CCMIN071696 - Laserfiche WebLink

unloaded and in a locked case, are not adhered to, he will be cited and that gun now becomes a "crime gun". He disagreed with prohibiting sales of firearms in residential neighborhoods. These people have a lot of knowledge of firearms, they sometimes are gunsmiths and can assist an individual in buying the right gun and training an individual in the operation of the gun. There is a need for this type of advice. Firearms sales at the fairgrounds are already significantly regulated by the people setting up the show. A dealer must have a federal firearms license and follow all the laws of the State of California. No one walks out with a firearm. He opposed the requirement to have $1 million in liability insurance. He felt it will drive local firearms dealers out of business. He believed insurance companies will not issue such a policy because it is a flag inviting lawsuits. He referred to the requirement to get a permit from the local Chief of Police. Mr. Van Fleet thought that when the responsibility for issuing concealed weapons permits are transferred from the County Sheriff to the City Chief of Police, that the permits will only be issued to politicians and wealthy businessmen of the community. They are seen as people who are targets and need the protection. Everyone else is not allowed to protect themselves under the law. Some people choose to protect themselves illegally. He then referred to the definitions for a Saturday Night Specials, and refuted some of the standards. He felt this ordinance with its requirements for insurance and prevention from selling from the home is an insidious means of prohibiting the business of gun selling. This does not address the real issue of gun crime. Herbert Marshall, 3202 Clifford Circle, Pleasanton, does not know why we need this ordinance on gun control. He felt the only reason is to fill gaps in federal and state laws regarding guns and he did not believe there were any gaps. This only prevents poor people from buying a gun. The other reason may be to prevent young people from having weapons. He related the existing laws regarding possession of a gun by minors. He felt this was a waste of time and money and he preferred that the money be spent on the Police Department so it has the manpower to enforce existing laws. Ed Hagberg, 3686 Touriga Drive, Pleasanton, believed the proposed ordinance is aimed at eliminating all gun sales in Pleasanton. The staff report and Chief of Police have said there is not a problem so why correct a problem that does not exist? There are federal and state regulations in place for those who sell firearms and which set certain requirements prior to releasing any firearm to a buyer. He then explained those laws in detail. He objected to the proposed requirement for liability insurance. Banning Saturday Night Specials will only hurt low income individuals. Proper handing and storage can only happen through education and training. He felt the proposed ordinance is an approach to shore up a large city's problems at the expense of Pleasanton. He felt the taxpayers of Pleasanton should not commit taxpayer dollars in order to subsidize legal fees to support challenges to the legality of this or similar ordinances in other cities. He refuted the statement that residential gun dealers do not have a secure storage system. He also said that gun shows at the fairgrounds are not a threat to the citizens of the Tri-Valley area and related the rules and security precautions taken. He indicated he had been in business for fourteen years and never received one complaint. 07/16/96 -18-