CCMIN071696 - Laserfiche WebLink

given from both sides of the issue and he does not know which is correct. He still has the basic question, "where are the guns coming from?" What is the definition of this gun? If it is truly unsafe, why is it still manufactured? He was told kids could buy guns for $10 or $15 in Oakland. His main concem is the availability of guns. You have all talked about the processes that have to be followed to get licenses, etc. and he just does not understand how the kids get the guns. If you all do your job right and the BATF is doing its job right, where do the guns come from? He would like information about these flueling statistics in terms of the definition of junk guns and the list of junk guns from the Chief of Police. If the list includes guns normally sold to the public or owned by law enforcement agencies, etc., they should be removed from the list. It is not his intention to regulate these firearms. Allegations are always made that the government is infringing on civil rights and the ability to bear arms. He wants to get rid of "zip" guns, not take away rights to sell or own guns. He felt the Mayors were sincere when they said the cities have to adopt ordinances together and to work from the bottom up to get the attention of the State or Federal legislators. This gun should not be manufactured because it is not safe. The question is now does this Council want to pursue the ordinance through the Planning Commission and get answers from staff for all our questions or does Council want to drop the issue. If we pursue the olrdinance, does Council want to continue to work in cooperation with other cities to defend legal challenges. He supported trigger locks if the Penal Code requires them even though some of the members of the audience disagreed. The process is to review whether these things are necessary. Is liability insurance required? Is there such a thing as a junk gun, zip gun, etc. that should not be manufactured? Is there a way to prevent guns from getting in the hands of kids? Ms. Michelotti wanted more information before sending this to the Planning Commission, especially the motion that we support financially the legal defense of other cities. She did not want to spend taxpayers money until she is comfortable that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. She wanted the matter tabled until more information was available. Ms. Mohr indicated she had grown up in a household with guns. Her original support on this ordinance when it was originally brought up related to a product being sold from the home. Why should one product be any different from another with respect to meeting City licensing requirements, whether its Avon or guns. The product is not the point. She still felt that way although some of the information brought up tonight could change her mind. She agreed with the concerns on safety issues and the trigger locks. She had only one telephone call on this and she contacted a friend who is in the NRA and that person had no problem with banning junk guns. Obviously, there is differences of opinion among gun enthusiasts as well. The only issue of significance to her is whether guns as a product should be treated differently than any other product sold from a residence. She supported gathering more information and had concerns that the Police Chief had not signed the report and was not at the meeting. She is not interested in a ban on guns. Ms. Dennis supported the trigger lock issue. The issues of gun violence in Pleasanton have involved accidents and not a situation involving young people using guns to commit crimes. Better safety provisions could have prevented the accidents. She also wanted the Police Chief 07/16/96 -25-