CCMIN020998 - Laserfiche WebLink

1) people think it is an invasion of their second amendment rights; 2) people believed it would be a restriction to businesses; 3) people believed it would not lower the crime rate; 4) women needed small handguns to carry in their purses for protection; 5) that there is no problem in Pleasanton; 6) people felt this was only Council's agenda; 7) there should be a better definition of Saturday Night Specials; 8) state and federal law restricted Pleasanton's ability to enact the ordinance; 9) restricting guns did not reduce crime; 10) this decision should not be made due to peer pressure; 11) enacting the proposed ordinance would take away all guns; and 12) the people should be able to vote on what they want. Joshua Matlock, 7755 Fairbrook Court, said shooting guns was a sport and the Council should not take away someone's sport. He wanted to make sure he would be able to afford a gun when he grew up. He did not believe the proposed ordinance would stop crime. Ed McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, supported the ordinance. He had listened to many hours of testimony and still had not heard anything that would persuade him to change his mind. He believed the ordinance was a good first step. He mentioned a gun ban for the City of New York actually reduced crime. He agreed that criminals should be taken off the street and given the maximum sentence if a gun was involved. He asked Council to please pass the ordinance unanimously to make a strong statement to all. Mario Scoma, 57 California Avenue, Unit B, agreed with the Police Chief. He believed that the City needed to make the criminals afraid to come to Pleasanton. Dennis Towner, 849 E. Stanley Boulevard, #136, Livermore, said the City of Livermore had a vote on its gun ordinance and it divided the city. He felt Council was making a political decision and infringing on his constitutional rights. Howard Long, 363 St. Mary Street, said the right to bear arms had scientifically been associated with the reduction of murders, rapes and loss of property. If the ordinance was passed a discrimination issue against the weak, elderly, and women would be raised. Duane Darr, 5334 Avenida Aimendros, San Jose, said he participated on the Policy Subcommittee of Santa Clara County Violence Prevention Council. He mentioned the subcommittee had been involved in determining county wide recommendations to reduce violence in the areas of alcohol, domestic violence and firearms. Similar proposals (banning the sale of Saturday Night Specials, banning residential dealers, and mandatory trigger locks) had already come before the sub-committee. Throughout its involvement the sub-committee had never heard any of the proposals being a factor in firearms prevention. There has been no evidence to support the claim that Saturday Night Specials were dangerous and that firearm ordinances would be an effective way to reduce crime. He said the scientific evidence upon which Council's decision should be based did not support the ordinance that was before them tonight. He said the people of Pleasanton did not deserve to become symbolic guinea pigs because of regional politics. Pleasanton City Council 10 02/09/98 Minutes