HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02091993 - 1.51 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
555 CAPITOL MALL,SUITE 455
SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 RECEIVED
(916) 446-2455
JAN 2 91993
January 2S, 1993 �
CLERIC BOARD OF SUPtRVCSORf;i
Supervisor Thomas Torlakson CONTRA COSTA CON. �
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Torlakson:
It has come, to nIy attention that the Contra Costa C-zlunt;� Board, of Supervisors has
directed the County Attorney to draft an ordinance which would require prospective
firearm purchasers to be fingerprinted and photographed prior to delivery of a firearm. On
behalf of the National Rifle Association members in Contra Costa County, I urge your
opposition to such an ordinance should it be introduced.
A fingerprinting and photographing requirement would be just one more in a long list of
restrictions which are infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens while having no impact
onAhe,.criminal.misuse.of firearms..-A.-U S.Department,of:Justice,study,found that about
r
83% othe firearms used in,crimes were obtained,by the criminal,from a source;other-than
a.retail outlet. Moreover,virtually all of9the,fireai•Ins criminals obtained from retail outlets
,. .
were either stolen from the retail outlet or purchased before the person had a disqualifying
offense or purchased by another..person, without a criminal record, for.the-criminal. That
is why California Department of Justice statistics indicate that roughly 99% of the
individuals who buy firearms from state licensed dealers are law-abiding citizens.
This proposal appears to be a response to the tragic shooting of two Richmond police
officers last month by Jay Choe. It is ironic that more gun control is the response to the
incident when what should really be drawn from the experience is the ineffectiveness of
laws which require voluntary compliance from violent criminals and the inability of law
enforcement agencies to remove known violent offenders from society and protect innocent
victims and police officers.
Recently enacted state laws extended the waiting period on firearm purchases to include
rifles and shotguns and prohibited individuals with restraining orders from purchasing
firearms. Choe had threatened to murder family members, had threatened them with a
firearm and had a restraining order issued against him. Choe had previous felony charges
dropped,and apparently had the firearm, previously confiscated,.returned to his possession.
According. to the California, Department.of Justice, .Choe.did.._not-obtain.the firearm-he
used through,a retail channel.- All the.facts,indicate that-it was.the-firearm; .once in police
possession, which,was-the murder weapon,in this.case so; :even-had.-there been a..
cc: BOARD MEMBERS (Provided)
ShP/r'
f
i
Supervisor Thomas Torlakson
January 28, 1993
Page Two
fingerprint/photograph system in place, this shooting would not have been averted. Had
there been additional law enforcement resources available and greater authority to get
known violent and threatening individuals off the street, however, police could have
arrested Choe after his wife, within the week prior to the incident, once again informed the
court she had been threatened and feared for her life. Unfortunately, two police officers
lost their lives.because law enforcement was unable to take preventive action and avert the
imminent.tragedy.
The recent increase in Ji^vlence is not a result of firearms. i ather, significant societal
problems and changes are leading to violence which sometimes manifests itself through the
criminal misuse of firearms. This proposed ordinance will only aggravate the problem as
scarce county resources are diverted away from attacking the real problems -- including
going after those who misuse firearms -- to processing paperwork on law-abiding firearm
purchasers.
Further diversion of county resources will occur when the county must defend this
ordinance against legal challenges which will be filed should the ordinance be approved.
California Government Code Section 53071 very clearly states that "it is the intention of
the legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of
commercially manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal Code,
and such provision shall be exclusive of all local regulations...." (emphasis added). You may
want to have the county attorney review the decision in Doe v. City and Coun- of San
Francisco, 136 Cal.App. 3d 509 (1st. Dist.App. 1982).
The National Rifle Association strongly urges that the Board of Supervisors carefully weigh
the unlikely benefits of the firearms sales ordinance with the certain costs which would be
associated with it prior to enacting the proposal.
Sincerely,
Brian Jud
State Liaison
BJ:add