Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Oakland City Council Meeting Report

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Livermore, California, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    A QUICK REPORT[/b]



    [size=Oakland][/size] City Council Meeting[/b]

    February 16, 2010



    As expected, [size=Oakland][/size]'s City Council enacted the three anti-gun ordinances that came up for second reading tonight.



    The meeting, scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m., was delayed due to an earlier budget meeting that ran well past its allotted time. As we were to eventually find out, 81 people signed up to speak at the budget meeting. All were given their full three minutes. (Bear with me here, this minor factoid is important.)



    The regular council meeting finally started at about 8:45 p.m. I'm proud to say that all the pro-gun activists that arrived in time for the expected six o'clock start stayed to the bitter end. It was a long and tiresome wait standing around outside the council chambers.



    I would estimate that we had approximately 60 people there, most from Alameda County Members' Council and Calguns. Thirty-one filled out speaker cards.



    Our people were well-dressed, well behaved and well spoken. We made our point well several times over.



    However, because the Council had already made up its mind that these laws would pass, they used the late starting time to arbitrarily decide that we would each have only one minute to speak. Restricting speaking time to one minute is not only wrong, it severely penalized and threw off track people that came with prepared remarks.



    Regardless, our people were eloquent and persuasive. Some used time generously ceded by other speakers so they could more effectively make their points.



    Our first speaker asked us all to rise so the council could see how many stood in opposition. The result was amazing. Some on the council actually had the grace to look startled.



    But we were talking to closed minds. The backroom deal had been done. The payola was in.



    San Mateo County Board of Supervisors member Rose Jacobs Gibson, who first proposed these laws for [size=San Mateo][/size] County, was there. The fact that the NRA shot her down on her home turf didn't stop her from trying elsewhere. Jacobs Gibson also serves on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and that gives her a strident voice to push LCAV's water around the rest of the Bay Area.



    With her at tonight's meeting were several of her LCAV masters. They spent a lot of time smirking. It was telling that they sat in a row together, and Jacobs Gibson sat alone right behind them.



    Besides the one minute speaking constraint, two other procedural errors should be mentioned. These ordinances were lumped together as item 10.4-CC on the agenda's consent calendar. As was pointed out to the solons sitting on the council, any time you have 31 people speaking against a proposed ordinance, it does not belong on the consent calendar. The consent calendar is normally reserved for non-controversial items, or, to quote from [size=Oakland][/size]'s own agenda, items that "[are] not controversial, and [do] not have a high level of public interest..."



    Sixty people showing up to object to something, and half of them trying to be very vocal about it, indicates that there may actually be some controversy and possibly even some public interest involved.



    Second, following the council's rules, access to speaker cards was cut off at 8:00 p.m. The meeting did not start until almost 9:00 p.m. Several people who had changed their minds about speaking suddenly found themselves without the wherewithal to do so.



    All in all, it was another shabby performance by a shady governmental entity.



    May it cost them dearly in the lawsuits sure to come.



    Coda[/b]



    This is a critical reminder that we all need to monitor our local towns' city council agendas assiduously. It is especially important that we do so here in [size=Alameda][/size] County, because this LCAV generated and ABAG facilitated cancer is sure to spread.



    Paul VP, NRA MC of [size=Alameda][/size] County

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Forgive my ignorance, but what is really being said here? What were the proposed "anti-gun ordinances"? Can you be a bit more specific? Thanks.

  3. #3
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Can you edit the post using a larger font size?
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    Can you edit the post using a larger font size?
    Hold down Ctrl, press + until you see the size you want. After, simply return to normal size by holding down Ctrl and pressing - .

    That's how I do it everytime I see a post with small font.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, California, United States
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    I hope it is not about the finger print and bullet sales,
    because that would be a wast of time for them to have a meeting for, being that it is state law.

    http://www.redding.com/news/2009/oct...on-sales-bill/

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed into law a bill that requires buyers of handgun ammunition to leave thumbprints and detailed personal information with registered ammo sellers, as well as put restrictions on online bullet sales.

    “Assembly Bill 962 reasonably regulates access to ammunition and improves public safety without placing undue burdens on consumers,” Schwarzenegger said in a letter explaining his decision.

    The new restrictions will take effect Feb. 1, 2011.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Oh my, I didn't know that! So in 2011, Californians will have to start leaving their thumbprints?!

    Ugh, that is NOT reasonable. My goodness. Why is leaving personal informatoin and leaving behind thumbpint records reasonable? Oh, wait, there goes that argument again.... "If you don't commit a crime or you haven't then you should have nothing to hide or worry about." Except it is forcing me to waive my fourth and fifth amendment rights just to buy something that is common merchandise. You don't need to leave personal information and a thumbprint to buy soap do you ?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    It was about fingerprinting and bullet sales (of handgun ammo until AB962 goes into effect AND long gun ammo).

    It was also about the 48 hour reporting requirement for a stolen/lost gun.

    Finally, it was about increased licensing standards for Oakland FFLs and ammo dealers (of which there aren't any - dealers).

    Passed unanimously on a voice vote.

    Lawyers or librarians - they decided to give their money to the former....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •