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, b... Brandon Kalifornia comment-69965 2012-06-23T17:01:30Z 2012-06-23T17:01:30Z How did I know this article was from :FREAK-O-FORNIA?" lol 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. Kalifornia 2012-06-23T17:01:30Z DanielLord comment-69963 2012-06-23T16:04:08Z 2012-06-23T16:04:08Z Concern over the location of gun stores usually boils down to fear of gun crime but it undependable for 2 reasons. First, liquor stores, 7-11s, and banks see more crime around them than gun stores so maybe the focus is on the wrong kind of business. Second, the logical idea here is to deny undesirables from possessing firearms, but background checks and prohibitions already d that. If this idea is logical, then we should stop public sales of alcohol to curb drunk driving which could save many more lives a year then even banning all firearms. DanielLord 2012-06-23T16:04:08Z William Burg comment-69956 2012-06-23T06:47:31Z 2012-06-23T06:47:31Z No, it's not a slippery slope, it's a non sequitur. William Burg 2012-06-23T06:47:31Z evak comment-69954 2012-06-23T01:28:11Z 2012-06-23T01:28:11Z Well, then it should be. Look, if the GAP moved into where Tres Chic used to be, McDonalds decided to operate out of where Java City used to be; Payless moved into where the gun shop in question ia about to open while a Ross opened up across the street, wouldn't that change the nature of Midtown a bit? 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"? evak 2012-06-23T01:28:11Z William Burg comment-69953 2012-06-23T00:57:46Z 2012-06-23T00:57:46Z Not really, no. William Burg 2012-06-23T00:57:46Z evak comment-69952 2012-06-23T00:45:31Z 2012-06-23T00:45:31Z @William: I meant that in general your knowledge of the neighborhood exceeds mine. I vaguely remembered that sun shop also once you mentioned it. And, in this specific case, I grant you have a point. If it doesn't change the nature of the neighborhood then it's fine. And I realize it's a slippery slope. That's why I said that I am not sure it should even be dealt with in regulations. But there should be (IMO) some sort of framework--maybe a white paper/guidance or some such that specifies what you look for when a commercial business/a service changes the nature of the neighborhood and when it does not. I get we want to enable businesses to open up here but we also want to be able to live here. And isn't that, ultimately, what zoning is for? evak 2012-06-23T00:45:31Z William Burg comment-69950 2012-06-23T00:25:00Z 2012-06-23T00:25:00Z evak: That's a very slippery slope you have set up there...there are already quite a few regulations already in place governing uses of buildings, demolition and construction: zoning codes, which specify where commercial businesses can and can't go, special-use permits, demolition permits, preservation ordinances, etcetera. Comparing a retail store going into a space that is already zoned for retail use is nothing like demolishing a neighborhood to build a mall. So, no, it's not a fair comparison to make. Nor does this use change the character of the neighborhood--it's a commercial building on a commercial corridor (albeit a mixed-use commercial corridor that also has residents) being used for a commercial purpose. They aren't demolishing the building, building a new building, or putting in a use that is in conflict with the building's current zoning. Which is why it, like, say, the "PeraDice" gift shop across the street, didn't have to hold public meetings before opening their business. 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. William Burg 2012-06-23T00:25:00Z newguyinsac comment-69946 2012-06-22T23:20:56Z 2012-06-22T23:20:56Z Interesting, but what type of restrictions does the city place on "legal" medical facilities? newguyinsac 2012-06-22T23:20:56Z Brandon Darnell comment-69943 2012-06-22T22:43:56Z 2012-06-22T22:43:56Z Hi newguyinsac, 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 Brandon Darnell 2012-06-22T22:43:56Z newguyinsac comment-69942 2012-06-22T22:40:13Z 2012-06-22T22:40:13Z But to be fair, it would be interesting to know what type of regulations, if any, the city places on medical facilities before providing them with business permits. newguyinsac 2012-06-22T22:40:13Z newguyinsac comment-69941 2012-06-22T22:38:46Z 2012-06-22T22:38:46Z There's that, and the fact that nearly any time restrictions are proposed on abortion providers, the immediate fall back position of the pro-choice side is to point out that abortion is a constitutionally protected procedure and restricting access is the same as restricting women's right. 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. newguyinsac 2012-06-22T22:38:46Z Brandon Darnell comment-69938 2012-06-22T22:25:56Z 2012-06-22T22:25:56Z Hi, 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. Brandon Darnell 2012-06-22T22:25:56Z coloflyer comment-69936 2012-06-22T21:43:31Z 2012-06-22T21:43:31Z Could you imagine the outcry if medical MJ smokers had to wait 10 days to receive their 'meds', or had to submit a finger print every time they bought any papers or what ever means they use to use the dope? You could bet the law would be changed post haste! Yet dope arguably contributes more to the decline of our society than guns ever have or do.... go figure! coloflyer 2012-06-22T21:43:31Z MikeCostello comment-69933 2012-06-22T21:28:18Z 2012-06-22T21:28:18Z the fact that McCarty or ANY OTHER person would race to create a law that essentially makes it harder to do business in this City is the essential problem with our town and California at large. 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. MikeCostello 2012-06-22T21:28:18Z Jonnyk1386 comment-69932 2012-06-22T21:00:31Z 2012-06-22T21:00:31Z Gun shops Do not cause crime rates to rise or fall., But armed citizens just might make violent crimes fall. Im pretty sure 99% of violent crimes are caused by criminals Dominating citizens In their homes, businesses, and on the street. Criminals Like to attack weaker people. Just think of how many criminals would start thinking twice about robbing someone, or burglarizing homes knowing that the majority of the city of sacramento's Law abiding citizens are armed? hmmm. Ponder that! By the way, Guns don't kill People! Criminals with guns kill people. If any Of you people whom are opposed to a gun store in Midtown were to look at just what it takes to buy a gun in california, Im pretty sure the proof is in the pudding. Jonnyk1386 2012-06-22T21:00:31Z SirCBofBclan comment-69931 2012-06-22T20:36:26Z 2012-06-22T20:36:26Z What I'm wondering is what prompts this proposal for a new law. What happened that "raised some people's eyebrows in the neighborhood"? That's what's missing from this article. Was it merely the announced opening of a new gun store, or was it something more? The article makes it clear that concerns have been raised, but it doesn't say anything about what those concerns are. 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. SirCBofBclan 2012-06-22T20:36:26Z evak comment-69930 2012-06-22T21:36:06Z 2012-06-22T21:36:06Z @cogmeyer: But I am not focusing on the gun store. I would have the same issue with a mall or a book-shop or a coffee shop if it were across the street from me. We have a little "mall" here but it's far enough away that it doesn't infringe on us and, as a result, I can enjoy the great Italian restaurant there while at the same time enjoying hearing the birds chirping pretty much all day in my back yard.There is a reason I no longer live in Midtown. 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? evak 2012-06-22T21:36:06Z joell83 comment-69929 2012-06-22T20:24:42Z 2012-06-22T20:24:42Z This guy means business...check out that safari hat . joell83 2012-06-22T20:24:42Z cogmeyer comment-69928 2012-06-22T19:30:05Z 2012-06-22T19:30:05Z @ evak - It boils down to your assessments of your neighborhoods "lifestyle" vs. M&J Guns assessment. M&J is betting that a lot of your neighbors are already open to gun ownership. 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! cogmeyer 2012-06-22T19:30:05Z evak comment-69926 2012-06-22T19:01:54Z 2012-06-22T19:01:54Z Actually, you raise a good point. If someone decided to place a medical facility near your home (be it a facility that specialized in abortions or was a full-fledged ER) do you feel you should be able to have a say about that? Or, do you feel that since the ER or abortion clinic don't get to choose you for a neighbor you should equally not be able to have a say as to whether or not you have them for a neighbor? evak 2012-06-22T19:01:54Z evak comment-69924 2012-06-22T18:37:28Z 2012-06-22T18:37:28Z "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. " @ 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. evak 2012-06-22T18:37:28Z evak comment-69923 2012-06-22T18:33:50Z 2012-06-22T18:33:50Z @ William: As to whether or not the gun shop would change the character of the neighborhood, I bow to your superior knowledge of the history of that neighborhood. And no, I do not want to create further obstacles to establishing a business in Sacramento which is what public review for every business would do. But it does seem to me that if a business will change the neighborhood of a neighborhood, that neighborhood should be allowed to have a say about it. 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? evak 2012-06-22T18:33:50Z cogmeyer comment-69921 2012-06-22T17:55:58Z 2012-06-22T17:55:58Z Well said William. 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. cogmeyer 2012-06-22T17:55:58Z Soldier415 comment-69898 2012-06-22T16:14:22Z 2012-06-22T16:14:22Z 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. Soldier415 2012-06-22T16:14:22Z Soldier415 comment-69897 2012-06-22T16:14:06Z 2012-06-22T16:14:06Z Contrarian, 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... Soldier415 2012-06-22T16:14:06Z newguyinsac comment-69894 2012-06-22T15:36:05Z 2012-06-22T15:36:05Z I'll bet Kevin McCarty and the others who support additional regulations on gun shops would be screaming to high heaven if anyone suggested additional regulations on the location of Planned Parenthood facilities or any other abortion provider located in the city. newguyinsac 2012-06-22T15:36:05Z Tony Sheppard comment-69889 2012-06-22T11:00:19Z 2012-06-22T11:00:19Z see below Tony Sheppard 2012-06-22T11:00:19Z Tony Sheppard comment-69888 2012-06-22T10:59:59Z 2012-06-22T10:59:59Z The First and Second Amendments are not worded equivalently. The First protects against "the abridging of free speech" - and the distribution of written material is itself "speech." (Assuming we're not talking about militias,) the Second affirms the right to "keep and bear arms" - and the distribution of arms is not the same as keeping and bearing them. The language isn't parallel. Tony Sheppard 2012-06-22T10:59:59Z ned946 comment-69886 2012-06-22T07:31:50Z 2012-06-22T07:31:50Z Gene Hoffman regularly comments here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php 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. ned946 2012-06-22T07:31:50Z William Burg comment-69883 2012-06-22T06:58:55Z 2012-06-22T06:58:55Z The nature of Midtown as a mixed-use and relatively dense neighborhood means that most things are near other things, just by nature of its walkability.. I don't think a gun store would change the character of the neighborhood, based on the fact that there was a gun store in the neighborhood, a block away, until just a few years ago. And as to whether the community should have a say, does that mean that every business should undergo public review before opening? Because currently, most do not. William Burg 2012-06-22T06:58:55Z Stonewalker comment-69882 2012-06-22T15:41:04Z 2012-06-22T15:41:04Z The reason that disallowing gun stores from opening in certain areas is a violation of the 2nd amendment is because the ability to purchase a gun is as core to the right as the ability to purchase books is to the 1st amendment. When you make it inconvenient or impossible for somebody to exercise a core part of the right, the right is infringed. There are plenty of people who are wheelchair bound and without cars who cannot travel to the "non-family friendly" parts of town where a gun store would supposedly be allowed by the city council. 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. Stonewalker 2012-06-22T15:41:04Z Anothervoice comment-69881 2012-06-22T05:44:45Z 2012-06-22T05:44:45Z You guys do realize you are talking apples and oranges here right? Cannabis though technically legal on a state level is still illegal federally. There are going to be some regulations that other businesses are not going to have to deal with. 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. Anothervoice 2012-06-22T05:44:45Z Anothervoice comment-69880 2012-06-22T05:29:12Z 2012-06-22T05:29:12Z Contrarian what is the point of making a law, rule or set of guidelines that in fact can't do what they are designed to do? In the case of ammo sales if anyone can just go to another city and purchase the same thing that in their home town they can't then the law, rule, guideline is only an inconvenience to the law abiding citizen and nothing more. It does nothing (as in this case) to keep ammo out of the hands of prohibited persons. Not to mention that the law prohibiting them from possessing a gun isn't working to facilitate the need for ammo in the first place. These kind of laws, rules ect are only their to make fear mongering and uneducated people feel they are safe some how an are not meant to do what they were implied to do in the first place. acting as though it does anything other then make law abiding citizens give up their rights to privacy kind of makes you look like the ladder of the two above. 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. Anothervoice 2012-06-22T05:29:12Z evak comment-69879 2012-06-22T05:12:04Z 2012-06-22T05:12:04Z I think the essential difference is that a business is in many ways a service and the kinds of services that your community chooses to "get" define that community. So a community near a strip mall is going to be different from a community near locally-owned businesses that you get to by walking down the street (e.g., Midtown vs. Natomas). If a community allows a strip club near a school, that will be a different community from the one that raises heck about a strip club near that same school. 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? evak 2012-06-22T05:12:04Z Davi Rodrigues comment-69878 2012-06-22T17:50:16Z 2012-06-22T17:50:16Z Here is a reference: "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 Davi Rodrigues 2012-06-22T17:50:16Z William Burg comment-69877 2012-06-22T04:33:37Z 2012-06-22T04:33:37Z I still find the idea of any of those pretty appealing, bu then, I still live in Midtown. However, consider this: Should the coffee shop, bookstore, gun shop, whatever, have a say as to whether you can move in next door to them? William Burg 2012-06-22T04:33:37Z Davi Rodrigues comment-69876 2012-06-22T04:31:49Z 2012-06-22T04:31:49Z I'm pretty sure Sacramento already went down this pathway when Joe Serna was mayor. There was a law passed about selling gun and ammo, or maybe it was just ammo, but that code or law allowed the owner of Broadway Bail Rod and Gun to sell or transfer his store one more time. I'll try and find something on that Davi Rodrigues 2012-06-22T04:31:49Z evak comment-69874 2012-06-22T04:21:13Z 2012-06-22T04:21:13Z If a book store wanted to open next door to our home, I might not be best pleased. When my husband and I were a bit younger we loved living in Midtown: I would roll out of bed, walk across the street, grab my coffee at the coffee shop across the way and sip that coffee as I walked to work. But we're a bit older now and moved out of Midtown and for some reason the idea of a coffee shop right across from my home is not nearly as appealing as it once was. And neither is the idea of a book store, gun shop, etc. So if one decided it wanted to open up near me, I'd want to be able to say a few things about it. evak 2012-06-22T04:21:13Z evak comment-69873 2012-06-22T04:17:49Z 2012-06-22T04:17:49Z OK--why do we bother living together in communities? Why don't we live in isolated shacks somewhere by ourselves? And when we live in communities do we not assemble in those communities? evak 2012-06-22T04:17:49Z HowardW56 comment-69872 2012-06-22T03:43:48Z 2012-06-22T03:43:48Z If book stores are protected by the First Amendment, why wouldn't gun stores be protected by the Second? HowardW56 2012-06-22T03:43:48Z HowardW56 comment-69871 2012-06-22T03:50:36Z 2012-06-22T03:50:36Z I suguest that you read Ezell v. Chicago... Granted this is a 7th Circuit case. The issue hasn't come before the 9th circuit or Supreme Court, yet.... 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... HowardW56 2012-06-22T03:50:36Z Tony Sheppard comment-69870 2012-06-22T03:15:10Z 2012-06-22T03:15:10Z Agreed. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be allowed - but to imply that the 2nd Amendment somehow protects gun stores is more than a stretch. Tony Sheppard 2012-06-22T03:15:10Z William Burg comment-69869 2012-06-22T02:40:02Z 2012-06-22T02:40:02Z If we had a large number of gun stores opening up all over the city, maybe this would be justified...but all this hubbub is over one store, selling a legal and highly federally regulated product, requiring multiple inspections and background checks by BATFE. William Burg 2012-06-22T02:40:02Z Tony Sheppard comment-69868 2012-06-22T02:38:20Z 2012-06-22T02:38:20Z The loosest reading of the 2nd Amendment (assuming you ignore any mention of militias) establishes the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about where one could or should buy them or how convenient that has to be. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't automatically require the existence of a single gun store, nor does it require anybody to treat gun stores the same as one treats sandwich stores. Tony Sheppard 2012-06-22T02:38:20Z Tony Sheppard comment-69867 2012-06-22T02:29:05Z 2012-06-22T02:29:05Z There are already laws that require permits for certain assemblies, marches, protests, etc. Try assembling and speaking in a public park overnight. Tony Sheppard 2012-06-22T02:29:05Z Contrarian comment-69866 2012-06-22T02:26:26Z 2012-06-22T02:26:26Z Steve, "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. Contrarian 2012-06-22T02:26:26Z HowardW56 comment-69865 2012-06-22T00:46:19Z 2012-06-22T00:46:19Z Medical cannabis dispensaries and drive-through fast food are not protected by the Bill of Rights. 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? HowardW56 2012-06-22T00:46:19Z evak comment-69863 2012-06-22T00:13:48Z 2012-06-22T00:13:48Z If a special permit is needed for medical cannabis dispensaries and drive-throughs, I don't see why it would be a violation of the Second Amendment to say that a special permit is needed for gun shops. All this does is give people who get to live next to a proposed gun shop a chance to say whether that's what they want to do. 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? evak 2012-06-22T00:13:48Z Ed Murrieta comment-69861 2012-06-21T23:52:26Z 2012-06-21T23:52:26Z Want to shoot down gun stores? Use the same conditional use rules imposed on medical cannabis dispensaries. Ed Murrieta 2012-06-21T23:52:26Z Steve Vicente comment-69858 2012-06-21T23:32:44Z 2012-06-21T23:32:44Z McCarty hates guns. 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. Steve Vicente 2012-06-21T23:32:44Z