CCMIN030398 - Laserfiche WebLink

residences and can deny entrance to BATF inspectors based on fourth amendment protections. So to secure entrance by the inspectors, BATF requires FFL to state hours of operation open to the public. This does not mean that the FFL's are literally open to the public. Rather the FFL's have abdicated their fourth amendment protection during the hours they list with the BATF. In addition, this allows state and local officials access to the FFL's home to check compliance of all laws. She said home dealers act only to connect a seller with a buyer. They do not store any inventory or display any firearms in their homes. She felt the passage of Ordinance 1738 would economically eliminate the home-based FFL's. She felt the six home based FFL's were providing a needed service that the two retail FFL's were not. She believed the primary market of home-based FFL's was to process private transfers between owners of used firearms. The retail stores will not deal in used firearms. An owner of a firearm cannot sell, buy parts, repair, ship a firearm, or whatever, without going through an FFL. The BATF estimated that at least 50% of households have at least one firearm. One of the areas that FFL home dealers help in is keeping track of used firearms. She reiterated that there have been no problems with the existing home based FFL's and there are avenues to make sure they are in compliance with the laws. David Stauffer, 1955 Brooktree Way, felt this was not a community working with its City Council to solve a problem. This is a community in large part fighting something that the City Council is trying to impose on them. He said this originated outside the city and that is where it should stay. He did not feel Pleasanton should be involved in this issue at all. Gary Schwaegerle, 189 W. Angela, appreciated Ms. Rowland's efforts and believed nobody really wanted junk guns around. But the emotion behind this issue is very moving and the emotional ploys are ridiculous. He said crime went down in Oakland prior to the passage of its ordinance primarily because of education. He believed there was other crime being committed that this ordinance did not even address. Ultimately this takes away rights. Kimberly Rowland, 3650 Locke Court, said she has heard this ordinance misrepresented in almost every way possible. This ordinance is not about banning all guns, but rather it is about responsible gun legislation. She said the supporters of this ordinance were accused of being paid by or members of Hand Gun Control. She said she is neither. She is aware though that the Hand Gun Control, along with Eastbay Corridor project, introduced this legislation to the Council. The Council at that point decided it would be addressed at a later date. She mentioned she did have five hundred signatures on a petition in support of this ordinance. She read what the petition said. The ordinance does not ban the ownership or purchasing of firearms. She hoped Council remembered that there were a large number of citizens supporting this ordinance. If this does go to the ballot the election will demonstrate this. She mentioned that the Legal Community Against Violence has offered its support. She said the Senate and Assembly both supported this at the state level. It was the governor solely that vetoed the bill. Ms. Ayala asked about what the Senate and the Assembly banned? Pleasanton City Council 3/03/98 Minutes 27