Skip to comments.Oakland looks to toughen gun ownership rules
Posted on 09/11/2013 12:59:52 PM PDT by artichokegrower
Oakland could become the first city in California to require residents to register guns with the city or meet strict new licensing rules, under legislation awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown's signature.
The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, would exempt Oakland from a state law that prohibits cities from requiring gun owners to register their weapons with city registries. It would give the City Council the power to enact gun laws that are more restrictive than the state's laws. The city could even charge gun ownership fees.
The legislation, approved by both the Assembly and Senate, comes at a time when Oakland is reeling from gun violence. The governor has not said whether he will sign it.
"There is no true state gun registration law," Bonta said. "Oakland could enact its own, so that Oakland residents would register their guns potentially annually, potentially with a background check."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Can you say litigation? You can’t single out a segment of the population for different rules than those promulgated for the whole. Alway, underlying all of this crap is the RATs desire to disarm the populace. They are ever looking for ways to implement their “vision” a minute piece at a time. BTW, starting in January, ALL guns will have to be registered with the state, so long gun sales are through the roof here!
Here it comes...
Registration then they come a knocking...
Hey Oakland ... ever here of the Heller decision ... or the Bill of Rights for that matter?
Hear not here ... stupid keyboard
1. There is a budget crisis, so esp in Oakland you get NO police response, short of an in-progress murder or robbery —that is a well-known story in Oakland.
2. Cops making it harder for you to protect yourself.
HOW CAN IT NOT BE THAT:
The public sector DESIRES a high body-count, the better to pressure voters to raise budgets...?
I think they WANT KILLINGS, just like Fast & Furious.
This new measure is GRISLY LOBBYING.
Against who? the criminals? LOL
now thats funny right there?
I can see the thugs lining up now to register.
Once again displaying my reasoning that I would rather live in Detroit than most American cities.
Open carry is legal in Detroit as is standing my ground.
Are you kidding? I guarantee that Moonbeam gets re-elected in a landslide next time, after which Kamala Harris will do her 2 terms and complete the job.
I’ve been to Oakland. I would not return without a gun.
The below essay was praised by the state legislator who leads the fight in Oregon about gun rights and shut down the discussion about gun control at my high school website. In fact I even got one thank you.
Futile Gun Control Initiatives
The children and staff at Newtown enjoyed all the protections afforded by a gun free zone, including evacuating, communicating, notifying, coordinating, and counseling. The principal even confronted Adam Lanza, but he failed to submit before rules prohibiting firearms on campus.
Later I read a World Magazine article listing the supposed worst mass shootings in the United States since 1999. This article chronicled 25 instances with 220 dead, 242 injured, and 17 predator suicides. The shootings occurred at schools, churches, retail malls, and businesses, and in 19 to 24 cases at locations that would have prohibited firearms. In every case the police arrived for body counts and paperwork. In every case no one except the assailant had a gun.
The most recent citation involved Adam Lanza who stole his mothers guns (which was against the law), and then killed her with them (which was against the law). Next he transported these loaded guns onto school property and inside the building (which was against the law). He discharged the weapons within the city limits (which was against the law), and murdered 26 people (which was against the law). Finally, Mr. Lanza committed suicide (which was against the law).
The presence or absence of guns among the general population and violent incidents has been researched in many ways. Following are a few of the more rigorous studies.
U.S. Justice Dept research estimates that over a third to just less than one half of Americans adults own guns and half of those consider personal protection a significant inducement. The research inferred that annually well over 1,000,000 people find the presence or use of firearms necessary to defend themselves.
Harvard Law School completed a study discovering that within the U.S. and across European countries, violent criminality and suicide were unrelated and often inversely related to gun ownership. Instead basic social, economic, and cultural factors determined human actions.
The Center for Disease Control, which habitually considers guns comparable to viruses or bacilli, conducted a review of 50 studies. It found no positive benefit from laws concerning bans, restrictions, waiting periods, registration, licensing, or concealed carry.
The Clinton Administration commissioned a National Science Foundation (NSF) study that could not find a positive correlation between gun control laws and other measures after consulting 400 sources and doing its own research. The only dissent was detailed in Appendix A saying John Lotts conclusion from his studies that concealed carry laws do drive down murder rates had in fact survived all attempts at reanalysis.
Here the dissenter referred to a twenty-year study by John Lott and William Landes from the University of Chicago Law School. That and subsequent Lott studies the NSF reviewed correlated passage of concealed carry laws with large decreases in multiple victim shootings, and reduced harm from shootings when they did occur.
Evidently psychopaths and criminals in general follow a pattern of lawlessness and gun control legislation has no effect. However, numerous editorials, Feinsteins bill, and supporters thereof demonstrate that recent events preclude consideration of information developed at more pacific times. We have seen countless initiatives, and state and Congressional committees adopting as props the pervasive audios and visuals of distraught parents juxtaposed with idyllic photos of the massacred children at Newtown. Over this tragedy hovers ongoing Hollywood style theatrics presenting frightened children beneath the sinister specter of black rifles. The passionate, contra-factual, asymmetrical marketing of the Sandy Hook Elementary and other events provides the emotional cover necessary for driving deferred agendas that are unrelated to enhancing safety or curbing criminality.
Of course this debate would probably never begin with the precondition that any solutions must first protect Constitutional guarantees. In recent history such concerns did not seem paramount for Congressional debates from The Patriot Act and The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Opponents saw these pieces of legislation doing irreparable harm to Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, Posse Comitatus, speech and religious freedoms, and Ninth Amendment freedoms guaranteed, but not enumerated by our Constitution.
If protecting Constitutional guarantees regarding firearms in common usage was paramount, very likely only the most promising and durable proposals regarding guns could survive. A focus on personal freedom would likely lead to a focus on predators and criminals, and not revive the failed strategies previously implemented.
A Town Clothed in Misery
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
Harvard Law School Gun Study
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
Center for Disease Control
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
National Science Foundation: Firearms and Violence, A Critical Review
Study by John Lott and William Landes from the University of Chicago Law School
Patriot Act of 2001
USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
National Defense Authorization Act of 2011
Can we kick a state out of the Union?
I drove into Oakland once...and got out as fast as possible.
I seriously doubt all the felons and gang bangers and wannabes of Oakland could care less.. Business as usual,, any time any day.. A free fire zone.. Under liberal democrat control, of course
Soon the murder rate in Oakland will double.
There. That's better.
Bookmark. Thanks for posting!
Gun confiscation is a religion. The First Amendment prohibits interference with religion (except if you are Jewish or Christian). Case settled.
“Can we kick a state out of the Union?”
I second the motion...
they don’t knock anymore. you’re a armed terrorist and they practice first on your dog.
It will fail in court.
” As goes Oakland so goes California and then the rest of the country.”
That’s become a tiresome cliche.
Good idea...Force the Bloods and the Crypts to register their guns...
Mine does that all the tyme...Need a new keyboard...
We gun owners no longer obey California gun laws. We are US citizens first, California prisoners second.