Tag Cloud
Sunday, May 19, 2013
City to ponder new law regulating gun store locations
by Brandon Darnell, published on June 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM
Storyline: Local Business
Loading images
A new law governing gun shops will be proposed at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, and while proponents say it will give the city a chance to vet gun shops before they open, opponents say it undermines the Second Amendment.
City Councilman Kevin McCarty said he and City Councilman Rob Fong will ask staff to look into an ordinance that would require a conditional use permit for any new gun store within city limits.
The law would not likely affect the incoming gun store at 24th and J streets, but would govern future ones.
“We want reasonable regulations,” McCarty said. “This doesn’t even regulate them. It just regulates where they’re located.”
But Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, a California-based Second Amendment advocacy group, said it walks a thin line, at best.
“The simple question is can you place a bookstore there?” Hoffman said Thursday. “If you can place a bookstore there, you can place a gun store there. Otherwise it’s a violation of the Second Amendment.”
He added that banning a gun store would be just as much a violation of the Second Amendment as a whites-only diner would be a violation of the equal protections granted under the 14th Amendment.
The proposed law comes after The Sacramento Press reported last week that a new gun store will likely come to the old Cornerstone location at 2330 J St. in Midtown, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a dealer license to that address.
The site is a block and a half away from where Old Sacramento Armory – another gun store – stood for decades before closing in the mid-2000s.
Currently, the city treats gun stores like any other retail use, and no special city oversight is required before they can open.
McCarty said Wednesday that there are other instances where the city regulates businesses, including requiring conditional use permits for tobacco businesses operating within 1,000 feet of schools – an ordinance the council passed Tuesday night.
“If you’re a Subway sandwich shop, you can lease a building and move in,” McCarty said, “but there are certain things you have to ask permission for.”
He said the future opening of the gun store “raised some people’s eyebrows in the neighborhood,” and that he thinks it’s an issue that bears looking at.
“We’re just looking at a little more hurdles,” he said. “It’s not a flat-out ban. They could still do it, but this would give people the ability to come to public hearings.”
Hoffman said the city, if it eventually enacts the law, needs to make sure that any restrictions need to apply equally to any other businesses that might open in the same space, or risk opening itself up to a lawsuit.
“We will be announcing a lawsuit in the next couple of days in a similar situation in Northern California,” Hoffman said. “The gun store went in for a variance, and it got a variance, but the local board of supervisors overturned it.”
He declined to give details of the situation, but said the lawsuit will be announced within days.
Jesus Figueroa, co-owner of M&J Gun Trade, said he could open as early as next week at 2330 J St., but added that a law like the one being proposed would likely make some prospective gun store owners balk at doing business in a city that already has tight gun store regulations.
"I think people will take their business elsewhere," he said.
Other municipalities have similar laws, and Bill Sharff, co-owner of STS Guns in Folsom, said he had to place his gun store a minimum of 500 feet from residences and 1,000 feet from schools.
“The first place we leased was 480 feet from from a residence, so we had to get another spot,” he said. “I don’t think it has anything to do with the Second Amendment. The gun store owner has rights, but you also have to realize you deal with public sentiment also.”
Sharff said the permitting and licensing process to open his gun shop – which opened on Christmas Eve – took him about seven months.
McCarty said the proposed ordinance will join two others from 2007. One requires ammunition sales within city limits to be registered with the buyer’s thumbprint, and the other requires that all lost or stolen firearms be reported to police.
Laws regulating ammunition sales have been upheld by the Supreme Court, McCarty said, and Hoffman said the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that gun shops and shooting ranges are an essential piece to the portion of the Second Amendment that protects the right to bear arms.
McCarty declined to say whether he thinks regulating the location of gun stores will lead to reduced gun violence.
, pending the outcome of staff research.
[Editor's note: After the article was published, McCarty contacted the Sacramento Press and said his comment regarding staff research was regarding legal issues, not whether gun stores correlate to violence.]
Hoffman pointed to research done by the city of Sunnyvale, Calif., last year that found “there is no correlation between gun-related crimes and the location of firearms sales businesses.”
Hoffman and Sharff both said that gun stores are among the most-regulated businesses in the country, and people selling and purchasing firearms must undergo criminal background checks.
"The types of people who go to gun stores are the law-abiding and cops," Hoffman said. "The last time I checked, hanging out around law-abiding people and cops who are armed isn't what most criminals want to do."
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
McCarty led the motion to have city council file the (losing) amicus brief against the 2nd Amendment in Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago that stopped cities from stomping out gun rights.
McCarty crafted the idiotic city law that requires stores register all ammo purchases in city limits. You'll find you can't even order ammo online shipped to Sac because of this, you have to ship it to your cousin who lives in Fair Oaks... or just drive to Wal-Mart in Rancho and buy your ammo if you don't want to sign for it.
McCarty's only redeeming factor is he was against the public arena, other than that he's one of the worst on the council.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I believe you are interpreting the term infringed to mean: "controlled."
This is an inaccurate interpretation. As we have seen in many rulings, by many courts, at many levels, of differing partisanship and opinions on Gun Control, this is not the commonly held American interpretation. Your right to keep, bear, and even wield (noticeably NOT included in the second amendment) is not being infringed - nor is mine or anyone else's - by a signature in exchange for an ammunition purchase.
It has been decided by our society that certain persons, specifically those who have lost the rights of franchise, should not have free access to firearms. Is it not reasonable to institute a system whereby they are unable to wield weapons they are prohibited from possessing?
Perhaps the nature of the concern for these ammunition based initiatives is born out of a fear that keeping functional firearms out of the hands of felons and violent criminals will undermine the wild speculation that people own guns for self defense.
I'm with you that the Second Amendment is a crucial part of our Constitution, as are the other 26. I have to say that measures regulating the placement and disposition of firearms and their sales pose no more of a threat to my Constitutional rights than measures regulating campaigns, faith based organizations, immigration, desegregation, or hate speech.
Maybe we need to remember that not all members of the citizenry can defend themselves and it is the duty of our society, as represented by our elected body of government, to fill the gap.
As for your infringe comment it is a commonly helAmericanainterpretationon that infringe means to violate, trespass or transgress in anvernacularar used. Courts are and have beerulingng that in the last decade and increasing even more in the last 4 years. Thsupremeem court just struck down thlatesteattemptmp to make these worthless ammo restrictions on a state basis as unconstitutional. They will fall on cities soon enough as peoplchallengege them in court. The only reason thehaven't't been yet is it is muccheaperer just to drive a few miles to a city that you can buy ammo in with out having to give up a right to privacy. Soon it will all go the way of the doo doo and people can start living in a more free country.
Why is it so terrible to allow people the right to say what kind of communities they want to live in? And by the way, isn't there something in the Constitution that guarantees our right to peacefully assemble and provides us with the freedom of speech? And do we not assemble in our communities? And can we not speak out about those (permanent) assemblies?
Or does the Second Amendment trump every single other right provided to us by our Constitution?
The right to assemble and the right to free speech are indeed guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. How would you feel about someone proposing that permits be required for either of these activities?
Free speech is different then an organized assembly. If you plan on having a group of people in an area you will need a permit but if you just drop a soap box down, jump on and start saying anything and people just walking by stop to listen there isn't a thing they can do about it until the park closes.
When a gun shop is treated differently then a grocery store, pet store convenience store then there is a problem that shouldn't be. That is the difference here. The fact that the city council can choose based solely on the fact that it is a gun store isn't right and an infringement on the 2nd amendment and honestly a few others too.
Regarding the Second Amandment protecting gun stores, It isn't a stretch at all to draw the conclushon that they are protected. Book stores are protected by the First Amendment...
So here's a question: is the gun shop going to change the character of the neighborhood? And, if so, will it be the kind of change the neighborhood wants to see? Because remember: the community is getting that service (guns). Is that going to be a different experience than (say) getting the services of a flower shop? And shouldn't the community have a say about whether it wants that service?
My take is that 2nd ammendment aspect is a red herring for this discussion. The people that oppose this gun store locaton oppose it for the same reason they might oppose check-cashers, adult bookstores, pawn shops, or a chain restaurant in their neighborhood. None of these businesses cause any direct harm to nearby residents. Its more of a lifestyle conflict with the product the business sells, or with the perceived type of customer that is expected to frequent the business.
Many people don't want give direction to home by saying "across the street from the porn shop". Similarly, many progressives would find it equally distasteful to be located "around the corner from the gun shop".
Gentrification and subsequent increasing rents will usually take care of these "lifestyle" incompatibilities in the long run without need for a lot of regulation. This gun store will pay a lot more rent on J Street than they would Richards Blvd, and to succeed it will need to be an upscale shop catering to the needs of downtown gun enthusiasts.
I am not entirely sure how/who should determine when that threshold has been reached and I am not even sure that this is the sort of thing that should be put into regulations. But it does seem to me that there should be a framework to that effect. So that if (for example) a bunch of people wanted to stick a mall in the middle of Midtown, you should be able to say something about it; if someone wanted to put a book store or coffee shop opposite our home, I would want to be able to say something about it.
The reason for that is that, especially since the collapse of the housing prices, people have been better able to self-select what kinds of neighborhoods in Sacramento they want to live in. One of our friends can't understand why in heck we would want to live near Midtown though not in it because he would much rather live in Natomas. He would not want to live in my neighborhood and (quite frankly) I would not want to live in his--and we bought our houses accordingly.
So it seems wrong for a developer or store owner to now change the nature of the neighborhoods where we chose to live. I mean look, you probably would not mind living where we do and we would not mind living in Midtown. But truth be told, when we were looking to buy Midtown was sort of on the list of places to consider but only if we could definitely not find anything at all where we really wanted to live. The prices were about the same so that wasn't the issue; it was the character of the neighborhood. Not that Midtown is a bad place to live; it's just not what we want right now.
I would not therefore want someone hoisting Midtown on us after we bought. Does that make sense?
@ cogmeyer: But that's exactly my point. Quite often people buy homes where they do For the lifestyle that the particular neighborhood offers. This is especially true now where in order to qualify for a loan you often have to put a lot of money down. So people invest in a lifestyle and then after they do, you change it? That doesn't seem right.
If M&J builds a successful business, it just means that you misread your neighborhoods lifestyle. To feel better about your down payment, stop focusing on this symptomatic gun store. The real, underlying root cause is the pro-gun attitudes of some of your neighbors.
When you get your pro-gun neighbors to change their thinking (or move to Citrus Heights), then your problem is solved!
And if M&J has a successful business, it does not say that I misread my neighbors' attitude about this business or that; M&J's customers might all be coming from Placerville or Roseville. Who knows?
If you were to plop a mall in the middle of Midtown, without letting a single neighbor utter a peep about that before the fact, demolished historic buildings in the process and a park or two and that mall did great would you say that you "misread" the neighbors' attitudes towards the mall?
Think about Safeway tearing down the Alhambra. We were talking about that with our neighbors just this weekend--we were all (still) outraged about it. And yet the Safeway is doing OK. Does that mean we aren't outraged about it?
The other issue is with moving. Most of us (pro-gun or otherwise) simply cannot afford to move. About half the houses are underwater so if you sell, you do so at a loss and that means you won't have the money to buy a new home. Heck, these days even if your house is not underwater, there is a decent chance that if you sell you may not have quite enough for a mortgage. So, the flip side of the Recession is that once you buy, you're stuck there for a while. So it's doubtful that I would be able to get my neighbors to move and it's doubtful that they could get me to move.
Good thing most of us want our neighborhood to be the way it is, then, is it not?
I'm not sure if being able to remember a store that was around until about 2007-2008 (with a very noticeable sign, a huge revolver painted on the front of the building) counts as "superior knowledge of the history of the neighborhood," but I suppose I'll take it as a compliment.
And to the best of my knowledge all that could happen without a special permit or a hearing or anything. And I realize this is a slippery slope--but if you have a set of developments that change where you live; change your "lifestyle" as cogmeyer put it above, should you not at least have the opportunity to say "no"?
"McGeorge Dean Gerry Caplan said he is proud to vote for the school's illustrious alum and to count her as a friend. As an example of the value of her legal education, Caplan cites Ortiz's innovative use of nuisance laws when she was on the City Council to facilitate city staff to target slumlords and slumlord activity in Oak Park, where the school is situated. She helped put neighborhoods in charge of abandoned property. While on the City Council Ortiz also authored the Sacramento ordinance prohibiting the sale of firearms in neighborhoods and requiring gun dealers to register with city police."
Edited to say:
I placed this here for historical reference only, not because I think that gun shops should be prohibited. Sacramento's history proves this already having been tried, but for whatever reasons, it was repealed or overruled
Fundamentally, if you are trying to impede a core component of a right with public policy, then your approach is violating that right. Imagine if the NSA's approach to stopping the spread of extremist Islam was to impede access to literature or the internet. We would all (or so I should hope!) be up in arms and demanding the courts to smack the NSA down. Trying to stop "gun crime" by impeding the ability to purchase guns is 100% analogous to that situation. It's an ineffective and illegitimate approach to reducing crime.
Spend some time there.
Get up to speed with the "why's" on the significance of the second amendment - it is quite pivotal to the greatest nation on the planet.
Really.
If you want to write a letter, you need a pencil.
If you want to defend yourself or your loved ones, you don't need a pencil.
In this case, McCarty, who is definitely pro-choice, is attempting to do the same thing to another constitutionally protected activity, the right to keep and bear arms, and clearly many of these midtown residents, many of whom we can safely assume are also pro-choice, are in support of him.
The irony is palpable.
This article should give some of the information you are looking for, with links to more in-depth coverage on each topic discussed.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/61678/The_highs_and_lows_of_medical_marijuana_in_2011
Your logic is flawed. Lets take a closer look at the wording of the 2nd Amendment and break it down a bit.
First of all, the right to keep and bear arms was not "given" by the Constitution. The Constitution did not create or grant any rights. It simply states and declares rights that people have (such rights were "self evident"), and seeks to protect them, but we possess all of our rights independent of the Constitution or any other document.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to ensure that people were not deprived of their rights and actual ability to protect themselves, their families, property, liberty and state--from criminals, foreign threats and their own government, should it become tyrannical (such as the one they had just fought a bloody war to remove).
Let's not forget that the catalyst for the actual fighting of the American War for Independence was the British attempts to confiscate the colonists' arms and munitions at Concord and Lexington, Mass.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
[i]"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"[/i]
Some folks want to say that "the people" means the STATE, but this is not so... it means individuals, in the same context as the 1st Amendment, which guarantees that "the people" have a right to assemble peaceably, and the 4th Amendment's protection of "the people" from unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover, the 10th Amendment makes it clear that "the states" and "the people" are not synonymous.
Some folks want to say that because the word "regulated" appears in the 2nd Amendment, this somehow gives government the power to control the right to keep and bear arms. This is not so. "Regulated," in this sense, should be understood to mean, well disciplined, practiced and organized--in other words efficient and orderly. By people exercising their rights to keep and bear arms, this leads to a well regulated militia through their practice and shooting activities, and keep in check the ability of any other military force to threaten our free country.
It is true, that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate the militia, but (until very recent gun-control legislation) this was always considered to be a prescriptive power, and never a proscriptive power. A prescriptive power could require men to keep arms and practice or drill every so often, while a proscriptive power might prohibit certain activities. Certainly, the civil authority had the power to require the militia to keep itself well-equipped and drilled, but the wording of the 2nd Amendment clearly shows that the Constitution did not intend to allow the government any authority to restrict or infringe upon the peoples' ability and right to arm themselves and drill.
The 2nd Amendment states generally that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--that means by anyone, or any level of government (city, municipal, county, state or federal).
Moreover, the grammar of the 2nd Amendment needs to be read as two distinct clauses. The first clause is a statement of fact:
Whereas, [i]"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state ..."[/i] [That means: A well-equipped, organized and disciplined militia (all able-bodied men over the age of 16) is A NECESITY for the security of A FREE STATE] ...
The second clause is the conclusion:
... therefore, [i]"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."[/i] [That means ... the RIGHT of the each person to keep (possess, own, hold) and bear (carry, wear and use) arms (weapons capable of defending people, their families, property and state) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.]
Moreover, it is important to point out that a government might be able to create security in a state by some other means, but this is the manner in which security is preserved in a FREE state.
Continued below...
And just for fun, because the wording of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was influenced by some state constitutions, let's see what the Virginia and Pennsylvania constitutions of 1776 has to say on the matter:
[i]"Sec. 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." [/i](Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776)
and
[i]"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."[/i] (Pennsylvania Constitution of Sept. 28, 1776)
Our "founding fathers" knew that these issues were directly linked and important. I hope that gives you a better perspective on what the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is supposed to protect and prohibit.
Have a nice day.
I don't see anything wrong with a new zoning law that applies to gun stores, as long as the reason for the law is based in objective reality.
What "raised some people's eyebrows" was the story last week that a gun store is coming to Midtown. In the eighth paragraph, I wrote: The proposed law comes after The Sacramento Press reported last week that a new gun store will likely come to the old Cornerstone location at 2330 J St. in Midtown...
After I wrote the previous article, which quoted a city planner as saying that gun stores are treated as general retail, some people were concerned that there was no public review process.
Hopefully this clears it up.
Thanks for reading.
Legal product, legal service, legal commerce... some guy wants to create a small business and do his best to sell something at a marginal profit, employ a few people and provide for his family.
Just because it makes somebody uncomfortable - they want to make a law further controlling it. Raising some eyebrows or making a few people uncomfortable are not grounds for making a law.
Yet dope arguably contributes more to the decline of our society than guns ever have or do.... go figure!
Keep voting for the leftists out there guys, you will keep getting more of this until you stand up and take your state back from these freaks and nutcases.