CCMIN030398 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush said Ordinance 1719, subsection A of Section 6.64-160, page seven, listed the definition of the guns not meeting the original patent design. Mr. Pico said if the guns were originally patented with the materials, how could they be in violation. Mr. Roush said the underlying premise is that the guns differ from the original patent and they are manufactured in an unsafe and unacceptable way. Mr. Pico asked if the City had looked at each gun listed on the roster to see if it did indeed deviate from the original patent? Mr. Roush said no, but if the ordinance is adopted a notice would be sent to all the manufacturers informing them of the guns listed on the roster. If the manufacturers wished to appeal the decision, the ordinance allowed them the opportunity. Mr. Pico asked if the manufacturers could prove that their guns did not deviate from the original patent, would those guns be removed from the roster? Mr. Roush said the guns would have to meet all the definitions listed in the ordinance. If a manufacturer could show the guns met the design patent, the guns could be removed from the roster. Ms. Ayala asked if one or two manufacturers had been removed from the original list. Mr. Roush said yes. In July 1997, when this was originally presented to the Council, there were twenty manufacturers listed. One of the manufacturers had filed an appeal in another jurisdiction and because of this, its name has been removed from the proposed list. Ms. Ayaia asked if the list was the same as other cities that had passed a similar ordinance. Mr. Roush said yes. Ms. Michelotti clarified that the ownership of one of these guns was okay, but it would be illegal to sell the gun. Mr. Roush said that is correct. Mr. Pico asked the definition of resale. Mr. Roush said the definition, in terms of firearm sales, would mean the sale, transfer, lease, registration, advertising for sale, etc. It is a fairly broad definition. Pleasanton City Council 3/03/98 Minutes 18