Law To Limit Ammunition Before Oakland Council-Comments

Law to limit ammunition before Oakland council
Chip Johnson
Any new public policy measure undertaken to reduce, regulate or limit access to the guns and
ammunition that have contributed to the loss of human life across the nation's urban landscape is a step
in the right...
Read Full Story
Sort Comments by: Oldest | Newest | Recommended
Add Your Comment
mhc
2/2/2010 10:21:20 AM
Chip said "Any new public policy measure undertaken to reduce, regulate or limit access to the guns and
ammunition that have contributed to the loss of human life across the nation's urban landscape is a step
in the right direction"
WRONG. ANY measure is NOT a step in the right direction. The ONLY measures that are in the right
direction are ones that actually have an effect on the criminal use of guns. THIS measure does NOTHING,
and because it tries to fake out the public and basically lies to the public it is a step in the WRONG
direction.
WAKE UP, Oakland! You need REAL steps, i.e. catching the bad guys, and intervention for youth before
they become bad guys, and HELP FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS so people feel safe speaking up against
criminals. This measure is nothing but a smokescreen.
Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink
mhc
2/2/2010 10:18:36 AM
nmnutz2/2/2010 GREAT SUMMARY! I AGREE COMPLETELY. This is basically the politicos AVOIDING the
issue, not ADDRESSING it. They KNOW it won't make a snap of difference to criminals and they don't
care, so long as they LOOK good. "I don't really like guns, at all. On the other hand, I do support the right
of responsible individuals to own and carry them. ... If I thought this proposed legislation would, in any
way, limit access to guns and ammo for those less responsible members of society, I would support it.
But, it doesn't and I don't. This is just the sort of symbolic tripe that serves no other purpose than to
make politicians appear to be doing something...anything...to address societal problems. The end result
is to make life a little less pleasant for the responsible members of society, while impacting the
irresponsible members not one iota."
oaktown5150
2/2/2010 10:17:42 AM
This is simply another piece of nonsense legislation to deprive law-abiding citizens of their 2nd
amendment rights. Siegle's, the last gun store in Oakland was put out of business over 10 years ago
when Oakland's gross receipts tax was amended that required all stores selling weapons or ammunition
to charge an increased sales tax on every item sold in those stores. Trader's in San Leandro was put out
of business when San Leandro passed a similar ordinance.
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/council/coun_mem/henrychang/major_int.html
Greengo
2/2/2010 10:14:43 AM
Taxes on bullets and ammunition should be as high or higher than they are on CIGARETTES, TOBACCO,
AND ALCOHOL.
join_reality
2/2/2010 10:13:22 AM
I actually disagree with Chip on this one... I don't the law is effective. As usual, it's just another step
short of what Oakland really needs, which is more cops... There was a study done that concluded
Oakland needs 1,100 police officers to maintain law and order. Everyone from the Mayor's office, to
prior police cheifs to City Council has side-stepped the issue ever since, and this is just continuing the
tradition of dodging the problems that beset Oakland.
You cannot successfully "reach out" to the community when you can't deliver on your promises. You
need cops on beats to do that.
Of course, that means more money- but you have to invest money in public safety to get money back.
That's the tough sell, and Chip's just helping the City make excuses.
Non controversial "gun control" laws that don't mean squat to the hardened criminals that cause about
90% of Oakland's (and Richmond's, and SF's, and Berkeley's) look nice on paper... Yhey don't fix the
problem- no cops.

skiver
2/2/2010 10:10:48 AM
Considering that no store has sold ammunition in Oakland since a punitive city tax put Siegle's out of
business in 2000, nothing will be accomplished by this ordinance.
If you want to get rid of murders in Oakland, get rid of the illegal drug traffic. When the Chron ran its
series Oakland in the Cross Fire, back in 2002, 3/4 of the homicides it tabulated were due to the illegal
drug business. The money to be made attracts criminals who don't care that much about Oakland city
ordinances.
squidlips
2/2/2010 10:06:51 AM
The reason 'gun control' laws have no effect on the incidence of violent crime is that criminals do not
obey the law and thus are not constrained by such laws.
The only thing 'gun control' laws do is to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens. I
have never committed an act of violence in my life, have never been arrested for nor charged with any
criminal violation, and yet my ability to own and use firearms for lawful purposes continues to be
diminished by the enactment of laws that do nothing to inhibit crime or promote public safety.
Oakland city council members have already proven themselves shortsighted and irresponsible, and it
doesn't surprise me that they would entertain such idiotic notions as described in this article. And I
suppose it's too much to expect Chip Johnson to research the issue of gun laws enough to be able write
intelligently about it. Why let the facts get in your way when ill-considered opinions are so much easier
to come up with?
bwiese
2/2/2010 10:02:05 AM
This is another failed antigunner attempt to shoehorn some useless laws thru. This particular package of
laws from LCAV has been rejected by approx. 1,000 CA city and county entities. San Mateo County
Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson couldn't get it thru in her own county so as a member of the unelected
supergovernment body, ABAG, she's trying to throw it somewhere else.
Private conversastions w/Oakland cops + BATF agents indicates much of Oakland's gun crime is due to
'Baby Mama Drama' -- young women/single mothers with clean backgrounds (on paper) who buy guns
for their gangbanger boyfriends. Everyone there knows this, but the Alameda County DAs office is
reluctant to prosecute them for this, due to 'politics' and far-left City Council. BATF agents are frustrated
with their local cooperation being stunted.
Bill Wiese
(Vice Chair, The Calguns Foundation)
San Jose CA
cageordie
2/2/2010 10:01:25 AM
As is typical with anti gun legislation, this makes life more difficult for law abiding citizens and does
nothing to reduce criminal's access to weaponry.
A good example of expensively worthless legislation was the British handgun ban, they banned all legal
handgun ownership back in the mid 90s. The supporters were so happy that they had ended gun crime.
So what did it really do? Nothing. Since criminals in the UK don't expect their victims to be armed this
didn't cause an increase in gun crime. But since being a gun owner in the UK required a spotless record,
better than that required to be a police officer or a politician, it also did absolutely nothing to decrease
crime. The gun crime rate just continued to increase.
Same thing with this legislation, all it does is gives the police the thumb prints of people who have very
little chance of being criminal whilst encouraging criminals to shop a few miles away.
HiPlainsDrifter
2/2/2010 9:58:29 AM
I usually enjoy Chip's column, but he is WAAAAY off the mark on this. Ammo restriction is nothing more
than a backdoor attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, and as many of the comments have
already stated, it does NOTHING to reduce crime. When you try restrict gun ownership, only the
criminals will have them. I could go on and on, but I won't repeat what the other comments have
already sufficiently said.
Keep your grubby hands off my guns AND my ammo, Chip. Thanks.
gt1
2/2/2010 9:49:58 AM
Sorry, but this ordinance, as described, appears to be more of a "make it look like we're really doing
something" law.
modern_patriot
2/2/2010 9:46:28 AM
GenericUserName
Years ago, the feds required a finger print and a signature with each ammo purchase. Afterwhile they
stopped requiring it because it did nothing to eliminate violence. The result will be the same this time.
Placing a serial number each bullet will do nothing except make ammunition very expensive and subject
the wrong person to undue scrutiny if a serialized bullet brass is found at a crime scene. Criminals do not
obtain guns and bullets by legitimate means, they steal them.
I appreciate that you care about people, but at what point do you think a person is responsible for their
own actions? I to care about people, I'm an RN so caring about people is my business. My remedy to
eliminate victims and criminals is to allow ALL law abiding adults the freedom to bear arms and protect
themselves. If a person with criminal intent has to think about running into an armed citizen, perhaps
they will be less likely to think about crime. Criminals prey on the defenseless.
bfticardi
2/2/2010 9:37:54 AM
So another worthless law. If I, as a law abiding citizen, can buy a gun in San Jose even though I don't live
in that city, what is to stop someone else from going there from Oakland and doing the same thing? The
answer is nothing! Same for Ammo. We already have a new law that says you have to show ID and
signature for new ammo purchases in CA, so the whole thumbprint thing is just a waste and probably
another waste of time. Heck, I can go to Nevada or Arizona and buy ammo and drive it back to the bay
area and no one will be the wiser.
This whole law proposal is just smoke and mirrors for corruption and denying of rights to lawful owners
of firearms. It won't impact crime at all except to make it harder to buy ammunition and firearms for
lawful owners to defend themselves. Standard politician BS that we come to expect from California
politicians who are long on wind but short of ideas that work.
poopoothat
2/2/2010 9:34:33 AM
Oh pls Chip! Normally I respect your views, but c'mon.....
How about just putting the bangers in jail? Anyone can purchase a reloading setup that will allow you to
mfr. all of the ammo you'd hope to use, but now what you need is a fingerprint to buy ready-to-go
ammo? And who is going to scan these prints and determine where to go from there? Hey! 10 people
are killed by the ammo you bought. But it could have been stolen/lost/loaned/whatever. The print
means nothing and wouldn't hold up in court on a good day. Worthless posturing.
vtxbay
2/2/2010 9:21:38 AM
I think all gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be defied. Even on aircraft. Imagine, if you
will, the terrorist shouting "allah-u-akbar" and finding himself faced with 150 weapons aimed straight at
him. Unless he managed to get on the plane with explosives, he'd find himself outnumbered, outgunned
and quite defeated, if not dead.
Every American should own and know how to use some kind of weapon. We don't live in as civil a
society as a lot of so-called "progressives" seem to think; and "understanding" criminals is a lot less
effective than destroying them.
modern_patriot
2/2/2010 9:16:04 AM
Hey "copoftheday", how about we get right to carry in the state just like 80% of the rest of the country
and let citizens protect themselves. That serves a number of purposes.
1. It will reduce crime, because criminals are cowards and won't attack someone they think is armed.
2. It will reduce the number of victims of crimes
3. Less crime reduces the need for more cops.
4. The city saves money.
5. Cops have less work to do.
In other words things are much better in the long run. It's not that I don't think society needs cops, it's
just that having one on every corner is not my idea of freedom. Security perhaps, but we know what
Benjamin Franklin said about that.

This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by an SFGate editor.
SKYHAWK44
2/2/2010 9:10:09 AM
AS NEVSCAMP SAID, AMMO IN NORTHERN NEVADA IS NOT EASILY COME BY. ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS
WHEN I WAS LOOKING, 22LR WERE PLENTIFUL, BUT NOT 380, 38 OR 9 MM. I HAVE A CCW, BUT DON'T
CARRY IN CA, BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A HASSLE. GEEKETTE, I THINK YOU'RE GREAT. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY,
SEVERAL YEARS AGO IN SAN JOSE, THE WOMEN ON CAMPUS WERE BEING RAPED FREQUENTLY, THEN
THEY STARTED CARRYING, AND SUDDENLY THE RAPES ALL BUT STOPPED. STRANGE HOW THAT
HAPPENED, MAYBE IF MORE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS CARRIED, THE THUGS MIGHT THINK TWICE.
GenericUserName
2/2/2010 9:07:28 AM
I like the idea of the thumbprint, identifying who bought what. I'd heard tales of serial numbers or
numbered batches on ammo, which might also help, but ONLY if it was done nation-wide. I've wonder
about the effects of taxation on ammo, to make it very expensive. But that would seem to harm
legitimate users (some would argue there are no legitimate users).
Where are all the guns and ammo coming from? The ones being used on the street? Theft? I mean, they
aren't being made at home with Play-doh.
Two lives are ruined when a person is shot dead by another. The person who is dead. And the person
who did the shooting. Anything that would help save BOTH of those lives would be wonderful.
I don't think that life-saving will come in the form of restricted ammo access or higher taxes. I believe it
has to come from the culture, the parents, politicians, neighbors, in the form of examples. Set a good
example. Always.
Think kids don't pick up on mom running the stop sign? They do.
avis
2/2/2010 9:04:25 AM
When I moved to Oakland 10 years ago I had never owned a gun, never even held one before. However,
living in Oakland introduced me to all kinds of guns, the ones I hear in the middle of the night, the one
our drug dealing neighbor always had shoved in his waist, the one my neighbor encountered in her face
upon returning from work one summer night and the one that killed a 17 yr old in front of our house.
Unfortunately, in Oakland all the wrong people have the guns, except for the OPD. Any thug, young or
old can get a gun pretty quickly off the streets of Oakland. Now I have a gun too, a licensed one that I
feel I have to own so that I can sleep at night when my husband goes out of town on business. I used to
believe in strict gun control, but after 10 yrs in Oakland I have completely changed my mind. Guns
should only be in the hands of non-criminals who will only use them if their lives are in danger, which
can be pretty often for the average homeowner in my neighborhood.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-

bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BA9U1BR2EL.DTL&o=1#ixzz0eP8FQ17m
GenericUserName
2/2/2010 9:07:28 AM
I like the idea of the thumbprint, identifying who bought what. I'd heard tales of serial numbers or
numbered batches on ammo, which might also help, but ONLY if it was done nation-wide. I've wonder
about the effects of taxation on ammo, to make it very expensive. But that would seem to harm
legitimate users (some would argue there are no legitimate users).
Where are all the guns and ammo coming from? The ones being used on the street? Theft? I mean, they
aren't being made at home with Play-doh.
Two lives are ruined when a person is shot dead by another. The person who is dead. And the person
who did the shooting. Anything that would help save BOTH of those lives would be wonderful.
I don't think that life-saving will come in the form of restricted ammo access or higher taxes. I believe it
has to come from the culture, the parents, politicians, neighbors, in the form of examples. Set a good
example. Always.
Think kids don't pick up on mom running the stop sign? They do.
avis
2/2/2010 9:04:25 AM
When I moved to Oakland 10 years ago I had never owned a gun, never even held one before. However,
living in Oakland introduced me to all kinds of guns, the ones I hear in the middle of the night, the one
our drug dealing neighbor always had shoved in his waist, the one my neighbor encountered in her face
upon returning from work one summer night and the one that killed a 17 yr old in front of our house.
Unfortunately, in Oakland all the wrong people have the guns, except for the OPD. Any thug, young or
old can get a gun pretty quickly off the streets of Oakland. Now I have a gun too, a licensed one that I
feel I have to own so that I can sleep at night when my husband goes out of town on business. I used to
believe in strict gun control, but after 10 yrs in Oakland I have completely changed my mind. Guns
should only be in the hands of non-criminals who will only use them if their lives are in danger, which
can be pretty often for the average homeowner in my neighborhood.
david123
2/2/2010 9:03:15 AM
Chip: The council should pass laws to outlaw the use of pens/typewriters etc. when they are used to
misinform the public on issues of substance. This proposed ordinance may make some feel good, but it
won't make them safer!
southbayrules
2/2/2010 9:00:38 AM
Not going happen guns and oakland go together like peanut butter and jelly, like a blunt and a
40oz....oakland is known only for guns and violence, don't take that away from them!!
GOATCARCASS
2/2/2010 8:59:56 AM
The last few articles by this Chip Johnson character have been seriously deficient in logic and sound
reasoning. Has this"journalist" ever attended college? Did he fail the Critical Thinking class?
His support of this empty proposed legislation (pandering to the gun-hysterical crowd) is misguided and
embarrassing.
Hey Chip! Do some basic research, learn about the subject you are covering. Learn how to interpret
crime statistics. Then try writing a real article instead of a press-release from the corrupt kleptocracy
that continues to mis-manage the city of Oakland.
djqfi
2/2/2010 8:53:02 AM
The solution is simple, just buy your ammo in Hayward or any other city but Oakland. Now as for
restrictive gun laws reducing crime, just look at Washington, D.C. as a shining example. New York's
violent crime rate made its precipitous drop not because of its strict gun laws, but because of advances
in policing and crime analysis.

modern_patriot
2/2/2010 8:28:36 AM
Why is it that "progressive" politicians don't get what the real problem is? I mean how stupid can you be
to attempt to eliminate a symptom but allow the disease to flourish? I'm of course talking about the
aberrant hopolophobia (fear of guns) that pervades our government buildings. Politicians, like the
Oakland City council, ignorantly jump on the band wagon just like all the other sheep, and want to ban
or severely restrict the use of an inanimate object by law abiding citizens, instead of eliminating the
criminal who used the inanimate object to commit the violence. You should be screaming from the roof
tops a demand for stiffer sentences for violent crimes. Our justice system keeps plea bargaining the
criminals back onto our streets and criminals do what they do best and commit more crimes. Yet
politicians sit in their ivory towers telling us how evil an inanimate object is. GET A CLUE OAKLAND, IT'S
THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE GUN. Eliminate criminals and you eliminate crime.
geekette
2/2/2010 8:27:15 AM
tomdavis - "GUN CONTROL: The theory that a woman lying dead in an alley is morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got shot."
You get a big Gold Star from me today. I love your comment. It is also the exact reason I became a
firearms instructor. I am a victim of extremely violent crime and that will never ever happen again.
The next time it happens I won't have to hear the crime scene Detective tell me she's never
photographed anyone this badly beaten. Instead I'll hear her say, nice grouping.
American1774
2/2/2010 8:24:58 AM
Where are the statics on the number of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with guns committing drive by shooting,
home invasions, armed robberies, car jacking at gun point, murder, pistol whipping, etc.
Anyone committing the list above and more, are not LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, the only result of laws like
this are less LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, because they are murdered by the very laws our misguided
representatives claim they are trying to prevent.
toadface
2/2/2010 8:24:02 AM
Criminals do not observe any gun lwas. This is yet one more example of feel-fine legislation that is
worthless. If Oakland was serious, it would, for instance, ban parolees and ex-cons from living in
Oakland.
huntingguy
2/2/2010 8:19:58 AM
What??? I be the "Bloods and the Crips" will be the first in line for this nonsense.
Oakland should worry about be solvent instead of anti everything.
copoftheday
2/2/2010 8:18:44 AM
when are you all going to learn?!?!? save the money from being spent on lawyers and redundant
legislation and pay for more cops to enforce the existing laws!
tomdavis
2/2/2010 8:17:50 AM
GUN CONTROL: The theory that a woman lying dead in an alley is morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got shot.
Protectdolphins
2/2/2010 8:17:47 AM
"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater
of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm
death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.
That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital
which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington.
Illiniwek
2/2/2010 8:17:39 AM
No. Its time to send in Federal troops with 'shoot-to-kill' orders so that order and control can come to
Oaktown. Federal authorities need to replace every last nepostically-hired city functionary,raid every
home for illegal weapons,round up every last gang-banger,trouble-maker,and so-called loudmouthed
'city activistist' so that civil order can be restored. Nothing short of a government takeover...just like in
Haiti.
grymster
2/2/2010 8:15:29 AM
Is anyone surprised at the fools who run the city of Oakland or Chip Johnson's endorsement of their
ongoing attempts to prove what they're made of?
Protectdolphins
2/2/2010 8:12:17 AM
WHAT a waste of time for the city council to even discuss this issue...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure out that 45 minutes from Oakland by car you can buy guns or ammo...
JohnD9207
2/2/2010 8:06:19 AM
Chip I was gonna try and point out a few errors in your logic base, but seems like the good folks here
have taken care of this simple task. Perhaps the legislature in CA should be replaced by these patriots
and the debt problem in CA might finally be solved!
Doubledose
2/2/2010 8:04:54 AM
Just more feel good legislation that won't change a thing.
doobeedoo1
2/2/2010 7:58:57 AM
The troublemakers in society will probably never be limited to what they can get on the street.
Recommend: (21)(0)[Report Abuse]

bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BA9U1BR2EL.DTL&o=2#ixzz0eP8OnXyq
jaysboytoy
2/2/2010 7:53:00 AM
Chip, you're being disingenuous (and dishonest) by trying to claim that New York's draconian gun
control laws led to the decrease in crime in New York City. The history of NY's attack on the right of
citizens to own guns dates back to the early 20th century with the Sullivan Act. The greatest increase in
crime and violence in New York City occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, decades after the gun laws were
enacted. The greatest decrease in crime and violence occurred in the 1990s, and had nothing to do with
the enactment of gun laws. It had to do with the aggressive use of police to monitor crime trends and
enforce the law from the lowest level crime up. In fact, some would argue that it was the curtailment of
certain rights under the bill of rights that led to the decrease of crime...not the 2nd amendment but the
1st and 4th amendments. You ready to allow the Oakland cops to crack down on speech and assembly,
which are the real precursors to criminal acts?
waybackgiant
2/2/2010 7:51:58 AM
And some people want bullets stamped with numbers so the sale of these can be traced. Let's get real!!
I'm all for gun control. To me it means using both hands and having a tight grouping. How about an even
playing field. Let everyone carry guns and see if that works. In jurisdictions where this is so (Florida,
Texas) the bad guys are worried about people shooting back and the homicide rates have gone down
drastically.
Cineski
2/2/2010 7:50:57 AM
One more thing that most anti gun folks forget: A gun is the only object obtainable by the general public
that is a great equalizer. It is the only thing that will consistently make a 5 foot, 95 lb woman just as
powerful as a 6'3 man weighing 230 lbs that may want to do that woman incredible harm. Why on earth
would someone want to take that away? And no, that doesn't mean there should be weight and height
requirements to buy a gun in the future.
whitemeat
2/2/2010 7:50:56 AM
Ordinance on ordnance? What a waste of time - aren't all the sporting goods stores in Haywired?
Cineski
2/2/2010 7:44:34 AM
Hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is about personal protection against
those who would take your freedoms away, be it the gangster thug, a crazed murderer or a corrupt
government (yes, the 2a is to protect you from the US government becoming a dictatorship).
While I agree that a select few people should not have guns (I think more people shouldn't own cars ;-),
99% of those who do own them are law abiding citizens. Concealed Weapons licensees are amongst the
highest rated in that bunch.
Buying a gun in CA is extremely expensive. Much more expensive than any place in the country. By
putting more limits on buying ammo, the ammo prices in CA will go up because they can. I know, gun
store owners are generally a good bunch of folks, but they've proven in the past to like to gouge gun
owners whenever they can and this will be yet another example of this. If you can't afford a gun or
ammo, then you simply can't defend your gift of life? I don't think so.
geekette
2/2/2010 7:32:05 AM
cmmg - "Why is it that does who are opposed to the 2nd amendment, have an overwhelming desire to
stereotype gun owners. I have reread the first 10 pro gun posts, and none of them display over jingoism,
nor crazy behaviour. Gun owners I know tend to be more polite, more civil, and more likely to help their
neighbors."
You are absolutely correct. I also wish to point out that not all gun owners are ultra-right wingers either.
I am a firearms owner, firearms instructor, pistol competitor and also a very liberal lesbian. Gun
ownership is an American thing it is not a Right or Left thing. I love target practice and I love competition
and I love being a certified instructor so I can teach other people the joys of shooting.
We are among the most responsible citizens in your community. We are also proven to be good people.
When I had my CCW I had to submit to a Federal, State and Local background investigation by law
enforcement. Isn't the community safer with people like me not thugs
geekette
2/2/2010 7:25:05 AM
schwartzpc - "I pose a simple question: who feels safer knowing that their neighbor is packing?"
Me! I do! I want all my neighbors to be packing that way when some sub-human comes around looking
to rape or murder me then not only am I armed enough to defend myself but my neighbors can come to
my rescue as well.
Python2
2/2/2010 7:23:53 AM
This type of reporting tinged with hidden agenda that made me quit subscription to the Chronicle.
Chip, please do your research first before you spout things like these.
fairnbalanced
2/2/2010 7:18:58 AM
Big_Don: This doesn't infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. And, no, this is not going to very much to
change banger mentality. And yes, most thugs don't wait outside of gun shops saying "Open-Open-
Open".... they get guns out of state from other thugs, and piecemeal together their caches.
You are dead-on correct about the culture. And I think we have seen an actual shift in HipHop directed
at this idea.
But, I still believe, we need to support this law. If you are a law biding, honest to goodness 2nd
Amendment practicing gun owner, it ain't no big thang.....
xsw2
2/2/2010 7:18:45 AM
And let's talk about the arrogance of the gangsters. They do not hesitate to make victims of the average
person in Oakland, particularly, let's be honest, some ethnicities, because they feel there is next to no
chance of them having guns. They would not be breaking into your house or carjacking you or sticking
you up if they thought there was a high chance they would get shot. Use some common sense people.
district3spy
2/2/2010 7:18:41 AM
Another "feel good" law that will not impact criminals. Remember geniuses, criminals don't obey laws -
that is why they are called criminals. The City continues to fall apart and the politicians continue to rip
off the taxpayers, yet useless laws like this get center stage.
bullseye36
2/2/2010 7:17:34 AM
Quite obviously if no one but a private police officer is selling ammunition in the city of Oakland, then
legislation to limit the sale of ammo in Oakland is a huge waste of time and is simply a "let's look
politically correct" move that once again doesn't deal with the real problem and causes or urban
violence in Oakland ghettos.
xsw2
2/2/2010 7:12:46 AM
I've got relatives who lived in the most gun friendly parts of this country, and they are shocked by the
level of crime in Oakland. They tell me no one would try the things the thugs do here, because they
would be shot. Reducing gun ownership is highly correlated with increasing crime. The City Council
should be trying to encourage responsible people, stable emotionally, not tending to be criminals, no
small children where the gun is kept, to own and carry guns, as a crime fighting measure. That's what
the statistics show.
below580
2/2/2010 7:10:52 AM
A simple plan, and like Chris rock said "Make the bullets $100 each". But hey Oakland calling. We'll have
the usual PC blabber about respecting the thugs feeling to express himself with an assualt rifle. Then
Nancy Nadel will add that the misunderstood youth with guns don't want to kill you, but they will if you
disrespect the pistol whipping. Then Jean Quan will want a city-tax to study the benefits of hollow-point
bullets. Then after homocide #50, Old Cottontop will "issue a statement" with the usual "dignity and
respect" flatulence. OK, I'm buying more ammunition. Hey Thugs, I alternate shot and slugs in my pump
action shotgun. Try home invasion at my house you creeps.
big_don
2/2/2010 7:10:15 AM
"But we have an absolute duty to try anything, to stem the gun violence."
No you don't; not if it infringes on my 2nd amendment rights. If you have an absolute duty to try
anything, why don't you take your dutiful self into one of Oakland's neighborhoods and try to change
the ganster culture? THAT'S the root of the problem. Or all you just talk?
racetothebottom
2/2/2010 7:09:33 AM
All the new law appears to be asking is providing a thumbprint and maybe affecting storage in the home
of ammunition. What's the big deal? If people have nothing to hide, what's wrong with providing a
thumbprint and storing ammunition according to a regulation?
nevscamp
2/2/2010 7:09:08 AM
I’m not sure how this connects to the thoughts of Rudebutcool, but pistol ammo, especially 9mm, 380,
38 cal, are very hard to come by in Northern Nevada and supplies that are available become mighty
pricy when not sold out in an instant, which is very rare. Like, where is all that ammo going?
bigjay
2/2/2010 7:06:59 AM
Good! Its about time!!!

fairnbalanced
2/2/2010 7:04:53 AM
Chip, Thank You for bringing this piece of legislation to light. Yes, the reality is the gun lobby has a choke
hold on our legislators. And I do agree, this is a drop in the bucket. But we have an absolute duty to try
anything, to stem the gun violence. Your article was very measured, when I'm sure you could have
brought out the numerous tragic stories that litter Oakland's neighborhoods and streets.
I just hope those nutcases from Open Carry don't get lost on Hwy 24 and find their way to Oakland.
knewsome
2/2/2010 7:02:50 AM
I do not want to give my police chief the power to decide who can open a lawful business in my city. Let
him concentrate on closing criminal enterprises.
Recommend: (33)(0)[Report Abuse]

bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BA9U1BR2EL.DTL&o=3#ixzz0eP8Ubm0X
big_don
2/2/2010 7:01:34 AM
I grew up in Oakland in the 1960's at a time when there was at least a dozen gun dealers in the city and
we didn't have all that much gun crime. Now there are no gun public dealers in Oakland and there are
fewer shootings each night in Beriut than in Oakland. The problem is not guns, it's people with a thug
mentality, no respect for human life and a cuture that glorifies gansters. You want to lower gun crime?
Fix the culture. Reducing access to guns and ammo for law abiding citizens is not the answer, no matter
what you and the anti-gun lobby think.
ingvard
2/2/2010 6:59:11 AM
Perata "funds" a gun exchange, who shows up? gunsmiths with scrap, rusty pieces of junk, henpecked
husbands.
Gangbangers, the MS13 croud will NEVER give up their arms.

Where a well armed and trained population lives there will always be a lower crime rate.
nevscamp
2/2/2010 6:57:15 AM
It is kind of like the movies where the actors remain stationary but the background is moved to create
the illusion of motion or progress. All heat and no light is just that, all heat, and an opportunity for
disingenuous city politicos to look good at the expense of being good.
hardjarhead
2/2/2010 6:52:04 AM
Johnson ought to stick to banging away at Dellums. He's got good knowledge there. Gun owners who
live in the East Bay near Oakland do not buy ammo there, nor do the crooks. And they will be shooting
at ranges located elsewhere, too. This law will have absolutely no impact, but will give no-nothings a
chance to cheer the outcome. On the other hand, real gun owners know they need to stock up on ammo
and that's just what we're doing.
rudebutcool
2/2/2010 6:46:12 AM
so using your twisted logic, shutting gun dealers down will drop the homicide rate in Oakland..are these
Homicidal people buying their guns from this dealer?..their ammo?...of course not...so this is kinda like
beer...if an underage asks an 21 yo to buy them a beer..ammo can be gotten...from Nevada, brought
into any city and sold for a higher price...from the same guys who bring you crack..a new industry is
born...maybe tax crack dealers and use the money to buy ammo ...see its all convaluted mess...just like
Oakland..
cmmg
2/2/2010 6:42:18 AM
schwartzpc2/2/2010 4:56:55 AM
Amazing, simply amazing. Only in America do we have this debate. The rest of the civilized world can get
along fine without gun slingers strutting their macho stuff. Here the crazies flaunt their right to bear
arms with some sort of perverse patriotism. I pose a simple question: who feels safer knowing that their
neighbor is packing?
Why is it that does who are opposed to the 2nd amendment, have an overwhelming desire to
stereotype gun owners. I have reread the first 10 pro gun posts, and none of them display over jingoism,
nor crazy behaviour. Gun owners I know tend to be more polite, more civil, and more likely to help their
neighbors. My neighbor and his family is currently being stalked and harassed by the previous owner's
criminal friends. I am glad they are armed. I hope they never have to resort to it. But I am glad they are
capable of defending themselves.
bigassbass
2/2/2010 6:22:16 AM
So, if the anti-gun crowd can't get the 2A rescinded, the tactic is to harass gun owners. Hey, finger print
someone when they buy ammo, no need to have a gun registry. If they're buying .375 mag ammo, they
must own a .357 mag. That way, when the anti-gun Nazis begin confiscating guns, they _know_ you
have a .357 mag at home.
just4
2/2/2010 6:20:13 AM
Mr. Johnson, with all due respect, you are seriously misinformed about this issue. Please study up
before you write.
geekette
2/2/2010 6:09:28 AM
When will you silly gun grabbers understand that all these insane gun control laws do NOTHING!
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! To prevent crime. They only prevent law abiding citizens, like myself, from
access to firearms and ammunition. Criminals don't fill out forms and follow rules and so the only people
hurt but this insanity is me and my fellow law abiding gun owners. Criminals laugh at legislation such as
this because all it does is makes their victims more vulnerable and they rejoice.
vtxbay
2/2/2010 5:56:28 AM
The whole "pass a law to stop crime" is ludicrous. Please look up the definition of "criminal."
Somewhere it is clear that criminals have no regard for the law. And if they have to ID themselves in
Oakland, they'll go to Hayward or somewhere else.
If criminals thought any of their victims might be armed, they would hesitate about committing crimes.
Europe has a complex and expensive social safety net that doesn't leave people so desperate that they
turn to drugs and crime to get ahead. THAT's why they have low crime and don't need guns. We are not
Europe. This country was founded on individual liberties (including the right to bear arms) and Europe is
largely collectivized. Two very different cultures and mindsets. We are not Europe. We rely on
*ourselves* instead of big strong government. At least we used to...now we're not allowed to.
elrojo14
2/2/2010 5:14:16 AM
In answer to the question, "I pose a simple question: who feels safer knowing that their neighbor is
packing?"
I DO!
You see I live in Kern County, a little town called Taft to be specific. I have a concealed weapon permit.
My neighbor next door is an avid hunter. The neighbor across the street is a sheriff. The guy across his
street is a sheriff. The guy on the corner owns guns. The guy down the street owns guns. In fact nearly
our whole town owns guns.
I just checked our violent crime rates. We have 439 per 100K and you have 1968. We had zero murders
last year. You had 115.
So where we have high levels of accessibility of firearms for law abiding citizens and you have low levels
of accessibility of firearms to law abiding citizens, we seem to have much less violent crime.
I would propose that economics might have something to do with it. Give your city jobs and hope and
maybe people wouldn't have to murder. Or pass silly laws and watch the few good people you have left
leave.
nmnutz
2/2/2010 5:14:11 AM
I don't own a gun and never have, unless you count the BB Gun, when I was 12. I don't really like guns,
at all. On the other hand, I do support the right of responsible individuals to own and carry them.
If I thought this proposed legislation would, in any way, limit access to guns and ammo for those less
responsible members of society, I would support it. But, it doesn't and I don't. This is just the sort of
symbolic tripe that serves no other purpose than to make politicians appear to be doing
something...anything...to address societal problems. The end result is to make life a little less pleasant
for the responsible members of society, while impacting the irresponsible members not one iota.
ibokay
2/2/2010 4:58:13 AM
Chip, ya missed the boat on this one! Laws do not keep the bad guys/gang bangers from getting guns
and ammo. Besides, how far is it to Hayward??
schwartzpc
2/2/2010 4:56:55 AM
Amazing, simply amazing. Only in America do we have this debate. The rest of the civilized world can get
along fine without gun slingers strutting their macho stuff. Here the crazies flaunt their right to bear
arms with some sort of perverse patriotism. I pose a simple question: who feels safer knowing that their
neighbor is packing?
kevinthomason
2/2/2010 3:16:32 AM
Regarding your assertion that New York's gun control laws resulted in lower crime - it actually was
dropping WAY before Bloomberg's new gun control laws - and AMAZINGLY IS NOW ON THE RISE AGAIN
- RIGHT AFTER THE NEW LAWS WERE PASSED!
See Wiki:
"As of December 31, 2007 New York City had 494 reported homicides, down from 596 homicides in
2006. This marked the first year since in 1963 (when crime statistics were starting to be published) that
this total was fewer than 500.
In 2008, there were 523 reported murders, a 5.2% rise from the previous year"
Again, gun control simply does not work. It never has, and it never will. Just look at the facts.

This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by an SFGate editor.
honest_engine
2/2/2010 2:14:55 AM
If Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums was ever looking for a national issue on which to leave his mark, he has
all the ammunition he needs for one in his own backyard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
lol,,,,, I hardly think Mayor Dellums is looking for anything.
cmmg
2/2/2010 2:14:25 AM
Feel good laws. I grew up in Oakland, and I remember the shotgun blast near the corner gas station, that
broke the record homicide (was it 148?) number back in the late 1980's. I am sure those gang bangers
bought their sawed off 12 gauge through a legitimate FFL, and waited 10 days, before they shot their
victim. And if there were a sign that said Oakland is a gun free city, I am sure, they would have kicked
the can down the street, and said "aw shucks" we never get to have fun.
NO THANKS..You can have your feel good laws. I'll have my 12 gauge to protect my family. Because
when seconds counts, the OPD is minutes away.
ZedRickel
2/2/2010 2:00:34 AM
BTW Chip - what does hunting, target shooting, etc, have to do with the security of a free state? With
my self defense on the mean streets of Oakland? Where do you think having a handgun would be more
useful to me - someone who has never been convicted of ANY crime, not even an infraction - locked
away in my home, or in my pocket when I'm confronted by gangbangers? (Who sure as &&&& don't give
a rat's behind about any of your gun control ordinances?)
ZedRickel
2/2/2010 1:57:42 AM
"Similar laws have already been passed in a number of California cities, including Richmond, Berkeley
and San Francisco."
And do they really seem to be having great effect in Richmond and San Francisco? The organizations
that push these laws on local governments (LCAV, the Brady's, ABAG) use their strategy of installing
piecemeal regulations in localities across the state, to attempt to go statewide in order to "obatin a
measure of consistency" across the state. They like to say, "Look, Richmond did it, San Francisco did it,
and it's working there!" (Yeah, it's sure working, working to get terrible politicians reelected)
To paraphrase . . . Oakland got 99 problems but gun control ain't one.
I'll be there tomorrow night. Hopefully it will be as much fun as it was embarrassing Rose Jacobs Gibson
in Redwood City. :)
Recommend: (66)(3)[Report Abuse

bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BA9U1BR2EL.DTL&o=4#ixzz0eP8csdTt
hb04
2/2/2010 1:56:12 AM
Wow Chip, you just don't get it. None of what you said has any bearing on the fundamental right at
hand. State and Local authorities have engaged in a ruthless campaign of victim disarmament since the
mid-1960's in California. The Black community is often the most greatly impacted by the racist policies of
the State, Counties and Cities of California. Disarmed and unable to protect themselves, they are then
forced to rely on an otherwise inefficient, corrupt and ineffective police force.
We're tried excessive restrictions, bans and so on. They have failed. When you car runs out of gas, do
you just keep trying to blindly start it, or do you go and get a few gallons of gasoline and actually fix the
problem? Disarming and infringing the right to arms (a gun is useless for defense without some ammo)
is not the right answer - it's just a silly, ill-founded, knee-jerk reaction. Again.
kevinthomason
2/2/2010 1:51:37 AM
Chip, you also didn't print the part about the new law that will prevent new gun shops from opening in
Oakland. The only problem is that the single existing gun shop in Oakland is owned by an OPD officer,
and his co-workers will be the ones who can decide whether or not any competitors can open shop. Oh,
and did I mention that his co-worker was the one who introduced that proposed law?

kevinthomason
2/2/2010 1:33:58 AM
Hi Chip, pleasant speaking with you earlier today. I actually have no problem being identified as a Board
Member of the Calguns Foundation. The reason that you and I "spoke off the record" was simply that I
would have preferred that you interviewed our Chairman before going to print. He apparently called
you, but you didn't call back.
With respect to your editorial, I do respect your disgust with the crime in Oakland. But the naked fact
remains that we already have extremely strict gun laws here, and they have done nothing to curtail
crime.
In fact, the murder rate went UP after the last gun store was closed in Oakland over 10 years ago. There
is no correlation between gun control laws and gun crimes, period.
I urge you to attend the City Council meeting tonight to hear what I, and others will be saying on this
topic.

bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BA9U1BR2EL.DTL&o=5#ixzz0eP8jEtNT

Law To Limit Ammunition Before Oakland Council-Comments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law To Limit Ammunition Before Oakland Council-Comments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law to limit ammunition before Oakland council

Read Full Story

Sort Comments by: Oldest | Newest | Recommended

Add Your Comment

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (0)(2)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (4)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

(Vice Chair, The Calguns Foundation)

Recommend: (6)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (3)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (3)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (8)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (6)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (5)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (7)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (4)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

2. It will reduce the number of victims of crimes

3. Less crime reduces the need for more cops.

4. The city saves money.

5. Cops have less work to do.

Recommend: (9)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (10)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (6)(7)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-

Recommend: (6)(7)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (17)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (3)(4)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (15)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (13)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (27)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (29)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (24)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (20)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Oakland should worry about be solvent instead of anti everything.

Recommend: (13)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (17)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (28)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink

death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington.

Recommend: (22)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (5)(5)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (13)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (22)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (17)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (24)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (21)(0)[Report Abuse]

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-

Recommend: (23)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (29)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (33)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (18)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (27)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (40)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (36)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (36)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (1)(34)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (24)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (33)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink

Recommend: (21)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink