|
NRA Members' Councils of California 3565 La Ciotat Way Riverside, CA 92501 http://www.nramemberscouncils.com For Additional Information Contact Us (951) 683-4NRA (4672) |
|
Sacramento ignores own research in pressing gun control
Why ask the questions if you're going to ignore the answers?
February 10, 2007
 |
The ordinance requires gun-owners to report the loss or theft of firearms within 48 hours. In response to queries by the City Council, Sacramento officials conducted their own research to determine how effective the regulation has been in areas that have already passed it. The resulting report, dated 2 weeks before the vote, documents an ordinance that has provided absolutely zero benefit. All of the lofty claims of giving law enforcement an additional tool were known to be false. In even the most forgiving of analyses, in very real terms this idea is a bust and Sacramento should be ashamed for advancing it.
In contacting San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, Sacramento learned:
"...agency personnel contacted (1) were unaware of the ordinance, (2) reported that no investigations, arrests or convictions related to the ordinance existed, and (3) were unaware of any studies of costs of enforcement or impact on crime related to the ordinance."Of one senior law enforcement officer, the report states "...he had not handled nor... heard of any cases in which the ordinance was invoked." Another officer "...while aware of the municipal code, had never heard that [an offense] had been charged." The report continues: "...an Assistant District Attorney for the County of San Francisco in charge of prosecuting misdemeanors was unaware of the existence of the ordinance and therefore, had never heard of any prosecution involving violation of the ordinance."
The report also revealed that "...an Assistant District Attorney for the County of San Francisco stated that he did not believe [the ordinance] would expand his ability to prosecute crime and that it would take special circumstances for the ordinance to be useful in prosecution, in that the person charged would have to be proven cognizant of a burglary or theft of the firearm."
Documenting a true waste of time in every locality researched, the report continues "...an Alameda County Deputy District Attorney who prosecutes weapons charges had not used the ordinance to prosecute and had not heard of anyone else using it. A Berkeley PD Lieutenant also had not used the ordinance nor heard of its use."
The report asserts:
"...[N]o jurisdiction or agency contacted by SPD has been able to provide examples of (1) investigations or arrests (2) successful prosecutions (3) studies of effectiveness (4) studies of the costs of enforcement, or (5) studies of fees to cover those costs..."The report concludes on a sobering note for those that would support this bad idea:
"...Persons who illegally possess a firearm cannot be required to incriminate themselves by reporting its loss. Haynes v. United States 390 U.S. 62 (1968)..."And yet, on December 5 2006, in the midst of councilmember angst and complaints about previous gun control disasters, the City Council of Sacramento voted to move forward and draft this proven failure of an ordinance without a single 'no' vote or abstention.
In a moment of surprising frankness, a motivation for supporting these attacks on both our liberties and sensibilities was voiced by Councilwoman Lauren Hammond: "...It's been a very powerful tool in moving people to other elected offices."
This specific hearing was highlighted in a January 2007 video by the author titled "The Anatomy of Gun Control", available here.
ONE-CLICK service has been established to the Sacramento City Council, making it very easy for you to forward on your personal comments HERE. You may track this issue HERE.
Mike Haas
Electronic Communications Director
NRA Members' Councils of California
