program costs are in other jurisdictions throughout the County. Staff was informed during communication with the City of Hercules, that their local police department prepared a matrix comparing other jurisdiction's costs. See Exhibit A. As can be seen, there is a great deal of variability in the level of regulation as well as costs. B. General Liability Insurance Cost At the request of the Internal Operations Committee, staff has investigated the cost of a $1,000,000.00 general liability insurance policy for gun dealers. Staff in their research contacted the National Rifle Association and independent insurance agencies in the County. The National Rifle Association ("NRA") bases their fee on the annual gross sale of firearms. The premium currently charged is $8.50 for each $1000.00 in gross sales, with a minimum of premium of$1500.00. The NRA requires annual audits of each dealer to determine if their gross annual sales exceed the premium charged. If the gross annual sales exceed $176,000.00, they charge additional premiums. Furthermore, public testimony before the Hercules City Council meeting and information obtained from an independent insurance agent in West County stated an annual premium of approximately $1640.00 for a $1,000,000.00 general liability policy. From the information obtained, staff has concluded that an $1,000,000.00 general liability policy would range from approximately $1500.00 to $2,000.00 annually. DMB/df ZT950004.mem • `'. UL I-1(-1'�7J 14•U4 flCfCI.ULGJ rUL 11.G iGr I ocou r.enc I I I +I 1 I w I ( ! C mi I O i I I I m cl I I 1 I O { � I I I o •wl i 1 � � I rA I 1 I � •CI I 1 I i In V O r fL LL� yOIlL t� -0C 0 ( !I H OD Lo D O. 0 -0 f0 LL. .UV7 m o � woo •ca - of i � 'I m LO N "' Q O C C o J y io o" "o w N c as ti � (a w can) _� a y w _ m a ss 4u <0 aomaa� E � E 0 N a C m m V 0 T V c� a) C O N EF} ca c0 7+.G J d. CULL I o o I ( I t C71 } Z ( z M I 1 X I 1 I i =AQQ �CD I .CQI V O 1 0 43 O O O _ -— I 6R} ! 61.), I i I ! i __ to to j LO to C ccr) ( M I N (9 69 I ({} 1 ti I f j -Y q w w uwi I m m i I I � I I I 01 I car m E" I a.: w; s cl i U! I i yl I I IonEnwo C I I m N v o s Iz o o •rn m W C-2 l I I N O W t�0 m 'S a CL L W W I cora .0-1) �� I m I N ' CTO C w C m ��) I U � J U CD a)cr ?1 f a m.li. c0 4 � f 1 O I o I o 0 o I I z .�. i I W I I I N w O 6co 0 O y to O c Nbg Idi I E �1 E ` C E W m ib v') 1 r LL• o EI c cl I c c c �p n m o �l j ,I I C .cE � m I (Q I N c� p C O p � T O v O 0 m I w O w �•" Z Y I I I I. u i � .. CD CD O I o I co C�I03 ri I i 1 I .m ts o 0 E 1 ¢ N co of m I ! I m U 1 i m C m m of 1 al o J �I of .i HI X12 u 2 I , .L I I OD •O �I I m 5I " i ;R I =1 I O I E5 I I y I T V Q 1 I U 01 TOTAL P.03 ATTACHMENT # 18 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY -- MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: October 19, 1995 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County C nsel Re: Proposed Ordinance To Regulate Gun Dealers : Legal Challenges : Attachment No. 18 On October 2 , 1995, the Internal Operations Committee requested this office to inquire concerning legal challenges which have been made to similar ordinances in other jurisdictions and to report to the Board regarding the outcome or the current status of any such legal challenges to date . We have contacted the City Attorney' s office for the City of Lafayette, which is currently defending its gun dealer ordinance in Contra Costa Superior Court . Terri Highsmith, who is defending the lawsuit on behalf of the City of Lafayette, reported that, to her knowledge, the Lafayette gun dealer ordinance is the only such ordinance currently being challenged in California courts . We also contacted the League of California Cities and the Legal Community Against Violence and asked whether they know of any other litigation involving the California cities or counties . All responded that they know of no other lawsuits regarding the regulation of gun dealers and ammunition sales by cities or counties . ' The cities of Pasadena and Los Angeles have recently enacted ordinances regulating ammunition sales . These ordinances have not been challenged. The Lafayette gun dealer ordinance is similar to the ordinance currently being considered in our county except the Lafayette ordinance does not impose ammunition sales record 'In speaking to the San Francisco City Attorney' s Office, we learned that about 10 years ago, a San Francisco ordinance banning handguns was struck down on state preemption grounds . This, however, was not a zoning ordinance and was not directed at regulating gun or ammunition sales within various zoning districts of the city or county. Rather, it was an outright ban on possession or sale of handguns according to the attorney who handled the litigation. Board of Supervisors 2 October 19, 1995 keeping, finger printing and inspection requirements as provided in Article 82-36 . 10 of the proposed ordinance . The Lafayette ordinance has survived plaintiffs' motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in Contra Costa Superior Court . In those preliminary motions, the court held that applicable Penal Code statutes (Penal Code §§12070 , 12071) did not preempt the local entity' s ability to enact additional conditions regarding the sale of firearms, including security measures for the outside of buildings in which such firearms and ammunition are sold. In denying the preliminary injunction, the court upheld Lafayette' s trigger lock requirement and requirement for $1, 000 , 000 liability insurance . The case is currently under submission to the court awaiting a decision on a motion filed by the City of Lafayette to dismiss the balance of the action. The plaintiffs' challenges to the ordinance on vagueness grounds and denial of equal protection have not been decided yet . We note that the superior court decision is in conflict with a 1994 Attorney General' s opinion that firearm sales are preempted by state and federal law (77 Ops .Atty.Gen. 147, 150 (1994) ) . We attach a copy of our earlier memo discussing this opinion for the Board' s reference . Therefore, until the preemption issue is decided by a court of record, there is some question regarding a local government' s ability to regulate firearm sales .' This office has contacted several firms that donated their time in drafting the Lafayette ordinance and defending the litigation including research, drafting of pleadings, and court appearances . According to Ms . Highsmith, most of the legal expenses in drafting and defending the ordinance were donated on a pro bono basis . This office spoke to three out of the four firms and individuals who were primarily responsible in each firm for legal assistance to the City of Lafayette in this matter. The fourth attorney was not available. One firm spent approximately 50 hours in performing initial research and drafting opposition to plaintiffs' challenge to the ordinance . A second firm spent 20 to 30 hours assisting on two motions filed in the case . Another firm spent $13 , 284 . 50 in fees and $562 . 90 in costs, a total of $13 , 847 . 40 in defending the litigation, a total of approximately 60 hours . 'As discussed in our May 31, 1995 opinion, the Attorney General specifically opined that ammunition sales could be regulated by local governments thus, allowing recordkeeping, identification and inspection of records of ammunition sales . Board of Supervisors 3 October 19, 1995 This office has contacted the City of Lafayette' s finance manager and requested information on costs for drafting the Lafayette ordinance and defending the litigation incurred to date . If those totals become available before the Board' s hearing on October 24 , 1995, this office will report them to the Board of Supervisors . According to Ms . Highsmith, the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) was instrumental in obtaining pro bono attorney time . This office has contacted Barry Becker of LCAV to discuss whether a commitment of pro bono attorney time will be made and she assures us that Contra Costa County will have a similar commitment of time and effort devoted to defending our ordinance if it is adopted and challenged. If this office continues to do the drafting of the ordinance as it has to date and is responsible for defending litigation following adoption, our fees will be in the range of $80 to $90 per hour. Most of the initial research, however, has already been performed for the City of Lafayette litigation. Therefore, those costs would not have to be duplicated. The costs incurred to date by the City of Lafayette, however, do not include a full scale trial on the merits and represent only those costs incurred in defending and initiating preliminary motions . Therefore, it is not possible to give a completely accurate estimate of what the cost would be for defending an ordinance adopted by Contra Costa County, absent a donation of pro bono legal services to the county. For example, if this office were required to provide 150 hours of its time, this would be a cost of 12 to 13 thousand dollars . Should the county not prevail in any litigation and attorneys' fees were awarded against it, they would probably exceed the county' s cost . We will keep the Board informed of any further developments in the Lafayette firearms dealer ordinance litigation, including Judge Trembath' s ruling on Lafayette' s demurrer now pending. DJS :bmw:df djs-5\a:\gun-dea1.mem COUNTY COUNSELS OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: May 31, 1995 To: Internal Operations Committee c/o Claude Van Marter, County Administ ator's Office 1 1' From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy Count C40 nsel Re: Revised Draft of Firearms and Ammunition Dealers Ordinance Pursuant to the Board's May 2, 1995 directions, we have redrafted the attached proposed ordinance regulating firearms and ammunition sales in the unincorporated area of the county. As requested, the revised ordinance provides that the Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Department ("GMEDAII) , rather than the Sheriff, will be the local licensing authority for purposes of issuing local firearms dealer licenses as provided by Penal Code section 12071. If GMEDA is to administer a 12071 licensing program, consideration (at some point) should be given to implementation staffing. The revised ordinance provides requirements for an application for a local firearms dealer license (§ 82-36.804) as well as conditions of approval for issuance of such a license. (§ 82-36.806) The license is valid for one year (Pen. Code § 12071 (a) (6) ) but may be renewed for additional one year period upon submission of a new application and payment of a fee (§ 82-36.810; Penal Code S 12071 (a) (7) ) . By requiring a new application each year for renewal, annual reporting is assured. In addition, a definition of firearms has been added (82-36.206) which is identical to the definition in Richmond's firearms dealer ordinance. The definition of ammunition (82-36.208) is taken from the Los Angeles ordinance. A recent California Attorney General Opinion states "we have no doubt that regulating firearms sales is beyond the reach of local governments. " (77 Ops. Atty. Gen. 147, 150 (1994) ) The Attorney General's Opinion noted that cities and counties are charged with execution of the state' s program for licensing of firearm dealers but their role is "ministerial in nature. " (Id, citing Pen. Code § 12071) This opinion concluded, however, that a city or county is not preempted by state law from adopting an ordinance which requires FILE COPY Internal Operations Committee 2 May 31, 1995 ammunition vendors within its jurisdiction to record and maintain identification information with respect to each purchaser. For this reason, we have added an article which provides for record keeping and inspection of records for ammunition sales. (Article 82-36 .10) This article is based on similar ordinances regulating ammunition sales adopted recently in the city of Los Angeles and Pasadena. Pursuant to the Board' s May 2, 1995 direction, we have included a fingerprinting requirement for ammunition sales----'(-82-36. 1002) - Neither the Los Angeles nor the Pasadena ordinances contain a fingerprinting requirement. The Attorney General's opinion did not discuss fingerprinting nor are we aware of any reported cases which address this issue. One of the conditions of approval for the local firearms dealer license is that the licensee is required to sell or otherwise provide each firearm with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unintentional discharge of the firearm (§ 82-36. 806) . Although trigger locks apparently are required by other local ordinances (e.g. San Francisco and Lafayette) , and are relatively inexpensive, it is possible in light of the attorney general's opinion cited above that a trigger lock requirement may be perceived as an attempt to regulate firearms sales rather than merely the exercise of the county's police power to control its zoning. We note that the local superior court has., as part of its initial ruling, denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of Lafayette' s firearms dealer ordinance pending a trial on the merits of the ordinance. As part of its preliminary ruling, the superior court upheld the triggerlock or similar device requirement against a challenge on preemption grounds. We understand that the court indicated disagreement with the above cited attorney general's opinion. The Los Angeles and Pasadena ordinances provide for administration by the local law enforcement agency (i.e. the local police department) . The draft of this ordinance, however, specifies that GMEDA will administer the ammunition sales provisions rather than the Sheriff. The revised ordinance requires applicants for land use permits and firearms dealer licenses to obtain $1, 000, 000 in liability insurance (82-36.606 (1) , land use permit; 82-36 .804 (9) , firearms dealer license) . This insurance requirement is based on similar requirements in the Richmond and Lafayette ordinances. We note that a number of conditions for the firearms dealer license have been inserted into this revised ordinance which are not expressly allowed under Penal Code section 12071 . Such additional conditions, however, are not expressly prohibited by Penal Code section 120.71. Internal Operations Committee 3 May 31, 1995 Although we have referred to state law in the revised ordinance., we have attempted not to restate or duplicate state law as it has been held that otherwise valid local legislation which duplicates, contradicts or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly, or by legislative implication, constitutes a conflict with state law and is preempted by such law and is void (Sherwin-Williams v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4th Cal .4th 893) . For this reason, we have not expressly required a gun sales reporting requirement since; a detailed statutory process for reporting gun sa'jes to the California Department of Justice and local chief of police is provided by state law (Pen. Code § 12076) nor have we expressly provided fora theft reporting requirement or other requirements specifically provided by statute, but have referenced such statutory requirements for informational purposes only. (see sections 82-36 .606 and 82-36 .804, citing Pen. Code § 12071 (b) (13) ) . We have indicated above the new significant changes in the attached revised draft of the firearms dealer ordinance. We note that the earlier draft ordinance previously provided and still provides that: 1) firearms sales and ammunition sales are not allowed in residential districts (82-4 . 240 (8) ; 2) a land use permit is required before any new firearms dealer may conduct sales in a zoning district where they would be otherwise allowed (82-36 . 602) ; 3) previously legally established but now nonconforming firearms dealers may continue such use if they obtain a firearms dealer license within 90 days of the effective date of chapter 82-36 (82- 36.204) ; 4) additional findings must be made before a land use permit may be issued to allow firearms sales (in addition to the general requirements for land use permits (82-36.604) ; and 5) a permittee must comply with insurance and other requirements in order to keep an issued land use permit in full force and effect (82-36.606) . DJS/amc cc: Supervisors, District Offices Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director Attn: Dennis Barry Health Services Department Attn: Andres Soto dja-3\a:\fire-amm.mem _ ATTACHMENT # 19 I i COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: October 19, 1995 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County Coun el Re: Proposed Ordinance To Regulate Gun Dealers: Possibility of Exemption For Gun Collectors: Attachment No. 19 The Internal Operations Committee at its hearing on October 2, 1995, directed this office to report on special provisions that could be included in the proposed ordinance to exempt gun collectors, including antique gun collectors, who collect but do not sell, trade or transport guns. As the ordinance is now drafted, collectors of firearms are not regulated. It is only the sale of firearms and ammunition that it is proposed to be regulated by the ordinance. We understood from speakers at the Internal Operations Committee hearing, however, that a number of persons wish to collect, sell, and trade a limited number of firearms in residentially zoned districts. This presents a more difficult question in terms of regulation. To address this second concern, the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider allowing a limited number of unregulated firearms sales as permitted by California statute (Penal Code §12070(b)(4)). Pursuant to Penal Code §12070(c)(1), six firearm sales transactions per year are allowed before a person is required to obtain a license under Penal Code §12071. The Board could exempt six or fewer gun sales transactions-per year in residentially zoned districts as permitted in the state statute. This could be accomplished in two ways. First, the zoning ordinance could.be amended to allow six or fewer firearm sales transactions per year as a permitted use in each residentially zoned district. In the alternative, the home occupation land use permit requirements could be amended to exempt six or fewer firearm sales transactions per year from the general prohibition of firearms sales as a home occupation (see proposed C.C.C. Ord. Code, § 82- 4.240(8)). Under current regulations and as the proposed ordinance is now drafted, no sale Board of Supervisors 2 October 19, 1995 of firearms or ammunition is'allowed as a home occupation in a residentially zoned district. A collector would be subject to the ordinance if he or she engages in retail sales of firearms or ammunition either in a residentially zoned district (unless an exemption for a limited number of transactions is provided) or engages in the retail sale of firearms or ammunition in a non- residentially zoned district. (proposed C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 82- 36.602, 82-36.804). DJS:bmw:df djs-5\a:\gun-deal.me2 -- , ATTACHMENT # 20 9"OLICE CHIE 1455 Response Rd.,Suite 190 Sacramento,Califorvia 95815 Telephone(916)923-2375 (916)923-1825 FAX(916)263-6090 DATE: February 10, 1995 OFFICERS TO: Police Chief Members of CPCA FROM: Rodney K. Pierini, Executive Director S.CM' °~�w`"a`RG RL'': OP-ED PIECE ON TILE FIREARMS CONTROL POLICY '.'/.r�•2aAe�7 ;41r,ARO PROPS:_C Ga:ze�a Bynow you should have received a packet of materials on the Association's S?c•e•a r Treaswe : -"u:Or_`RL'' Tlirearrns control policy: "Confronting the American Tragedy - The-Need to Better :p 'mn,e:,a]e Past Preszem Regulate Firearms". Enclosed for your tiles is an op-ed article produced by =LOAD SANDERSON '"°'1e`ev Chiers Todd and Rosano which provides a information in support of the policy. DIRECTORS 30a 3L:%NKEN$r,P ae -:rg Should you have any questions or comments regarding this op-ed piece, please :�•CK SFEZA idr,a Ba,3ara contact Chief Todd (403/354-6841) or Chief Rosa no' (707/543-3559) directly. If _c;:s ccaARR��a� Sa-;ose you have not received the packet of materials referred to above contact Laura S ''A�p°"COC,", Burke at headquarters (916/923-2375). iL�3^^"arOK�p:RNA•-M: ;AI.IES GAROINEP Sd�_s.3.o,soo RLI,E.-Ill 3 3^AcDONEL- c�'A_='EIS :If_r =ANK '_ABORCH O„D wOOO X0-0^l COMMITTEE CHAIRS raA,rarlG •AMEj NUNES �ersar:�:a ',PA,:;j ECKLcR _AW i;_G:SLAr:ON CIA i:%-*AS 'S i MEANS �C'—LA .._�a 'oBUCA T IONS 3RCOK MCMAHON S-0 5eaC^ =tC'�SAr10ERSCN •AGr.n,Ev jW.IONS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FEB� s "I 13T a .. Opinion Editorial Chief Larry J. Todd, Immediate Past President Chief Salvatore V. Rosario, Chair California Police Chiefs Association Firearms Regulation Committee On February 2, 1995, the California Police.Chiefs Association adopted a position paper concerning the need to address firearm violence, death, and injury. This document, titled "Confronting The American Tragedy - The Need To Better Regulate Firearms," was the culmination of a'year long study by Chiefs of Police from throughout the state - from rural communities to.urban cities, from large and:small agencies, and from very high crime jurisdictions to low crime areas. The one thing.they-all had in common was citizens with an ever increasing fear of crime, especially violent crime involving firearms. As Chiefs of Police, we are responsible for public safety. That responsibility requires leadership. It is for these reasons we have chosen to step forward into what will undoubtedly be perceived by some to be a political hornet's nest. But maybe that's been the problem. For far too long, the political winds have been reacting to a strong gun lobby instead of the overwhelming number of honest, law-abiding citizens who want laws that make sense rather than laws that favor special interest groups. Just as the widespread possession of firearms is an American fact, so too is the widespread tragedy that has accompanied the misuse of firearms. A brief look at the statistics of gun violence _should convince even the most dispassionate observer :that firearms are taking an.unacceptable toll in our communities. Let's look at a few of the chilling facts- - How acts:- How do we.compare;to other.countries? In 1992, handguns were used in the murders of 33.people in Britain, 36 in Sweden, 87 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada, 13 in Australia, 60 in Japan, and 13,220 in the United States. _ - In 1993, 40,230 Americans were killed by firearms in homicides, suicides, and accidents. - For the first time since the gangster,days of the 1930's, more people were killed in 1994 with.firearms than in automobile accidents. - It is conservatively estimated that for every person killed by a firearm at least ten more are shot yet survive. That equates to over 400,000 shooting victims each year. - The economic impact of this (medical, insurance, and lost work) is enormous. It is estimated that the medical costs alone average over $8,000 per victim. According to the Center For Disease Control, the medical costs combined with the time lost from work cost Americans 14.4 billion dollars in 1994. - In the four year period 1990-1993, there were more murders in the U.S. (59,086) than total deaths (46,163) in the entire nine years of the Vietnam War (1965-1973). Where are all the protesters and Washington D.C. marchers on these undeclared "crime war'deaths? - It's a felony to possess certain knives, brass knuckles, a billy club, or a throwing star. Yet we have historically treated the possession of an unlawfully concealed firearm as a citable misdemeanor. As a result, gang members and,other serious felons face far less ,legal sanctions if caught with a 9mm automatic in the,waistband than if caught with a dagger in a pocket. - In California alone, over 100,000 firearms are stolen each year. The vast majority are not registered. Well intentioned citizens who fail to properlysecure their firearms are contributing to the problem. As a result, when law enforcement personnel come across these weapons, we are unable to determine if they are stolen and unable to return them to the legitimate owners. Criminals in possession of these stolen firearms go unprosecuted and victims rarely see their property returned. If the average value of these stolen firearms is $200, law-abiding citizens suffer an annual loss of over $20,000,000. In the same way that automobiles require registration, firearm registration would result in no significant burden upon lawful owners. - There are product safety standards for virtually everything from toasters to baby rattles. Yet none for the one device that is designed to kill - firearms! We design cars with keys, 3 elaborate combination locking systems and alarms with sirens, honking,horns.and flashing lights toalertus if someone even comes close to our cars. It makes more sense to require the same level of product safety for firearms as we require of a baby�rattle,.,and storage and locking efforts, as we place on protecting our cars. Just as we limit the age of-driving and drinking of alcohol, it makes sense to limit the age for firearm-ownership. In 1991, as an example, nationwide there were 3,247 children and teenagers under the age of 18 murdered with firearms, 1,436 committed suicide with firearms, and 551 died in unintentional shootings. Furthermore, while people are needlessly being shot, the sales of firearms soar,to record levels. During 1993, Californians purchased approximately fi50,000 firearms, and in 1994, almost as many have been sold. These numbers reflect the real fear and hopelessness many citizens feel as heinous acts of violence increasingly take a toll on society. We must address this environment of fear if we are to rein in what appears to be a ceaseless appetite for more and more guns. The premise that more guns in the hands of the civilian population makes for a safer environment certainly appears not to be the case. Most of the current debate about firearms violence focuses on criminal misconduct. We believe that present statutes prohibiting the use of firearms in the commission of any crime must be enforced strongly and*swiftly. To do otherwise in unconscionable. However, we cannot escape the fact that many of the firearms-related deaths and injuries occur not as 4 a result of intentional criminal misconduct but because of accident, mistake, and misfortune. - far too often firearm violence occurs between family; friends; unintended victims, and children;.people whose lives are forever changed because'a'firearm was too readily available. After long :and thoughtful deliberation,' the i California Police Chiefs Association has concluded'that the widespread and still largely unregulated individual ownership..of firearms. in our society must:be re-evaluated. It is abundantly clear that the communities in which we are privileged to serve are under attack by a type and extent of violence not previously experienced. The weapons of that violence increasingly are firearms; firearms in the hands of drug dealers, robbers, mental incompetents, and in many cases, otherwise law-abiding citizens who are untrained.or emotionally ill-equipped to safely use a firearm. As a result, the widespread and ready availability of firearms threatens to undermine the foundation of our social order. The California Police Chiefs Association recognizes its responsibility to provide decisive I nd common-sense leadership necessary to help address this critically important and emotionally charged issue_ The lack of regulation over, and the misuse of, firearms is one of the most daunting issues we must face if we are ever to address the tragedy that threatens the viability-of our society. For far too long, the law enforcement community has stood. silent permitting other voices to speak for us. As a consequence, the misuse of firearms has been focused upon solely as a crime problem rather than as a social crisis 5 that threatens us all. The California Police Chiefs Association states as an unequivocal goal the saving of human lives through the substantive reduction in the misuse of firearms. We recognize the reality that large numbers of firearms will be a part of our lives for many years to come. We therefore believe that it is incumbent upon our association to articulate and support an agenda for action that will reduce the opportunity for firearms to kill and injure innocent people. _ The National Rifle Association and other groups will argue that"guns don't kill, people do." And, they will state that we are trying to confiscate firearms from law abiding, citizens. Nothing is further from the truth. Aside from our long standing position on banning assault weapons from our society, nothing we have proposed would take firearms away from responsible citizens. Our proposal simply attempts to deal with firearms in the same rational way we do with other products and behaviors. If we are concerned enough to license drivers, register,automobiles, regulate drinking and driving, and. create product safety standards for toasters and baby rattles, then we ought to at least be,willing to do the same to the one product designed to kill - firearms! 6 ,t 9"OLICE CHIE 1455 Response Rd.,Suite 190 Sacramento,California 95815 Telephone(916)923-2375 (916)M1825 FAX(916)163-090 February 7, 1995 To: All Members OFFICERS President California Police Chiefs Association LARRY TODD Los Gatos 1st vice President POSITION PAPER NO. 95-1 - "The Need to Regulate Firearms" JIM ANTHONY _ Glendale 2nd Vice President RON LOWENSERG Forwarded for your information is Position Paper No. 95-1 which was adopted by the Huntrgan Beach . ' RIc1Vice Ro TER general membership during'the annual conference on February 2, 1995. All previous drafts . Gardena of this position paper should be destroyed. This document with the final revisions is the Secretary Treasurer PETER HERLEY position taken by our association. Tiburon Immediate Past President FLOYD SANDERSON There were approximately 30 colored transparencies presented to the general membership Monterey DIRECTORS as part of the committee presentation. Should any member wish to obtain a set of those eedddBt9JwKEN$HIP colored transparencies for use in any future presentation, please contact Amy Frees at the RICK BREZA California Police Chiefs Association Office in Sacramento at (916) 923-1825. A set will Santa Barbara LOUIS COBARRL-Az be made available to each member upon request for a fee to cover the cost of duplication. San Jose B.WARREN COCKE San ES GA DINERno uredl Enclosed with this position paper is a letter to our immediate past president, Chief.Larry JAMES GARgNER ROGERLL" ILL J. Todd ROER MILL , from a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. A copy is being provided . Tulare BOB McDONEII to each member since the last two paragraphs of this letter indicate that the National Rifle TEDNe.port TEN Association intends to pursue some political action resumabl directed at members of our- TED MERTEN$ P r � p y _. Manhattan Beach association for adopting this position. SAL ROSANO Santa Rosa JOE SAMUELS Oakland In addition to the data distributed at the conference and the transparencies which you may BuenaRICH Pe kNK uena wish to obtain, we will develop information to be distributed at a later time which provides RICK TERBORCH Grande Arroyo Grande background information for the most commonly asked questions about the Committee's LLYD PoOrt,r,ita °O° work and the position adopted. In the interim, if anyone has need for further information COMMITTEE CHAIRS in order_ to respond to either City Council inquiries or inquiries from the media, please TRAININGN contact either Chief Larry J. Todd at the Los Gatos Police Department; (408)354-6841 or JAMES JAMES UNES Pleasant Hill the undersigned at (707) 543-3559. STANDARDS 6 ETHICS CRAIG STECKLER Fremont LAW d LEGISLATION 70M$IMM$ Roseville _),"� . WAYS&MEANS ROY HARMON CHIEF SALVATORE V. ROSANO, Chair Yuba City PUBLICATIONS Firearms Regulation Committee BROOK MCMAHON PiSmo Beach NOMINATIONS SVR/dh FLOYD SANDERSON Monterey A - RETIRED MEMBERS Attachments (2) JIM SIMMONS Albany(Reureal . . . . . . . . . . c: Rodney K. Pierini, Executive Director EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Rodney K P.e,rn 5 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER 95-1 FEBRUARY 1995 Number Date SUBJECT: CONFRONTING THE AMERICAN TRAGEDY THE NEED TO BETTER REGULATE FIREARMS INTRODUCTION ' On February.21 1995, the California Police Chiefs Association adopted a position paper concerning the need to address firearm violence, death, and injury. As Chiefs of Police, we are responsible forpublic safety. That responsibility requires leadership. It is for these reasons that we are stepping forward. We are under no illusion that our position will be universally accepted by others, nor do we expect that-it will be literally translated into legislation. Nevertheless, our position paper represents our collective vision of the steps that should be taken to make all of our citizens safer. The California Police Chiefs Association is not advocating a ban on the private ownership of firearms. By contrast, we believe our position paper fosters responsible firearm ownership. BACKGROUND The American historical legacy bears witness to the fact that the widespread personal possession and ownership of firearms is an ingrained part of our national heritage. The frontier ethic and the desire to remain free of undue governmental interference have in some form or another been intertwined with the ability of our citizenry to bear arms. Many Americans believe.that.the strength of our democracy is ensured only by the underlying strength of an armed civilian population. Just as the widespread possession-of firearms is an American fact today, so too is the widespread tragedy that has accompanied the misuse of firearms. No longer are disputes settled by civilized means; rather, it is the gun that too often becomes the arbiter of first and lasting choice. We as a society have for far too long treated the tragic consequences that result from an armed America as but a footnote to the long, but falsely held, notion that a highly armed populous is necessary for the preservation of our freedoms. Just a brief look at the statistics of gun violence should convince the most dispassionate observer that the misuse and ready availability of firearms are taldng control of our communities. For f example, in 1993 alone close to 40,000 Americans were killed by the use of firearms of which more than 5,000 were Californians. In addition, the National Center for Disease Control estimates that for each firearm death, another ten people are shot yet survive. Furthermore, while people are needlessly being shot, the sales of firearms soar to record levels. During 1993 Californians purchased approximately 650,000 firearms, and in 1994 even more may be sold. These numbers reflect the real fear and hopelessness many citizens feel as heinous acts of violence increasingly take a toll on society. We must address this environment of fear if we are to rein in what appears to be a ceaseless appetite for more and more guns. The premise that more guns in the hands of the civilian population makes for a safer environment certainly appears not to be the case. Most of the current debate about firearms violence focuses on criminal misconduct. We believe that present statutes prohibiting the use of firearms in the commission of any crime must be enforced strongly and swiftly. To do otherwise is unconscionable. However, we cannot escape the fact that many of the firearms-related deaths and injuries occur not as a result-of intentional criminal misconduct but because of accident, mistake and misfortune. Far too often gun violence occurs between family, friends, unintended victims and children; people whose lives are forever changed because a firearm was too readily available. After long and thoughtful deliberation, the California Police Chiefs Association has concluded that the widespread and still largely unregulated individual ownership of firearms in our society must be re-evaluated. It is abundantly clear that the communities in which we are privileged to serve are under attack by a type and extent of violence not: previously experienced. The weapons of that violence increasingly are firearms; firearms in the hands of drug dealers, robbers, mental incompetents, and in many cases, otherwise law-abiding citizens who are untrained or emotionally ill-equipped to safely use a gun. As a result, the widespread and ready availability of firearms threatens to undermine the foundation of our social order. The California Police Chiefs Association recognizes its responsibility to provide decisive and common-sense leadership necessary to help address this critically important and emotionally charged issue. The lack of regulation over, and the misuse of, firearms is one of the most dauntingissues ssues we must face if we are ever to address the tragedy that threatens the viability of our society. For far too long, the law enforcement community hasstood si=t nermittlg.other voices to speak for us. As a consequence, the misuse of firearms has been focused upon solely as a crime problem rather than as a social crisis that threatens us all. This Association states as an unequivocal goal the saving of human lives through the substantive reduction in the misuse of firearms. We recognize the reality that large numbers of firearms will be a part of our lives for many years to come. We, therefore, believe that it is incumbent upon our association to articulate and support a specific legislative agenda that will reduce the opportunity for firearms to kill and injure innocent people. As an initial step in what will undoubtedly be a long journey to reduce firearms violence, the 2 W: California Police Chiefs Association adopts the following position with respect to firearms: 1. REGISTRATION Firearms are used in hundreds of thousands of criminal incidents every year. 'A significant number of those crimes are committed with firearms that were stolen or inappropriately obtained. Absent a mandatory system whereby firearms are registered with a law enforcement authority, it is very difficult to trace gun ownership and resolve many firearms-related' crimes. A mandatory registration system will assist law enforcement criminal apprehension erf—orts and results in no significant burden upon lawful firearm owners. Accordingly, we propose that all firearms be registered with an identified law enforcement authority by no later than three years after such legislation is adopted. Every time the firearm is subsequently sold or ownership transferred would require re-registration. 2. OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION Ownership and/or possession of firearms and ammunition should be limited to only those PI individuals at the age of 18 years or older who have been licensed bv the state. License standards should include a background free from any significant criminal history, mental r illness or emotional instability, and successful completion of a state approved training -course. The cost of processing the license application should be paid by the applicant. Persons under the age of 18 may possess a firearm if they are under the immediate supervision of a parent, guardian, or other adult licensed to possess a firearm. 3. MAGAZINE CAPACITY The existence of high-.,capacity magazines only serves the purpose of enhancing the killing and injuring potential of a firearm. Recent history is replete with the horrors of persons using weapons with high—capacity magazines to JdlI and maim numbers of innocent victims. There is no articulable reason why such capacity exists for sporting reasons. Federal law for example, limits the number of shotgun shells to three that may be carried in a shotgun while hunting waterfowl.' Recognizing that a justifiable reason may exist for limited magazine capacity, we propose that no firearm magazine be lawfully possessed if it has a capacity of more than six bullets. Exceptions should be considered for military or law enforcement use only. 4. STORAGE Firearms not adequately secured are easily subject to theft or misuse. In California, over 100,000 firearms are reported stolen annually. Many of these firearms are currently in circulation. Guns left lying about the home unsecured kill or injure thousands of people a year. Responsible gun ownership demands that no firearm ever be left unattended and in such condition that it can be readily used or stolen. We propose that legislation 3 mandate that all firearms not under the immediate control of a responsible adult be required-to be locked, stored, and unloaded. Also, all firearms at the time of sale must be sold with a separate locking device that would render a firearm incapable of immediate use. 5. SAFETY STANDARDS Firearms come in many sizes, shapes, and capabilities. A gun is a product not unlike a car, chain saw, or lawn mower in that it is capable of being designed and manufactured in such manner as to render it less likely to be misused or cause unintended injury to the operator. We propose that all firearms manufactured domestically or imported be subject to consumer product safety standar s that will.be designed to maximize a weapon's safety. Firearms manufactured prior to adoption and implementation of consumer product safety standards may only be sold to other family members for a period of ten years after adoption of said standards if the firearm does not meet those standards. Weapons defined as antiques should be exempted. 6. CONCEALED WEAPONS The issuance and possession of a permit to carry a concealed weapon is and should continue to be a privilege that is granted to few persons and under circumstances where protection with a lethal weapon is justifiably necessary. We propose that the authority to issue a concealed weapon permit stay at the local level where there is a greater likelihood that accountability for permit use and abuse will be had. We do, however, strongly .believe that uniform articulative standards and qualifications for pelt application and issuance should be adopted. The qualifications should require an applicant be free of any significant criminal history, mental illness, incident(s) of violent behavior, and substance abuse. The process standards should include a definition of good cause.to issue, a defined background procedure, a psychological and medical examination, a training requirement, and liability insurance coverage, should it be available. 7. ASSAULT WEAPONS Military-style assault weapons serve no valid sporting purpose nor are they necessary for the protection of the home. These weapons have proven incredibly destructive in the hands of the criminal and mentally ill person. We propose that these weapons be clearly defined and identified as serving no recognized civilian purpose and, accordingly, be prohibited from ownership, possession, or sale. 4 n 8. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION There is currently a wide array of legislative mandates governing the control of firearms in our society. As an attempt to speak to the seriousness with which we view the damage occasioned by firearms abuse, we proposelegislation that would make the unlawful purchase, sale, possession, or use of a firearm, chargeable as a felony and accompanied by a lifetime prohibition of firearms possession after conviction. 9. MANDATORY DESTRUCTION Until there are sufficient safeguards to reduce the easy availability and misuse of firearms, we propose that any firearms which come into the possession of a law enforcement agency, which are unregistered, found or unclaimed property, used in-the commission of any crime, surrendered voluntarily by any citizen, purchased for use by that agency, or by any other means, shall, once they have served any evidentiary purpose, bedestroyed in such a fashion as to render them permanently unusable as firearms. All other such weapons shall not be sold, traded, nor redistributed, other than for some legitimate,law enforcement use where the agency maintains ownership and control, or donated to museums for_historical purpose. 5 NRR/ILA SACTO ,CA TEL No .9164487469 Jan 30 .95 14 : 13 No .006 P .05 AMR- NATIONAL,)i='ASSOCIATION of AMERICA 1N.ST'IMTE FOR IXGIS1;ATIVE ACTION 666 cArlroL Mkij.-6urTz 465 Janus 30, 1995 SAiMAMENTO.CA 96814 January (916)446-2466 Larry Todd, President California Police Chiefs Association, 1455 Response,Road;Suite ...Sacramento, CA .95815 Dear Chief Todd• RE: POSITION PAPER ON GUN CONTROL I am writing to you and the members of California Police Chiefs Association's (CPCA) Gun Control Committee to present some of our concerns about your proposed position paper. I assume the members of the committee were sufficiently conversant with firearm operation and terminology to insure that the wording of the resolution can be taken literally. if enacted into law, many elements of the proposal would result in the confiscation of firearms by enforcement. For example: Magazine aci!y The M1 Garand rifle has an integral fixed magazine which holds 8 rounds. The Ruger 10-22 has a fixed capacity of at least 10 rounds. The Model 191145ACP uses a 7-round magazine_ The vast majority of handguns which use magazines exceed your proposed 6-round cap. Virtually all tubular magazines for 22 rimfire rifles and many lever action centerfire rifles made from the Civil War to date exceed 6 rounds. Thus, this element of CPCA's position paper would require the surrender of hundreds of thousands of firearms with nondetaebable magazines that exceed 6 rounds. Was this the committee's intent? safe Standards It is quite likely that if such standards were ever developed, retrofitting of existing firearms would be either cost prohibitive or technically unfeasible. Imagine installing a key locking system in the stock of a reproduction Revolutionary War flintlock musket. What possible public benefit would result from such a mandate? The wording of this element of the position paper makes clear that it also is focused on confiscation of firearms but comes with a "grace period" to make it seem more benign. .NaR ILA SAC70.CA TEL No .91.64487469 Jan 30.95 34 :13 No .006 P .06 Chief Larry Todd .January 30, 1995 Page 2 The scope and political significance of CPCA's position paper are so chilling that we will be communicating with all of our members in California concerning its content. We will ask our members to request that the position paper be debated by every city council in California. We will not ask that boards of supervisors consider CPCA's position paper because it is unimaginable that California's sheriffs would ever adopt such a position. We will also provide the position paper and an analysis of its impact to members of the California Legislature. We are confident that elected officials at all levels of government will be interested in CPCA's position paper because their firearms and those of their family and friends would also,be subject to confiscation. We will vigorously oppose CPCA on this issue. We believe that the proposed position paper is ill advised and ultimately will reflect poorly on the association and its members. Sincerely, S. G Helsley State Liaison SCH:yc ATTACHMENT #21 �- -�--- ------- - ---- - -- - - - - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION Mr. Andres Soto Contra Costa County Health Services Department 75 Santa Barbara Road Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523-4200 RE: County Police Chiefs' Association Position on firearms Regulations Dear Mr. Soto: The Contra Costa Police Chiefs' Association, at its May 24th meeting, reviewed your agency's request for the Association to testify in support of a proposed County ordinance regulating gun dealers in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County at a public hearing scheduled for June 6, 1995. Consistent with past practice,the membership directed that a general letter of support be sent to your agency for submission at the hearing. Accordingly, I am forwarding this letter to you, along with a copy of the California Police Chiefs' Association Position Paper on firearms regulation,which the county association has formally endorsed. You are welcome to cite any or all of its provisions at the hearing. Association members also adopted a statement at its May 24th meeting that local.firearms control ordinances are public policy matters appropriately addressed on a jurisdiction-by jurisdiction.basis. Sincerely, NIEL G. IkNS, rman Contra Costa County Police Chiefs' Association DGG:cmd Enclosure ■�■ League of California Cities ;211®®�a 1400 K STREET•SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 •(916)658-8200 11®MO Califomia Cities Work Together May 24, 1995 TO: Chiefs of Police RE: Adoption of "Confronting the American Tragedy: The Need to Better Regulate Firearms" The League of California Cities Board of Directors recently adopted and endorsed the position paper, "Confronting the American Tragedy: The Need to Better Regulate Firearms," advocated by the California Police Chiefs Association. This action took place during the board of directors meeting held April 28 to 29, 1995 in Chico, CA. Firearms usage and control are topical legislative and media issues these days. It is not easy to step into this political hornets nest. We commend the California Police Chiefs Association and all police chiefs throughout California for their leadership in addressing the issue of firearms violence in California. Your vision for making California .communities safer is exemplary. We have forwarded the position paper to all mayors and city managers, and to the media. In addition, the policies presented in the paper will be used as a guide for the evaluating future legislation in the area of firearms regulation. Thank you for your hard work, dedication and leadership in this important policy area. g:\excom\dt\pc1tr.doc t MAY 2 6 19g ATTACHMENT #22 LISTING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE PROPOSED GUN DEALER ORDINANCE - October 2, 1995 1. Jerry Avalos of Antioch presented invited testimony in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 2. Richard Graham of Antioch presented written comments which are attached in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. [Attachment#13] 3. George Miller IV of Martinez testified in support of the proposed Ordinance and noted the overwhelming support for such an Ordinance he had received as a result of a mailing he had done to residents of the area. 4. Joan Lautenberger of Lafayette testified on behalf of the League of Women Voters in support of the proposed Ordinance and presented written comments which are attached. [Attachment #14] She also provided personal testimony in her capacity as a nurse at Oakland Children's Hospital. 5. Ellen Schwartz of Orinda testified in support of the proposed Ordinance, noting that there is a gun crisis in this country which is not faced by any other country in the world. She expressed concern that we have children playing with guns and killing each other. 6. Dr. Arthur F. Billy of Walnut Creek testified in opposition to the proposed Ordinance and in opposition to continued funding of the violence prevention program. In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier, staff clarified that the funding of the violence prevention program comes from Federal funds which the Board of Supervisors does not have the discretion to transfer to other programs. 7. Eugene Davilla of San Ramon indicated he was opposed to the proposed Ordinance and noted how careful he is in selecting individuals to whom he will agree to sell a gun, insuring that they know how the gun works. He noted all of the Federal and State permits he must obtain under current law and all of the agencies which have jurisdiction over him as a licensed gun dealer. 8. Bill Maggiore of Lafayette identified himself as one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Lafayette's gun dealer ordinance and noted his opposition to the County's proposed Ordinance. He questioned why it was necessary to outlaw gun dealer sales in residential areas in this Ordinance when sales in residential areas are already regulated. He also questioned why a land use permit was necessary for new gun dealers. He also questioned why there is a need for ammunition sales records. He also questioned why the insurance requirement is necessary since dealers are exempt from liability as long as the sale is in accordance with State law. He also questioned why the physical separation from various other kinds of facilities are necessary. 9. Colton Meyer of Walnut Creek agreed with Mr. Davilla's comments, indicated his opposition to the proposed Ordinance and submitted written comments. [Attachment#15] He maintained that the Ordinance would put him out of business. He suggested that the Ordinance was an attempt to eliminate the private ownership of firearms. The Ordinance should be directed at criminal activity and safety violations. In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier, Mr. Meyer indicated that he might sell perhaps a half dozen guns a year. 10. Albert Walle of Pinole, representing the Juvenile Justice/Delinquency Prevention Commission, indicated the Commission's support for the ordinance. 11. Randall Duckett of Concord, testified in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. He noted that there seems to be an assumption that gun dealers are selling to children which is riot true. There is no purpose to regulating the sale of ammunition. ATTACHMENT #22 12. Mike Haas of EI Sobrante opposed the proposed Ordinance and noted a case where a gun dealer was told by authorities that the dealer had a sell a gun to an individual the dealer had questions about in terms of the individual's stability. 13. Darwin Farrar of Berkeley, an attorney, member of the NRA, and Director of Policy at the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, testified in support of the proposed Ordinance on the basis that local government could better and more quickly deal with "fringe" dealers who do not comply with the law. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers, Mr. Farrar noted that he supported regulating the availability of ammunition. In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier, Mr. Farrar suggested that because local governments can move more quickly and more personally than the State or Federal governments, they are more likely to deal with "fringe" dealers. 14. Robert McCormick of Concord testified in opposition to the proposed Ordinance and suggested that it was more effective to address illegal behavior than the product being used illegally and drew a parallel with cars and alcohol. He also noted that he was opposed to transferring responsibility for enforcing the program from the Sheriff to the Director, GMEDA. 15. Marylee Guinon of Lafayette testified in support of the proposed Ordinance and identified herself as one of members of the Committee which had pressed for the adoption of Lafayette's Ordinance and noted that local government has to enforce gun control laws because the Federal and State governments do not have the resources to do so. 16. J.C. Smith of Walnut Creek spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance and described the detailed inspection process which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) uses to insure that a dealer is following the law and maintaining all necessary records. 17. Steve Baumbach of Antioch opposed the proposed Ordinance and noted that there is no need to carry liability insurance related to a gun transaction because if the transaction is illegal insurance would not provide coverage and if the transaction is legal the gun dealer has no civil liability. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers, Mr. Baumbach indicated that there was no such thing as an unintentional breaking of the law dealing with the sale of guns. Supervisor Rogers responded that he was not convinced that the legal situation was quite that clear. Mr. Baumbach also indicated that there was no insurance coverage specifically for gun transactions. Mr. Westman clarified that the requirement in the proposed Ordinance is only for general liability coverage and is not related specifically to gun sales. 18. W. F. Butte of Pinole spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance and asked about the extent to which the proposed Ordinance covers gun collectors. In response to a question from Supervisor DeSaulnier about whether the proposed Ordinance includes collectors, Mr. Westman indicated that if a collector is selling guns in a residential area, that activity would be prohibited and the question of insurance coverage would never arise. Mr. Soto indicated that the proposed Ordinance does not provide any specific exemption for gun collectors. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers about whether an individual in a residential area who is selling guns isn't already violating the law Mr. Westman replied that they were. 19. Maury Polse of Lafayette opposed the proposed Ordinance, urged training in the safe handling of guns and suggested that the Committee was trying to subvert the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 20. Hal Engel of Alamo spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 2 ATTACHMENT #22 21. Carol Quinville of Bethel Island identified herself as a gun dealer, noted her opposition to the proposed ordinance and threatened a lawsuit if the Board of Supervisors adopted the proposed Ordinance. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers about how she verifies the age of young people who seek to buy ammunition or guns, Ms. Quinville indicated that she requires identification and does not sell to strangers. 22. Tom Tellefson of Concord noted his opposition to the proposed Ordinance and suggested that the law-abiding citizen has to fear for his or her safety. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers about why a law-abiding citizen would have to fear this proposed Ordinance, Mr. Tellefson referenced Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. 23. Russ Holt of Martinez noted his opposition to the proposed Ordinance and indicated that he prefers residential gun dealers because their service is more personalized and they are more knowledgeable that some large commercial dealers. 24. Mike Olson of Oakley opposed the proposed Ordinance. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers about preventing sales to minors, Mr. Olson indicated that he would require identification. Mr. Olson also indicated that he opposed fingerprinting since that is what is done to suspected criminals, not to innocent gun buyers. 25. William Richardson of Discovery Bay opposed the proposed Ordinance and indicated his concern that this was an incremental method of moving toward a total ban on guns. 26. Michael Carraher of Martinez opposed the proposed Ordinance and expressed his concern about what he viewed as the wide-open authority for GMEDA to adopt implementing regulations. 27. Benton Wright of Antioch noted that he operates a shooting range and opposes the proposed Ordinance. 28. Bill Rodstrom of Berkeley spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance, but noted that it is only part of the solution to the problem. 29. Bruce Pedersen of San Ramon spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 30. Terrence Dicker of Antioch spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 31. Ted Wooten of Richmond spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance and noted that he wants the freedom to defend himself since the police are unable to do so. He also wants the freedom to choose where to buy a gun and how many to buy. 32. Dr. Jerry Mattha of Martinez spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 33. Barrie Becker of San Francisco, on behalf of the Legal Community Against Violence, spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance and offered their expertise if the County is sued over the Ordinance, 34. Eric Gorovitz of San Francisco, also on behalf of the Legal Community Against Violence, spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance. In response to a question from Supervisor Rogers about the land use permit requirements, Mr. Gorovitz noted that local governments have a great deal of latitude in regulating land use. 35. George Steffner of Lafayette opposed the proposed Ordinance and suggested that this was not a land use issue. He also threatened to violate the Ordinance by continuing to manufacture and sell guns and ammunition to people who want them. 36. Doug Petrie of Pleasant Hill spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 3 ATTACHMENT #22 37. Robert Weaver of EI Cerrito opposed the proposed Ordinance and suggested that there is no correlation between gun dealers and crime. 38. Sam Diener of Richmond, identified himself as a teacher and as someone who works with battering men. Mr. Diener supported the proposed Ordinance. 39. Richard Strudwich of Concord opposed the proposed Ordinance and suggested that what is needed is more training and that the County should go after the criminals rather than the gun dealers. 40. Jordan Funk of Concord spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance. 41. Bob Heaston of Walnut Creek identified himself as a firefighter in the Orinda- Moraga area and as a gun dealer. He opposed the proposed Ordinance. 42. Steve Kavanaugh of Oakley spoke in opposition to the Ordinance. 43. John Mulhall, former city councilman and Mayor of Pleasant Hill, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance and noted that he had successfully repealed all such ordinances in Pleasant Hill. 44. Phyllis Ceaser of Walnut Creek spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance. 4 Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone: -ire. 6 Address: 3 y z �/ '`'� S� City 1 am speaking for myself or organization: Z AAc-p (Acme of organization) CHECK ONE: wish to speak on Agenda Item #J Date: I h -,a q- My comments will be: general for against . 1 wish to speak on the subject of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: IOIIN4 ' - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE AAA CP-RICHMOND BRANCH RESOLUTION OF THE RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE OPERATION OF GUN DEALERS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, firearms are the leading cause of injury and death in Contra Costa County, more than double the number caused by automobiles; and WHEREAS, firearms are the leading cause of death of children 10 through 14 years old in Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, more than 37,000 people die annually in the United States from firearms; 60% suicides, 37%homicides and 3%unintentional or justified; and WHEREAS,taxpayers borne cost of treatment of survivors of gun violence and the impact of this treatment on emergency rooms constitutes a public health crisis; and WHEREAS,recent studies conducted by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department indicate that there are more gun dealers in Contra Costa County, than gas stations, schools, and grocery stores combined; and WHEREAS,these studies also indicate a widespread noncompliance with existing gun dealer laws by gun dealers throughout Contra Costa County, thereby creating a potential vector for guns entering into the Black market; and WHEREAS, local governments are prohibited by state pre-exemption from enacting local gun control regulations that are stricter than state law; and WHEREAS, local governments are allowed to regulate the location and conditions of business through their zoning and business licensing powers; and WHEREAS,recent gun dealer regulatory efforts by Bay Area governments and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, has been to reduce the number of gun dealers in communities and provide tools that create a,manageable enforcement environment for local law enforcement agencies, whose responsibility in part is to enforce gun dealer laws; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recommend that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, adopt an ordinance that: 342 11th Street Richmond, Ca 94801 Telephone (510)235-1166 t A. Prohibit firearm dealers from operating in and near residentially zoned areas, including such areas as schools,day/child care centers,park and recreational facilities,other gun dealers,and places that sell alcohol on and/or off-site. B. Subject firearm dealers to a conditional use permit process requiring conditions of: safe storage; adequate security; lighting and alarm systems; maintenance of at least $ one million of liability insurance. C. Establish a local gun dealer permit, issued by Chief of local law enforcement agencies and fees set at cost of inspection and enforcement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the General Membership of the Richmond Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, passed and adopted the foregoing resolution by unanimous vote at its regular meeting held on Sunday, October 8, 1995. I certify that the foregoing resolution is true and correct. Presid nt NAACP-Richmond Branch Date Reques to Speak Form 'P ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) tete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum R before addressing the Board. ame: 31, ,' m� Phone: � Address: iP�oa aL /"/kftJ City 1 am speaking for myself_ or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda item # Date: My comments will be: general for against . Wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: d n-- •My name is Brigid McCaw. I work in Contra.Costa County. I am a physician in the emergency department at Kaiser Richmond. I am here today to urge you to pass the proposed ordinance regarding gun dealers. Many physician organizations including the AMA are strongly recommending increased regulation of gun sales as a primary method for stemming gun related injuries especially among youth. I speak today as an individual physician who faces the injuries which result from the easy access to guns in our society. I speak today on behalf of two boys, dropped off at our ER several months ago. 2 bleeding youngsters, age 13 and 14. One had a gun shot wound that traversed his jaw and lodged in his cheek, the other ad a bullet lodged in his upper spine and could not move his arms or legs. Even thoughIMUNHospital is the designated destination for trauma injury, we, at Kaiser Richmond, see gunshot injures in our ER regularly. During this year alone we treated at least 44 gun shot injuries,ll of those shot were 18 years old or younger. As a physician, it is terrribly difficult to try to explain these childrens condition to their parents and to imagine what lies in the future for them. as a mother it is difficult to go home, look at my own two children and try to expalin to them how we can live in a society that places more restrictions on a 16 year old who wishes to obtain a drivers license, than we place on that same 16 year old who wants to purchase a gun.As a tax paying citizen and as a medical professional concerned about health care expenditures, I think about cost.The average cost of the acute care for a single gun shot wound is about$33,000.And for the youngster, now paralyzed, from a GSW to his spine- estimated life time cost is $1.2 million. 80%of these costs are paid by taxpayers and deplete coffers that could be used in many other ways.And what about the personal, the social, and family costs which there are no dollars to calculate? As a physician, as a mother, and as a citizen I know that we must make everypossible intervention to stop gun related violence. This proposal is one way. and I urge you to pass it. I urge to be courageous, to set an example for other counties in California that citizens can act to stem gun.violence. I will return to work and continue treat these injuries, but you can make a decision that will help reduce them. 1,,Le � � Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) 1 UTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name:- a V L h s Phone: 5 / y N 7 - / -7 3 3 Address: I q 3 ,�- Cd-� � Com! 7 3 City; W � 1 am speaking for myself or organization: a orankation) &. CHECK ONE: i wish to speak on Agenda Item #._ Date: My comments will be: general for against . _ 1 wish to speak on the subject of —V- 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF DIABLO VALLEY 500 ST.MARY'S ROAD,#14,THE BOARDROOM,LAFAYETTE;CALIFORNIA 94549(510)283-2235 October 24, 1995 Statement to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County. From: League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley Re: Support for County Ordinance which would prohibit the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition in residential districts of unincorporated areas. The League of Women Voters in following up its statements of June 5, 1995 to the Planning Commission and October 2, 1995 to the Internal Operations Committee, wishes to state its support for this County Ordinance. The LWV supports measures to regulate and monitor gun and ammunition sales and purchases. We consider such regulation to be part of programs to ensure citizens safety and prevent violence. We feel the easy access to unregulated [often illegal] arms is a threat to the community. We believe that this ordinance provides for protection while allowing responsible gun sales and ownership. Jean Kitchens Acting President League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley Alamo • Antioch • Bethel Island • Brentwood • Byron • Canyon • Clayton • Concord • Danville • Diablo • Lafayette Martinez • Moraga• Oakley • Orinda • Pacheco • Pittsburg • Pleasant Hill • Rossmoor • San Ramon • Walnut Creek Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: -� e Phone: y3 3-1- -2-82 �( Address: Y��L q- raw �r a-r.a_ /-4 wG-A-1Y,v*C it i c k 1 am speaking for myself eiorganization:/4 k °s� _,_T (name of organization) 4 CHECK ONE: 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for against . 1 wish to speak on the subject of do not wish tp speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: e z i ra z �1 -h�` n 5 e�-� �t i✓i'r `c��r 4-�G SE�n So F- x. Car 1> --- F -u_- ��_.G c�i__ •�_ ,C o c/i .�/� _ �i�� F��ca�/%�.�'' n o.c� d5'o��- 6-2f/n/ -_-- - _a5�@a-a/�s_. �_o ��i'�.G __— .��o�,c E .�-civ___ �✓D c��i��_ _Oevas©.-�l .�� -.�� / ��✓ C tl.�__,ST/.��/ice_ i S _v�/i 2J�' a,�T C> -- - - - -------- •-c��_C��'---_�/a-�E'.....v��.C� ®cls �/�,/i-C_.��.F��!�' �r.L°%.�✓��/�L)_eE�i Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Cav►cc�da m. g� m p Phone: Z S3-444 Z Address: 2059 Crrscant tri vc. ��'».�.,� La ¢ayp 2_ " • 1 am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organisation) CHECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on Agenda item # Date.-- my ate:My coinmwts will be: general for against . I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: PZ'$O"-� &"-r exflr-` x my vis , S " (k".bLI 'CO 51zr)/ any !��. ray 7 P•opyrd Ovd�. Ar" -to rQnuja.� 17 c, 6U,-"-� Wa45 L-, -/ti UnvmavpD1a-trOL, G�KQ o� -rl-e lo.vrty Od-obe, 2A, 199 5 (-jonorab� - ►''`�-S°n °� Crrtya. costa Cac�-qty: ,Z C,00uld [uCc- -�'o etc p+.ass rr� �.<.pp°a{- v,-. �awr of � prgno srd ards.rar,c,�. 'C'� ►^tgw/p�t, t—"A4.t�.r5 I'n fie. wnw"wepcV44W , arra +L teuPr!'y , AS a rrs,dory' of L4-f-,aye tfe, Z u-W ?m't l y eidirmyd whA i., mora, (5f last yea*-, a ju*, Sip a r..ui Less t'yie,.n. 1600 yewel s fm-r4 my AxT w, nex+ to a d'-j L3ta'v' a--w d lately acooz -d- . .ect/- ram I�sKu^ ,eobb�as !ce »stare . 1 res tve- - more. &a),nayee( to learry atoC"t 'tk-k- CoJAJ --W� �f 1"p U ?oris 4V)elW ha cL PUOe-,t' Gl ,�c�e a c r»s Starr d ar-" cps," a r+ dbv oasl y' &" a Ae- Lw^iav -ia turd'a'W rrlahY La armee ,Su{us� tir: P215 W1 a. *,-el u-L , O>a,,*u- .N*n4ai- -6o-f,• ord Lall�� r�y &'.G`.r'gb `tlx�`t( °a.rrr,s ter, 6(w SA:� y , 'L � } -gym e caY,uu.7s -WA"rd as ae&K �a>' Sf ,�dr n,y c»�vol verrarri t �r, y0ub�c. o#icr, c�r�i --+fj�e0 ep�dern p� firca•rrxs-rcla#ed i�»Junes �moC ctaa# , a o�q- c ld+er, a&-AA 4d,&COeA . S ne( my l"xrssia»a-fit. AW,4-, Ab p1ffl'-rLt vr; ezu ways pos,S<bce., cot r - 'nl gfd cRs . -rkesc car,a,rr,S arc -He rtnstrv, 1 S' id 6g4aYc todQ My warx ."nrolvcs atrik", -far Chi as Z Gm a physc'*OL -;-5)or eeW,• a pwellao?eC ' CJJ U Exhyam►- 1 /,,us use doal 1.)141-) �unsha-t� v,et'lr»s er, a vtvy.,,,.rttir,a t t, way r airy, eaulLn vo�ts-t��.. n►,r,,..r�ttd o� jri�hxin cL �a�iat�cS <.�I.rh Sam Se u�o �x.�re b<a� Q' ee( -ta Yo`,(- lbx 6tindAjU 50eO 6'1-,d orthars . 0 BLe what S d04-! W;-t!6 -IS J,)Vt rlumberS rat pwp(L � a�,-�L a44 -a I C .el cal-5 �Gx - a 9uvs i..; -'d., w 9 s� ar -tl e. nye her xa S bd' 'HIC uwa,-+o� mamma- lar, halve a-,7 a pw s an arja hU5^er-fam,ly . .T� you c.Tu lG .Set. C"'4- e9pz.. '4'ce., do each yesr� � am .St . you wtDt 1d k4re- rOdo<,yo-t �,�ppart •�, -b�i,sard�., ,,.c,� �'d�e_ --o CIO 7h0.5' of vs �+-� -OL r nw'&ea.Q prof^SSe ars, dna/ u►rf h hoa.(,rh 15-s ut,S Ca a sed by SDC;�a-( prvbtams as cc,eGt as disiasP5 O-f -()o .may, Tr pay-ticu s-r yqu r-,shot Ur;JLLrIes �d d1C.ths ha,c 65r4a#a(- 4t, Gf77 rEaoxtC. P-cp.fier,s _ LAX rbw ✓) 41 x;3 p 0'OG-vk c. qs on.e.. U —a — A,,AUh pc,6z,,r�r ,GCA;7� 6&,r yon IW4tV . y, an ep,den.4G , C� 4Yel& toy S�vA�es arf�res, d mrad Sockrcr is /ala.1#L�,�cd 1h f %s /GS.e. . atctssiby gw»Sy eb�rusu�. `, �vn5 yy�,,r ctnar .- bean i4Ye*VtWRC4— a$ a -r"dr CAAA.4e �or 44 lin �aui[as a-�-id..suiu� ama�. o4r yam . d1}d 4S �-�-,a.[1 yD�do,,,v« pre�x�D» is -tie !C¢Y . S.! ctta ha tp frC4J- a dJbt(Ar4l'i» (row divai4- 0�4a,- -{y.4 act . -Ws orbs nae.,ci is ao..-`. aha► sway y a»c s hgivs prow- �ca '� txls-hr,c�, -Frnra.�►�t Iaws is a. virtual rra.L�.ty ra�'t�. -lia►-� 4» trnpassiba4fY, �u3 cyr4,n cA, i.5 a Small A&v� vr+ his dist V.15-" Mawr., ,b d- ifi ;s 0. mtw �►+ �h�_ —1.4 , acw haK b,007-4 &"4lda&-7444/J d 5mayid by � PoZ.�ft c S 06 W-c_ a,.eree( ISS u a- a:?- a »a#ianal Cv ! . _T Wave t0 .i &1-7d XOIA th ov�i- 7a %. '6 1-►.c, plop Lx zv-v%t l Aw.Le Subpar ld cam. csa:t-� ? rnAsw-cs (g-r99 3 , �,p� p 199 Li �.,-; t�•e.. Pas-t. PlPGSc. do what is dbv►ousLbast--^*Atot amd d..� 4 Z p,✓)Ga++�+'aq� �inw. "to �IO.SS 'rh.�S QYGLrx�n cx� b�(O*� jlOt,� �Z?�a� . �j'Xi�-K � �a✓ �Qt.�' %"vrn2. O�r�Gi�C.�'LSIOCgrct'�7oY� 6� 'r'�'uS l'YIQ�7' "(li�rad ld a m �roc,M, to.L) _;6'59 6mu.,,.t Dt trC— Qt, CA 94-5-4-S) (90) 283- 44-4-Z Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone.- Address: ~' V; I am speaking for myself,._ or organization: (name of oZraoizatia�) CHECK ONE- _ 1 wish to speak on Agenda hem #_._. Date-. My comments will be: general .._,foragainst . i wish to speak on the aMect of - 1 do not wish to speak-bi lea comments for the Board to consider. COMMENTS CONCERNING PROPOSED GUN DEALER LAW My name is Richard Spahl and I am a resident of Concord. I am here to oppose the proposed gun dealer law. First, this law would be an infringement on my constitutional right to keep a firearm. My grand father was a union soldier in the civil war, my brother was a B-17 crewman with 25 missions during world war II, and I was a member of the Air Force during the end of the Korean war and the cold war. We all served to protect the constitution of the United States. As legislators you have taken an oath to protect the constitution. Do so by defeating this attempt to ban firearms for the law-abiding citizen. The proposed law would ban dealers within 500 ft. of a residence, school, day-care center, church, park, liquor store or other gun dealer. Gee, why not include florists, candy stores, and service stations. It is obvious that the intent of this law is to ban gun dealers altogether. I am particularly against the provision to require ammunition purchasers to register and provide a finger print. This smacks of police state tactics, and is unworkable anyway. I, for one, will simply buy my ammunition in another county or state. 044 rotect the second amendment rights of the law-abiding r � g citizen and defeat this proposed law. I RECEIVED October 23, 1995 OCT 2 4 1995 Deane Calhoun RCLERKOARD OF SUPERVISORS Women Against Gun Violence onlrnA cosrA co. 3012 Summit Ave, Oakland Women Against Gun Violence was formed because we were distressed that 9 out of 10 children murdered in the industrialized world are killed in the US, primarily from guns--this means nearly one out of 10 children murdered are murdered in Califo ia--The o n ex the e of t ' eath, the more likely �, s v it is to bei gun. And ecause t e g n in ustry at t e same time that these figures came out, launched a campaign to sell guns to women to protect their , children, and themselves. We're working to get women involved in preventing these deaths by educating people about how to reduce accessibility to guns. It's called prevention. It's cheap, and it save counties money by reducing hospital costs for taking care of those injured by guns, and it reduces fear. We don't feel that it should be easier to get a license to sell guns than pizza. We don't feel that the leading cause of death of our youth today should be able to be purchased from someone's home, virtually with no regulation. This issue of where guns can be sold, should be minor--but it has taken on enormous proportions beta se the bottom line is the bottom line--it's about money. The gun industry�prof1tvfrom the sale of guns, and profits from the fear of gun deaths that generates more gun purchases. They use each death as free advertising. I applaud you for taking on this issue. And, from all of they mothers at the Mother's Day march in Sacramento last year whose children had Pvn shot, who traveled from all over the state to speak their child's name�and hold up h=is—or—her pictu-re—taken—when they re—doing regular kid'activities--at ` school, at—a—party aat a fa-m-i-ly—celebration-- I trust that you will vote to prevent the escalation of these deaths by limiting access to where the guns can be purchased. This is a VERY small step, but it is the least we can do. ATTACHMENT #21 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 5 POLICE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION Mr. Andres Soto Contra Costa County Health Services Department 75 Santa Barbara Road Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523-4200 RE: County Police Chiefs' Association Position on firearms Regulations Dear Mr. Soto: The Contra Costa Police Chiefs' Association, at its May 24th meeting, reviewed your agency's request for the Association to testify insupport of a proposed County ordinance regulating gun dealers in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County at a public hearing scheduled for June 6, 1995. Consistent with past practice,the membership directed that a general letter of support be sent to your agency for submission at the hearing. Accordingly,I am forwarding this letter to you, along with a copy of the California Police Chiefs' Association Position Paper on firearms regulation,which the county association has formally endorsed. You are welcome to cite any or all of its provisions at the hearing. Association members also adopted a statement at its May 24th meeting that local.firearms control ordinances are public policy matters appropriately addressed on a jurisdiction-by jurisdiction basis. Sincerely, VL . NS,Chairman Contra Costa County Police Chiefs' Association DGG:cmd Enclosure ®�■ League of California Cities ®®� 1400 K STREET•SACRAMENTO,CA 95814•(916)658-8200 Calffibmia Cities Work Together May 24, 1995 TO: Chiefs of Police RE: Adoption of "Confronting the American Tragedy: The Need to Better Regulate Firearms" The League of California Cities Board of Directors recently adopted and endorsed the position paper, "Confronting the American Tragedy: The Need to Better Regulate Firearms," advocated by the California Police Chiefs Association. This action took place during the board of directors meeting held April 28 to 29, 1995 in Chico, CA. Firearms usage and control are topical legislative and media issues these days. It is not easy to step into this political hornets nest. We commend the California Police Chiefs Association and all police chiefs throughout California for their leadership in addressing the issue of firearms violence in California. Your vision for making California communities safer is exemplary. We have forwarded the position paper to all mayors and city managers, and to the media. In addition, the policies presented in the paper will be used as a guide for the evaluating future legislation in the area of firearms regulation. Thank you for your hard work,dedication and leadership in this important policy area. g:\excom\dt\pcltr.doc —y -. MAY r � { r / l � r r / � r � * t � r , CAub V W �. %, 10/24/1995 00:33 510-222-5262 PAGE 01 t. Paul McIntosh 4947 Santa Rita Road Richmond, CA 94803 October 23, 1995 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors: I am totally opposed to the Board 's holding the meeting to vote on banning of LEGAL and LICENSED gun dealers from operating in their home. I also object to the obvious meeting time being when held at a time when people who work for a living cannot attend. Now that election time is rapidly approaching I certainly hope you members on the board will be able to show how banning -these gun sales has reduced crime. Why aren't you banning crime and the people who commit crimes with guns . You well know Contra Costa Criminals do NOT buy their guns legally. if the Board of Supervisors think this is a BIG GRAND IDEA TO REDUCE CRIME then it's time for a change! Even the sheriff of CC says this law will not reduce cr ime .- 4 DRAFT October 24, 1995 Mr. John Magaw, Director Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 650 Madison Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20226 Dear Mr. Magaw: It has come to our attention that the recently passed Federal "Crime Law" requires your agency to seek verification of compliance with local laws and regulations before granting firearm sales permits. According to a county review conducted in 1994, 190 Federal Firearm Licenses had been issued in Contra Costa County. However, our county has not been consulted on the issuance of these permits. We understand that the primary basis for declining a permit or renewal application is failure to provide local verification of regulatory compliance. This letter serves as formal notification that Contra Costa's current county ordinances prohibit the sale of items, including guns, from a private home. Therefore, we are requesting that you review the Federal Firearms Licenses issued in the county and revoke permits which conflict with our local laws. Attached is a copy of the relevant county ordinances. T Mr. John Magaw October 24, 1995 Page TWO We would like to have verification from you as to your current renewal procedures, your level of commitment and ability to enforce the Crime Bill, and the expected non-renewal rate in the coming year. We believe that the effective enforcement of federal and state laws will better protect our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence. While we debate new ways of reducing crime and violence, it is essential that the existing laws regulating the sale of guns be enforced. Only then can we effectively determine which additional steps are needed. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Signed: Members of the Board of Supervisors fi JERRY AVALOS 1 RELATED TO ITEM D-9 ' NRA Members' Council of Brentwood A Volunteer USislation Action Group P.O.Box 2025-Antioch,CA 94531-2025-(510)757-6257-Fak(510)778-6004 October 22, 1995 TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FROM: Jerry Avalos,president,Brentwood Members' Council NRA-ILA RLQ: Proposed ordinance regulating the sale of firearms The Brentwood Members'Council of the National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action opposes the ordinance and exhorts the Board of Supervisors to reject the ordinance as well. Supervisor Jim Rogers and the Contra Costa County Health Department has clearly not been able to provide any data whatsoever justifying the ordinance. It has been stated by law enforcement and some members of the Planning Commission that passing the ordinance is a symbolic gesture,but will not reduce the level of gun violence in our county. Putting legal,law abiding individuals out of business for the sake of symbolism is quite an expensive and ludicrous gesture. Recently,Sheriff Warren Rupf has stated that the ordinance will not"...do a thing to curtail gun violence." Basically the ordinance does not have the support of local law enforcement who also sees FFL holders as not being a problem. It is quite clear that the ordinance is nothing more than a ploy to enhance political careers of some individuals. You have heard our arguments why the ordinance should not be passed, therefore I shall not rehash them,I continue to urge you to reject the ordinance and forget politics and get back to the business at hand and that is managing our county,not attacking legal,law abiding citizens. I also urge the supervisors to terminate the county Health Departments role as advisors on firearms policy matters within the county. I would file to see their role as what it was intended to be and that is dealing with issues such as illness,mental health and preventive disease measures and not presenting themselves as someone who is in authority to promote policy on the issues of firearms or violence prevention of which they have no business delving into, since gust control is not a health issue no matter how you look at it. It is not appropriate for a gun control organization to masquerade themselves as the health department,so that they can use federal funding to promote their anti-firearms propaganda. Again,the Brentwood Members' Council NRA-ILA urges the supervisors to reject the ordinance. THE PRICE POR LIBER77 19 kTFRKA1.6'IGff-"CE _"OZT-25711995 05:34 9UFERUISfJR TL7F.'LH4:Sl7N 5104278142 F'.03 October 24, 1995 Statement on Proposed Ordinance to Regulate Gun Dealers in Unincorporated Area I agree with the motivations behind the proposed county gun sale ordinance. We all wish to protect our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence. I believe we must reduce the number of guns on the streets. We must do all we can to reduce the number of firearms being used by teens in gang killings and drive-bys. We need to do more to reduce tragic gun accidents. This Board and previous boards have taken progressive stands on gun control c -- including suport of legislation to ban semi-automatic weapons and support of the Brady Bill. We've gone so far as to put several ballot measures before the people of Contra Costa on Gun Control and Violence Prevention involving guns. While we debate new ways of reducing crime and violence, we first need to enforce the existing laws which regulate the sale and use of guns. Only then can we effectively determine what additional steps are needed. (Quote from voter-adopted plan entitled, "Preventing Violence in Contra Costa County: A Countywide Action Plan & A Framework for Action," page 17: "Enforce existing laws that regulate the sale of firearms and encourage coordination between all county departments with responsibility for such enforcement.") OCT-25R-1995 05:34 SUPEROISOR TORLF.KSON 5104275142 P.04 Page TWO Under our current county zoning law, it is illegal to sell guns from a home. In speaking with federal and state officials, I learned that new federal crime laws require verification of compliance with local laws in order to renew or issue Federal Firearm Licenses and that this relatively new requirement is causing a dramatic drop in permits and licenses. According to a county review conducted in July of 1994, 190 Federal Firearm Licenses had been issued by ATF in the Contra Costa County unincorporated areas. Since the Crime Law went into effect, this number has been reduced by 40% to 50%. It is now estimated that 100 FFL's remain. Of these, we have heard estimates that between 28 - 70 are "home gun dealers." We have not done any kind of comprehensive survey or analysis to determine how many of these FFL holders are active, how many firearms are actually sold, and how many are not planning to renew. Vicky Renneker, the top ATF administrator for the Western United States, predicts their enforcement efforts will cause this number to continue to decline dramatically in the months ahead. I agree with the Sheriff and other police chiefs and safety officers I've talked to and I believe what Gary Yancey, our DA has told me. The Community Development Department has indicated that their department has never received complaints about home gun dealers. OCT-2`5'-1995 05:35 SUPERUISOR TORLHKSON 5104278142 P.05 Page THREE I urge us to all sign a letter to the Director of the Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to formally make ATF aware of our local laws. Because our county already does not now permit the home sale of guns, we should request that ATF revoke any licenses that they have issued which are illegal in this county. In place of further work on a new county ordinance to regulate in all the proposed areas, let's send a letter from our board asking ATF's commitment to full enforcement of the federal and state laws that apply here. Let's get their commitment to do their job. Let's assis them in doing their job. It concerns me that we've gone head first into creating an expensive new ordinance. So far, we've spent hundreds of hours of staff resources conducting research and drafts for the proposed ordinance, and we risk spending upwards of $200,000 more dollars for the development of a new ordinance and new enforcement process. Within the coming year, we're talking about only a fraction of"home gun dealers" in unincorporated Contra Costa County compared to the number that existed in 1994. To regulate these dealers through a new ordinance could mean a cost of between $10,000 to $15,000 per remaining dealer. Today we received more bad news about our budget. Can you tell me we'll save more lives or reduce risks of accidents and injury more by spending $100-$200,000 on this new ordinance than on numerous other program and budgvet choices we were confronted with earlier today? Such as spending $100-$200,000 on Born Free .-OGT-25;-1995 05:35 SUPERVISOR TORLAKSON 5104278142 P.06 Page FOUR or on substance abuse prevention or on more police officers in North Richmond or Bay Point or a sheriff or investigator to help convict more criminals in all parts of our county. Let's go after people commiting crime...code enforcement going after crack houses ... $ for Safe Streets programs that attacks absesntee landlords allowing drug dealer sin our neighborhoods. I believe there is a more sensible first approach, one that can save us the cost of writing and enforcing a redundant law -- let's spend 32 cents to send this letter to Washington. I think we should reduce the number of guns on the street, before increasing the number of laws on the books. Tom Torlakson Supervisor, District Five TOTAL P.06 OCT-25-1995 05:32 SUPERVISOR TORLAKSON 5104273142 P.01 DRAFT October 24, 1995 Mr. John Magaw, Director Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 650 Madison Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C_ 20226 Dear Mr. Magaw: It has come to our attention that the recently passed Federal "Crime Law" requires your agency to seek verification of compliance with local laws and regulations before granting firearm sales permits. According to a county review conducted in 1994, 190 Federal Firearm Licenses had been issued in Contra Costa County. However, our county has not been consulted on the issuance of these permits. We understand that the primary basis for declining a permit or renewal application is failure to provide local verification of regulatory compliance. This letter serves as formal notification that Contra Costa's current county ordinances prohibit the sale of items, including guns, from a private home. Therefore, we are requesting that you review the Federal Firearms Licenses issued in the county and revoke permits which conflict with our local laws. Attached is a copy of the relevant county ordinances, G5:33 SUPERVISOR TORLRKSON 5104278142 P-02 Mr, John Magaw October 24, 1995 Page TWO We would like to have verification from you as to your current renewal procedures, your level of commitment and ability to enforce the Crime Bill, and the expected non-renewal rate in the coming year. We believe that the effective enforcement of federal and state laws will better protect our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence. While we debate new ways of reducing crime and violence, it is essential that the existing laws regulating the sale of guns be enforced. Only then can we effectively determine which additional steps are needed. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Signed: Members of the Board of Supervisors An Analysis of the Political Ramifications of Gun Control by Hal Engel One of the most contentious issues currently on the political scene is gun control. Those that are proponents of gun control would have you believe that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of much more restrictive gun control laws. Yet the results of the 1994 elections would appear to fly in the face of these claims. After all, 82%of all candidates for state or national office that were endorsed by the National Rifle Association were elected! Are the claims of the anti-Second Amendment groups about public sentiment on this issue based on verifiable facts? Or are these misrepresentations cleverly designed to influence the political process? Lets examine some of the existing poll data to see what the true picture is. A December 1993 CBS poll asked "Do gun control laws reduce violent crime?" 64%of the respondents said no.(1)(4) During the 1994 NBC special "America the Violent" a viewer 900 number call in poll was conducted. The question asked was "Should hand guns be banned?". 80%of the callers said no. This poll, of course, was not scientific but it did represent the opinions of 76,756 Americans. (1) A scientific December 1993 Time poll validated NBCs "nonscientific" results when it found that 74%of Americans opposed the banning of handguns. (2)(5) A 1993 poll conducted by Luntz, Weber Research & Strategic Services for Ross Perot asked what the most important cause of crime is. Response from those being polled -Values (58.8%), Drug/Alcohol (35.1%) and economics (14.9%). What about guns? A mere 7.3%thought guns were a leading cause of crime! Only 9.3%of those surveyed said "gun control"was the "single most important thing that can be done to help reduce violent crime in the United States today." (3)(7) An exit poll conducted by the New York Times on election day, 1994, found that 37% of the respondents claimed to be affiliated with the National Rifle Association. Other 1994 election day exit polls conducted by the Harris and Gallup organizations, the Times Mirror Company, and the Tarrance Group have shown a voting block ranging in size between 23 and 27 million voters who are either members, affiliated members, or associated members of the National Rifle Association.(6) The Tarrance Group, a subsidiary of the Gallop Polling Organization, asked 1000 registered voters in a July, 1995 poll " If Wayne LaPeirre and the National Rifle Association told you that a presidential candidate would take away your right to own a gun, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?" 61%responded "less likely."At the same time the pollsters asked " If Wayne LaPeirre and the National Rifle Association told you that a congressional candidate would take away your right to own a gun, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?"59% responded "less likely." (6) What conclusions can be drawn from this data? First, approximately 2/3rds of all Americans are opposed to encroachments on the Second Amendment. Secondly, about 35%to 40%of all American voters are hard core Second Amendment supporters for whom this is a"hot button" issue. That is these voters will vote this issue to the exclusion of all other issues. Thirdly, on the anti-Second Amendment side there is an equally dedicated but much smaller group of voters. Based on the above polling data the anti-Second Amendment "hot button" group is about 7%to 9%of all Americans. Fourth, the rest of the voters are somewhat ambivalent about the issue but they lean toward the pro-Second Amendment side and are influenced by National Rifle Association candidate ratings. . t During the Contra Costa County Internal Operations Committee hearing on October 2, 1995, 44 persons spoke. Of these 11 supported the proposed ordinance. Of these 11, 4 were not from Contra Costra County and along with 2 from the county are apparently professional anti-Second Amendment lobbyists. If we discount the professional lobbyists from the count, this works out to 5 actual voters that spoke for the proposed ordinance and 33 that spoke against.(8) A ratio of 6.66 to 1 against additional gun control. In addition, there were 12 individuals that filled out the green form provided at the meeting that did not speak. Of these 10 were opposed and 2 favored the ordinance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that these individuals are representative of the "hot button" groups on both sides of the issue. If we look at the national poll data summarized in the last paragraph we see the ratio of the national "hot button" groups is somewhere between 4/1 to 6/1 pro-Second Amendment/anti-Second Amendment. As you can see the national poll data is in basic agreement with what we are seeing locally. One of those that spoke in favor of the ordinance was Ellen Schwartz.(8) You will recall that Miss Schwartz ran for congress in 1994. 1 was in that congressional district and was keenly aware of her positions on the issues. In particular, most of her campaign literature was very anti-Second Amendment. Her opponent, Bill Baker, was endorsed by the National Rifle Association. Miss Schwartz was F rated by the National Rifle Association. The voters rejected her position by almost 2 to 1 in the 1994 election. Again these numbers fall right in line with the national poll data presented above. In addition, this particular instance is the clearest local example of the election results that we can expect to see in the future as the pro-Second Amendment groups become increasingly organized. Until 1994 most American gun owners thought that further encroachments on their Second Amendment rights were not politically possible. Then the anti-Second Amendment lobbyists convinced many in the 102nd congress that Americans supported additional gun control measures. This awaked a sleeping political giant. That giant had just barely opened its eyes by November 1994 and had just started organizing at the national and state levels. In spite of the short notice that the pro-Second Amendment groups had to prepare for the 1994 elections they had a striking effect on the results. The pro-Second Amendment groups are now getting increasingly organized at the local level and will bring the same level of determination to local politics that they brought to state and national levels in 1994. What does this all mean to you as a politician? You must ask yourself the following question. Which "hot button" group do I want on my side, the pro-Second Amendment group that accounts for 35% to 40% of the voters or the much smaller anti-Second Amendment group? I believe that you know the answer. References 1. Guns, Crime and Freedom, Wayne LaPierre, 1994 pg. 211 2. Guns, Crime and Freedom, Wayne LaPierre, 1994 pg. 212 3. Guns, Crime and Freedom, Wayne LaPierre, 1994 pg. 217 & 218 4. Gun Laws Don't Work, CBS/New York Times Pool, Dec. 5-7, 1993 5. NRS Influence -Time Magazine Survey, Yankelovich Partners, Augest 16, 1993 6.American Rifleman, October, 1995, pg. 7 7. Lutz Weber Research &Strategic Services,Washington, D. C., Media Master& Focus Group Analysis, April 1993. 8. Contra Costa County Notice to Interested Individuals and Attachments, Attachment 22, pg. 1-4, October 16, 1995 CONTRA COSTA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 1855 San Miguel Drive, Suite 26 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 r (510)256-9696 RECEIVED DAVID D. O'GRADY, PH.D. OCTk President { i CLERK pSJR NTRA COSTA CO I Ortober 16, 1995 Board of Supervisors Contra Cosa County 651 Fir=e Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sirs and Madames: Firearm deaths are one,of the most serious public health problems our society faces now. Firearms are the seventh,leading cause.of death in the US.t Each.year more Californians are killed by firearms.Oan by motor_ vehicle accidents.2. In Contra: Costa Couuty, crimes committed .with 'firearms increased•dramatically in .the past ,decade. Although tl;c population has increased•ottly 22%I "m :1983. io.;1992, armed robbery is up 95%; assatilt Nt-ith firearms is up 243% homicide with'firearms is up 247%. 3,4 The brlard of directors of the Contra Costa Psychological Association.urges you to.pass the.mode, gun dealer ordinance proposed..in the'report "Taking Aim At Gun Dealers," prepared by the county Health Services-Department. Our executive board unamimously Voted to seek. your support of this ordinance because we believe the proposed regulations will help to safeguard the health and safety of our citizens. While we recognize that effectiA e solutions to gun violence will require long-term effort and multiple approaches, the Board of Supervisors can have an important impact now by implementing this ordinance. Tli'c .C..ontitl%(A_);tU t sSC)lati0n a c ap(:� of the Calitniiiia g l�� 1�'4liVtV ll:il! Assaaation, repr"cnts 1'25 licensed psychologists practicing in the county. Our association iJ interested ;n this matter because as health professionals we are deeply concerned about the problem of oolent behavior in our communities People: do Doi neer. gun dealers operating in theirneighborhoods. In fact, they are cerrailiK ;fer «iIthout them.. Research shows clearly that the easy a cessibiliN to s_art ,s assc•ciat(.',ci with increased risk of death because nzost firearm deaths result from peepi2. acting impu;siNe')y oi; their pas ions of the moment when a firearm is readily There:. ;: a�:aiiability c; firearms in the Lome is associated with an increased risk of c:^ sh i:;i:;e in e horne, 'according to controlied behavional :eseareh:7 Handguns and loaded gacs to the hi,nic are gn licant ;isk factors for suicide even in people with no apparent psychiatric alsorder.s, " Some people say thay if someone wants to kill himself, he'll find a way--gun Of DO gun--so there is no point in limiting access to guns. This is plain wrong. C.qo ` Most suicides are impulsive acts of desparation. Making it more difficult or time consuming may be all a person needs to change his mind, tell someone and look for a reason to live. While most suicide attempts with drugs or knives fail, it is rare for attempts with guns to fail. Bullets don't let a person change his mind. Easy access to guns also contributes to our growing problem of homicide. Contrary to popular belief, most homicides are not committed during a robbery or other felony but during an argument. The fact is, in well over half of all homicides the victims are killed by someone they know during an argument or nonfelonious circumstance.10, 11 Such impulsive violence might be prevented with more difficult access to guns. A research study published in September 1995 concluded that one of the policies most likely to be effective in reducing gun violence is increased regulation and inspection of licensed gun dealers.12 This is a policy you can implement now. We strongly urge you to support the gun dealer ordinance. ly, / David D. O'Grady, Ph.D. President, Contra Costa Psy to ical Association 1. Journal of the American Medical Association.. Gun-related violence increasingly viewed as public health challenge,257, 9, 1992. 2. California Department of Health 3. Department of Justice, State of California 4. Contra Costa County Demographer 5. Kellerman,AL & Reay,DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. New England Journal of Medicine, 314, 1986. 6. Kellerman,A.L. et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1993. 7. Kellerman,A.L. et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. New England Journal of Medicine, 467, 1992. 8. Brent, D.A. et al. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 21, 1991. 9. Brent, D.A. et al. Firearms and adolescent suicide. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 147, 10, 1993. 10. Rand, MR. Handgun crime victims. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.. US Department of Justice, 1990. 11. Mercy, JA et al. Fatal violence among spouses in the USA 1976-1985. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 1989. 12. O'Donnell, C.R. Firearm deaths among children and youth. American Psychologist, 50, 9. September, 1995. .i S Percent Increase in Crimes Committed with Guns in Contra Costa County Over 10 Years (1983-92) 250 247% 241% 200- 150 - 100- 95% 0015010095% 50 - 22% 0 Population Robbery Assault Homicide Sources: Contra Costa County Demographer Department of Justice, State of California ECEIVED 9 W - CLER COAOFSe5�SORS on TA CO. October 18, 1995 Supervisors of Contra Costa County`72,C. A 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Subject: Support For Firearms Sale Ordinance Under Consideration by Supervisors Honorable Supervisors, At your next October 24, 1995 meeting,the Supervisors will consider a land use ordinance that addresses sale of firearms in the unincorporated areas of our County. The purpose of this letter is to request that the Supervisors adopt this ordinance in it's entirety, including the provisions for a police permit, security measures, setbacks from incompatible land uses, one million dollar liability insurance, and especially the banning of sales in residential districts. As you may be aware,many other cities(Lafayette,Richmond,Pinole, Oakland,Fremont, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Antioch,Berkeley, San Francisco, San Diego,Pasadena, Santa Monica, among others) have adopted similar ordinances, and these have not been successfully challenged in the courts. Only Lafayette has been challenged and their City Attorney could review the status of that lawsuit, where every legal decision to date has been favorable to Lafayette. Pro-bono legal assistance has been provided to the City of Lafayette from a number of attorneys. The complaint does not stand on the second amendment, since 6 of 6 Supreme Court rulings and 36 of 36 federal court rulings have found that the second amendment provides for state's rights and not individual rights. The Lafayette complaint does not challenge the rights of a local government to regulate land uses, issues police permits, hold public hearings, or exercise it's rights set forth in State Penal Code 12071. The Lafayette complaint focuses on minutia. The legal threats made by some to sue the County for violation of the second amendment is inaccurate, since the gun lobby attorneys know that their side cannot afford additional losses in the courts.But these threats do foster misinformation and promote the conspiracy theory that appears to benefit those opposing the ordinance. This is a land use ordinance and not a gun ownership ordinance. In your review of this ordinance,please consider that there are more FFL holders in California than there are high school teachers. There are more FFL holders in this State than there are gas stations. You and I are required to obtain a permit to purchase a bullet proof vest or mace, or to drive a car. It is a felony to carry concealed brass knuckles,but a misdemeanor to carry semi-automatics. Weare asking for a reasonable level of government. The gun violence epidemic in this county requires prevention, r . intervention and detention solutions. This ordinance will address a single but critical aspect of the multi-faceted problem,that is liberal access to firearms.Furthermore,with a reduction in the number of FFLs,the ATF,DOJ and local police will be able to better regulate those legitimate FFL operations. It is well documented by ATF(Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms)and cities throughout the US that many illegal gun sales are conducted out of the home,because of the lack of local law enforcement of federal and state laws. Many Federal Firearm Licensed(FFL)dealers do not comply with state and federal laws. It takes local laws to enforce these laws. ATT's studies and testimony to the US Senate demonstrate this. Virtually all of the statistics on non-compliance gathered in the PACT report, coincided with the ATF national statistics. Thirty four percent had federal firearms violations and 40% of those required to have a state or local license did not comply. The ATF survey analyzed data in many other categories and it would stand to reason that our county fits the complete profile of the ATF report. The report states that"Many kitchen table dealers acquire an FFL to skirt state and local laws, such as waiting periods.""Although most licensee holders do not contribute,to our crime problem,the sheer volume of dealers is obstructive in determining the focus of our compliance program.""Whether crin-drials buy guns directly through straw purchases or from traffickers who buy the guns for resale, virtually all guns ending up in the hands of criminals, flow through licensed dealers" The FFL is not intended to get gun collectors a good deal. Further,the ATF states emphatically that it does not want the FFL to be used by the gun hobbyist/collector to obtain their guns at a discount or to skirt state and local laws. In fact,the ATF supported the FFL fee increase to discourage such misuse of the FFL. The Supervisors are not obligated to make transactions easier for the very people that the ATF are trying to discourage from obtaining licenses. Issues when considering home firearm sales include: home deliveries left on porches unattended can fall into wrong hands;often firearm thefts from the home go unreported;the police can't locate the home seller when trying to track weapons used in crime;potential fire hazard;FFL holders can order via in" to skirt state waiting period;fear from neighbors is legitimate; security usually does not exist;adequate security measure are often incompatible with home ordinances;and property values are potentially affected by the presence of home dealers. Many of these kitchen table dealers store large quantities of firearms and ammunition,which they can call a"collection"rather than and"inventory". A disaster from a fire in the County earlier this year in one of these homes was averted by fast acting fire fighters. In Lafayette, at the time Ordinance 443 was adopted we had 3 non-conforining legal uses in the city, out of a total of 19 FFLs. That is 3 FFLs had their COE(Certificate of Eligibility)from the Department of Justice(DOJ)and their local business registration. Only 3 FFLs had their COE when the ordinance was first considered, and by the time the ordinance was passed a total of 6 FFLs had their COE. Three of 19 equals 16%compliance or 84%non compliance in our fair city. The rare exceptions from federal and state compliance do not explain this pathetic statistic.Lafayette Council Member Don Tatzin queried each FFL holder who testified at our numerous public hearings about whether they were in legal compliance with the federal and state governments and for what reasons they were not in compliance. The answers told the story.Most of these people stated that they do not believe in these laws and therefore do not comply with them. Prior to the adoption of their ordinance,the City of Oakland randomly selected 2 among their 118 FFLs and conducted sting operations. At both locations,they found outrageous violations of federal, 4 H � state and local laws. One FFL seller sold 750 illegal guns to unknown persons in one month. Another, registered with the state was filling out the DROS (DOJ Dealers Record of Sale)with names off gravestones, 50 at a shot. Oakland found 120 illegal sales to felons during the sting operation. From interviewing Sgt. Rob Stewart of the Oakland Police Dept., I learned of the phenomenon where gun dealers are relocating to cities where local laws are weak. Once Oakland enacted its ordinance, the number of FFLs in Berkeley increased by 6 or 24%in less than 1 year,thus motivating Berkeley to enact its ordinance. One FFL in Oakland, well known to the police for illegal activities, relocated to Walnut Creek. Oakland estimates that the net effect of their ordinance was a reduction from 118 FFLs to 7, a number that reflects those FFLs willing and able to comply with laws. These displaced illegal dealers will migrate to cities and counties with weak local laws. Sgt. Stewart is available to speak with you about his compelling experiences with this issue and can be contacted at 510-238-3744. The legal basis and foundation for local and land use planning and regulation is the police power of a city to regulate in furtherance of the public health ang safety andgeneral welfare. Developed by early courts this power is now expressly set forth in Article XI Section of the State Constitution. You have every right, and obligation to your constituents,to adopt this ordinance. Your citizens have spoken in two separate elections with passage of advisory Measures B, C,D and P in 1993 and 1994. The nexus to property values, land use, and public health and safety have been clearly established and demands a reaction. Please do not forget that our cities and counties are not islands. Our communities are defined by broad boundaries. There were Contra Costa citizens killed at 101 California. And many citizens vote as if personally affected by that shooting. As you each as Supervisors well know, with rights and privileges come responsibilities. Thank you for considering the safety and welfare of our county by enacting this ordinance. Sincerely, Marylee Guinon Lafayette Citizen CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMISSION AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION COMMISSION 50 DOUGLAS DRIVE,SUITE 201 MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-8500 October 19, 1995 Phone: (510)313-4188 Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier CCC Board of Supervisors . 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110 Concord, CA 94520 Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier: At the October meeting of the Juvenile Justice-Delinquency Prevention Commission of Contra Costa County, the vote was unanimous that "the Commission write urging the Board of Supervisors to vote in favor of the Gun Dealer Ordinance which is scheduled for a final hearing before the Board on October 24, 1995 . " Your vote for this ordinance will allow us to take a modest, but much needed, step towards controlling the proliferation of fire- arms in our communities, especially among our young people where both gun use and resulting fatalities are of epidemic proportions . We ask you to stand up to the well organized and vocal gun lobby on this issue, and vote for the Gun Dealer Ordinance. Please vote yes on the Gun Dealer Ordinance. Sincerely, Clif aylor,_ Chairman, JJ-DPC CT:ds (Same letter to each Board Member) jjc5/DeSaul.wp 23480 Marsh Creek Rd. Brentwood, CA 94513 October 18, 1995 Tom Torlakson Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Torlakson: I have communicated numerous times with you and the other supervisors during the past year or so regarding my objection to any county ordinance that would regulate legitimate law-abiding gun dealers in unincorporated areas of the county. My most recent letter of Sept. 10, 1995 is enclosed. Unfortunately once again my position at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has me traveling to Wash. D.C. so I will be unable to attend the October 24, 1995 Board of Supervisors meeting. I do not believe it is up to the Board to put honest people out of business in this county. The proposed regulations, including a $1 M liability policy, certainly may do so for those of us operating on a slim profit margin. I urge the Board to use reason not emotion in making their determination on October 24th. Just answer the question of how many problems have been caused by fully compliant legitimate dealers within the county during the past two or three years. I am sure the answer is none! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, 'VJack L. Robbins cc: Gayle Bishop Jim Rogers Jeff Smith IVED Mark DeSaulnier RE"CE OCT 20 K0 CLERK coNTRA 0 su SORS Co. 23480 Marsh Creek Rd. Brentwood, CA 94513 Sept. 10, 1995 Tom Torlakson Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Torlakson: I am writing to once again voice my strong objection to any type of county ordinance which would regulate legitimate gun dealers in the unincorporated areas of the county. Four years ago I established a small firearms and reloading business and have gradually been building this business up in anticipation of retirement, in a few years, from my present position as an Assistant Deputy Associate Director at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I have a fictitious business license, a county business license, state tax permit, permit to store and sell smokeless powder, a FFL (I was inspected by the BATF in 12/93 as part of the renewal process), a certificate of elgibility from the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to sell firearms, and am now a licensed course provider and course instructor by DOJ to teach the fiearms safety course required to purchase a handgun. I have spent considerable time and resources on my business and am proud of the service I am able to give my customers; this includes minor gunsmithing. California has among the toughest gun laws in the United States; keeping up with changes to these laws and new laws takes significant administrative effort. Contra Costa County does not need to go after the legitimate gun dealers such as myself but instead crack down on the illegitimate people who are not complying with the myriad of state and county rules to operate a business. In fact state preemption laws prevent a county from regulating firearms sales--such requirements as 1 M$ liability insurance are definitely an attempt to do so. Myself and many other legitimate dealers are considering filing a class action law suit against the county if such an ordinance is passed. I strongly resent putting a new government bureaucracy in place, paid for by me as a taxpayer, to fund such an ordinance when there is no value added. What problem is the county trying to solve? Discussions with the Brentwood police chief and Sheriff Rupf indicate there have been no problems with legitimate gun dealers selling out of their homes. Certainly any supervisors personal prejudice against firearms has no place in this discussion. Since I have a regular full-time job, I cannot attend the hearing on October 2, 1995. 1 would appreciate this letter being read into the formal record as a strong objection to your proposed county ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely your Jack L. Robbins cc: Burke Critchfield, attorney-at-law Q0 V.� PIrom: M.D.Sah"dor To:Board of Supervisors Ow:ICIU f0 The:11240,10 Pape 1 of 1 Lafayette , CA Date : 10/23/95 Time : 22:37:46 Subject : Gun Dealers Supervisors: T am appalled that you are actually considering making criminals out of law-abiding citizens. Your completely misguided idea that there is a cause and effect between licensed gun dealers and violence is beyond reason. The Sheriff'and other law enforcement professionals have shown you catagorically that they have never had any problem with licensed gun dealers. Target instead known criminals who flaunt the law with juries intent on "nullification". This reeks of political grandstanding to the minority of "politically correct". Please understand that even former liberals "have had enough". M. D. Schneider 1 � r iv ' / I COAZISJww10.1 10/24/1995 00:33 510-222-5262 PACE 01 Paul McIntosh 4947 Santa mita Road Richmond, CA 94803 October 23, 1995 Contra Costa Hoard of Supervisors: I am totally opposed to the Hoard's holding the meeting to vote on banning of LEGAL and LICENSED gun dealers from operating in their home. I also object to the obvious meeting time being when held at a time when people who work for a living cannot attend. Now that election time is rapidly approaching I certainly hope you members on the board will be able to show how banning these gun sales has reduced crime . Why aren't you banning crime and the people who commit crimes with guns. You well knov Contra Costa Criminals do NOT buy their guns legally. If the Hoard of Supervisors think this is a SIG GRAND IDEA TO REDUCE CRIME then it's time -for a change! Even the Sheriff of CC says this law will not reduce crime. 10/23/1995 03:25 510-938-8089 REPUBLICAN PARTY PAGE 02 Republican Party of Contra Costa County 800 South Broadway,Suite 101 a Walnut Creek,CA 945%.(510)938-8088•Fax 938.8089 RECD October 21, 1995 OCT 2 31995 To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CLERKBWD OF SUPERVIS RS FROM: Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee -CONTRA COSTA Co. RF. Ordinance#95 Regulating Firearms Sales Supervisor Jim Roger has proposed an ordinance aimed at regulating the legal business of firearms sales both in residential and in commercially zoned areas. The Contra Costa Count\ Republican Central Committee opposes the ordinance on the.tollowing grounds: 1. There has been no data presented or available .justifying the implementation of the ordinance. 2. State regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the: Department of Justice have stated that there is no problem with Federal Fircanns Licensed (FFL.) holders in the county, Pwsing the ordinance is therefore a vete of no confidence in the ability of state agencies to regulate the sale of firearms. I The ordinance has its origins in organizations devoted to the prohibition of legal firearms sales and ownership. 4. Data presented by the legal and lawful gun o%%'ning community has been ignored by certain supervisors who are unfairly closed minded to the rights and concerns of legal business individuals and lav abiding gun owners in the county. 5. The ordinance has the potential of entangling the county in an expensive and unnecessary legal challenge. b. Passing the ordinance according to the author of the state preemption law is a violation of state law and encourages patch%%-ork quilt of laws that will create to more burdensome bureaucracy and add confusion The purpose of the state preemption law is to ensure that state laws will be enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the state on an equal basis. 7. Sheriff Warren Rupf does not support the ordinance, therefore local law enforcement does not support the ordinance• The bias and position of certain supervisors is obvious. One supervisor refers all questions on firearm related matters to an organization and individuals in favor of coercive gun control, oblivious to the concerns and rights of the legal and lawful bun mkninb community, hence individuals who are responsible and law-abiding are being treated no differently than a potential criminal. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee is asking that the Supervisors carefully consider the oath of office they have taken in protecting the Constitution and take into strong consideration, the Constitutional rights of the community. OCT 23 '95 03:05PM CHEVRON NIGERIA BU 510 842 1549 P.1 RECEIVED 't 1730 Helix Court (. :T 2 319 Concord, CA 94518 October 23, 1995 CLERK a 1D OF SUPERVISORS C'. r 4A COSTA CO. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I would like to urge you to vote against the proposed gun dealer law for unincorporated Contra Costa County. This repressive piece of legislation is punitive to a few law-abiding citizens and does nothing to control the accessibility of guns to criminals. Thank you for considering my viewpoint. I Donna Cook i 1 T Many of us grew up with parents who used guns to hunt. We were carefully taught about the danger of guns and respect for their use. They were never to be used on people, ever. That was reserved for the Armed Forces and controlled police forces. Being raised in a military family we we knew the finality of gun power. No such controls exist for private gun owners of today, or for those people who choose to sell guns and ammunition for a living, or those who acquire guns illegally, because of fear or greed. Some gun owners resent having their income source limited. Thee is a dangerous tendency today to settle grievances by gun justice. It is a serious self-destructive trend. Are we reverting to the old Wild West Mind set? How long will it take to eradicate this "Take the law into your own hands" mind set? We need the sellers to cooperate fully. They need to make the transition to another income source. For example, the Presidio changed its Military Chapel to an Interfaith Center learning how to understand each other. How many domestic arguments have been settled by death because of heat of the moment anger? How many people were taught other more acceptable ways of settling their grievances? Gun Control combined with Conflict Control seems to me to be a transition stage we desperately need in order to get our community back to some sense of mutal understanding. Guns accelerate hate, anger, and violence. Educated communication decellerates hatred and anger because the energy is channelled towards some constructive agreement which everyone can learn to live with. We have lost many of our potentially productive youth and nurturing women to the convenience of having an available gun with which to vent one's anger. I hope that we human beings can wisely think about whether we want to enter the next millenium destroying each other because of hatred, or learning to control our impulses and see the fine qualities we have to share. These kind of choices are the building blocks of our future. It starts with your decision and its long term consequences. Think of our grand children who want peace without guns, so they can enjoy life. C.L.A.S. CHOICES 3603 Cutting Blvd. Richmond, CA 94804 510-234-2267 Many of us grew up with parents who used guns to hunt. We were carefully taught about the danger of guns and respect for their use. They were never to be used on people, ever. That was reserved for the Armed Forces and controlled police forces. Being raised in a military family we we knew the finality of gun power. No such controls exist for private gun owners of today, or for those people who choose to sell guns and ammunition for a living, or those who acquire guns illegally, because of fear or greed. Some gun owners resent having their income source limited. Theba is a dangerous tendency today to settle grievances by gun justice. It is a serious self-destructive trend. Are we reverting to the old Wild West Mind set? How long will it take to eradicate this "Take the law into your own hands" mind set? We need the sellers to cooperate fully. They need to make the transition to another income source. For example, the Presidio changed its Military Chapel to an Interfaith Center learning how to understand each other. How.many domestic arguments have.been settled by death because of heat of the moment anger? How many people were taught other more acceptable ways of settling their grievances? Gun Control combined with Conflict Control seems to me to be a transition stage we desperately need in order to get our community back to some sense of mutal understanding. Guns accelerate hate, anger, and violence. Educated communication decellerates hatred and anger because the energy is channelled towards some constructive agreement which everyone can learn to live with. We have lost many of our potentially productive youth and nurturing women to the convenience of having an available gun with which to vent one's anger. I hope that we human beings can wisely think about whether we want to enter the next millenium destroying each other because of hatred, or learning to control our impulses and see the fine qualities we have to share. These kind of choices are the building blocks of our future. It starts with your decision and its long term consequences. Think of our grand children who want peace without guns, so they can enjoy life. C.L.A.S. CHOICES 3603 Cutting Blvd. Richmond, CA 94804 510-234-2267 Many of us grew up with parents who used guns to hunt. We were carefully taught about the danger of guns and respect for their use. They were never to be used on people, ever. That was reserved for the Armed Forces and controlled police forces. Being raised in a military family we we knew the finality of gun power. No such controls exist for private gun owners of today, or for those people who choose to sell guns and ammunition for a living, or those who acquire guns illegally, because of fear or greed. Some gun owners resent having their income source limited. Theht is a dangerous tendency today to settle grievances by gun justice. It is a serious self-destructive trend. Are we reverting to the old Wild West Mind set? How long will it take to eradicate this "Take the law into your own hands" mind set? We need the sellers to cooperate fully. They need to make the transition to another income source. For example, the Presidio changed its Military Chapel to an Interfaith Center learning how to understand each other. How many domestic arguments have.been settled by death because of heat of the moment anger? How many people were taught other more acceptable ways of settling their grievances? Gun Control combined with Conflict Control seems to me to be a transition stage we desperately need in order to get our community back to some sense of mutal understanding. Guns accelerate hate, anger, and violence. Educated communication decellerates hatred and anger because the energy is channelled towards some constructive agreement which everyone can learn to live with. We have lost many of our potentially productive youth and nurturing women to the convenience of having an available gun with which to vent one's anger. I hope that we human beings can wisely think about whether we want to enter the next millenium destroying each other because of hatred, or learning to control our impulses and see the fine qualities we have to share. These kind of choices are the building blocks of our future. It starts with your decision and its long term consequences. Think of our grand children who want peace without guns, so they can enjoy life. C.L.A.S. CHOICES 3603 Cutting Blvd. Richmond, CA 94804 510-234-2267 Many of us grew up with parents who used guns to hunt. We were carefully taught about the danger of guns and respect for their use. They were never to be used on people, ever. That was reserved for the Armed Forces and controlled police forces. Being raised in a military family we we knew the finality of gun power. No such controls exist for private gun owners of today, or for those people who choose to sell guns and ammunition for a living, or those who acquire guns illegally, because of fear or greed. Some gun owners resent having their income source limited. ThelS is a dangerous tendency today to settle grievances by gun justice. It is a serious self-destructive trend. Are we reverting to the old Wild West Mind set? How long will it take to eradicate this "Take the law into your own hands" mind set? We need the sellers to cooperate fully. They need to make the transition to another income source. For example, the Presidio changed its Military Chapel to an Interfaith Center learning how to understand each other. How,many domestic arguments have.been settled by death because of heat of the moment anger? How many people were taught other more acceptable ways of settling their grievances? Gun Control combined with Conflict Control seems to me to be a transition stage we desperately need in order to get our community back to some sense of mutal understanding. Guns accelerate hate, anger, and violence. Educated communication decellerates hatred and anger because the energy is channelled towards some constructive agreement which everyone can learn to live with. We have lost many of our potentially productive youth and nurturing women to the convenience of having an available gun with which to vent one's anger. I hope that we human beings can wisely think about whether we want to enter the next millenium destroying each other because of hatred, or learning to control our impulses and see the fine qualities we have to share. These kind of choices are the building blocks of our future. It starts with your decision and its long term consequences. Think of our grand children who want peace without guns, so they can enjoy life. C.I.A.S. CHOICES 3603 Cutting Blvd. Richmond, CA 94804. 510-234-2267 Many of us grew up with parents who used guns to hunt. We were carefully taught about the danger of guns and respect for their use. They were never to be used on people, ever. That was reserved for the Armed Forces and controlled police forces. Being raised in a military family we we knew the finality of gun power. No such controls exist for private gun owners of today, or for those people who choose to sell guns and ammunition for a living, or those who acquire guns illegally, because of fear or greed. Some gun owners resent having their income source limited. Them is a dangerous tendency today to settle grievances by gun justice. It is a serious self-destructive trend. Are we reverting to the old Wild West Mind set? How long will it take to eradicate this "Take the law into your own hands" mind set? We need the sellers to cooperate fully. They need to make the transition to another income source. For example, the Presidio changed its Military Chapel to an Interfaith Center learning how to understand each other. How many domestic arguments have been settled by death because of heat of the moment anger? How many people were taught other more acceptable ways of settling their grievances? Gun Control combined with Conflict Control seems to me to be a transition stage we desperately need in order to get our community back to some sense of mutal understanding. Guns accelerate hate, anger, and violence. Educated communication decellerates hatred and anger because the energy is channelled towards some constructive agreement which everyone can learn to live with. We have lost many of our potentially productive youth and nurturing women to the convenience of having an available gun with which to vent one's anger. I hope that we human beings can wisely think about whether we want to enter the next millenium destroying each other because of hatred, or learning to control our impulses and see the fine qualities we have to share. These kind of choices are the building blocks of our future. It starts with your decision and its long term consequences. Think of our grand children who want peace without guns, so they can enjoy life. C.L.A.S. CHOICES 3603 Cutting Blvd. Richmond, CA 94604 510-234-2267 Many of us grew up with parents who used guns to hunt. We were carefully taught about the danger of guns and respect for their use. They were never to be used on people, ever. That was reserved for the Armed Forces and controlled police forces. Being raised in a military family we we knew the finality of gun power. No such controls exist for private gun owners of today, or for those people who choose to sell guns and ammunition for a living, or those who acquire guns illegally, because of fear or greed. Some gun owners resent having their income source limited. Theis a dangerous tendency today to settle grievances by gun justice. It is a serious self-destructive trend. Are we reverting to the old Wild West Mind set? How long will it take to eradicate this "Take the law into your own hands" mind set? We need the sellers to cooperate fully. They need to make the transition to another income source. For example, the Presidio changed its Military Chapel to an Interfaith Center learning how to understand each other. How many domestic arguments have been settled by death because of heat of the moment anger? How many people were' taught other more acceptable ways of settling their grievances? Gun Control combined with Conflict Control seems to me to be a transition stage we desperately need in order to get our community back to some sense of mutal understanding. Guns accelerate hate, anger, and violence. Educated communication decellerates hatred and anger because the energy is channelled towards some constructive agreement which everyone can learn to live with. We have lost many of our potentially productive youth and nurturing women to the convenience of having an available gun with which to vent one's anger. I hope that we human beings can wisely think about whether we want to enter the next millenium destroying each other because of hatred, or learning to control our impulses and see the fine qualities we have to share. These kind of choices are the building blocks of our future. It starts with your decision and its long term consequences. Think of our grand children who want peace without guns, so they can enjoy life. C.L.A.S. CHOICES 3603 Cutting Blvd. Richmond, CA 94804 510-234-2267 �� Jt � ( . { /i'5 VAN PF r �rAIF / 1 f / 4 � / ' lr 1 - 1 t � 10/24/1995 00:33 510-222-5262 PAGE 01 Paul McIntosh 4947 Santa Rita Road Richmond, CA 94843 October 23, 1995 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors: I am totally opposed to the Hoard 's holding the meeting to vote on banning of LEGAL and LICENSED gun dealers from operating in their home. I also obJect to the obvious meeting time being when held at a time when people who work for a living cannot attend. Now that election time is rapidly approaching I certainly hope you members on the board will be able to show how banning these gun sales has reduced crime . Why aren't you banning crime and the people who commit crimes with guns . You well know Contra Costa Criminals do NOT buy their guns legally. If the Hoard of Supervisors think this is a BIG GRAND IDEA TO REDUCE CRIME then it's time for a change ! Even the Sheriff of CC says this law will not reduce crime. From: M.D.Schneider To:Board of Supenrl•ors Date:IOIM 88 Time:82:88:18 Pape i of I Lafayette , 07-1, Date : 10/23/95 Time : 22:37:46 Subject : Gun Dealers Supervisors: T am appalled that you are actually considering making criminals out of law-abiding citizens. Your completely misguided idea that there is a cause and effect between licensed gun dealers and violence is beyond reason. The Sheriff and other law enforcement professionals have shown you catagorically that they have never had any problem with licensed gun dealers. Target instead known criminals who flaunt the law with juries intent on "nullification". This reeks of political grandstanding to the minority of "politically correct". Please understand that even former liberals "have had enough". M. D. Schneider JERRY A' 34 P. 01 RELATED TO D-9 { f JERRY"ALPS P.O.Box?028 Antioch,CA. 54531.2F25 I A BRENTWOOD MEMBERS COUNCIL NRA-i CONTRA COSTA COUNYY i FAX COVER SHEET E DATE: F I TO: FAX NO#: ` Jerry Avalos-presidenk Members"Council Brentwood NRA 3 PACES TO FOLLOW: j f REGARDING: E t spa FAX(514)778-6004 � PHONE(5111)757-6257 i JERRY AVALOS 15107786004 P. 01 r w ♦i ' 1" f c 4roanuation Founded W ihv 3henlls Jn A&M POSMON PAM E Possession, Sales and Use of Firearms The Executive Board of Dixectors of the California State Sheriff Assock ion met on February 16, 1995, and considexed the Association's position on"gun control laws" in Cal;forrda. I The Association reaff med its position documented iri the form of resolution adapted April 15, 1387, and its position paper dated Mart , 1989, dealing with possession,sales and use of firearms. The Executive Board noted that most of the legislative agenda outlined ir its position paper had been accomplished and that crime in CaMornia has been reduced as a direct result. It is felt that if recently enacted laws in thil areas of sentencing violent and repeat offenders are strictly enforce further reductions in crime will occur. Dated this ldd Day of.7eh& W 1995 r � L• � t�Y9 3 U'' f Sheriff Edward C. Williarrs President JERRY AVALOS 15107786004 P. 02 U . ` r Y E O'r.Wunn PeunclRt hu rM1r til—Is in 16144 POSI'I ON PAPER I Concealed Weapons Permits 'ate P,xec:utive Board of Directors of the California State Sheriffs Association met on February 16, 1995, an(i considered the Associatio><t' position on the process of issuing concealed weapoitis permits in the Sta of California. Upon,unanimous vote, the following position was adopted. The public safety concerns of the citizens of California vary dramaticall among law enforcement jurisdictions given history, geography, demographics and relevant, local social issues. In addition, the persona cWcmnstances of each applicant are unique and must be considers individually by the issuing authority. The safety of the citizens of California requires that discretion regardin_ procedures and requirements for eligibility for the issuance of conceale weapons permits must rest with the issuing authority. The authority issue concealed weapons permits should be limited to the applicant' jurisdiction of residence (e.g., Chiefs of Police issue permits in the City of residence, and Sheriffs issue permits in .the county of residence). `t'hc., application process, requirements and subsequent determination should b� based on treasonable iurisdictional standards. Dated this 16a Day of;76A941#1995 Sheriff Edward C. WiRiarrs President JERRY AVALOS 15107786004 P. 03 �t r_J6 • f r ? t WynsHY/1f1Utl r.pY,YI.f�bl•�l�a'S�lr�l�f xf I'VA) . TF1t:.!''HCNE 5916)448-4242 2M_19TH STR&e7,SUITE 103 P,O. BOX 160168 • SACRAMENTO, CAUP0RNIA 958i6.0i�f8 POSXT10N PAPER S"ZZ~SLACK M,roGw,w On March 22, 1959, the California state ahariffs' Aesacia ion hoV6P- .t& met In Genera. Session and agreed upon the follows ng cont pts WN 00ASev with regard to tha possession, sales, and urze of ftre&rmg in JnWC".,WV the statFa Of California! Ndu6.aw4-a MCHMMI x.RAXN9r There shall be a XS-day welting pori.od priarc to r,_ C"".Q_�V taKing possession of any purchased firearm_ DAv B*MMWX Z. There shall he established a category o£ p ple �+�cw.-v prohibited from owning or possessing any firearm. that Crstegary shall includa_ RICHAR>DF AACI[LA A_ All convicted felons. show an-moscoumv B. All persons convicted of violent misdamea ors within the previous 5 years. ALSC" ZA C. All persons who are subject to an involun azy avaluation and treatment under the Lante an- t . Petris--Snort Act and have been the subject Of a ., w.•� report. A Copy of this report shill be foxwu dod SUEMUNCY to tha Department of JUst.i.Ce. D. Any person convicted as a gang member as defined by legislation passod in 1908. 3. It shall be a felony to pvutr�69e any f i.zaarm w' ila in possession or under the influence of any Schedul E through V1 controlled substance. Vialazions of the aecti.vn shall carry a minimum penalty of 10 year 1n stata prison witnaut parole or benefit of work or g;ad- time credits_ 4. Amend statutory law to prohibit judicial aulr- iGj( from striking enhanaanu*ntz fzum sentences wh n a fizaarm was used in the commiooion of the Crime. 5. Support initiative(t) that would zas'trict lees bargaining on all fi-rearm crimes. 6. Implement significant enhancements for second Or third convictions :Ln crimes where firearms are use Or possessed during the commission of the crime. 7. CarVlinq a Concealed tisara= (CC',u) withoul, a permit shall he upgraded from a misdemeanor to an alternate felony/misdemea>narr (wobbler) . JERRY AVALQS 15107786004 P.04 p � brq�nritMn Fr.r+ndMi by ina thvifis in 1894 R g S a L U T I O $ Ps�kvi .. 9RAo CATS t]ranutC„wIaV WF ZXZAS the Califortl.ia SC&C* 9hariff r s 4sadei&tion P.t3.go,...`rt! Sso(sracQ&U1Zr3 CLIO primarg r6epOt Sibilit:y o£ Law 'it.{ib.-3i7iYJ aujeorQumnuc ja Gv protect nhe oiC194,aa and presarve individual 41�htx and freadonts; and til\'+ea Fr�tiultfir FtOVOTtDwSu, WgE&EAS tudividual r4ghcs and frtgadoma a& pro,ri.ded by SiAa+Meaus.9NOCu.rAly Che Constitution of 4he Untied scltes should RD,$69t; 549 MA Ut-MMritno.CA Y;M.' &&Mitt: {eta threateled ar comp tumig4d; 4ttd 7114-181,311 ILUX S t het Caltfo>•tz:.e State S'h4tr'iffv$ Association MOWN SWCK tndVi�eP+r,�i,re" actitpcad a ,role of Zaadership in tete Law tssAngt:ivsCuvnry sa.fotcataena +<4atantalty voiclug successful ;tt teayi Transits'Mrect 0pp,os1,ti.44 Ca Proposition 1S inttod,uOtd oa to,Anwws,CA+ 011 the geateratl election ballot. 1982; and _tf�'t.;"1(ts SvmWnt Arr4t, WRERRA.S the California Stara Sheriffs recognized the Mf4CtAkK Components of Progosit;ion 15 to chreacao: l KintoCounty iadivldual rlghCs and £randuma b5r 'benning tha P.O, GQx986 sale of handguns. requi.tcing cite registtrazion o Hanford,CA9)117 h&zLdguns, and liMiCiiig the sale of hAMdgutte '0, stiA•32tt bGtwaeu private Ludlviduala ; mow Chaitefore b,% It '�1lr:rrta rr• stCHAOtaF. PACtfEO RSSOLVID aad reaffirmed at: chis , the 93rd Annual COdi4t: sca ElDer"aC.ivniv of tate California SCaeat Shoriff`s 1asadLatlon xxt Fmr tine held on April 12-16. 1987 aC Lake arrowhead, that r4ioref%rile-tr i t't i�iit►i ! e+rery peCSOCL has tha right to acquire, ouzo, possess , rise , tceap acid hear firearms in rttvy vrvr accordanaft with the Constitution iaf the Ualotoo4 MART states and che, statutes a£ the State of Cal.ifo :La. S6tmFWvlrFrY M rk-,,M 51,." FAvrtrtaf.Cit 114i33 Daltad this 15th day of .#pri , 1981 B1tad ciatas. ''"Side 98 87 Sheriff-Cca_r'oInar of a�Cact Dart=ed thio 15th day of April, 1987` ` frioya welt, Pt'tsidenr. zg8T=8 Sherif# t:. unty of San Bernardino JERRY AVALOS 1 RELATED TO ITEM D-9 NRA.Members'Council.of Brentwood A Volunteer Legislation Action Group P.O.Box 2025•Antioch,CA94531-2025•(510)757-6257•Fax(510)778-6004 October 22, 1995 TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FROM: Jerry Avalos,president,Brentwood Members' Council NRA-ILA RE: Proposed ordinance regulating the sale of firearms The Brentwood Members'Council of the National Rifle Association-Institute for:Legislative Action opposes the ordinance and exhorts the Board of Supervisors to reject the ordinance as well. Supervisor Jim Rogers and the Contra Costa County Health Department has clearly not been able to provide any data whatsoever justifying the ordinance. It has been stated by law enforcement and sorne members of the Planning Commission that passing the ordinance is a .symbolic gesture,but will not reduce the level of gun violence in our county. Putting legal,law - abiding individuals out of business'for the sake of symbolism is quite an expensive and ludicrous gesture. Recently,Sheriff Warren Rupf has stated that the ordinance wilt not"...do a thing to curtail gun violence." Basically the ordinance does not have the support of local law enforcement who also sees FFL holders as not being a problem. It is quite clear that the ordinance is nothing more than a ploy to enhance political careers of some individuals. You have heard our arguments why the ordinance should not be passed, therefore I shall not rehash them,I continue to urge you to reject the ordinance and target polities and get back to the business at hand and that is managing our county,not attacking legal,law abiding citizens. I also urge the supervisors to terminate the county Health Departments role as advisors on firearms policy matters within the county. I would like to see their role as what it was intended to be and that is dealing with issues such as illness,mental health and preventive disease measures and not presenting themselves as someone who is in authority to promote policy on the issues of firearms or violence prevention of which they have no business delving into, since gun control is not a health issue no matter how you look at it. It is not appropriate for a gun control organization to masquerade themselves as the health department,so that they can use federal funding to promote their anti-firearms propaganda. Again,the Brentwood Members' Council NRA-ILA urges the supervisors to reject the ordinance. THE PRICE 1,OR LIBER 17IN ETERN,41 VIGff_"CE Transcript of item D. 9 on October 24, 1995, from close of hearing Supervisor Bishop: Can I make a suggestion Dr. Walker before you speak, I would like to move to close the public hearing on this issue . Supervisor Smith: Second. Supervisor Bishop: And all those in favor, indicate by saying aye . Carries unanimously. Yes, Dr. Walker. Dr. Walker: I feel compelled to speak to the issues raised by Dr. Suter who represents what he describes as a think tank of 500 physicians, the Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Policy, particularly his personal attacks on Andres Soto and the methodology that Mr. Soto' s used in his study. The Health Department supports the integrity of the research done on this issue . I want to specifically indicate to you the September 21st issue of the New England Journal of Medicine actually speaks to the notoriety of the group called Doctors for Integrity in Research in Public Policy, particularly noting that this group along with the National Rifle Association as currently attacking the existence of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control which is part of the Center for Disease Control . The Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal has basically stated that this group has taken on a public policy position that' s even more blatant than the NRA. In a revealing message on the Internet it crowed Goodbye CDC and entreated please help us end bogus health assault on our civil rights . According to this group, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control produces "incompetent and politicized science" . I want to bring this issue before you only to show that the attack on Mr. Soto is similar to the Federal attack on the quality and the integrity of the research being done by the Center for Disease Control . Thank you. Supervisor Bishop : Thank you, Dr. Walker. Mr. Rogers . Supervisor Rogers : Thank you, Madam Chair. actually I found myself agreeing with one comment that the lady representing the gun owners of California said a little bit earlier. She said that this had been a good debate and I think on that point, I certainly agree with her. This has been a outpouring of very strong heartfelt testimony from people. I apologize for the scheduling difficulties . We continue to have difficulties with those and we do need to work out a better way to try to get certain times when people can be here and we do appreciate those of you who have stuck through it here to the end. We've heard I think probably more passionate testimony on this issue than any other issue since i've been on the Board in terms of the reaction coming from kind of regular citizens out there . We've certainly had other groups where employees and others came in and talked to 1 us but this is clearly an issue that people on both sides of the issue feel extremely strongly about . We have an ordinance where there was also some debate about the nature of the public, what the public thinks about this issue . We've certainly had the testimony here today. We've had in the past at the IO hearing I think we had about 50 people testifying or something like that and I think that if we are to really honor that outpouring of public interest, I think personally the best way we could do that would be for this Board to put this issue onto the ballot and let the people of this County decide if they would like to have this ordinance passed or not passed. There' s a number of things I think that accomplishes . One of the things that it accomplishes is that when you have laws that are designed to get something done, there' s some people who comply with them because they feel that the police are going to come by and knock on their door whatever. There' s also compliance because people feel it' s a law that came about as a result of a fair process, an open process . And I don' t think you can get any more open than actually taking this out to the voters and putting it on the ballot, letting the voters decide . There is certainly going to be resentment at this Board if we were to pass this particular ordinance amongst a number of the gun dealers, the feeling would be it' s five of us up here who made a decision and I think it really would have a much better chance of being accorded more respect, more legitimacy if this was put out in a campaign, if it was fully debated, if we had the kind of debate we had today which I think was an intelligent debate and accordingly I would move that this Board declare our intent to place the ordinance on the next ballot and that we would also schedule a hearing for two weeks from today at which time we would take public testimony on this hearing which if I understand it right since this exact issue is not on the agenda, we would need to have such a hearing and or let me just check that with our County Counsel actually. Would that be your understanding that this would need to have a public hearing if the Board felt it was appropriate to put it on the ballot . Vic Westman: I would advise you hold a hearing because I don' t think in the situation of a referendum where the legislative body is proposing it, that the Courts have concluded that otherwise applicable noticing provisions would not apply. Supervisor Rogers : And is two weeks an appropriate time for us to . . . Supervisor Smith: Three . Supervisor Rogers : Okay, so I would move that we schedule it at our meeting for three weeks and that the Board would declare our intent to put this issue on the ballot and would set a time certain three weeks from today at which to hold the public hearing for that purpose, . that would be the motion. 2 Supervisor DeSaulnier: Are you going to write the . .how it' s written on the ballot . Supervisor Smith: Second. No, we get to decide, the Board decides who wants to write it, so you can certainly write it . But I think that' s a good idea. I mean I would like to in seconding the motion, you know, it' s pretty frustrating here when such a debate that I think is very important, I think obviously a lot of other people thought it was very important, gets to the point where it becomes extremely personal and we have personal attacks against Mr. Soto and various Board members and back and forth. I thought it was very intriguing to have Dr. Suter as his last threat to say that we were going to go up in flames . Quite a violent approach from one of a 500 member think tank. Of course, you know, speaking as a doctor, saying that there' s 500 doctors involved in a think tank that all agree on something is very suspicious, but anyhow, I do think it makes a lot of sense to put it on the ballot in March and let the voters decide . It goes without saying that this is a very important issue to a lot of voters and last time we had advisory issues on the ballot in this County, they passed overwhelmingly by 82 percent so I can only judge from that that the people that we represent , the majority, the vast majority of the people that we represent are in favor of finding some way to decrease gun violence and the fact that you know, we happen to have a lot of people come from the gun community to testify for whatever it was, six hours, doesn' t change that basic understanding that the general consensus in the community is that we need to stop gun violence, so I think it' s a good idea to put it on the ballot in March, let the voters decide and we will abide by them and then the five of us cannot rightfully be accused of trying to control anybody. Supervisor Bishop: The public hearing is closed, however, we are bringing up a subject that is a new subject and I think you know we will have an opportunity to address this in two weeks . I would ask one question. What would be the cost of placing this on the ballot? Vic Westman: I think you' ll have to ask the elections officer to report on that . It' s a general election but I think they pro- rate the cost based on how much space you take on the ballot and you' d have to get an estimate from the elections department . Supervisor Bishop : Okay, I would like that information to be brought back to us . I would like to comment generally about today' s hearing. I think your solution that you have offered, that you and Jim have offered, is one that really gets us off the hook and I'm not sure that we should be off the hook. Let me tell you. I very much supported the prior advisory vote because it talked about broad philosophical terms and supporting legislation that was understood that we were not enacting any ordinances . We are talking about the zoning in the County. I 3 think it is extremely critical if we determine to go forward to do that, that it be phrased in a very clear manner because there is no one who spoke today, there is no one on this Board that supports guns that kill people. Nobody does . But we have a basic difference of opinion on several issues . One of the issues is do we have the authority. Have we been pre-preempted by the State, by the Feds, in the area and in those areas that we aren' t pre-empted, are we taking the appropriate steps . I have concerns about the safety locks . I have concerns about ammunition. I think that those are areas that we do have perhaps some ability to legislate . I am certainly not convinced given that we already have something on the books .that regulates this area, that addresses this, and is not being enforced. I really have a fear of putting something on the ballot . What we will get is roughly comparable to what we got on Measure B. The people as we heard them speak today. So, they have very compelling stories and you know as Mr. Dix and the woman who spoke later, none of us would wish that to happen and we would do whatever we could within our authority to preclude that from happening. But that' s not the issue and if the issue is do we not like guns, believe me I hate guns and if I were in Congress, I you the NRA would come after me . I have no questions about that but I'm on the Board of Supervisors and I just don' t know that people who are presented something on a ballot that says do you support zoning regulation that would you know limit sales of guns or actually restrict the sales of guns in residential areas, I think everybody' d vote for it . Say, yeah, I do. But the ballot argument . A lot of people don' t read the ballot argument . They just look at the text and I don' t know. I really think we' re getting ourselves off the hook. I don' t know, I might go along with that . Supervisor DeSaulnier: I'd say in concept I would agree that it wouldn' t be a bad idea to put it on the March ballot but I' d like to agree with everything that you've said Supervisor Bishop. Like the two other spoke, I had someone in my family die of a handgun and I can' t imagine anybody being more subjectively against it than myself . But I'm also very subjectively against the cynicism that runs through the political process and that we all too often are the authors of some of that cynicism, so I will agree with the motion under the condition that we discuss what we' re going to put on the ballot, all of us, and that we' re going to agree as a group to define the issue in such a way that is honest with the voters, that is not overly manipulative to anybody' s political process other than to possibly save lives and improve the quality of life in this community and I was going to vote against the enactment of this ordinance and I' ll say basically because I think we need to enforce what we've already got . We' re going to spend $35, 000 minimum waiting for somebody to call here and complain about somebody selling guns in their neighborhood. Nobody' s called yet . So, why spend another $35 , 000 as Mr. Straus said to do something that isn' t happening already, unless we' re going to spend $200, 000 to start going to 4 peoples' doors and banging all the doors down. So, I guess I can vote for the motion under the caveat that we' re going to discuss in three weeks and we' re going to really be honest about what we place on the ballot . Supervisor Torlakson let me co-author because he put those two items on the ballot a year ago and he let me associate my name with it and we all know I mean who' s going to vote against that . But I think we have to be really careful how we go about this and I would like to include some of the people who have sat in this audience today who two months ago I would have thought that I would never agree with. People who are lawful citizens who I think want the same thing we do. And that' s to make this a safer community and not to make them the bad guys, take aim at them. Supervisor Bishop: We haven' t heard from Supervisor Torlakson. Then we' ll go back down this way. Supervisor Torlakson: We have listened for hours and taken in a lot of important testimony. I think there' s still a lot of unanswered questions and to further consider any ordinance or any ballot measure, I think we have to get answers, data, facts on the questions that are out there, so I think we've received a lot of that information, but I don' t think we have it all and I think many of the people, if not all the people in the room, agreed with the motivations, I agree with the motivations behind the proposed ordinance. We want to reduce the violence from guns in our neighborhood, reduce the accidents, reduce the drive-by shootings and the teens in gangs using guns, reduce tragic accidents like we heard about . The question is, is there some better way to do that . Now, if you put this on the ballot, you have the cost, you have the time issues . What I have heard and learned from talking to some of the officials at ATF and also Department of Justice, is that there is a trend already occurring that is downsizing dramatically the home gun dealers, we've even heard this today from testimony from current dealers who aren' t going to renew. We haven' t taken the time yet to survey those few that are left in this County as to what their level of activity is . From the anecdotal testimony we've heard today, it' s actually pretty low volume, but we need to find out I think more about that . In exploring this with County staff earlier in the last week, learned that the Sheriffs Department actually has DROST receipt records, which no one has bothered to ask the Sheriffs Department to look at what those records say in terms of who we' re talking about, what' s the volume of activity and what' s going in this County, so that hasn' t been done yet . I propose alternatively, we are elected to make decisions . I think what I'm hearing is possibly three votes to go ahead and have a further discussion but I think we need to make decisions and if this doesn' t appear to be the most effective way to address our concerns about violence and reducing crime and the illegal use of guns, then I think we should look at some alternatives . The ballot measure which we all supported preventing violence in 5 Contra Costa Countywide action plan has as one of it' s strong proposals on page 17 enforce existing laws that regulate the sale of firearms and I think that is something we have not done . We have not even in the two years that we've had this report communicated to the Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms Administration what our current laws and ordinances are and I would propose that today we do that . And inform them and I've even taken the liberty to draft a letter that would inform them of what our existing law is . The question of do we need to spend another $150 or $200 thousand dollars on a new law if the existing law does the job, why even put that question to the voters if we can determine through our analysis that there' s going to be this dramatic downsizing of the current home gun dealership and that the Federal and State laws are going to be enforced. I propose we write to the agency, ask them, tell them what our current law is, and ask them specifically what their plan for enforcement is, what their renewal procedure is, and are they committed, and do they have the resources to do their job. We can assist them in doing their job by sending them a copy of our existing ordinance without going to the trouble. For . 32 we can mail. a letter that will tell them what our current law is without even having to consider further the extensive you know staff time that' s already gone into this . The concern we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars perhaps on this so far and are proposing to spend another 200 thousand when we haven' t gone into looking at some basic questions . The trend as we heard instead of the number 700 which was originally talked about, the trend is way in the downslope direction from 190 in the unincorporated areas down to 100 . What I heard today with different estimates, anywhere from 30 to 60 remaining today. I talked to Vickie Renniger who is the top administrator for ATF for the western ten United States, she indicated that trend is going to continue in the next year. That number will be reduced dramatically. So, without us doing anything, putting anything on the ballot, spending another dime on this issue, except the . 32 for the letter, this issue may be well under control . What I also have to agree with is the testimony from the Sheriffs . I talked to several police chiefs, law enforcement officers . Gary Yancey doesn' t believe this, .as our DA, will do anything to fight crime . Our own Community Development Department has indicated that in all the decades we've had our current law on the books, we've never had any complaints about home gun dealers, so along with the different citizens who testified, no one has brought any empirical evidence that we' re going to spend money, precious few -dollars that we have in our budget at this ordinance effort and come up with something that' s going to really reduce mortality risks, violence in Contra Costa County. The Planning Commission had a split vote . What I heard from that split vote was that there was one or two commissioners who voted for something symbolicly and I don' t think we should be in the business of just voting for symbolism when we are faced as we heard today the budget problems we have are enormous, so I would just add that along with the 6 testimony we heard from Jody and others here we heard heartrending testimony in the budget process this year where we could spend, $30, 000, $50, 000, $100, 000 and we know we can save lives by dealing with absentee landlords that are allowing drug dealers and crack houses in Bay Point and North Richmond, dealing with the safe streets program where neighbors can attack those irresponsible property owners, hiring another police officer. We heard today from Dennis Lepak about the Juvenile problems, the counselors that are needed that we don' t have that we know could intervene and take kids away from violent lifestyles and lifestyles that are leading them towards guns . Again, to me the Born Free Program, the substance abuse , we' re wearing our red ribbons this week. At the same time, we' re proposing to cut $200, 000 out of Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs . To me, rather than spend $200, 000 on an ordinance that may have no impact beyond what we could do with a . 32 letter doesn' t make a lot of sense . That we would rather spend that money in the programs we know from Born Free to Reach to New Connections that are out there taking youth away from drugs and alcohol and straightening families out and helping them on the path away from guns and violence . So, I would move a substitute motion that we would send a letter informing the -agencies that are responsible for the enforcement rather than at this time pursuing further the an item that may be redundant . Let' s find out first from ATF whether they plan to enforce and what the trend will be . Supervisor De Saulnier: I' ll second that with an amendment that we would pursue discussing putting it on the ballot in three weeks . Discussing. Supervisor Torlakson: Discussing' s alright . Supervisor Rogers : What? Supervisor DeSaulnier: Discussing putting your issue on the ballot . So, he goes ahead and does what he wants to do and. . . Supervisor Bishop: I think the motion was made by Jim and seconded by Jeff and I don' t know if you folks want to consider a substitute motion. . . Supervisor Rogers : Well, I don' t have any problem with sending the letter that Tom had mentioned but I think that there are some different issues . There is certainly an issue about residential gun dealers and we've heard extensive discussion about the extent to which restating and clarifying the law may help or may be a waste of time . We heard that discussion but that is one part of this ordinance . There are provisions about the trigger lock which I think potentially is extremely important and we have an expensive proposition when you' re trying to deal with matters of life and death. Murder trials can cost 6 million dollars . It' s true that the amount of the gun dealers seems to be going down 7 but I think the estimate about the cost that we had from staff was as I understood it based on there being a higher number of the gun dealers . We' re talking about proper zoning. That' s expensive . That costs money but we do it for massage parlors, we do it for liquor stores, we do it for Safeway, we do it for hairdressers, we do it for lots of different types of businesses . That' s part of our job. And once you get it right and do it correctly, the community benefits from it for decades to come. So, there' s certainly parts of this ordinance which may be restating an existing law but there are some other parts that are different and one thing which struck me was I felt I heard a different tenor of the conversation after we'd been here listening to each other for about six hours, I felt I heard perhaps both people on both sides of the issue making comments at the start of the meeting which were you know you' re idiots, referring to the other side and at the end of the meeting it was more like well I don' t agree with you but I can see that you have some legitimate concerns that you' re acting in good faith, you' re trying to do what' s right . And I think that an initiative would let us have the same kind of a debate and I think it would be possible as Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested to write it carefully so that it was clear that this was a specific ordinance and that specific things were going to happen in the sale of guns and the issue is not do you like guns in general or do you like handgun control in general or not . Because we've been there, we've done that, we know what the public thinks about that . What we would need to do would be to write it in a way where is clear that these are specific changes that are being proposed and it certainly within this Board' s discretion if it' s felt that one part or other of the ordinance as proposed currently should not be part of a ballot proposal that' s certainly within our discretion to say well we like, you know we'd like to put issue one two three in front of the voters but not four. We want five we don' t want six. That' s certainly appropriate and something we would be able to discuss and so if it was okay with Tom, I'd like to accept that as a friendly amendment to the motion and basically go ahead with both of the ideas .with the understanding that we would need to come to a proper way to put this on the ballot so that we would be able to avoid just having a referendum on the general issue . Because that wouldn' t be fair to the voters of this County. Supervisor Smith: I just want to make sure I understand clearly. I think the original motion was to accept staff' s recommendation and fix the public hearing which is required and notice it and to declare our intent to put it on the ballot which doesn' t mean that we absolutely have to after the next public hearing. You know, by definition, they' ll be a public hearing, they' ll be more staff recommendations, there' d be more information. We can get all the information that Supervisor Torlakson wants and another decision can be made in three weeks but I agree completely with Supervisor DeSaulnier that it needs to be carefully worded ballot 8 arguments and it needs to be clear exactly what is being suggested. I just can' t see how we can argue against putting it on the ballot . Everybody here has said we' re supportive of the Constitution. We happened to focus on the second amendment but I would presume that everybody' s also supportive of the part of the constitution that allows people to speak by voting on a referendum of the issues that come before their governing body and it would be really a stretch I think to say that something that clearly is important to the community we should prevent the community from speaking on unless they happen to show up at 10 o' clock on Tuesday night . Supervisor Bishop: Yeah, I would like to say that I do have problems with voting for the intent to put it on the ballot because contrary to what Supervisor Rogers suggests, even if obviously, we' re not going to put something on there that says guns are good or guns are bad, you know but I can' t imagine as complex as the issue is as complex as the issue of preemption is that I 'm not even sure all of us sitting up here really understand what areas you know that the States and the Feds they have exclusive, it' s their exclusive venue, and then what' s left over for us . I'm hearing words like ministerial, what the local government can do, I'm hearing words . . it is so complex, you' re not going to be able to get that on the ballot . And I truly think it is misleading to put something on there that makes people think we' re going to solve gun violence and gun control with this little you know maybe four lines . And that' s what they' ll believe. That' s what they' ll believe . And I think it' s excuse me I think it' s intellectually dishonest to put something like that on a ballot thinking that people aren' t going to respond just to their basic views on gun control . My basic view on gun control is I want to control guns . I'd like to do away with guns . Sorry guys, but I would really like to do away with guns, But I'm also aware of the fact that I'm not in Congress and not in the assembly or the senate . I'm on the Board of Supervisors . I can' t do that . I just think putting it on the ballot is a way of justifying what we really want to do or what some of us really want to do and I'm not sure that I really want to do that . And I'm really, I have to agree with Supervisor Torlakson, when we know what saves people' s lives and there' s a measurable and there' s a nexus between this action and this occurring when we have our Sheriff stand up and make the representations that he' s made, that he can' t find a direct link between a gun dealer and a commission of a violent crime with the use of a gun, and I hear our Community Development Department say they don' t have adequate staffing to enforce this, I feel a little bit intellectually dishonest . I' ll tell you another thing, I will share with those people who spoke today and that is threats of political reprisal don' t go very far with me, in fact they kind of get my hackles up and I'm going to dig my heels in and say don' t threaten me because I' ll do just the opposite but my better sense says do what you think is right . Threats of 9 litigation don' t get very far anyway and I' ll tell you what really doesn' t go anyplace are the rude people who call my office and taken on my staff who are just there to serve . They are not there to listen to verbal abuse and thank goodness you've got people like Jerry Avalos, and Bill Van Hartog who are very courteous respectful and present their points of view. And I find through this public hearing process that frankly that' s in the majority. And I .don' t have the name of the person who verbally abused someone in my office but I really have problems with supporting my intent to put it on the ballot . I'd like to look at how possibly we could frame it if we were going to put it on the ballot so that it I don' t know how it can be done . Supervisor DeSaulnier: I think we all feel something else . We feel tired. And I think we' re all getting punchy at this point, so we should vote on the substitute motion and as I understand the substitute motion is to come back in three weeks, allow Supervisor Torlakson to go ahead and spend . 35 and to come back in three weeks, . 32 , and discuss whether and what we would like to pursue putting on the ballot and if it' s going to be what we have in front of us, I wouldn' t vote to put that on the ballot . Supervisor Bishop: Okay, we have a substitute motion that' s been moved and seconded. It' s a substitute motion, so we vote on the substitute motion first . All those in favor of the substitute motion, indicate by saying aye. Opposed. (Smith no) Okay, it' s four to one . We passed the substitute motion. Supervisor Rogers : So, this is scheduled. If I can make sure I understand correctly. This is scheduled as an agenda item for us to consider putting it on the ballot three weeks from now. In addition to sending the, using the . 32 for the letter. Supervisor Bishop: And that will be. Supervisor DeSaulnier: Van, before you ask us some questions, can we get some information like when do we need to have it drafted to get it on March, how much it' s going to cost . And how much it would do to take it to November, let' s say. Van Marter: Well, we could certainly report that back on the 14th. When we were looking at the Library Benefit Assessment, I think we calculated back with elections that your December 19th Board meeting would be the absolute latest that you could put an item on the March ballot . Do you want to try to set a time certain. See if we can do this better next time? Supervisor Smith: Well, can I . .Yeah I . Supervisor DeSaulnier: Let' s do it at ten o' clock at night . Supervisor smith: Can I just ask for a little clarification? I 10 sort of feel like we' re not really doing anything which is I suppose the intent of the majority but if you don' t tell the staff what to come back with that will be acceptable, then how can they potentially come back with something that' s going to be acceptable . I mean this issue' s been in IO and in front of the Planning Commission for months . If we haven' t exhausted all the options for ordinance you know modifications, what is going to be acceptable and what should people consider. You know, we should at least give somebody some direction. At this point, in three weeks, we' re going to get the same copy of the same ordinance with a comment on how much it' s going to cost to put it on the ballot . Is anybody willing to say what' s acceptable . Supervisor Bishop: I think we need a summary. One of the things that would have to be included would be a summary of the proposed ordinance, in summary fashion, not the complete ordinance . What would how would you frame the what do you call it the ballot the what do you call it just the thing that . . . Van Marter: You want some proposed ballot language? Supervisor Bishop: Yes . Supervisor Smith: So, you want the staff to come up with proposed ballot language and arguments . Supervisor Bishop: Would you like to come up with it Jeff? Supervisor Smith: No, I don' t want to come up with it . I'm just trying to figure out what' s going to happen in three weeks . Supervisor Bishop: But you' re saying that we've taken this to Internal Operations, we should be able to come up with some language . I don' t know that that' s . . . I would suggest that those of you that those of you who want to work on the language that you work with staff and come up with some alternate proposals . Each one of us perhaps come up with proposals for language and I'm sure there' s some people out there that will come up with some alternatives as well . Supervisor smith: Well, can I respond, please . All I'm saying is that if you add up all the hours that have been spent in the public hearings and by staff on this ordinance in the last you know six months, it would be huge and between now and three weeks from now, staff needs to have some direction about what will be acceptable for them to come back with and if what the majority of the Board is really saying is that this is not acceptable, we should just tell them this is not acceptable right now, we' re not going to do it, rather than saying you know maybe in three weeks we might not think about it . Supervisor Bishop: I think it ignores, yes we do have a lot of 11 information but I think it ignores Supervisor Torlakson' s point and that is we need to correspond to find out what the current status of the law is and get an opinion. I don' t think we've done that before and all the information that we've gathered, we don' t have that information. And I think just knowing what the proposed language would be is not sufficient . I think we need to have that but I think it may also be Supervisor Smith that we aren' t going to put something on the ballot . I'm not sure that I'm 100 percent . I'm unwilling at this point to declare my intent to put something on the ballot . Van Marter: I think that if you go back to Diana Silver' s May 31st memo which is attachment 2 to the IO Committee report there are a finite number of issues in the ordinance that are in effect new. Issue of do you want to regulate ammunition. Yes or no. If so, do you want to require fingerprinting, yes or no. You know those kinds of things . I think we can sketch that out and then you can kind of pick and choose, do you want this or not, yes or now, take apart the ordinance in effect and then put back into it the features that you want . The pre-emption issue obviously leave to Mr. Westman in terms of whether you can do it or not . Supervisor Smith: But the problem is in order to notice the zoning aspects of the ordinance appropriately, and fulfill our requirements, we have to have the language straight . I mean it has to be language that' s being noticed, so I mean if we' re going to re-write this in three weeks after a ten hour public comment, I mean that' s totally absurd. Vic Westman: Well, you have a draft of an ordinance in front of you and I assume that draft is as broad as any of you would propose to regulate at this time . That was reviewed and commented on by the Planning Commission. If you simply reduce the scope of that ordinance then I think it does not have to go back, reduce the scope of particular provisions in the ordinance then it would not have to go back to the Commission because the Commission has already considered option up to here and if you go down to here, that wouldn' t have to go back but I think Claude' s comment is well taken that the Ordinance really covers a number of perhaps five or six different areas and if you' re going to reduce its scope you' d have to look at those and give us some sort of direction as to whether you wanted. I would just for the purpose of discussion reduced scope language and since this will be back in front of you on the 14th, and we will have at least three meetings in december to finalize it to go on the ballot . I mean there will be further meetings available if you wish to utilize them to consider the language further in that sense . Now, I might also say the elections code does prescribe a form of ballot measure for initiatives and referendums which we usually utilize and you may exercise your discretion to add to it . 12 Supervisor torlakson: I want to just respond on one point that Supervisor Smith made . In that we in his opinion may not be doing anything tonight . I think we're taking the first definitive step to saying we want to see the current existing laws enforced. And to notify the Federal Agency that' s already there that' s mandated to do the job of what our local laws and ordinance currently are and so I think that is a significant first step in terms of the first official action of the Board dealing with this issue and I think we should get information back in terms of what the trends will be and what the real size of the number of dealers and issues are remaining and get a response back from this agency and so the sooner we send the letter the sooner I think we' ll have some additional information. Comment from Mr. Soto that ATF is aware of analysis of laws in cities and counties . Difficulty is multiple layers of regulation. Supervisor Torlakson: Would you agree with their knowledge which we can re-enforce officially I don' t know that our ordinance has officially been conveyed to them would you agree that they will be non-renewing basically in significant percentages in almost one year, we've had a forty to forty-five percent drop. Mr. Soto: I could pass this up to you but their reading of the County is that there' s no 12071 license issued by the Sheriff' s Department and then in Bold Caps it says no home dealers . They will not be issuing FFL' s in the future to any home dealers . Supervisor Torlakson: So, you' re just making a good argument against creating a new ordinance and redundant law and spending $200 , 000 on an enforcement legal battle that' s not needed. You' re saying that that agency that has the ability and the will power from your own knowledge to go ahead and reduce the number of home gun dealers down to probably a handful of collectors . Mr. Soto: Yeah and I think that' s something that the Board should consider. Supervisor smith: I think that' s an administrative decision and it' s certainly no guarantee of the future. And you know, if we rely on the administrative decisions in the Federal government to determine what happens in our community, we've really relegated our decision making to a totally impenetrateable object . I mean if the majority doesn' t want to consider this, they don' t want to approve it, they don' t want to put it on the ballot, why don' t you just kill it and stop playing around with it because we' re wasting a lot of time if the majority has already made up their mind we' re not going to consider it seriously. We should move onto other stuff and let the minority piss and moan about it . 13 Supervisor Bishop: Jeff, we have sat here for many, many hours and listened patiently to both sides and I think all of us have done so with an open mind and I really kind of take issue with the way that you express that . I think we are willing to work on the issue. I don' t think we made up our minds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10/24/95 09:31 05106856136 �ntid� kJ4 1D. l 001 CONSTANCE E. CHASE, M.D. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2485 HIGH SCHOOL AVENUE, SUITE 222 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 (415)865-5516 TO: ,� , y,-, !Q as� , �c�� S��•4-�, � $c1 o..uR FAX # — o5:2 Go s+cL ATTN: i >-m A-6,,.e.,, RE: FROM: C.o-n Si E , Q re M. 22 FAX # ((,$ RE: TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEFTS INCLUDING COVER SHEET COMMENTS: THANKS. / ►g►bb'L is/'L4/ab 1 f1/! Y v -moi� ��✓�""� sL9.� V 10/24/95 09:31 $5106856136 to idw �� 1 Z001 � �/1 1 CONSTANCE E. CHASE, M.D. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2485 HIGH SCHOOL AVENUE, SUITE 222 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 (415)685-5516 J+ w► !�ag S hr► �-�, 4A- S 0,4-.S0,4-.ST O• o�- FAX #��.� ATTN: :Y0,m,m `iT g Te -�-4— S e�,.144, RE' FROM: E C ere , M. FAX # 55 /(o RE: TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEETS INCLUDING COVER SHEET COMMENTS: THANKS. 1 d/'L4/J5 by:3L �51bbiSbb 13b !Q�l�bL Q, - sw--.. � � �` •fit �+��.K�:.r-.. � VV moa .�,� — . a '� ;,, •� W4, C1�t a a 10/24/95 09:31 $5106856136 �nlid� im.'W1D� q X001 1 CONSTANCE E. CHASE, M.D. !. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2485 HIGH SCHOOL AVENUE, SUITE 222 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 (415)685-5516 5' u- u SUrS o�- T0: �i W�lQo�� : �� S h-�i4-h $oo�rl� f FAX # ATTN: RE: FROM: ro Q rA , /1/J. �✓ FAX # S75- /4, RE: TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEETS INCLUDING COVER SHEET COMMENTS: THANKS. tai�4ra� aa:�� 70r�taou5otso °f In — W /V4'4 Cd!)A. d+1.. •.1v2-A'�~`�'}'� C.� CXR` i&) �— V ll'� lZ '�W— �"'`"""u'"`� (. v+.a►,.�M,,p�, ... G sL. � wJ 3Y1.Or.,,, v O-I A Al-14 -p�a�/.,e-r..,, ,�(�''y0vk. yCY,,�n„�•,.,.�..H.n,r..�-- IJ..'� �o�,tSt.�. , oL r ,.Q 4 HAP-- L1,— 44,b".11t4 C-01 ►17 W41"— C^�dur W Republican Party of Contra Costa County 800 South Broadway,Suite 101 a Walnut Creek,CA 94596 a(510)938-8088.Fax 938-8089 ECEIVE Ot 2 a X96 October 21, 1995 TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CONMCMA FROM: Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee RE. Ordinance#95 Regulating Firearms Sales Supervisor Jim Roger has proposed an ordinance aimed at regulating the legal business of firearms sales both in residential and in commercially zoned areas. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee opposes the ordinance on the following grounds: 1. There has been no data presented or available justifying the implementation of the ordinance. 2. State regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the Department of Justice have stated that there is no problem with Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holders in the county. Passing the ordinance is therefore a vete of no confidence in the ability of state agencies to regulate the sale of firearms. I The ordinance has its origins in organizations devoted to the prohibition of legal firearms sates and ownership. 4. Data presented by the legal and lawful gun owning community has been ignored by certain supervisors who are unfairly closed minded to the rights and concerns of legal business individuals and law abiding gun owners in the county. 5. The ordinance has the potential of entangling the county in an expensive and unnecessary legal challenge. 6. Passing the ordinance according to the author of the state preemption law is a violation of state law and encourages patchti-ark quilt of laws that will create a more burdensome bureaucracy and add confusion. The purpose of the state preemption law is to ensure that state laws will be enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the state on an equal basis. 7. Sheriff Warren Rupf does not support the ordinance, therefore local law enforcement does not support the ordinance. The bias and position of certain supervisors is obvious. One supervisor refers all questions on firearm related matters to an organization and individuals in favor of coercive gun control, oblivious to the concerns and rights of the legal and lawful gun owning community, hence individuals who are responsible and law-abiding are being treated no differently than a potential criminal. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee is asking that the Supervisors carefully consider the oath of office they have taken in protecting the Constitution and take into strong consideration, the Constitutional rights of the community. Republican Party of Contra Costa County 800 South Broadway,Suite 101 .Walnut Cnxk,CA 94596•(510)938-8088.Fax 938-8089 RECEIVE October 21, 1995 0 24 IM TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors COMMCWTA FROM: Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee RE. Ordinance 495 Regulating Firearms Sales Supervisor Jim Roger has proposed an ordinance aimed at regulating the legal business of firearms sales both in residential and in commercially zoned areas. The Contra Costa Counh,Republican Central Committee opposes the ordinance on the following grounds: I. There has been no data presented or available justifying the implementation of the ordinance. 2. State regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the Department of Justice have stated that there is no problem %kith Federal Fircantts Licensed (FF'L) holders in the county. Passing the ordinance is theNfore a vote of no confidence in the ability of state agencies to regulate the sale of firearms. I The ordinance has its origins in organizations devoted to the prohibition of legal firearms sales and ownership. 4. Data presented by the legal and lawful gun owning community has been ignored by certain supervisors who are unfairly closed minded to the rights and concerns of legal business individuals and law abiding gun owners in the county. 5. The ordinance has the potential of entangling the county in an expensive and unnecessary legal challenge. b. Passing the ordinance according to the author of the state preemption law is a violation of state law and encourages patchwork, quilt of laws that will create a more burdensome bureaucracy and add confusion. The purpose of the state preemption law is to ensure that state laws will be enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the state on an equal basis. 7. Sheriff Warren Rupf does not support the ordinance, therefore local law enforcement does not support the ordinance. The bias and position of certain supervisors is obvious. One supervisor refers all questions on firearm related matters to an organization and individuals in favor of coercive gun control, oblivious to the concerns and rights of the legal and lawful bun o�%ning community, hence individuals who are responsible and law-abiding are being treated no differently than a potential criminal. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee is asking that the Supervisors carefully consider the oath of office they have taken in protecting the Constitution and take into strong consideration, the Constitutional rights of the community. COMOr w4k Republican Party of Contra Costa County 800 South Broadway,Suite 101 •Walnut Creek,CA 945%•(510)938-8088.Fax 938-8089 F4CONM ECEIVE XT 24 10 October 21, 1995 3W OF SUPW%M TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CMA FROM: Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee RE. Ordinance#95 Regulating Firearms Sales Supervisor Jim Roger has proposed an ordinance aimed at regulating the legal business of firearms sales both in residential and in commercially zoned areas. The Contra Costa Count\-Republican Central Committee opposes the ordinance on the following grounds: 1. There has been no data presented or available justifying the implementation of the ordinance. 2. State regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the Department of Justice have stated that there is no problem with Federal Firearms Licenced (FFL) holders in the county. Passing the ordinance is therefore a vote of no confidence in the ability of state agencies to regulate the sale of firearms. 3. The ordinance has its origins in organizations devoted to the prohibition of legal firearrns sales and ownership. 4. Data presented by the legal and lawful gun owning community has been ignored by certain supervisors who are unfairly closed minded to the rights and concerns of legal business individuals and law abiding gun owners in the county. 5. The ordinance has the potential of entangling the county in an expensive and unnecessary legal challenge. 6. Passing the ordinance according to the author of the state preemption law is a violation of state law and encourages patchwork quilt of laws that will create a more burdensome bureaucracy and add confusion. The purpose of the state preemption law is to ensure that state latus will be enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the state on an equal basis. 7. Sheriff Warren Rupf does not support the ordinance, therefore local law enforcement does not support the ordinance. The bias and position of certain supervisors is obvious. One supervisor refers all questions on firearm related matters to an organization and individuals in favor of coercive gun control, oblivious to the concerns and rights of the legal and laNvful gun owning community, hence individuals who are responsible and taw-abiding are being treated no differently than a potential criminal. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee is asking that the Supervisors carefully consider the oath of office they have taken in protecting the Constitution and take into strong consideration, the Constitutional rights of the community. Republican Party of Contra Costa County 800 South Broadway,Suite 101 •Walnut Creek,CA 94596.(510)938-8088.Fax 938-8089 RECEIVE ' 0 2 41996 October 21, 1995 TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors F.01NITRA A FROM: Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee ' RE. Ordinance#95 Regulating Firearms Sales Supervisor Jim Roger has proposed an ordinance aimed at regulating the legal business of firearms sales both in residential and in commercially zoned areas. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee opposes the ordinance on the following grounds: 1. There has been no data presented or available justifying the implementation of the ordinance. 2. State regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the Department of Justice have stated that there is no problem with Federal Firearins Licensed (FFL) holders in the county. Passing the ordinance is therefore a vote of no confidence in the ability of state agencies to regulate the sale of firearms. 3. The ordinance has its origins in organizations devoted to the prohibition of legal firearms sales and ownership. 4. Data presented by the legal and lawful gun owning community has been ignored by certain supervisors who are unfairly closed minded to the rights and concerns of legal business individuals and law abiding gun owners in the county. 5. The ordinance has the potential of entangling the county in an expensive and unnecessary legal challenge. 6. Passing the ordinance according to the author of the state preemption law is a violation of state law and encourages patchwork quilt of laws that will create a more burdensome bureaucracy and add confusion. The purpose of the state preemption law is to ensure that state laws will be enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the state on an equal basis. 7. Sheriff Warren Rupf does not support the ordinance, therefore local law enforcement does not support the ordinance. The bias and position of certain supervisors is obvious. One supervisor refers all questions on firearm related matters to an organization and individuals in favor of coercive gun control, oblivious to the concerns and rights of the legal and lawful gun owning community, hence individuals who are responsible and law-abiding are being treated no differently than a potential criminal. The Contra Costa Counity Republican Central Committee is asking that the Supervisors carefully consider the oath of office they have taken in protecting the Constitution and take into strong consideration, the Constitutional rights of the community. , dt,�Y" UUin. ID -9 Republican Party of Contra Costa County 800 South Broadway,Suite 101 a Walnut Creek CA 945%.(510)938-8088 a Fax 938-8089 EECEIVEI02 ' October 21 1995 4 10 0AW 4W TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors trAA FROM: Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee t RE. Ordinance#95 Regulating Firearms Sales Supervisor Jim Roger has proposed an ordinance aimed at regulating the legal business of firearms sales both in residential and in commercially zoned areas. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee opposes the ordinance on the following grounds: 1. There has been no data presented or available justifying the implementation of the ordinance. 2. State regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the Department of Justice have stated that there is no problem %kith Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holders in the county. Passing the ordinance is ther6ore a vote of no confidence in the ability of state agencies to regulate the sale of firearms. I The ordinance has its origins in organizations devoted to the prohibition of legal firearms sales and ownership. 4. Data presented by the legal and lawful gun owning community has hcen ignored by certain supervisors who are unfairly closed minded to the rights and concerns of legal business individuals and law abiding gun owners in the county. 5. The ordinance has the potential of entangling the county in an expensive and unnecessary- legal challenge. G. Passing the ordinance according to the author of the state preemption law is a violation of state law and encourages patchwork, quilt of laws that will create a more burdensome bureaucracy and add confusion. The purpose of the state preemption law is to ensure that state laws will be enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the state on an equal basis. 7. Sheriff Warren Rupf does not support the ordinance, therefore local law enforcement does not support the ordinance. The bias and position of certain supervisors is obvious. One supervisor refers all questions on firearm related matters to an organization and individuals in favor of coercive gun control, oblivious to the concerns and rights of the legal and lawful gun o%%ning community, hence individuals who are responsible and law-abiding are being treated no differently than a potential criminal. The Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee is asking that the Supervisors carefully consider the oath of office they have taken in protecting the Constitution and take into strong consideration, the Constitutional rights of the community. CITIZENS for TORLHKSON 5104277487 P. 01 CONTRA COSTI' .UUNTY FAX SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON DISTRICT FIVE 300 E. Leland Road,Suite#100 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Date October 24, 1995 Number of pages including cover sheet To: Paulette From: Gloria Phone (510) 646-2371 Phone (510) 427-8138 Fax (510) 646-1059 Fax Phone (510) 427-8142 CC: ® Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please comment Per our discussion, please deliver this information to Tom as soon as possible. Thanks, Paulette M CITIZENS for TORLAKSON 5104277487 F. 02 October 24, 1995 Statement on Proposed Ordinance to Regulate Gun Dealers In Unincorporated Area I wholeheartedly agree with the motivations behind the-proposed county gun sale ordinance. We all wish to protect our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence. We must do all that we can to reduce the number of guns on the street. We must do all we can to reduce the number of firearms being used by teens in gang killings. While we debate new ways of reducing crime and violence, we first need to enforce the existing laws which regulate the sale and use of guns. Only then can we effectively determine what additional steps are needed. Under our current county law, it is illegal to sell guns from a home. In speaking with federal and state officials, I learned that new federal crime laws require verification of compliance with local laws in order to renew or issue Federal Firearm Licenses. According to a county survey conducted in July 1994, 190 Federal Firearm Licenses has been issued in the Contra Costa County unincorporated areas. Since the Crime Law went into effect, this number has been reduced by approximately 40%. It is now estimated that only 100 FFL's remain. Of these, it is estimated that about 65 are "home gun dealers." CITIZENS for TORLAKSON 5104277487 P. 03 Vicky Renneker, the top ATF administrator for the Western United States, predicts their enforcement efforts will cause this number to continue to decline dramatically in the months ahead. I urge my colleagues to join me in signing a letter to the Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to make them aware of our local laws. Because our county already does not permit the home sale of guns, we should request that the federal office revoke any licenses that they have issued which are illegal in this county. Let's send a letter from our board asking their commitment to full enforcement of the federal and state laws. I believe that full enforcement of our federal and state laws is the first step in protecting our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence and accidents. This simple letter to the ATF will assist in effectively shutting down the operation of home gun sales in the county, and it will require a minimal amount of Contra Costa's scarce resources. It concerns me that we've gone head first into creating an expensive new ordinance. So far, we've spent hundreds of hours of staff resources conducting research for the proposed ordinance, and we risk spending $100,000 - $200,000 more dollars for various portions of the ordinance. Within the coming year, we're talking about a fraction of"home gun dealers" in unincorporated Contra Costa County that existed in 1994, To regulate these dealers through a new ordinance would mean a cost of$5,000 to $15,000 per dealer annually. CITIZENS for TORLAKSON 5104277457 P. 04 I believe there is a more sensible first approach, one that may save us the cost of writing and enforcing a redundant law -- let's spend 32 cents to send this letter to Washington. I think we should reduce the number of guns on the street, before increasing the number of laws on the books. Tom Torlakson Supervisor, District Five • CITIZENS for TORLAKtON 5104277487 P. 05 Remaining Questions as we consider merits of ordinance: 1. If we proceed on our own, what is estimated cost of enforcement per license holder? 2. How many licensed gun dealers are in the unincorporated area? How many are going to be regulated by this ordinance? 3. How DROS records have been filed with the Sheriffs Department thus far this year? Will this information provide us with information on the number of home gun dealers who actively sell firearms, the type of sales and how many? Can we determine how many COE holders are planning not to review in the next 12 months? Spoke with Russ Pitkin this morning. He is not aware of any formal processing by the Sheriffs Department DROS reports that would provide stats to answer any of the above. He says as far as he knows they are only considered informational by the Sheriffs Department. He couldn't tell me how many DROS reports have been riled with the Sheriff's Department. They don't tally them. Apparently the DROS form is a multi-copy form, one copy is provided to the Sheriffs Department and it Is treated as FYI only by the department. (Sounds like they're received and a clerk riles them somewhere. He didn't even know how and where they're filed.) He suggested I talk to Lt. Holmes of Crime Analysis (left a message) 4. What impact has the new Federal Crime Law had on the number of current FFL's in the unincorporated county? From our conversations with regional ATF and Dept of Justice, it appears the number is declining statewide by at least 33% with every renewal period (annuall�. 5. What cities in the county have an ordinance regulating firearm sales in the residential areas? Lafayette (currently being challenged), Pinole, Antioch, Richmond, and San Pablo. • CITIZENS for TORLAKSON 5104277487 P. 06 DRAFT October 24, 1995 Mr. John Magaw, Director Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 550 Madison Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20226 Dear Mr. Magaw: It has come to our attention that the recently passed Federal "Crime Law" requires your agency to seek verification of compliance with local laws and regulations before granting firearm sales permits. According to a county survey conducted in July, 1994, 190 Federal Firearm Licenses had been issued in Contra Costa County. However, our county has not been consulted on the issuance of these permits. We understand that the primary basis for declining a permit or renewal application is failure to provide local verification of regulatory compliance. This letter serves as formal notification that Contra Costa's current county ordinances prohibit the sale of items, including guns, from a private home. Therefore, we are requesting that you review the Federal Firearms Licenses issued in the county and revoke permits which conflict with our local laws. Attached is a copy of the relevant county ordinances. • P. 07 CITIZENS for TORLAKSON 5104277487 Mr. John Magaw October 24, 1995 Page TWO We believe that the effective enforcement of federal and state laws will better protect our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence. While we debateI. new ways of reducing crime and violence, it is essential that the existing laws regulating the sale and of guns be enforced. Only then can we effectively determine which additional steps are needed. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, (Members of the Board of Supervisors) CITIZENS for TORLAKSON 5104277487 P. 02 October 24, 1995 Statement on Proposed Ordinance to Regulate Gun Dealers In Unincorporated Area I wholeheartedly agree with the motivations behind the-proposed county gun sale ordinance. We all wish to protect our neighborhoods from the dangers of `` gun violence. We must do all that we can to reduce the number of guns on the street. We must do all we can to reduce the number of firearms being used by teens in gang killings. While we debate new ways of reducing crime and violence, we first need to enforce the existing laws which regulate the sale and use of guns. Only then can we effectively determine what additional steps are needed. Under our current county law, it is illegal to sell guns from a home. In speaking with federal and state officials, I learned that new federal crime laws require verification of compliance with local laws In order to renew or Issue Federal Firearm Licenses. According to a county survey conducted In July 1994, 190 Federal Firearm Licenses has been issued in the Contra Costa County unincorporated areas. Since the Crime Law went into effect, this number has been reduced by approximately 40%. It Is now estimated that only 100 FFL's remain. Of these, it Is estimated that about 65 are "home gun dealers." Vicky Renneker, the top ATF administrator for the Western United States, predicts their enforcement efforts will cause this number to continue to decline dramatically in the months ahead. I urge my colleagues to join me in signing a letter to the Office of Alcohol; Tobacco and Firearms to make them aware of our local laws. Because our county already does not permit the home sale of guns, we should request that the federal office revoke any licenses that they have issued which are illegal in this county. Let's send a letter from our board asking their commitment to full enforcement of the federal and state laws. I believe that full enforcement of our federal and state laws is the first step in protecting our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence and accidents. This simple letter to the ATF will assist in effectively shutting down the operation of home gun sales in the county, and it will require a minimal amount of Contra Costa's scarce resources. It concerns me that we've gone head first into creating an expensive new ordinance. So far, we've spent hundreds of hours of staff resources conducting research for the proposed ordinance, and we risk spending $100,000 - $200,000 more dollars for various portions of the ordinance. Within the coming year, we're talking about a fraction of"home gun dealers" in unincorporated Contra Costa County that existed in 1994. To regulate these dealers through a new ordinance would mean a cost of$5,000 to $15,000 per dealer annually. I believe there is a more sensible first approach, one that may save us the cost of writing and enforcing a redundant law -- let's spend 32 cents to send this letter to Washington. I think we should reduce the number of guns on the street, before increasing the number of laws on the books. Tom Torlakson Supervisor, District Five i Remaining Questions as we consider merits of ordinance: 1. If we proceed on our own, what is estimated cost of enforcement per license holder? 2. How many licensed gun dealers are in the unincorporated area? How many are going to be regulated by this ordinance? 3. How DROS records have been filed with the Sheriffs Department thus far this year? Will this information provide us with information on the number of home gun dealers who actively sell firearms, the type of sales and how many? Can we determine how many COE holders are planning not to review in the next 12 months? Spoke with Russ Pitkin this morning. He is not aware of any formal processing by the Sherlft's Department DROS reports that would provide stats to answer any of the above. -He says as far as he knows they are only considered Informational by the Sheriff's Department He couldn't tell me how many DROS reports have been riled with the Sheriffs Department. They don't tally them. Apparently the DROS form is a multi-copy form, one copy is provided to the Sheriff's Department and it is treated as FYI only by the department (Sounds like they're received and a clerk riles them somewhere. He didn't even know how and where they're filed.) He suggested I talk to Lt Holmes of Crime Analysis (left a message) 4. What impact has the new Federal Crime Law had on the number of current FFL's in the unincorporated county? From our conversations with regional ATF and Dept of Justice, it appears the number is declining statewide by at least 33% with every renewal period (annual. 5. What cities in the county have an ordinance regulating firearm sales in the residential areas? Lafayette (currently being challenged), Pinole, Antioch, Richmond, and San Pablo. DRAFT October 24, 1995 Mr. John Magaw, Director Office of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 650 Madison Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20226 Dear Mr. Magaw: It has come to our attention that the recently passed Federal "Crime Law" requires your agency to seek verification of compliance with local laws and regulations before granting firearm sales permits. According to a county survey conducted in July, 1994, 190 Federal Firearm Licenses had been issued in Contra Costa County. However, our county has not been consulted on the issuance of these permits. We understand that the primary basis for declining a permit or renewal application is failure to provide local verification of regulatory compliance. This letter serves as formal notification that Contra Costa's current county ordinances prohibit the sale of items, including guns, from a private home. Therefore, we are requesting that you review the Federal Firearms Licenses issued in the county and revoke permits which conflict with our local laws. Attached Is a copy of the relevant county ordinances. Mr. John Magaw October 24, 1995 Page TWO We believe that the effective enforcement of federal and state laws will better protect our neighborhoods from the dangers of gun violence. While we debate new ways of reducing crime and violence, it is essential that the existing laws regulating the sale and of guns be enforced. Only then can we effectively determine which additional steps are needed. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, (Members of the Board of Supervisors) County Administratorn r RECEIVED 1,"Y, Board of Supervisors COI I t 1 Jim Rogers County Administration Building Costa 1st District 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor OCT — 5 190 Jeff Smith Martinez,California 94553-1229 County 2nd District (510)646-4080 FAX: (510)646-4098Gayle Bishop Phil Batchelor -LERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3rd District�, -_rCe oe---'_;-- -.o CONTRA COSTA CO. County Administrator -= '; Mark DeSaulnier4th District < Tom Tortakson 5th District October 4, 1995 ' r'4 COUN.C{ INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS INTERESTED IN WHETHER THE COUNTY REGULATES GUN DEALERS IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY Dear Interested Individuals and Organizations: On October 2, 1995, the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on whether the Board of Supervisors should further regulate gun dealers in the unincorporated area of the County. The Committee received testimony from 44 individuals. At the conclusion of the meeting there was some confusion regarding when the Committee would report back to the Board of Supervisors. At the Board meeting on October 3, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed that the Internal Operations Committee report back on Tuesday, October 24, 1995. This is being done, rather than reporting on October 10, 1995, because the October 10 and October 17 Board calendars are already very heavy. As a result we have scheduled the hearing as follows: Tuesday, October 24, 1995 2:00 P.M. The Board of Supervisors' Chambers County Administration Building, Room 107 651 Pine Street, Martinez You are welcome to attend and provide any testimony you wish to the Board of Supervisors. We will mail a copy of the Committee's report to you within a few days. However, the report does not recommend either adopting or not adopting the proposed Ordinance. That will be left up to the Board to determine after reviewing the additional staff work which the Committee requested and after receiving whatever public testimony is provided to the Board. Very truly yours, (� Claude L. Van Marter Assistant County Administrator CLVM:amb Van 10-7-95 -2- cc: Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Jim Rogers Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Tom Torlakson Warren E. Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner Mark Finucane, Health Services Director Wendel Brunner, M.D., Public Health Director Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Diana Silver, Deputy County Counsel Nancy Baer, Director, Prevention Program, HSD Andres Soto, Prevention Program HSD Dennis Barry, Deputy Director., Community Development Department Jeanne Maglio, Chief Clerk, Board of Supervisors h 5201 Norris Canyon Road • Suite 140 Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc. San Ramon, CR 94583 USA Edgar R. Suter MD, National Chair 'a 510.277.0333 FRX 510.277.1283 RECEIVED e-mail DIPRinc@aol.com S& 19 W5 September 12, 1995 CLOKBOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. An Open Letter and Proposals to the Contra Costa County Supervisors to Reduce Violence in Our Community Dear Contra Costa County Supervisors, There are some effective measures that Contra Costa County may take to reallocate existent resources to reduce the supply of crime guns. (1) Utilize the resources of the existent California Department of Justice "Firearms Dealer Compliance Inspection Program" - Under existent law (CPC 12070 et seq.) and funded by California's gun dealers themselves the California Department of Justice has established the Firearms Dealer Compliance Inspection Program (FDCIP). As outlined in the appended September 6, 1995 letter from the manager.of FDCIP,Ms. Michelle Dille,it is the mandate of the FDCIP to investigate Federal Firearms Licensees to ensure compliance with existent federal, state, and local law. .As-we.have noted in.our appended monograph,Targeting Deceit-An Analysis of the Report on Residential Firearms Dealers and Ammunition Registration in Contra Costa County, California Penal Code § 12070 provides 12 subsections,each of ■ which details multiple exceptions to the requirement for Federal Firearms Licensees to ■ possess a California Department of Justice Certificate of Eligibility (COE). So,con= to the gross deceptions of Mr. Soto et al.in their report,"Taking Aim at Gun Dealers," possessing a Federal Firearms License (FFL)without the COE is not presumptive evidence of wrongdoing. Contra Costa County may avail itself of the already existent authority, mechanisms, and funding under FDCIP to ensure that Contra Costa County FFLs fall into the exempt categories. If investigation uncovers wrongdoing, such as illegal gun dealing, the authority, mechanisms, and funding are already in place to prosecute the perpetrators. While we do not encourage draconian punishment for innocent paperwork or inadvertent technical violations,we certainly encourage the prosecution of illegal gun dealing. Interestingly,the City of San Martin in Santa Clara County recently performed such an investigation and discovered that all of their Federal Firearms Licensees were in compliance with the law. No illegal activities were found. (2) To the extent possible, identify and prosecute the source of every crime i gun retrieved in Contra Costa County - As repeated studies by the National Institute of Justice have shown,only 7% of crime i handguns are obtained in retail gun transactions. For this reason, it is most unlikely that investigating retail gun dealers will uncover a source of crime guns. Further,because residential gun dealers are typically low volume outlets and because they invite their This Page Left Intentionally Blank _ 4 2 An Open Letter and Proposals to the Contra Costa County Supervisors to Reduce Violence in Our Community customers into their homes,they are more security conscious,more likely to know their customers, and, so are less likely to be tricked into straw gun sales(a qualified buyer illegally acting as agent to purchase guns for unqualified,criminal buyers). Rather than squandering resources on unlikely sources of crime guns,it is more sensible to target the important known source of crime guns- the black market in stolen or"borrowed" guns. When criminals in Contra Costa County are caught with guns,find the source of those guns. Expectedly,most traces of crime guns will"dead end,"finding only the last lawful owner from whom the crime gun was stolen,but,if there are illegal sources of crime guns in Contra Costa County, this is the way to find it, not by wasting time,effort, and money badgering legitimate gun dealers. By way of analogy, if we wanted to find drug kingpins, would we start by searching the homes of every law-abiding citizen in Contra Costa County or would we begin by investigating known street level drug dealers? When a crime gun was stolen from a lawful owner,prosecute the criminal for possession of stolen property and do not plea bargain awU the gun charges. When an illegal source of crime guns is uncovered,prosecute and do not plea bargain away the gun charges. When a gun is used in the commission of a crime,prosecute and do notlep a bargain_ away the gun charges. If convicted of such gun charges,encourage the judges of Contra Costa County to make the sentences sequential rather than concurrent with other sentencing. The only "gun control"shownto be.significantly effective is sentence enhancement for the criminal use of guns, but.such.laws:work only.if the charges are not plea bargained away by prosecutors. (3) Cease funding Mr. Andres Soto and his politicized and ineffectual department - Mr. Andres Soto is a Board Member of the Violence Policy Center, an extremist organization so rabid in its pursuit of gun prohibition that it broke away from Handgun Control Inc. as too moderate. Mr. Soto's proposals to the Contra Costa County Supervisors mirror exactly the incremental approach to gun prohibition espoused by the Washington DC Violence Policy Center in their strategy paper,Cease Fire. We cannot imagine the Contra Costa County Supervisors appointing and funding a National Rifle Association Board Member to direct official gun policy in this county, It is no more appropriate to appoint and fund an extremist such as Mr. Soto to such a position As our appended monograph makes crystal clear,Mr. Soto [and his department],in pursuit of the Violence Policy Center's goals,have offered outdated data, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods both in testimony and in the report,"Taking Aim at Gun Dealers." Despite the California Attorney General's explicit opinion on the subject,Mr. Soto and his department have encouraged city governments to scoff at California state law,the statute preempting the regulation of guns and gun sales. As a result, Mr. Soto has embroiled taxpayers in an expensive lawsuit. Until recently,Mr. Soto and his department,by their own description,have enjoyed over$500,000 funding annually, but with what result? Lies, lawsuits, and ongoing violence. The taxpayer's money is better spent elsewhere. 3 An Open Letter and Proposals to the Contra Costa County Supervisors to Reduce Violence in Our Community Please do not be misled by the old data,misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods in Mr. Soto's Taking Aim at Gun Dealers. Please do not be seduced by the false promise of a "quick fix"into ignoring the issues of the state's preemption of regulating gun sales. If Contra Costa County wants to"do something" about gun violence,"do something" effective,"do something"legal,"do something"that does not violate state preemption,"do something"that targets criminals,not legitimate small businessmen,"do something" supported by all good citizens, including the 50% of Contra Costa residents who are gun owners. We stand ready to assist you in every way to enact effective,legal, and constitutional approaches to reducing gun violence by fighting criminals,but we will resist you in every legal way possible if you target legitimate gun owners and gun dealers. Please do not hesitate to call upon us for assistance. All the resources of our national physician think tank are at your disposal. Respectfully. Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research,Inc. Exhibits (2) DANIEL E. LUNGREN State of California Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE `""^•'" BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS P.O. BOX 820200 SACRAMENTO, CA 94203-0200 (916)227-3703 September 6 , 1995 Edgar Suter, M.D. 5201 Norris Canyon Rd. , Ste. 140 San Ramon, CA 94583 RE: Department of Justice Firearms Centralized List and Compliance Inspection Program Dear Dr. Suter: This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ) Centralized List of firearms dealers and the Compliance Inspection Program. Centralized List Pursuant ,to .Penal ,Code (PC) Section 12071 , all firearms dealers who sell, lease, or transfer firearms in California must meet the following licensing requirements : • Possess a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL) . Possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility issued by the Department of Justice. Possess a valid .business and/or regulatory license(s ) required by the local licensing authority, or a letter from the local jurisdiction stating there is no local license and they do not otherwise regulate or restrict the sale of firearms . Be recorded on D0J1s Centralized List. The requirement for firearms dealers to be placed on the centralized list became effective January 1 , 1995 and only dealers that have been placed on the centralized list may lawfully engage in the sale or transfer of firearms . It is the dealer' s ongoing responsibility to provide DOJ with renewed copies of their FFL and local license(s ) . If D0J1s records indicate expiration of any of the licenses, the dealer will be subject to removal from the centralized list until confirmation of license renewal is received by DOJ. 227-3703 September 5, 1995 Page 2 Firearms Dealer Compliance Inspection Program Pursuant to PC Section 12071 (f ) , DOJ has established an on- site inspection program to ensure dealers are complying with federal and state laws and regulations regarding firearms sales and transfers . DOJ Firearms Program -staff have implemented the necessary procedures and are currently conducting inspections of firearms dealers . The following steps are included in a typical compliance inspection: Verify that the dealer is fully licensed pursuant to PC Section 12071 . Verify that the dealer maintains records required by federal law (Forms 4473 and the Acquisition and Disposition Record) . Verify that the dealer maintains Dealer Record of Sales .Registers as required by state law. "Check these records against current inventory. Verify that all signs are posted as required by PC Section 12071 . Verify that the business meets storage and security requirements pursuant to PC Section 12071 . Verify that no handguns , imitation handguns , o'r placards advertising the sale or transfer of handguns are displayed where they can readily be seen from outside the premises . • Verify that the dealer is complying with all Basic Firearms Safety Certificate procedures and requirements as specified in PC Sections 12800-12809 for all handgun sales or transfers . As authorized by statute, firearms dealers are assessed an annual fee of $85 . 00 to cover the cost of maintaining the centralized list and the costs of the firearms dealer inspection program. 227-3703 September 5, 1995 Page 3 Enclosed are copies of two publications the DOJ makes available each year, the Dangerous Weapons Control Law and the California Firearms Laws . We hope the above information is helpful . If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact the Firearms Program at ( 916 ) 227-3703 . Sincerely, DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General MICHELLE DILLE, Manager Firearms Information Services MD:BR:tm: 023 1 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Targeting Deceit - ■ An Analysis of the Report on Residential Firearms Dealers ■ and Ammunition Registration in Contra Costa County ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ June 6, 1995 ■ ■ ■ ■ r Targeting Deceit - An Analysis of the Report on Residential Firearms Dealers and Ammunition Registration in Contra Costa County r i eresearched and compiled by Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research,Inc. a non-profit corporation 5201 Norris Canyon Road#140 San Ramon CA 94583 r r r June 6, 1995 r r r i i Executive Summary • According to Richmond Police Department data, the number of homicides more than doubled after a 1989 ban on residential gun dealers and institution of stringent restrictions on storefront dealers. • According to the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms, eighteen years of national ammunition registration (required by the Gun Control Act of 1968 until repeal in 1986) "had no substantial law enforcement value." • According to the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms, about half of licensed gun dealers have no inventory and sell no guns. • According to the National Institute of Justice, 93% of crime handguns are not obtained from gun dealers. • According to the California Department of Justice, there are 6 major categories of Federal Firearms Licensees who do not need a California Certificate of Eligibility, so possession of a Federal Firearms License without a Certificate of Eligibility is not presumptive evidence of illegal gun sales. • According to the California Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, residential firearms dealers are not a problem. • According to state law, the funding and mechanisms already exist to identify and prosecute illegal gun sales and violations of gun dealer laws. • Accordingto the:US Bureau of.Justice Statistics, guns are the safest and most effective means of protection. • According to the most recent of several large and carefully designed research studies, every year about 2.5 million Americans use guns to protect themselves and their families, saving an estimated 400,000 lives per year. • Guns save ten times the number of lives lost to guns. Guns prevent injuries. Guns reduce medical costs because lives are saved and injuries are prevented. Guns save money because property is protected. • According to the California Attorney General, it is illegal under California law for local jurisdictions to attempt to regulate firearms sales through the use of zoning ordinances. • The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban have not presented even one example of criminal activity by Contra Costa County gun dealers, whether residential or store-front dealers. •The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban have claimed, but presented no evidence that Contra Costa County gun dealers are illegally providing crime guns. • The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban have not presented even one research study demonstrating that a ban on gun dealers results in a reduction in crime, violence, or accident because no such study exists. • The proponents of a residential gun dealer ban claimed that a 1988 study by Sloan, Kellermann, et al. found a relationship between the number of gun dealers and the ii availability of crime guns, but that study made no mention whatsoever of gun dealers and drew no such conclusion. • "Taking Aim at Gun Dealers: Contra Costa's Public Health Approach to Reducing Firearms in the Community "contains numerous and gross errors regarding key facts and laws. • As Mr. Andr6s Soto, one of Taking Aim's authors, has advised one of our researchers, over$425,000 of tax money has been spent annually by the group that produced Taking Aim , yet the report concealed key facts, misrepresented existent law, made false research citations, used demonstrably false"data,"and ignored the preponderance of existent data. Taking Aim's claims Taking Aim claims that 1)residential firearms dealers are a cause of gun violence, 2) two-thirds of residential firearms dealers are operating illegally, 3) banning residential firearms dealers would reduce violence and 4) ammunition registration would assist the police in solving crimes. Considerable evidence rebuts all four claims relevant in this local policy forum and this evidence is addressed here. Considerable evidence rebuts other of Taking Aim's claims more appropriately addressed in a national public policy forum, but that evidence on national matters is addressed elsewhere. eighteen years of ammunition registration in the US The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, among its many provisions affecting the entire nation,required the registration of all ammunition capable of being used in a handgun .(based on the premise that most crime guns are handguns), even if the ammunition was to be.used in arifle. Because many rifles use cartridges(e.g. .22 Long Rifle, .357 Magnum, 9mm, .44 Magnum,etc.) that can also be used in pistols, the law effectively required the registration not only of handgun ammunition, but also the registration of much rifle ammunition. Though the ammunition registration requirement was in effect for eighteen years, federal agencies repeatedly testified that the requirement had"no substantial law enforcement value." In several Congressional hearings, ammunition registration was found useless as a law enforcement tool and an expensive and unjustifiable burden on law-abiding gun dealers and owners. For these reasons, as the Congressional record shows, the ammunition registration requirement was repealed by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. t Additionally, the Congressional committees concluded that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms abused the rights of law-abiding citizens and focused more on entrapment of innocent gun collectors than the enforcement of laws against illegal gun. trafficking and possession of guns by criminals. the regulation of California's gun dealers Existent federal and California law stringently regulates gun dealers and gun sales. There is extensive oversight and enforcement of those laws. The proponents of banning residential gun dealers speculate, but offer no evidence that Contra Costa County residential gun dealers are a significant source- or even a minor source - of crime guns. 111 ■ If illegal activity can be identified,existent law can be used to prosecute and punish the wrongdoers. Further, a readily available and formal opinion of the California Attorney Generall states that under California Penal Code §53071 local agencies are prohibited from regulating gun sales. Though local jurisdictions may not legally regulate gun sales and gun dealers, the opinion encourages the participation of local jurisdictions in the oversight and enforcement of extensive existent law. Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research provides similar encouragement, noting that the necessary funding already exists. No new local laws are needed,desirable, or legal. The authors of Taking Aim, Soto, Feinsen and Kraut, stated"To date, none of the [local gun dealer] ordinances has [sic] encountered any significant legal opposition." Their confidence is undeserved and their opinion is debatable,particularly in view of the existent lawsuit and the Attorney General's opinion. It would seem a prudent exercise of fiduciary responsibility for the Contra Costa County Supervisors to await the outcome of the existent lawsuit,rather than enacting suspect ordinances and incurring additional avoidable expense to Contra Costa County's taxpayers. a fabricated citation Soto, Feinsen and Kraut claimed that a study by Sloan, Kellermann et al.2 "has shown that firearm availability is directly related to the number of gun dealers in a community, and the laws that regulate their activities." This claim is a blatant falsehood. It can be readily and independently confirmed that the Sloan-Kellermann made no such study and reached no such conclusion. Their study does not mention gun dealers even once. There is no peer-reviewed research showing that restricting gun dealers results in crime or violence reductions. In fact, homicide in Richmond,.CA more than doubled after the institution in 1989 of the type of residential firearm dealer restrictions proposed by the authors of Taking Aim. outdated data One of Taking Aim's authors, Mr. Andr6s Soto, has promoted a residential firearm dealer ban for at least one year. He has repeatedly been presented the question, "What data exists showing that residential gun dealers are a cause of.crime or a source of crime guns?" One year and over$425,000 later, Mr. Soto has provided no such data. In view of Mr. Soto's ardent support for his proposal, it is difficult to imagine that he would conceal any supporting data if it existed or could be developed. Mr. Soto and his colleagues have presented outdated data suggesting that there are 700 Federal Firearms Licensees in Contra Costa County. According to the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), as of 4/1/95 there are 437 Federal Firearms Licensees (including 5 pawnbrokers) in Contra Costa County.3 Mr. Soto and his colleagues have presented outdated data stating that 238 of Contra Costa County's"700"Federal Firearms Licensees held California State Certificates of 1 Lungren D.Attorney General Opinion#94-212.Ops Cal Atty Gen.July 7,1994;77: 147-154. 2 Sloan JH,Kellermann AL,Reay DT,et al."Handgun Regulations,Crime,Assaults,and Homicide:A Tale of Two Cities."N Engl J Med 1988;319: 1256-62. 3 Anderson D,Public Information Officer,Regulatory Section,Western Division,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms.personal communication.May 22,1995. iv Eligibility (COE). Further, they falsely suggest that because some Licensees do not have COE that this is evidence of illegal gun sales. As of May 22, 1995, the Firearms ■ Licensing and Permit Section of the California Department of Justice notes 137 COE holders in Contra Costa County,4 calling attention to at least six categories (discussed in detail in the body of this report) of Federal Firearms Licensees who are=required ' under current law to possess COE. For this reason, having a Federal Firearms Licensee without a Certificate of Eligibility is not presumptive evidence of illegal gun sales or other wrongdoing. deceit Mr. Soto has been personally and repeatedly informed of the several exempt categories and informed why the disparity between the number of Federal Firearms Licensees and holders of COE cannot be honestly used as presumptive evidence of wrongdoing. As an author of Taking Aim, he has apparently ignored and concealed that information. It appears that he has knowingly attempted to deceive the public and the Contra Costa County Supervisors and used federal and local tax money in order to advance his personal political agenda. The dramatic drop in the numbers of legal gun dealers is evidence that existent law and enforcement is quite effectively reducing the number of Federal Firearms Licensees in Contra Costa County. Whether or not this reduction is desirable is debatable, but the observation of the reduction is indisputable. Still, neither Mr. Soto nor any of his co- authors have provided any evidence that a significant number- or even any - of the previous or current Contra Costa County gun dealers are or were engaged in illegal gun sales. no-evidence of illegal activity by Contra Costa County gun dealers If Mr. Soto and his colleagues can belatedly provide evidence of illegal activity or if any illegal gun sales are discovered in the future, state laws and funding already exist to identify, apprehend, and prosecute violators at no cost to Contra Costa County. Among other provisions, California Penal Code§12071 imposes a fee upon COE applicants, creating a fund available to local agencies to ensure compliance with state laws regulating firearms dealers and firearms sales. To reiterate, if violations of state gun laws or gun dealer laws exist, the funding and mechanisms already exist to identify, apprehend, and prosecute the perpetrators. No new laws are necessary. No new expenditures are enecessary or, from a taxpayer's perspective,desirable. epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Taking Aim noted that teens and young adults are at highest risk of homicide, but failed to note that, in every study that has examined the issue, more than two-thirds of homicide "victims" are drug dealers or their customers. We have become used to the hysterical fearmongering of the gun ban lobby,claims that all age groups, all socioeconomic ' groups, and all areas are suffering from an"epidemic of violence." As a review of the data detailed graphically in this report shows, the claims of an "epidemic"are false. The outbreak of violence is almost completely limited to inner city teens and young adults 4 Hilburn D,Firearms Licensing and Permits section,California Department of Justice.personal communication. May 22,1995. i involved with the illicit drug trade. Of course, the rare mass murder and deaths of the minority of truly innocent victims,especially children, are highly sensationalized by the opportunistic gun ban lobby and a sympathetic media. It bears repeating - Good citizens who do not sell or use illicit drugs have very low risk of homicide. i guns save lives, prevent injuries, reduce medical costs, and protect property As a matter of sensible and responsible public policy, it is important to note that guns are used protectively far more often than guns are misused. Every year about 2.5 million Americans use guns to protect themselves and their families, saving an estimated 400,000 lives per year.5 Guns save ten times the number of lives lost to guns. Guns prevent injuries. Guns save money because property is protected. Guns reduce medical costs because lives are saved and injuries are prevented. Guns are the safest and most effective means of protection. criminals ignore gun laws, so disarming the innocent victims costs lives Gun laws do not affect the lawless. Those who ignore laws against rape, murder, and tdrug trafficking ignore existent gun laws and will ignore new gun laws. It is only good citizens who obey gun laws, so it is only good citizens, the innocent victims, who are inconvenienced or disarmed by gun laws. The only confidently predictable outcome of a residential gun dealer ban will be that the costs of doing business will be passed on to consumers, so guns in Contra Costa County will become more expensive. So, poor people will be disproportionately affected. More than the rich, the poor will be impeded or denied access to the safest and most effective means of protection. Disarming these innocent victims is a policy that costs more- not fewer- lives. 5 Kleck G and Gertz M.Armed resistance to crime:the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun.Journal of Criminal Law&Criminology.Summer 1995:86.forthcoming. i ' 1 Guns and the Public Health In 1662 the Armarium Urguentum recommended treatment of gunshot and other wounds: If the wound is large, the weapon with which the patient has been wounded should be anointed daily; otherwise,every two or three days. The weapon should be kept in pure linen and a warm place but not too hot, nor squalid, lest the patient suffer harm.6 Three centuries later some public health"experts"are still treating the weapon instead of the wound. When it was discovered that mosquitoes carried yellow fever,public health experts did inot dispatch armies of men with white coats and tweezers to pluck the mouth parts from mosquitoes. They sent armies of laborers to drain the swamps where the mosquitoes bred. If there is any kernel of truth in a public health approach to gun violence, it is that we should"drain the swamp"where the illicit drug trade has infected,primarily, the inner city. The drug trade has become so profitable that some immoral people will kill to reap those profits. We should eliminate the causes of violence - disrupted families, fatherless children adrift, media violence, a valueless, bureaucratically top-heavy educational "system,"government policy that encourages dependency and discourages responsibility - and not waste time, effort, and money sending men with"white coats and tweezers"(or even blue coats and badges) to pluck guns from honest citizens, gun shops, or home gun dealers. The chief strategists of the gun ban lobby have attempted to reframe the debate as a "public health"issue rather than a crime issue'precisely because they have recognized, as much of the public has recognized,that two decades of criminologicalresearch has shown the bankruptcy of the claim that gun control reduces crime or violence.$ Grassroots citizen activists have made legislators familiar with that research, making the legislative"front door"approach to gun bans largely unsuccessful, so gun ban strategists have recently concentrated upon the"back door"approach, advising tactics such as increasing bureaucratic paperwork for gun and ammunition dealers and purchasers, exorbitant taxation on dealers, guns, and ammunition,restrictive zoning ordinances, contrived application of environmental or consumer product safety statutes, and . expanding liability litigation.? Using the"scatter-gun"approach, Taking Aim recommended virtually all of the Handgun Control Inc. party line. i 6 Kopel DB.Guns,germs,and science:public health approaches to gun control.Presentation to the College of Public Health,University of Oklahoma,Health Sciences Center,Oklahoma City,OK.October 14, 1994. 7 Sugarmann J and Rand K.Cease Fire-A comprehensive strategy to reduce violence.Washington DC:Violence Policy Center. 1993. 8 Suter EA.Guns in the medical literature-a failure of peer review.Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia.March 1994;83: 133-48. 2 homicide and the illicit drug trade ■ The only discernible kernel of truth in Taking Aim is that Contra Costa County is like the rest of the nation. Inner-city teens and young adults, drug dealers and drug users, are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators9 and victims 10 of violence in our society. Heinous crimes by callous and feralized youths no longer shock us. Far from being"innocent children,"an alarming two-thirds of gun homicides are of teens and young adults in the drug trade.11.12,13 With massive expenditures, increasing infringements of civil rights, and even the use of US Armed Forces, the War on Drugs has reduced casual,recreational drug use, but done little to reduce hard-core drug trade in the inner cities. It has been repeated so often that there is an"epidemic of violence,"few question the claim or examine the actual data. The data show that gun accident fatality rates are hovering at an all time low14 and analysis of recent homicide rates for which demographics are available show a relatively stable to slightly declining trend for every segment of American society except inner city teenagers and young adults primarily involved in illicit drug trafficking.8,15 [See Appendix, Graphs 1-5] suicide Of the 38,000 annual American gun deaths, a majority are suicides. This has caused advocates of gun prohibition to note that gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but they fail to note a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust,etc.). It is also worth reviewing the high suicide rates in countries that have draconian gun bans. [See Appendix, Graphs 6 &7] The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates.16 People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so-much more socially acceptable that we should cede resources to measures that only shift,the means of suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths? 9 Bureau of Justice Statistics,US Department of Justice.Guns and crime.Washington DC:US Government Printing Office.April 1994;NCJ-147003. 10 Federal Bureau of Investigation,US Department of Justice.Uniform crime reports:crime in the United States 1992.Washington DC:US Government Printing Office.1993. 11 McGonigal NO,Cole J,Schwab W,Kauder DR,Rotondo MF,and Angood PB.Urban firearms deaths:a five- year perspective.J Trauma.1993;35(4):532-36. 12 Hutson HR,Anglin D,and Pratts MJ.Adolescents and children injured or killed in drive-by shootings in Los Angeles.N Engl J Med. 1994;330:324-27. 13 Suter EA,Waters WC,Murray GB,et al."Violence in America-Effective Solutions."Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia."June 1995. 14 National Safety Council.Accident facts 1992.Chicago:National Safety Council.1993. 15 Centers for Disease Control."Homicide Surveillance,1979-1988."Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. May 29, 1992;41(SS-3):1-35. 16 Kleck G.Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America. New York:Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. 3 international comparisons - a brief observation i It is worth noting that most of the countries,with which America is often compared, including Japan and the United Kingdom, have not only strict gun laws, but extensive limitations on other personal freedoms. Warrantless search and seizure, coerced t confessions, police intrusions,prolonged incarceration without charges, and other infringements of protections that Americans often take for granted are the rule, not the exception in those countries.17 It is also worth reviewing intentional fatality rates (homicide plus suicide), as a measure of violence, to discover that the United States compares quite favorably with Asian and European paragons of"gun control utopia." [See Appendix,Graphs 11] "taking aim" at gun dealers and truth, but not crime "Taking Aim at Gun Dealers" is aptly named; while taking aim at gun dealers, unfortunately the report does not take aim at the"black market"in guns or other major sources of crime guns. According to the National Institute of Justice, 93% of crime handguns are not obtained from gun dealers,18 so controls on gun dealers will have an expectedly small, if any, impact of crime guns. Neither does Taking Aim offer proposals that have any significant chance of reducing crime,violence, or injuries. Sadly, because it contains so many distortions and inaccuracies,the report should be entitled"Taking Aim at the Truth." The numerous misstatements of fact, of research, and of existent law are, at best, evidence of the incompetence of the authors and, at worst, evidence of willful intent to misrepresent the facts and to deceive public officials and the public. Taking Aim is a political hit piece that has cost the taxpayers dearly. 17 Kopel DB.The Samurai,The Mountie,and the Cowboy:Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?New York:Prometheus Press.1992. 18 Wright JD and Rossi PH.Armed and considered dangerous:a survey of felons and their firearms.Hawthorne, NY:Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. i 4 Richmond CA a case study of gun dealer restrictions in Contra Costa County In 1989 the City Council of Richmond CA enacted an ordinance that, according to Richmond's City Attorney who drafted the ordinance, initially focused upon sales of handguns and"made it nigh impossible to engage in home occupation business in selling firearms."19. The ordinance, as detailed in Municipal Code of the City of Richmond Chapter 7.100 et seq. and Municipal Code of the City of Richmond §15.04.190, now completely bans residential gun dealers; requires a conditional use permit for store-front gun dealers; requires a police investigation beyond the already-required federal and state investigations; requires a permit application process in which the fees exceed current federal and state fees combined; enacted storage, display, and security requirements; enacted compliance inspections for Building, Fire, Health, and other Codes; and more. Following enactment of the 1989 ordinance, the number of homicides in Richmond more than doubled and has never returned to levels noted prior to the ordinance.20 The percentage of homicides committed with a gun also leaped. Obviously, the restrictions on gun dealers resulted in no discernible benefit for public safety. Homicides in Richmond CA 1985-1994 Home gun dealer ban enacted in 1989 Year Gun Total Homicides Homicides 1985 11 (55%) 20 1986 17 (81%) 21 ,. 1987 10 (55%) 18 1988 24 (75%) 32 1989 33 (82%) 40 1990 25 (69%) 36 1991 47 (76%) 62 1992 39 (85%) 46 1993 51 (93%) 55 1994 28 (54%) 52 data courtesy of Sergeant Anthony Zanetelli,,Homicide Division,Richmond Police Department 19 Judkins J,City Attorney,City of Richmond CA.personal communication.May 25, 1995. 20 Zanetelli A,Sergeant,Homicide Division,Richmond Police Department.personal communication.May 25& ■ June 1,1995. ■ ■' 5 ■ Richmond CA Homicides ■ 70 �. Home gun dealer ban 60 and store-front gun dealer restrictions ,. 50 enacted In 1989 ti 40 .............. 30 20 ■ 10 0 ■ 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ■ ■ Gun Homicides 0 Non-Gun Homicides ■ ■ Ammunition Registration ■ a case study of useless law ■ The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, among its many provisions affecting the entire nation,required the registration of all ammunition capable of being used in a handgun (based on the premise that most crime guns are handguns), even if the ammunition was to be used in a rifle. Because many rifles use cartridges (e.g. .22 Long Rifle, .357 Magnum, ■ 9mm, .44 Magnum,etc.) that can also be used in pistols,the law effectively required the registration not only of handgun ammunition, but also the registration of much rifle ■ ammunition. Though the ammunition registration requirement was in effect for eighteen years, federal agencies repeatedly testified that the requirement had"no substantial law enforcement value." ■ In 1975, Rex D. Davis, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms, testified to the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, Committee of the Judiciary, US Senate that: [BATF is] on record to the extent that the sale of ammunition has not proven to be a very effective enforcement tool. Obviously they have no serial numbers or other identifying features beyond the fact of a brand name of the producer of the ammunition; a box of ammunition or an individual shell cannot be associated with the purchaser.... So, we have had a very limited number of cases in which a ■ ■ 6 suspect was identified or the evidence against him was fortified through ammunition records.21 In 1986, Edward T. Stevenson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement and Operations, US Treasury Department, testified in support of repealing the ammunition registration requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968: More specifically, the bill would repeal the ammunition record keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act, that the Department has recognized, have no substantial law enforcement value, since ammunition is not generally traceable through licensee records.22 In 1986, Stephen Higgins, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms, in a report to his superiors at the Department of the Treasury stated: The Bureau [of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] and the Department[of the Treasury].have recognized that the current recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value. In addition, their elimination would remove an unnecessary recordkeeping burden from licensee. Felons and other proscribed persons would still be prohibited from transporting or receiving ammunition in commerce.23 Besides its uselessness in law enforcement, the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms supported repeal of the ammunition registration requirements because they felt the requirement interfered with"the rights of law-abiding citizens." They noted that ammunition registration placed"undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition,possession, or use of firearms."23[p. 11371 We find it remarkable that the authors of Taking Aim have been heavily funded with tax money for several years, yet were either unaware of- or chose to conceal - that this nation conducted.an..eighteen year experiment with ammunition registration, that ammunition registration was found to be virtually useless to law enforcement and an undue burden on law-abiding citizens. The California Attorney General believes that an ammunition registration ordinance would be allowable under current California preemption statutes,I but the authors of Taking Aim have offered no data or studies explaining why a county ammunition ordinance would be an effective law enforcement tool when, in eighteen years, national ammunition registration was not an effective tool. In the face of eighteen years of hard evidence of the burden on law-abiding citizens and the ineffectiveness In law enforcement, the authors of Taking Aim owe us more than their unsupported opinion. 21 Davis Rex D,Director,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,US Department of the Treasury.in Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency,Committee of the Judiciary,US Senate.Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency,Committee of the Judiciary,US Senate,Ninety-Fourth Congress, First Session,Pursuant to S.Res.72,Section 12,Investigation of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States,Oversight of the 1968 Gun Control Act-The Escalating Rate of Handgun Violence.Volume 1.April 23,July 22,October 28, 1975. Washington DC:US Government Printing Office. 1976.p. 116. i22 Stevenson Edward T,Deputy Assistant Secretary,Enforcement and Operations,US Treasury Department. Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary,US House of Representatives,Ninety-Ninth Congress,First and Second Sessions on Legislation to Modify the 1968 Gun Control Act,October 28,30,November 9, 1985;February 19 and 27 1986.Part 2.Washington DC:US Government Printing Office. 1986.p. 1138. 23 Higgins S,Director,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,US Department of the Treasury.Memorandum ■ to Assistant Secretary,Enforcement and Operations,US Treasury Department.CC-34,270. February 10, 1986.page 1. Fundamental Flaws ■ "costs only" analysis ignores the lives saved by guns Taking Aim makes much of the costs of gun violence, but did not even make a perfunctory effort to assess how many lives are saved by guns. This, of course, is a familiar problem with the political tracts of the anti-self-defense lobby. Since Sarah24 and Jim Brady25 of Handgun Control Inc. have denied the legitimacy of self-defense with a gun, their refusal and the refusal of their devotees to discuss the millions of Americans who have protected themselves with guns is understandable. The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study26 showed that doctors' negligence kills 180,000 Americans every year,27 five times the number of Americans who die from guns, but doctors are not deemed a deadly public menace because they saves millions more lives than they take --- and so it is with guns. A conservative estimate from the largest scale, methodologically sound study to date, the study by Kleck and Gertz, suggests that there are 2.5 million protective uses of guns by, adults annually.5 As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every gun tragedy sensationalized,dozens are averted by guns, but go unreported. Whether or not"newsworthy,"honest scientific method begs accounting of the benefits of guns - enumeration of the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected. Such an accounting is absent from Taking Aim. The protective benefits of guns - and the politicized"science"that has been used to 24 Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc.:"To me,the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."in Jackson T."Keeping the Battle Alive."Tampa Tribune.October 21,1993.page unknown. 25 James Brady of Handgun Control Inc.:"Question:Aren't any handguns defensible? James Brady:For target shooting,that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home,that's why we have police departments."in Brady J(no relation)."In Step with:James Brady."Washington Post.Parade Magazine.June 26, 1994.p. 18. 26 Harvard Medical Practice Study.Report to the State of New York.Cambridge MA:Harvard Medical School. 1990. 27 Leape LL.Error in medicine.JAMA.1994;272(23): 1851-57. 8 underestimate or totally deny those benefits and to exaggerate the costs of guns - have been extensively reviewed. 8,16,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 As ten studies have shown, in any year, about 1 to 2.5 million Americans use guns to protect themselves and their families. and about 400,000 of those defenders believe that ■ they would almost certainly have lost their lives if they had not had a gun for defense.5,16 ■ Even if only one-tenth of those defenders are correct, the lives saved by guns would still be more numerous than the lives lost to guns. The flaws in the only study to suggest ' otherwise,the outlier data of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), have been discussed elsewhere.5,35 Briefly, the NCVS is a study of victimization, not defense, and, by its design, undercounts the most numerous types of defensive gun use (e.g. women protecting against domestic attacks). As additional sources of undercount error, the NCVS is the only such survey conducted by law enforcement and the only study in which the respondents are denied anonymity. When any statistic, such as the NCVS count of defensive gun use, is at odds with every other measurement, it is discarded.5 Nonetheless,even those US Bureau of Justice Statistics samples show that defense with a gun results in fewer injuries to the defender(17.4%) than resisting with less powerful means (knives,40.3%; other weapon, 22%; physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.) and in fewer injuries than not resisting at all (24.7%).16[Table 4.41 Guns are the safest and most effective means of self defense. This is particularly important to women, the elderly, the physically challenged, those who are most vulnerable to vicious and bigger male predators. [See Appendix,Graphs 8 &91 These benefits can be weighed against the human costs of guns - recently about 38,000 gun deaths from all causes and about 65,000 additional serious injuries annually (the remainder of gun injuries were so minor as to require no hospital treatment at all). Totaling all gun deaths, injuries, and criminal mischief with guns leads to a generous estimate of about 1 million criminal misuses of guns annually (involving less than one- half of 1% of America's more than 200-million guns)16,30 So, all things considered,.the human benefits of guns at least equal and likely exceed the costs of guns to society,by,a factor of 2.5. 28 Kates DB,Lattimer JK,Murray GB,Cassem EH,Schaffer HE,and Southwick L.Gun control:epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda.University of Tennessee Law Review.Spring 1995. 29 Kates DB,Lattimer JK,and Cottrol RJ.Public health literature on firearms—a critique of overt mendacity.a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology annual meeting.New Orleans,LA.November 5, 1992. 30 Blackman PH.The federal factoid factory on firearms and violence:a review of CDC research and politics.a paper presented to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.Chicago IL.March 8-12, 1994. 31 Blackman PH.Criminology's astrology:the Center for Disease Control approach to public health research on firearms and violence..a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology.Baltimore,MD November 7-10, 1990. 32 Blackman PH.Children and firearms:lies the CDC loves..a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology.New Orleans,LA.November 4-7, 1992. 33 Suter E.'Assault weapons'revisited—an analysis of the AMA report.Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia.May 1994;83:281-89. 34 Wright JD.and Rossi PH.Weapons,crime,and violence in America:executive summary.Washington,DC:US fDept.of Justice,National Institute of Justice.1981. 35 Kellermann A,Kleck G,and Suter E.Letters to the Editor.Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia.June 1994;83:42-47. 9 Economic Analysis The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately$1.5-billion per year36 - about 0.16% of America's $900-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of lost lifetime earnings- assuming that gangsters,drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of$20-billion or more in"costs.1136 One recent study went so far as to claim the"costs"of work time lost while workers gossip about gun violence.37 What evidence is there that the average homicide decedent can be fairly compared to the average worker, that average wages should be attributed to homicide victims? What fraction of homicide victims are actually"innocent children"who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, more than two-thirds of gun homicide"victims"are involved with drug trafficking or have evidence of ante-mortem illicit drug use.11,12 In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide"victims"had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.12 Such active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of$400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.1138 Itis not a slander on the few truly innocent- and highly sensationalized-victims to note that the overwhelming predominance of homicide"victims"are as predatory and socially aberrant as the perpetrators of homicide. Cost-benefit analysis is necessarily a bit hardhearted, and, though repugnant for physicians to consider monetary savings alone, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely force us to address the"costs"of gun violence. So, we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent"careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of$4.5 billion annually - three times the declared"costs"of guns. 'Those annual cost-savings.are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional financial savings from the innocent'lives'saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns. If the"average cost of medical treatment for a gunshot wound is $33,000,"as Taking Aim claims, then $33,000 is saved for each gunshot wound prevented when a defender uses a gun for protection. If we applied the prohibitionists' methods37 to compute the savings by guns,we would find that the annual savings approach $1/2 trillion,about 10% of the US Gross Domestic Product. We perform this exercise only to demonstrate that all such "virtual reality"estimates of"indirect"costs and savings are inflated and to condemn them all as meaningless. Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net ' benefit to our society. Some"quality of life" benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are not easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic paperwork, exorbitant taxation, zoning laws, contrived 36 Max W and Rice DP.Shooting in the dark:estimating the cost of firearm injuries.Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85. 37 Nieto M,Dunstan R,and Koehler GA.Firearm-related violence in California:incidence and economic costs. Sacramento CA:California Research Bureau,California State Library.October 1994. 38 Zedlewski EW.Making confinement decisions-research in brief.Washington DC:National Institute of Justice, . U.S.Department of Justice.July 1987. 10 application of environmental or consumer product safety statutes,reframing the debate as a"public health"issue, or outright bans - the current tactics of the anti-self-defense lobby7) will reduce violence. No matter what tactics are used by the anti-self-defense lobby to incrementally achieve citizen disarmament, it is only good citizens and honest gun dealers who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City,Washington, DC,etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more- not fewer- lives. Police Protection Criminals do not announce their intentions and police resources are stretched, so it is unsurprising that the police rarely arrive in time to prevent death or injury from much violent crime. Many are surprised, however, to discover that the police do not have any legal obligation -not even a theoretical obligation - to provide protection to individuals, even if in immediate danger. The police are only obligated to provide some unspecified level of general protection to the community at large.39.40,41,42,43 It is a bitter irony indeed that, at the same time the police are relieved of responsibility for our protection, we are forced to depend upon their protection. We are often told that we may not and should not have the same tools that the police say they need to protect themselves from the same criminals who threaten us. Gun ban advocates routinely portray good citizens with guns as inept and dangerous, but good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals16 and they do it with a better safety record than the police. . About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person- about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.41 Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.44 We can explain why the citizen record is better than the police (the police usually come upon a scene in progress where it may not be clear who is attacker and who is defender; also, the police, unlike defenders, must close to handcuff the arrestee), but the simple truth remains: citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves, their families, and their communities. Impeding the access of good citizens to the safest and most effective means of defense, guns, by the measures proposed in Taking Aim would cost more- not fewer- lives. Disarming good citizens, the innocent victims,is not a policy that saves lives. 39 Hartzler v.City of San Jose,App.,120 Cal.Rptr.5(1975). 40 Warren v.District of Columbia,D.C.App.,444 A.2d.1(1981). 41 South v.Maryland,59 U.S.(HOW)396,15 L.Ed.,433(1856). 42 Bowers v.DeVito,U.S.Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit,686F.2d.616(1882). 43 Besides case law,statutes relieve the police of any responsibility to provide protection to individual citizens,for example,California Government Code§845.Failure to provide police protection— Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or,if police protection service is provided,for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. 44 Cramer C and Kopel D.Shall issue:the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws.Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper.October 17,1994. 11 failing to target the source of crime guns Taking Aim makes much of residential gun dealers, but did not even make a perfunctory effort to present any evidence whatsoever that even one such dealer illegally provided a single crime gun. It is unlikely that the authors of Taking Aim could develop any significant data suggesting residential gun dealers are a significant source of crime guns, because residential and store-front gun dealers combined account for only a small percentage of crime guns. The largest scientific study of the source of crime guns was conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a branch of the US Department of Justice. The report of that study showed only 7% of criminals' handguns are obtained from retail sources.18 For this reason,controls on retail gun sales cannot be expected to reduce criminals' access to guns much, if at all. As the experience with the Brady Law shows, denial of retail gun sales to felons only diverts criminals into the"black market"or other sources of crime guns. Ironically, since residential gun dealers generally conduct few transactions and invite customers into their homes, they are more likely to know and trust their customers than the average store-front gun dealer. President Clinton and his administration have spotlighted violent crime and demanded draconian gun restrictions as a"solution." The administration's lack of action, however, belies its rhetoric. Senators Orrin Hatch and Robert Dole have inquired of Attorney General Janet Reno why, according to the Administrative Office of the US Courts, prosecutions have actually declined 5% overall and, in the case of gun crimes, prosecutions have declined 23%, under the Clinton-Reno administration).45 Despite exaggerated claims of the success of the Brady Law,46 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has acknowledged that the little existent evidence is only anecdotal47 If fact, almost all of Brady Law background check discoveries of"thousands of possible felons"are errors. Many are innocents whose names are similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure.to license dogs are the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as"potential"felons 48 Of the minuscule number of actual felons identified by Brady Law background checks, the Department of Justice has discovered four cases that were"prosecutable," but not one has been prosecuted49 Instead, those felons are merely displaced into the"black market." In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun ■ dealers (residential or otherwise) who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable- though admittedly more difficult- to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe enforcement 45 Hatch O and Dole R,US Senators.letter to US Attorney General Janet Reno.November 3, 1994. 46 Aborn R,President of Handgun Control Inc.Letter to the editor.Washington Post.September 30, 1994. 47 Howlett D.Jury still out on success of the Brady Law.USA Today.December 28, 1994. p A-2. 48 Halbrook SP.Another look at the Brady Law.Washington Post.October 8, 1994.p A-18. 49 Hams J,Assistant Attorney General,US Department of Justice.Statement to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice,Committee on the Judiciary,US House of Representatives concerning federal firearms prosecutions. September 20, 1994. 12 effort should focus on targeting the long illegal"black market"in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society. Disarming violent criminals is a policy that saves lives. Targeting the"black market"in guns is a policy that saves lives. State Preemption and "Home Rule" During the debate on the Brady Bill, Handgun Control Inc. and others in the gun prohibition lobby claimed that preemptive federal law was necessary because"home rule"resulted in different state laws on waiting periods and background checks, a "patchwork"of laws. They claimed that the"patchwork"made gun laws ineffective. Since state preemption laws have been an impediment to passage of more restrictive gun laws like those proposed by Taking Aim, the gun prohibition lobby sees no problem with a"patchwork"of laws and, in fact, as part of its inaptly-named"Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws,"Handgun Control Inc. proposes the dismantling of uniform state gun laws. It would appear that, logic and consistency notwithstanding, the gun prohibition lobby would like to have it both ways. Innocent gun owners traveling to an unfamiliar part of the state should not be snared in a net of conflicting gun laws. We do not wish to see good citizens prosecuted or incarcerated because of non-violent technical violations of local laws of which such travelers could not possibly have any knowledge. Misrepresenting the f=acts Is it too easy to buy guns or be a gun dealer in California? Taking Aim - "Minimal federal and state regulation of firearms sales, and lax enforcement of these regulations, has contributed to an explosive growth in the number of gun dealers..." Fact- Contrary to the claim of"lax enforcement,"two US Senate subcommittee investigated the tactics used by the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms [hereinafter,"BATF"] and found otherwise. A report to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1982 found: Based upon these hearings it is apparent that enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress adopted the Gun Control Act [of 1968] with the primary objective of limiting access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.... The Subcommittee received evidence that BATF has primarily devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension... of individuals who lack all criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have repeatedly enticed gun collectors into 13 making a small number of sales - often as few as four- from their personal collections Although each of the sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the agents then charged the collector with having"engaged in the business" of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the collectors secured acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agent of the Bureau have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential defendant upon the ground that he intended to use it in that violation of the law. In several cases, the agents have refused to return the collection even after acquittal by jury. The defendant,under existing law is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees, therefore,...an individual who has spent thousands of dollars establishing his innocence of the criminal charges is required to spend thousands more... without hope of securing any redress. This, of course, has given the enforcing agency enormous bargaining power in refusing to return confiscated firearms. Evidence received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution demonstrated that Bureau agents have tended to concentrate upon collector's items rather than"criminal street guns." The Subcommittee on the Constitution has also obtained evidence of a variety of other misdirected conduct by agents and supervisors of the Bureau. In several cases, the Bureau has sought conviction for supposed technical violation based upon policies and interpretations of law which the Bureau had not published in the Federal Register.... In these and similar areas, the Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5 U.S.C. §552, which was intended to prevent`.`secret lawmaking"by administrative bodies. The practices, amply documented in hearings before this Subcommittee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens. It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably searching and seizing private property. t It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens without regard for their right to due process of law.50 So, in 1982 it was the unanimous conclusion of a US Senate subcommittee that, far from lax, enforcement of gun laws has been overzealous and that, rather than targeting the real source of crime guns, innocent citizens have been targeted to inflate arrest and seizure quotas. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that, since 1982, laws have become more stringent and BATF abuses more common and more deadly. 50 U.S.Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.The right to keep and bear arms:report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.United States Congress.97th.Congress.2nd.Session.February 1982.p.20-24. I 14 Much press has vilified low-volume gun dealers,pejoratively named"kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a"proliferation of guns on our streets"is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all.51 Obviously Federal Firearm Licensees who have no guns and sell no guns are not a source of, as the hysterical sound bite goes,"a proliferation of guns on the street." The Congressional Record reports the testimony of abuse of law-abiding gun collectors and gun dealers. Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 [FOPA] documented that the high number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. As previously cited,prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as four guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby decry the paperwork ■ monster BATF created. Fact - California has the most stringent gun laws of any US state. California has the most stringent regulation and oversight of gun dealers, the longest waiting period in the nation, the most extensive gun ownership and purchase records of any state, training requirements and testing before allowing hunting or the purchase of handguns, bans on military style firearms, and so on. Interestingly with each increment of lengthened waiting period, increased crime rates followed, skyrocketing well beyond the national average after California's waiting period rwas extended to 15 days. The graph on the following page shows marked increases in California's homicide rate (compared with the rest of the nation, "US-Cal. Murder Rate") with each increase in California's waiting period. This is further evidence suggesting that restrictive gun laws only disarm good citizens, the innocent victims. Restrictive gun laws do not appear to save lives. r Is there any control over California gun dealers? Taking Aim - "The applicant... identifies any local zoning prohibitions or permit requirements. The applicant also certifies that he or she is not a felon or ex-felon, fugitive, drug addict, undocumented immigrant, under 21 years of age, mentally ill, or dishonorably discharged from the military... no proof is required." Fact- Besides providing two sets of fingerprints, in an investigation that takes two months or more, all applicants for a Federal Firearms License [FFL] undergo an FBI background check and are required to give evidence that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer[CLEO] for their business location has been notified of the applicant's intent to engage in the gun business so that the CLEO may investigate the applicant further and to ensure that all local requirements are met. Additionally, in"high crime" areas like Contra Costa County, each and every FFL applicant is personally interviewed by a BATF Inspector to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with all state,federal, and local laws before the license is issued. 51 Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,US Department of the Treasury.ATF News..Washington DC: . Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms.FY-93-38. 1993. ■ i Hill 111111111 HIM 06. 68. � Be. -o CE b 8. CL £8. CD O co U) NN l8. 08. 6z, d SL, O LL, 9L, SL. � O cu 4) LUll III Cc £L, i a11111 11111111111 LILIA IIEZL, C LL, =3 0L. 69, M U OIIH89. iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CO V L9, D C 99. cu _ S9. C13b9. .� p £9. Z9. V �s. 09. 11111 69. IM 11111111111 89. LS. 2 99. cd i SS, bS. '0 Fill If ZS. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c64 N6 CO co et N O r T r r sAea ui poPad 6ujjleM is uoj;eIndod 000`004/sjepjnW i ' 15 Fact- Federal Firearms Licensees are subject to unannounced inspections by federal and state agents. They are routinely inspected for license renewals, any time a crime gun is traced to a dealer, and any time there is reason to suspect illegal activity! Fact- California gun dealers are also required to undergo additional fingerprinting, a criminal background check (California disqualifies applicants for misdemeanors that are not disqualifying under federal law), mental health record check, restraining order check, and to provide a copy of a local business license and California Board of Equalization Seller's Permit, and evidence that the dealer is in compliance with all local laws. All these materials and hefty fees are necessary to obtain the California Certificate of Eligibility (COE). e Are residential gun dealers selling guns illegally? Taking Aim - Based on the observation that not all Federal Firearms Licensees have a COE, Taking Aim concluded that"...two thirds of gun dealers in the county (66%) are selling guns without reporting their sales to the state." Fact- Federal Firearms Licensees who are inactive and conducting no business (averaging 43% of gun dealers nationally) are not required to possess a COE. Fact- Importers, manufacturers, wholesalers, gunsmiths, and Type 03 (Curios and Relics) Federal Firearms Licensees are not required to possess a COE. Bankruptcy ■ trustees, estate executors, and others who may be required to transfer firearms need neither the FFL or the COE. Similarly, holding an FFL but not a Board of Equalization Seller's Permit is not evidence that, as Taking Aim claimed,"sales taxes are probably not being collected on a significant number of gun purchases—.." t Is existent law regarding illegal gun sales too lax? Taking Aim - "Failure to comply with state [gun dealer Certificate of Eligibility] law is punishable as a misdemeanor." Fact - Violations of the California Certificate of Eligibility law are felonies with hard time penalties prescribed. Fact- If a Federal Firearms Licensee is engaging in retail gun sales without holding a ■ valid Certificate of Eligibility, they are committing Federal and state felonies. Prosecute them. Convict them. Punish them. Fact - If a Federal Firearms Licensee is selling guns to minors, felons, addicts, or other disqualified buyers, they are committing Federal and state felonies. Prosecute them. Convict them. Incarcerate them. Fact- If a Federal Firearms Licensee is engaging in"straw sales" (knowingly selling a gun to a disqualified buyer by using a"qualified"intermediary), they are committing Federal and state felonies. Prosecute them. Convict them. Incarcerate them. 16 Has Mr. Soto concealed the truth? Taking Aim - "The issue of non-compliance is often cited at public hearings as one of the primary reasons that localities need to begin developing and enforcing restrictions on dealers." Fact-Mr. Andr6s Soto was present at the first such hearings in Contra Costa County (Lafayette, June 1994). At the Lafayette hearings, Mr. Soto was present when several citizens testified as to the numerous legitimate reasons why not every FFL held a COE. The authors and contributors to this report personally and repeatedly informed Mr. Soto of the several exempt categories and informed him why the disparity between the number of Federal Firearms Licensees and holders of COE cannot be honestly used as presumptive evidence of wrongdoing. In less than a year has Mr. Soto forgotten the repeated reminders?Why has he failed to acknowledge or explore these reasons?... was $425,000 per year in funding insufficient to obtain accurate or current data?... or has Mr. Soto knowingly concealed the truth in order to fan the flames of anti-gun hysteria and to advance his personal political agenda using tax money? Who is really costing us money) Taking Aim - "The high number of dealers who have not paid for business licenses [73%] represents a significant loss of revenue to local governments." Fact- Though presented as fact, this claim is highly speculative. Even if none of the FFLs were gunsmiths,collectors, or inactive, the loss of revenue to local governments would amount to approximately $13,000 which is less than 3% of Mr. Soto's ■ $425,000-plus annual budget- for a department that was commissioned to provide, but .did not provide, accurate information on gun violence. 'Is there an-individual right to keep and bear arms? Taking Aim - "The Miller(1939)decision confirmed that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to bear arms, but only a collective right through a reasonable relationship to a state militia." Fact- There is no US Supreme Court case that even once mentions a"collective right." In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged a pre-existent("pre-existent," rather than"granted" by the Constitution) individual right52,53,54,55,56 to keep and bear military-style56weapons. The familiar contention that there is no individual right to arms derives partly from a common misunderstanding of the constitutional"militia." Advocates of"broad-based 52 Presser v.Illinois. 116 U.S.252(1886).at 265. 53 U.S.v.Cruickshank.92 U.S.542(1876). 54 Miller v.Texas 153 U.S.535(1894). 55 Roberston v.Baldwin 165 U.S.275(1897). 56 Miller v.U.S..307 U.S. 174(1938). ■ I 17 gun control,"57,58,59 including the authors of Taking Aim, emphasize merely the mention of"militia," but historians, legal scholars, and Supreme Court Justices agree that,"The `militia' was the entire adult male citizenry," so that"one purpose of the Founders having been to guarantee the arms of the militia, they accomplished that purpose by guaranteeing the arms of the individuals who made up the militia."60, Adherents of the"states' right only"theory of the Second Amendment assert their position without examining the implications of their own theory. A full understanding of ■ the"states' right only"theory leads to conclusions that will make its proponents even more uncomfortable than if they accepted the individual right theory.61 An honest application of the"states' right only"theory, according to the rationale advanced by its own adherents,57-59 demands not merely armed state militias, but full military parity for the states. In these times of tension between the states and the federal government, gun prohibitionists should rethink the advisability of promoting a theory that would return the US to armed confederacy. Further, as Reynolds and Kates discuss,citizen disarmament would not necessarily be an outcome of an honest application of the"states' right only" theory of the Second Amendment.61 That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the individual right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. It has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African- Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim that"no court has ever overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds"is not only false(Nunn v. State 62 and in re: Brickey63 overturned gun laws on Second Amendment grounds), but is also the equivalent of a morally indefensible claim in 1950 that"no court has ever overturned a segregation law." Supreme Court decisions have been thoroughly reviewed in the legal literature. Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles, thirty-five note the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the individual right to keep and bear arms64 and only four claim the 57 Verdick JS and Teret SP.Firearms and health:the right to be armed with accurate information about the second amendment.Am.J.Public Health. 1993;83(12):1773-77. 58 Henigan DA.Arms,anarchy and the second amendment.Valparaiso U.Law Review.Fall 1991;26: 107-129. 59 Ehrman K and Henigan D.The second amendment in the 20th century:have you seen your militia lately?Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989;15:5-58.; 60 Van Alstyne W.The second amendment and the personal right to arms.Duke Law Journal.1994;43(6): 1236- 55. 61 Reynolds GH and Kates DB.The second amendment and states rights:a thought experiment.College of William and Mary Law Review.Summer 1995. 62 Nunn v.State.1Ga.243(1846). 63 in re:Brickey.8 Idaho 597,70 P.609(1902). 64 Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W.The second amendment and the personal right to arms.Duke Law Journal. 1994;43(6): 1236-55.; Amar AR.The bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment.Yale Law Journal.1992; 101: 1193-1284.;Winter 1992;9: 87-104.;Scarry E. War and the social contract:the right to bear arms.Univ.Penn.Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257- 1316.;Williams DL.Civic republicanism and the citizen militia:the terrifying second amendment.Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.;Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT.The second amendment:toward an Afro-Americanist reconsideration.The Georgetown Law Journal.December 1991:80;309-61.;Amar AR.The bill of rights as a constitution Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100(5): 1131-1210.;Levinson S.The embarrassing second amendment.Yale 18 right is only a collective right of the states (three of these four are authored or co-authored Law Journal. 1989;99:637-659.;Kates D.The second amendment:a dialogue.Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986;49:143.;Malcolm JL.Essay review.George Washington U.Law Review.1986;54:452-464.;Fussner FS.Essay review.Constitutional Commentary.1986;3:582-8.;Shalhope RE.The armed citizen in the early republic.Law and Contemporary Problems.1986;49:125-141.;Halbrook S.What the framers intended:a linguistic interpretation of the second amendment.Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986;49:151-162.;Kates D.Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the second amendment.Michigan Law Review.1983;82:203-73.Halbrook S.The right to bear arms in the fust state Bills of Rights:Pennsylvania,North Carolina,Vermont,and Massachusetts.Vermont Law Review 1985; 10:255-320.;Halbrook S.The right of the people or the power of the state:bearing arms,arming militias,and the second amendment.Valparaiso Law Review.1991;26:131-207.;Tahmassebi SB.Gun control and racism.George Mason Univ.Civil Rights Law Journal.Winter 1991;2(1):67-99.;Reynolds GH.The right to keep and bear arms under the Tennessee Constitution.Tennessee Law Review.Winter 1994;61:2.Bordenet TM.The right to possess arms:the intent of the Framers of the second amendment.U.W.L.A.L.Review. 1990;21:1.-30.;Moncure T. Who is the militia-the Virginia ratifying convention and the right to bear arms.Lincoln Law Review. 1990;19:1-25.; Lund N.The second amendment,political liberty and the right to self-preservation.Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.;Morgan E.Assault rifle legislation:unwise and unconstitutional.American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.;Dowlut,R.Federal and state constitutional guarantees to arms.Univ.Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.;Halbrook SP.Encroachments of the crown on the liberty of the subject:pre-revolutionary origins of the second amendment.Univ.Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.;Hardy DT.The second amendment and the historiography of the Bill of Rights.Journal of Law and Politics.Summer 1987;4(1):1-62.;Hardy DT.Armed citizens, citizen armies:toward a jurisprudence of the second amendment.Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986; 9:559-638.;Dowlut R.The current relevancy of keeping and bearing arms.Univ.Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30- 32.;Malcolm JL.The right of the people to keep and bear arms:The Common Law Tradition.Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.;Dowlut R.The right to arms:does the Constitution or the predilection of judges reign?Oklahoma Law Review.1983;36:65-105.;Caplan DI.The right of the individual to keep and bear arms: a recent judicial trend.Detroit College of Law Review.1982;789-823.;Halbrook SP.To keep and bear`their private arms'Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.;Gottlieb A.Gun ownership:a constitutional right.Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.;Gardiner R.To preserve liberty--a look at the right to keep and bear arms. Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.;Kluin KF.Note.Gun control:is it a legal and effective means of controlling firearms in the United States?Washburn Law Journal 1982;21:244-264.;Halbrook S.The jurisprudence of the second and fourteenth amendments.George Mason U.Civil Rights Law Review. 1981;4:1-69.Wagner JR. Comment:gun control legislation and the intent of the second amendment:to what extent is there an individual right to keep and bear arms?Villanova Law Review. 1992;37:1407-1459. The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL.To keep and bear arms:the origins of an Anglo-American right.Cambridge MA:Harvard U.Press. 1994.; Cottrol R.Gun control and the Constitution(3 volume set).New York City:Garland.1993.;Cramer CE.For the defense of themselves and the state:the original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms. Westport CT:Praeger Publishers.1994.Cottrol R and Diamond R.Public safety and the right to bear arms.in ,�. Bodenhamer D and Ely J.After 200 years;the Bill of Rights in modern America.Indiana U.Press. 1993.;Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court.Oxford U.Press.1992.(entry on the Second Amendment);Foner E and Garrity J.Reader's companion to American history.Houghton Mifflin.1991.477-78.(entry on"Guns and Gun Control");Kates D."Minimalist interpretation of the second amendment"in E.Hickok,editor.The Bill of Rights: original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville:U.Press of Virginia. 1991.;Halbrook S.The original understanding of the second amendment.in E.Hickok,editor.The Bill of Rights:original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville:U.Press of Virginia. 1991.;Young DE.The origin of the second amendment.Golden Oak Books.1991.;Halbrook S.A right to bear arms:state and federal Bills of Rights and constitutional guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.;Levy LW.Original intent and the Framers'constitution.Macmillan. 1988.;Hardy D.Origins and development of the second amendment.Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW,Karst KL,and Mahoney DJ.Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.New York:Macmillan.1986.(entry on the Second Amendment);Halbrook S.That every man be armed:the evolution of a constitutional right.Albuquerque,NM:U.New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. Weapons,technology and legitimacy:The second amendment in global perspective.and Halbrook S.The second amendment as a phenomenon of classical political philosophy.--both in Kates D(ed.).Firearms and violence.San Francisco:Pack Research Institute. 1984.;U.S.Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.The right to keep and bear arms:report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.United States Congress.97th. Congress.2nd.Session.February 1982. regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes RL.On misreading John Bingliam and the fourteenth amendment.Yale Law Journal.1993; 103:57-104.; 19 by employees of the anti-self-defense lobby and the fourth is authored by a politician)65 So, the substance of"states' right only" scholarship consists of four articles by employees and politicians of the gun ban lobby and an offhand remark in a television interview with former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger: "[I]f I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment.... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word,fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."66 Interestingly, in 1982, while Burger was US Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Morton Grove case67 offered the Court an opportunity to speak definitively on the right to keep and bear arms, but the Court"denied cert,"declining to accept the case or to speak on the issue. Since a majority of Supreme Court Justices declined to hear the Morton Grove case,perhaps they found Burger's claim of"fraud"unconvincing and were content with the existent case law supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms. One would never guess such a precedential and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their"states' right only"theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century"gun control"debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.68,69,70,71,72,73 Though the gun control debate has focused on the Second Amendment, legal scholarship also finds support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Ninth Amendment 65 The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D.The second amendment in the 20th century:have you seen your militia lately?Univ.Dayton Law Review..1989; 15:5-58.;Henigan DA.Arms,anarchy and the second amendment.Valparaiso U.Law Review. Fall 1991;26: 107-129.;'Fields S.Guns,crime and the negligent gun owner.Northern Kentucky Law Review..1982; 10(1): 141-162.;and Spannaus W.State firearms regulation and the second amendment.Hamline Law Review.'1983; 6:383-408. In addition,see: Beschle.Reconsidering the second amendment:constitutional protection for a right of security.Hamline Law Review. 1986;9:69.(conceding that the Amendment does guarantee a right of personal security,but arguing that personal security can constitutionally be implemented by banning and confiscating all guns). 66 Burger W,US Supreme Court Chief Justice(1969-86).on MacNeil Lehrer News Hour.December 17, 1991. 67 Quilici v.Village of Morton Grove,532 F.Supp. 1169(N.D.Ill. 1981),aff d 695 F.2d 261(7th Cu.1982),cert. denied 104 S.Ct. 194(1983). 68 Kates D.Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the second amendment.Michigan Law Review. 1983;82:203-73. 69 U.S.Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution.The right to keep and bear arms:report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.United States Congress.97th.Congress.2nd.Session.February 1982. 70 Malcolm JL.To keep and bear arms:the origins of an Anglo-American right.Cambridge MA:Harvard U. Press.1994. 71 Halbrook SP.That every man be armed-the evolution of a constitutional right.Albuquerque NM:University of New Mexico Press. 1984. 72 Cramer CE.For the defense of themselves and the state:the original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.Westport CT&London,England:Praeger.1994. 73 Kates D.The second amendment and the ideology of self-protection.Constitutional Commentary.Winter 1992; 9:87-104. ■ 20 "unenumerated"rights,74 Fourteenth Amendment"due process" and"equal protection" rights,75,76,77,78 and natural rights theory.73 Also, in the absence of explicit delegated powers, the Tenth Amendment guarantees that the powers are reserved to the States and the people, 79 making several provisions of the Brady Law unconstitutional.80 US v. Miller The US Supreme Court's decision in the Miller case is often misrepresented. The phrase "collective right"or similar verbiage appears nowhere in the Miller decision. The Supreme Court's decisions uniformly recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right, from the nineteenth century decisions through the 1990 Verdugo- Urquidez81 in which the US Supreme Court, expressly referring to the Second Amendment, as well as the First and Fourth, held that"the people"means"citizens" and is to be construed alike wherever it appears in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court's only extended treatment of the Second Amendment is the 1938 U.S. v. Miller case.56 No brief was filed to support the individual right view because Miller died before the case was heard in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately the language of the Miller decision is narrow and the case's full import has proved difficult to comprehend, especially for readers antipathetic to the individual right view which the Court accepted. The facts of the case must be reviewed. Miller had been charged with possession of a "sawed-off' shotgun for which he had not paid the tax required under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller filed a"bare bones"motion asserting that the Act violated the Second Amendment. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the case. The United States pursued an appeal. Miller died before the appeal reached the Supreme Court. 74 Johnson NJ.Beyond the second amendment:an individual right to arms viewed through the ninth amendment. Rutgers Law Journal.Fall 1992;24(1): 1-81. 75 Curtis M.No state shall abridge.Durham NC:Duke. 1986.pp.52,53,56,72,88, 140-1 and 164. 76 Amar AR.The Bill of Rights and the fourteenth amendment.The Yale Law Journal.1992; 101: 1193-1284. 77 Aynes RL.On misreading John Bingham and the fourteenth amendment.Yale Law Journal. 1993; 103:57-104. 78 Halbrook S.Freedmen,firearms,and the fourteenth amendment.in That every man be armed:the evolution of a constitutional right.Albuquerque,NM:U.of New Mexico Press.1984. Chap.5. 79 New York v.United States.112 Sup.Ct_Rptr.2408(1992). 80 18 USC§922(s)(2),the portion of the Brady Law that orders State-created chief law enforcement officers to search available records and to ascertain the legality of handgun transactions,has been held unconstitutional in Printz v. United States.,854 F.Supp. 1503(D.Mont.)1994),appeal pending(9th Cir.No.94-36193);Mack v.United States, 856 F.Supp. 1372(D.Ariz.),appeal pending(9th Cir.No.94-16940);McGee v.United States,863 F.Supp.321(S.D. Miss. 1994),appeal pending(5th Cir No.94-60518);Frank v.United States,860 F.Supp.1030(D.Vt. 1994);Romero v.United States;Romero v.United States No.94-0419,W.D.La.(Dec.8, 1994).Romero also held that§922(s)(6) (B)and(C),which require chief law enforcement officers to destroy records of handgun transactions and to write letters explaining denials,unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Koog v.United States,852 F.Supp. 1376(W.D.Tex. 1994),appeal pending(5th Cir.No.94-50562),the only district court opinion to uphold all of§922(s),argues that the latest US Supreme Court precedent on the Tenth Amendment is contradictory and makes logical leap[s].Id.at 1381,1386 n.20. ■ 81 U.S.v.Verdugo-Urquidez.494 U.S.259(1990). 21 The Miller case's salient points may be briefly summarized: (1) Reading of the brief filed by the United States shows that it urged the collective right view on the Supreme Court,82 which failed to accept that view even though no brief was filed opposing it; (2) On the contrary, the Court accepted that Miller could invoke the Second Amendment to attack the constitutionality of a federal tax on sawed-off shotguns,even though Miller was not a member of the National Guard or any formal state militia; but(3) As Miller had failed to present evidence in the trial court that a sawed-off shotgun was a militia-type weapon, the Court remanded the case to the lower court where Miller would have the chance to present any such evidence that he might have. (The Court was not aware of Miller's death; the Court knew only that Miller had not filed a brief supporting his position). In other words, the Miller case accepts that ordinary citizens may invoke the Second Amendment against gun laws and upheld an individua right to own militaa weapons. The Supreme Court had only stated they had no knowledge of whether or not a"sawed- off' shotgun was such a protected military weapon. The Miller case does indicate that there are types of arms which the Second Amendment does not protect, namely, weapons unsuitable for military service. Conclusion and Recommendations Taking Aim, as we have shown, is flawed in its entirety. It is full of misinformation, half- truths, and gross deceptions. It honestly represents neither the law, nor research. It misrepresents the only peer-reviewed research it cites, then ignores decades of other readily available research on guns and gun violence. It promotes a ban on home gun ■ dealers that would be illegal under existent state preemption statutes and promotes ■ ammunition registration that would be legal, but useless and burdensome, under state preemption statutes. It recommends a panoply of other draconian gun control measures that, after review and testimony on available data and research, have already been considered and rejected at state and national levels. Worse and possibly criminally, Taking Aim was produced with vast amounts of our federal and local tax money. The fruits of our labors, our tax money, are being used to subvert our civil rights and to promote illegal, dangerous, and even deadly public policy. We recommend that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors reject the recommendations of Taking Aim and sever all contracts with Taking Aim's authors. Further, in view of the apparent politicized, incompetent, and deceptive nature of Taking Aim, we recommend that the Board investigate Mr. Andres Soto, his co-authors, his department, and their financial affairs in contemplation of civil action and criminal charges regarding the possible political use and misappropriation of tax money. We suggest that the Grand Jury be convened to review these matters. 82 Cottrol R.Gun Control and the Constitution.New York:Garland. 1993.Introduction,p.xxvii. 1 t t t • t Appendix t • Homicide Rates 1979-1988 per 100,00 population from Centers for Disease Control. .Homicide Surveillance,1979.1988.' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. May 29,1992;41(SS-3):1-35. 40 35 30 ---o--- White 25 --�—Black 20 —0 Total 15 10 o-------o------o---- o----- -------o 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 i Graph 1 Selected Homicide Rates Comparison per 100,00 population 250 „ 227 from 10eck G.Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America. Hawthorne NY.Aldine de Gruyter.1991.;Fingerhut I.P., Ingram DD,Feldman JJ."Firearm Homicide Among Black Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties:Comparison of Y,l Death Rates in Two Periods,1983 through 1985 and 1987 200 thmu h 1989."JAMA 1992:267:3054-58.7 Hammett M. Poverty Powell hE,U" arrol P�1',Clanton T.-Homicide Surveillance-United States,19487 through 1989.'MMWR. Family May 29,1992.41(SS-3).;and FBI.'Uniform Crime Reports Disruption -Crime in the United States,1991.`1992.Washington DC: Television US Government Printing Office.p.12. Violence 150 Loss of I Values 122 Drugs Racism loo jGun Ownership is already ' 50 completely bannedfor 24 these teens 7 10 Washington Inner City Rural Black Rural White Overall US DC Black Black Male Male Male Male Teens Middle-Age Graph 2 20th. Century US Homicide and Suicide Rates per 100,00 population from Grove RD.Hetzel A.M.Vital Statistics Rates in the United States 1900.1960.Washington DC:National Center ' for Health Statistics.1968.and Vital Statistics of the United States.Hvattsville MD:National Center for Health Statistics.Individual volumes for 1961 through 1991. alcohol alcohol SUICIDE RATE per prohibition 18 prohibition repealed 100,000 POPULATION 16 _____ HOMICIDE RATE per 100,000 POPULATION 14 12 10 i 8 r � \ Gun J Control / Act of 6 '/ 1 1968 4 / i 2 I 0 y O C O N ID O C co N 10 O 'cf a) N tD O O N 0 O C tD I O O O N N N ('f f7 V Q C N h O O O n f` t0 tp m 1 Of O) m O � m m O QI m tT tT 01 tr W Q, 01 O m D) O O m ' Graph 3 ,I I J 20th.Century US Firearm Accident Rates per 100,00 population l 3.5 from National Safety Council.Accident Fart,1991. 3 2.5 2 1.5 ., -- .....::..... ... ..... :...:...:.:...... .:.... ........... 0 .. O O 0N N tD Q t` O in N M N N m a! O2 14 Cf Ol !n OI � O! of p) T 01 T O! OI OI T O! to al OI Of I Of !-1 Of O! a! Of T T I Graph 4 I Children's Accidental Deaths, 1991 from National Safetv Council.Accident Facts 1991.1992. 2500- 2266 t 2000- E 0-4 Years 1500- 0 5-14 Years 1005 1000- 589 515 608 467 500 231 79 50 95 0 rMotor Drowning Burns Suffocation Guns vehicles Graph 5 International Suicide Rates Comparison from World Health Organization,1989 45 44.9 40 35 31.6 countries with modest gun control 30.5 30 25 25.7 25.224.5 77 20.519.8 20 19.1 17 16.816.8 14.514.414.31 q 15 12.312.2 12 11.8 10.410.1 10 7.6 6.7 6. 6 5.6 5 4.3 i 1.7 � 0.3 0 ac =o+ m m s m ' mE Yo c 'D E e w � c m c 3 CLL DLL Z N N Goti v m m3 w O a o Y 1 wU) Z F4 N C w Z = w U 3 U o Z C o ,t 0 Graph 6 Suicide Method Lethality from Klock G. Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America.Hawthorne,NY:Aldine de Gruyter.1993.Table16.2. 90% ' 80°6 80% 77% -790 700 I 60% 50% 0 40 30°0 20% „ 10% a o 0% LT � UC 7 'o 'C12 ' a° .o .3 n m 2 t a) a m _ o m C o E c a o m > N O L d C Cn C] 1 0 X O U O Co d v E _ t Graph 7 � i j Rates of Crime Completion by Victim's Method of Protection from Kleck G.Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America.Hawthorne,ZNY:Aldine de Gruyter.1993.Table 4.4. 1 i89 soya 80 70% „ 60% o 51% 50% 49% 50% 40 31% 29 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 a s a a u m m ? c n v 3 c o t7 g L m c m C u m Y 3 o m e m c c m n a� a0A o.=o E `u 1,6 ;�4 V H O N o d rn Z y O 1 Graph 8 Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection from Klerk G. Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America.Hawthome,T'Y:Aldine de Gruyter.1993. Table 4.4. 60 51% 49% 50% 40% 40% i 31% 30% 25 22% 20°0 17' _ i 10% 12 d o 0 O c A Y c 2 cLs v rt 0 p V C O C R O 3 U T �C -> C R R R L_ d p y m P a v O © P Z_ p p r_ I Z 12 Graph 9 International Homicide Rates.Comparison from world Health Organization,1989 140 29.4 126.2 120 i 100 countries with modest gun control so so 49.4 40 7 28.3 26.8 20 10.8 10 9.6 7 6.4 6.2 5.7 3.3 2.7 2.6 2.2 2 2 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 I 0 d O d C "' - y � > > 9 > lT � M- !. > T 2 > m > C N �O U C a (n O 6 C C Cn C N !U -0 E C C '> R O CE)? C > l0 '� C C Y O d > a' m a E tL ° d c E 6 3 C C o a m m rm, y Y R m is _ E d > �° Y ' R U) _E a• p LL fn C U- = N (U > i U C, `-' H 0 of tV Z Q a LL _ 0 °c p p ¢ - O in C7 O w N ¢ > L � U) } = d y U P w _v o < Z 3 H c - Z 7 U W � O ED O U) Graph 10 International Intentional Fatality (Homicide + Suicide) Rates Comparison from World Health Organization,1989 160 140 120 countries with modest gun control ® Suicide Rates (per 100,000) 100 -5 EJ Homicide Rates (per 100,000) 80 so AN 40 20 i 0MERIN m o o s ma m ¢ Q E Y y^ m o o m m d m E d C c 3 c 3 w y E °i o � 3 y E -mi o m o a Y = m y E ca c ii to 4 ^' N m H LL m CD E c Z U u j U j C� N jV C7 c 3 C7 ° �_ m ° N 3 m } w A m ami Q t Z C w 3 U Z w L (n O ! Graph 11 Representative State Homicide Rates from FBI Uniform Crime Reports 90 80.6 Severely Restrictive Gun Controls 80 70 60 50 40 Permissive Gun Controls 30 20 12.7 11.3 11.7 10.6 10 2.6 2 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.1 0 o A s m a A m o c c E 3 c N c o M �. o O O I p U Z U C c . J 0 ° > to Z O Graph 12