“And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the ‘mob’ - a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.” - Camille Anna Paglia
Riding the wave of 2nd Amendment activism that is sweeping across the entire State of California, gun rights supporters showed up en masse to the City of Sunnyvale on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 to express their opposition to any possible proposals that might impose additional land use restrictions that would negatively impact law-abiding and tax-paying firearms retailers within city limits. At 6:30 PM, more than 100 concerned citizens (five of which represented gun control lobby interests) crowded into the Council Chambers at the Sunnyvale City Hall to help the Planning Commission reach an informed decision regarding the outcome of a study to determine if any additional measures needed to be enacted to allow firearms retailers to do business within city limits. Due to the time constraint of confining the public hearing portion of the study to one hour, only 34 of those present were allowed to comment on the issue. Out of the 34 who were permitted to voice their opinion, 33 private citizens opposed any additional restrictions on firearms retailers within city limits and one representative from LCAV stood up to express her national-level special interest group's viewpoint on the issue. Although the Planning Commission stated publicly that the outreach meeting was held to examine a land use issue and did not represent an exercise in 2nd Amendment relevance, the proceedings appeared to be squarely focused on that particular enumerated civil right. Complete coverage of the public comment portion of this City of Sunnyvale Planning Commission study is available online.
This robust statement of public support for the basic, fundamental, and enumerated civil right to self defense comes on the heels of a much larger movement that is taking place across the Golden State and the rest of the nation. Grassroots civil rights activists in California are vigorously contributing to the national trend outlining the gun control lobby's dramatically diminishing relevance in modern American politics, as even the decades-long encroachment against every common, law-abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights in the Golden State has been stopped cold in 2010 and striking progress forward is being made this year in 2011. This point could not be driven home more clearly than with the sudden resignation of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence President, Paul Helmke, arguably this country's most prominent and vocal gun control advocate with no immediate successor available to replace him. Energized by the forceful wave of victories that are being won on the local, State, and federal level, a renewed morale and synergy is driving 2nd Amendment advocates in California forward in re-securing the fundamental civil right to self defense that has been systematically legislated out of their reach by anti-gun Democrat lawmakers for more than two decades.
And it is these anti-gun Democrat ideologues who have tried to dismiss the swelling popular support behind the ever-growing 2nd Amendment activism in the Golden State by ignoring the facts and evidence demonstrating the benefits of a lawfully-armed general populace. However, this populist surge of support in defense of that basic, fundamental, and enumerated civil right to self-defense has already reached critical mass and this tidal wave of 2nd Amendment advocacy is crashing against the entrenched gun control lobby and drowning out their subjectively-biased, emotion-based conjecture on even the local level. Evidence of these developments could not be more clearly presented than recently in the City of Sunnyvale.
The controversy over this land use issue regarding firearms retailers began when the Peninsula Press, a student publication from the Stanford graduate program in journalism, published an article in October of 2010 regarding the topic, which was then brought to the attention of a larger audience by being picked up by the San Francisco Chronicle. Although the article approached the subject with a slant towards the gun control lobby perspective, many citizens reading the article clearly did not subscribe to this line of reasoning as was aptly demonstrated by those who chose to weigh in on the comments section below both pieces.
The article's author, Solly Mirell, expounds upon the concerns of a few residents who expressed their feelings about the issue without first looking into the facts,
In response, a contingent of concerned Sunnyvale parents and residents spoke before the City Council, expressing anxiety over the store’s proximity to heavily residential areas and schools. Parents said they were worried about their children having to walk past the store on their way to and from school.
“I feel as if having [a gun store] in close proximity to many schools is a danger,” Sunnyvale Elementary School teacher Gina Lermont told the City Council last week. “I’m not sure if I want to educate my second graders on something like gun safety.”
Pooja Sampat, a Sunnyvale resident and mother of young children, questioned why the city planning commission had not instituted additional safeguards to separate a firearms business from residential areas.
“As a city council, would it be at all forgivable if somebody purchased a gun from there and walked down to one of the local elementary schools and shot?” an emotional Sampat said.
Mirell then admits that the facts don't support the anti-gun sentiments being expressed,
A public records check revealed no cases of a robbery of Bay Area gun stores within the past five years.
It is with these facts in mind that the 33 Second Amendment advocates weighed in during the public comment portion of the City of Sunnyvale Planning Commission hearing on this issue. Much to the chagrin of the gun control lobby, those 2nd Amendment advocates were extraordinarily well-informed regarding the rules and regulations that the City must adhere to in listening to the general public about new proposals that would affect all residents. Based on the testimony heard on the City Council Chamber floor, those speaking in defense of the 2nd Amendment in Sunnyvale that Wednesday night were well-educated, critical-thinking, professionally-dressed, and deeply-concerned citizens who had considered nearly all of the possible angles that could be presented in opposition to any new regulations that might negatively impact law-abiding and tax-paying firearms retailers within city limits.
For instance, an 18-year homeowner and 3-year small business owner in Sunnyvale was the first to speak. He elaborated on his concerns regarding all of the "unoccupied commercial space in Sunnyvale" and how "restricting legal commerce via any legislation whatsoever" during these tough economic times could prove to be disastrous.
A 40-year resident of Sunnyvale then stood up and expressed how "extremely proud" he was of Sunnyvale to have a retail firearms store within city limits. He then continued by stating,
Too many cities in this country, even though the gentleman has said that this is only about land use, I don't think it is. The word 'guns' causes certain people to go crazy. Too many cities across this country, because of certain misplaced ideologies of officials, do everything they can to restrict the enjoyment of the freedom provided by the 2nd Amendment. This store, to my mind, is a symbol. Even if I never go in there to buy anything, it is a symbol of freedom that is enjoyed by very few countries in this world and I just want to see it [US Firearms] stay and I don't want the City of Sunnyvale, which I greatly admire, to become one of those cities in this country that does everything they can to constrict the freedom enjoyed by the 2nd Amendment.
Following this testimony, a local FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder from Gilroy expressed how heavily regulated the firearms industry in California already is, citing the fact that he is required by law to maintain "12 licenses and permits" just to stay in business. He also adds that each of these required permits and licenses represents a significant cost that adds to his business overhead. Requiring an additional land use permit for his FFL peers in the City of Sunnyvale would represent an unfair burden in an already business-hostile environment.
Another gun rights supporter then stood up and made an illuminating observation,
You stated that this is not about a 2nd Amendment issue and so I ask the question, 'Why just gun stores?' The presumption here is that there is some danger to the public that this store [US Firearms] presents that requires an additional permit so I'd ask, 'What about other businesses that are dangerous to the public in some way?" I think one thing that is really interesting to note is that, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), you are three times as likely to be injured by drugs prescribed by your doctor to you than you are by a gun and twice as likely as that to be killed by your doctor by any means. So why not also have additional permits required for pharmacies and doctors of all kinds? That makes much more sense than just simply going after a gun store. I am sure there are types of businesses that are as dangerous to the public just by proximity (i.e. gas stations).
The specific JAMA article mentioned by this particular 2nd Amendment activist was published in July of 2000 by Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. The article found that doctors are the third leading cause of death in the US and are responsible for 225,000 deaths in the US annually. In contrast, firearms are involved in approximately 30,000 deaths every year across the country (31,224 in 2007, according to the CDC). Given this line of cogently-logical reasoning, every critical-thinking citizen should be compelled to ask the same question that this 2nd Amendment activist raised above.
Faced with the strong public support in defense of the 2nd Amendment, the representative from anti-gun, national-level special interest group, LCAV, rose to speak briefly in representing her organization's interests in this matter,
We would suggest a two-tiered approach, both a land use permit and a law enforcement permit. That way, the Planning Commission can have oversight into where the dealership [firearms retailers within Sunnyvale city limits] would be located and law enforcement would be able to have the opportunity to inspect the dealer's records and inventory and just make sure everything is being operated safely. As I think you mentioned, many other businesses have permits and have requirements that they need to follow. It's really a very minimal burden. It's important for public safety and it's something that we would recommend the City do.
This two-tiered approach is what was upheld by the California Court of Appeals in the Suter case [Suter vs. City of Lafayette] so there is legal precedent for it. An answer to the comment you made about federal and State law--federal law does require that a firearms dealer to obtain a license but ATF is only able to inspect dealers once every 10 years. So, there is a license in place but there is not a lot of oversight. The State also does not have the resources to do the type of inspection that should be done. And, of course, federal and State law has no say over where a dealer is located. There are security measures that could be required, bans on having minors enter the store unattended, things like that--lots of things that the City could put into place that federal and State law doesn't do.
In order to address the points made by the LCAV representative, a man who identified himself as a firearms instructor certified by the California Department of Justice, Department of Fish and Game, as well as the National Rifle Association to train others to be instructors, challenged the claims made by the anti-gun special interest group,
I was involved in the closed-door development of this store [US Firearms], which is nine months before we could open. Every [retail firearms] store that I know of, because, in the process of doing classes, I hit every store in the area--every one of us [firearms retailers] receive at least one ATF inspection a year. Every one of us receives at least one DOJ [California Department of Justice] inspection a year. The law enforcement in Sunnyvale has been in [US Firearms] three times. The suggestion was, from hearing it [LCAV testimony], that nobody comes and inspects you. Of course, that is absurd.
A number of other concerned citizens expressed their opinions on the matter, including a woman who spoke about how the City's attention should be focused on actual crimes such as the shooting that occurred at The Brass Rail, a local strip club in the area.
Another concerned woman then rose and asked the question,
Since a firearm is basically a tool--it's a tool for self defense, it's a tool for hunting, are you planning to do any land use permits for Ace Hardware or any other tool stores?
The Planning Commission responded by "hoping that was a rhetorical question" and those in the room responded with laughter affirming the woman's point--since firearms are tools and there is not a single real public safety issue to speak of regarding US Firearms or any of the multiple FFL holders who have done business within Sunnyvale city limits for years, why not apply the same standard of review for land use to all retailers who sell tools?
A 2nd Amendment advocate who works in Sunnyvale and hails from Oregon went so far as to admit that he keeps all of his firearms in Idaho because he "couldn't figure out California gun laws" despite visiting all of the gun forums online and subscribing to three different legal groups. He recommends that no additional land use restrictions be placed on US Firearms or any other future gun dealers in Sunnyvale because doing so could discourage potential FFLs from doing business within the City and those retailers are a critical and necessary component in educating the general public about the State's gun laws.
Then, a Sunnyvale resident who identified himself as a chaplain, former police officer, and firearms instructor spoke on the issue,
Not speaking specifically for Sunnyvale, 44% of a police officer's time is spent, on average, doing traffic-related tasks (i.e. accidents and such) per year. 0.08% of their time is [dedicated to] anything firearms related. So I don't think it poses a threat, especially to the school with all of the federal and State licensing [procedures] that they [firearms retailers in Sunnyvale] have to go through.
He adds that his wife is a teacher at the school located diagonally-across from US Firearms, Sunnyvale Christian School, and that his own children attend that school. He indicated that the school's position on the firearms dealer was no different than any other retail establishment.
Even an Englishman, who has lived in Sunnyvale for 12 years, spoke in support of the 2nd Amendment and, with a British accent, praised the firearms freedoms in the US while citing the complete handgun ban in his country of origin. Being fully aware of the societal consequences where innocent, unarmed, and defenseless victims pay for the misguided gun control policies in the UK with their blood and their lives, this former English subject kept the dramatic increase in his country's violent crime rate in mind when he made an impassioned plea,
You know, you guys have a blessing in this town and this country to have something like that. I think any time you are going to try and restrict that, it's a really slippery slope and I don't think that is something you should go down.
Another civil rights activist pointed out the cost of the study as a unnecessary burden to taxpayers as there wasn't a single issue regarding public safety that that the gun control advocates could reference. He asked the Planning Commission,
My understanding is that moving forward with this study will cost Sunnyvale roughly $30,000. Can you address that?
The Planning Commission responded by stating that the amount dedicated to this study was lower than the mentioned $30,000 figure and that they have been budgeted with a certain number of hours that can be spent on an assigned study. The City Council determines which issues to focus the Planning Commission's efforts. These studies, such as examining the proposal to require conditional land use permits for firearms retailers, do not reflect an additional cost to taxpayers but rather those dollars allocated for the time spent studying this matter have already been set aside.
However, that being the case, a critical-thinking citizen might beg the question, "Since there isn't a single violent incident that can be cited to justify this study in Sunnyvale, would the money budgeted for this land use examination regarding firearms retailers be better allocated for a real and more pressing City issue instead?"
After the question of cost was addressed, a total of 23 other concerned citizens spoke up during the hour-long public hearing to defend to their 2nd Amendment Rights. Their testimonies reflected how gun stores were an absolute necessity for teaching gun safety to the local community, especially since many in the audience were parents who pointed out the fact that their children do not receive gun safety training in school, and with at least 9 guns for every 10 people in this country, gun safety training should be a critical component of every child's education that every responsible parent should provide. A State champion competitive shooter spoke up against any proposals that might further regulate firearms retailers within Sunnyvale city limits. Another 2nd Amendment defender pointed out the fact that police officers shop at gun stores more frequently than other types of retailers and that this fact should be taken into consideration when looking at the gun control lobby's claim that this is a matter public safety.
The evening ended with many more 2nd Amendment activists wishing to be heard. Although they were not given the opportunity to speak due to time constraints, the overwhelming public response in opposing any additional permitting requirements for law-abiding and tax-paying firearms retailers within Sunnyvale city limits was resounding. The only voice heard in support of imposing these additional licensing proposals came from a national-level, anti-gun special interest group, the LCAV, which certainly did not represent the Will of the People.
Watching the proceedings inside Sunnyvale's City Council Chambers at 6:30 PM on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 stirred the revelation of this nation's vision, with the Founders' efforts dedicated towards carefully crafting an ideal and balanced civic administration, highlighting the in-depth citizen interest, input, and involvement that truly inspires a well-oiled government body comprised "of the People, by the People, and for the People."
No comments:
Post a Comment