"Illegal guns" That's a laugh. They are against all guns.

Scharff is in good company. Way to go!! And these are only the convictions for the most part.

Both Buzzfeed and the New York Post have reported that Mayors Against Illegal Guns has lost nearly 50 members since February.
/

At a New Hampshire stop on the Mayors Against Illegal Guns “No More Names” bus tour, organizers read the names of people killed by “gun violence” during the six months since the tragedy in Newtown. But there was something amiss: included among the names read was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers. Observers were outraged.

But the story didn’t end there. Tsarnaev was not the only gun “victim” on the bus tour’s list. It turns out that one of every 12 names on the Bloomberg “victim” list are crime suspects – including the likes of California cop killer Christopher Dorner. Bloomberg and MAIG’s worldview is so skewed, they think murderers are actually victims! 6/24/13 Web Link

/

Mayors Against Illegal Guns member James Schiliro was arrested on charges of furnishing alcohol to an underage person, and also for recklessly endangering that person with a firearm for refusing to have sex with him. 4/4/2013 Web Link

/

Sheila Dixon, Baltimore Convicted, Perjury and Embezzlement.

Web Link

/

Jerimiah Healy Jersey City, New Jersey 1999 Convicted Disorderly Conduct, 2007 convicted Resisting Arrest. 2009 received $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions Web Link

/

Samuel Rivera, Passaic, New Jersey. 16 months in Federal Prison after FBI sting. Extortion, Bribery

/

Frank Melton, Jackson Mississippi

Nov. 15, 2006 - Melton pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors for carrying a weapon into a church and a park, and no contest to a reduced charge on what had been a felony count involving a gun onto the grounds of the Mississippi College School of Law.

/

David Delle Donna, Guttenberg, NJ
Guilty of conspiracy to commit extortion and tax charges

/

Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit, MI
Guilty 2 counts of Perjury
Guilty assault on a police officer

/

Gary Becker, Racine, WI
Guilty Enticing a child
Guilty Sexual assault on a child

/

Will Wynn, Austin TX
Guilty Assault

/

Larry Langford, Birmingham AL
Guilty 60 counts of bribery and money laundering

/

I don't know about this particular resolution, though I caught the signing on TV by accident as I happened to tune in to th eCity Council meeting right at that point, but it sounds typical of the way things are done in the uneducated, populist world:
"Are you against guns?"
-Like most anything, the answer requires a bit more finesse.
-But anything to be a cool major, on the spot, in Palo Alto.
Details, details, details.

Being a city right next to EPA...you should know that gun control doesn't work and only aids the criminals in making easy prey of unarmed victims. Gun control only works to disarm the law abiding and continues to give criminals free reign...why? Because criminals don't follow laws...if they did...there would be no criminals...no jails...no fear of crossing over the overpass into EPA...

Mr. Mayor....if you are so against guns and feel that taking them from law abiding citizens is the right thing to do...I ask you to walk over 101 into EPA at 10 pm without your protection....you know...because with some of the strictest gun laws in nation...you should be safe...Because gun laws...like drug laws...like DUI laws....like Domestic Violence laws...all work...

Congratulations to Mayor Scharff for standing up for what's right, even in the face of harsh criticism [portion removed.]

Mayor Scharff, I salute you.

@sparty:

If you were hoping to illustrate that some of the mayors against illegal guns are not saints, you made your point.

Your statement would be more compelling if you also offered similar statistics regarding mayors who are NOT against illegal guns (vs. the one-sided picture you offer). I'm guessing that list might be a trifle longer, which (I speculate) is the reason you did not present it.

The fact that some of the victims of illegal guns are criminals does not mitigate the argument that there are many other such victims who are law-abiding citizens.

I don't see how it is legally possible for the mayor to sign anything during a public comments period. The PCP is for nonagendized items, meaning that there has been no legal public noticing of the councils intention to discuss or vote on an item which is required under state law, even a do nothing, feel good item like this one. The city attorney should have stopped him short. No public notice, no council discussion, no legal supervision equals bad governance. I don't live in PA, but those of you who do should be very concerned, for though this particular issue may not be important to you, the concept of good, open and honest government should be.

Bob
Your comments may be on point IF

1) the action Scharff took was illegal - I don't know enough about it, tut my guess is that there are mayoral discretions that don't require council discussion/approval if they are non-binding such as signing a petition. Again I'm just speculating and would love to hear from someone who knows the answer to this.

OR

2) you have reasons to suspect that there are other actions taken by Scharff that have bypassed the usual discussion/approval phase. (I'm not aware of any)

We've all heard the saying, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Why is it so difficult for some people to understand the implications of that?

Gun sales are up over 150%. I just sold my four year Glock 9mm for double of what I pay for it new. Sold it thru a gun dealer and after 10 days, the new owner can pick it up. Now, I just wish I could buy more ammo for my other guns!

This is the same town that had graffiti on the STOP signs proclaiming "STOP PALIN". And the city let it stay on the signs for months. I'm just saying, the people of Palo Alto have a disturbing problem with real people.

When In-Laws are outlawed, only Outlaws will have inlaws!

He's a mayor, he's against illegal guns (and yes that means legal loopholes masquerading as constitutional rights which allow criminals and convicted felons to purchase guns very easily).

And it is a smart political move. The tide turns.

"the people of Palo Alto have a disturbing problem with real people"

Like the REAL people who have been killed by guns since our last big massacre, Newtown?

Slate has matched names to 6,905 Americans killed by guns since the last massacre. Kids. Parents. Teens. White. Black. Toddlers. Infants.

CDC numbers suggest that number is actually over 20,300 Americans killed by guns since the massacre at Newtown.

But: "the people of Palo Alto have a disturbing problem with real people" Yeah, right. Keep drinking that koolaid. They're all wrong, and wow, guess what? You are the only one that's always right! (hint - not!)

"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."

Well Regulated.

"Mayor Scharff will exercise his personal privilege. Bring the form up, and he will sign it," Scharff responded, before doing so.
Personal privilege? Personal privilege? Isn't the mayor supposed to represent ALL the people?

> CDC numbers suggest that number is actually over 20,300
> Americans killed by guns since the massacre at Newtown.

And the CDC also makes it very clear that about 50% of American gun deaths are the result of suicide. A significant number of gun deaths are the result of criminals killing other criminals.

Your clearly biased claims are meaningless in the light of day!

If you can't tell the truth, why not sit this one out?

Whoa-boy, @truth: "And the CDC also makes it very clear that about 50% of American gun deaths are the result of suicide."

Leaving 10,000 Americans killed by guns since Newtown, and another 10,000 Americans killing themselves by gun since Newtown.

Those are YOUR facts - "Your clearly biased claims are meaningless in the light of day!" You destroyed your own argument, right there! 10k + 10k = 20k Americans killed by gun since Newtown.

Add to the fact that it is proven that if the gun isn't available, potential suicides decline dramatically, as a depressed person has more opportunities for intervention to save them if the immediacy of a gun is not present.

If you have a gun at home, it is far more likely to be used on you or someone you love than in self defense.

Repeat: If you have a gun at home, it is far more likely to be used on YOU or someone YOU LOVE than in self defense.

Some say studies say 7 times more likely to be used on you or a loved one, some studies show a much higher tragedy index.

"a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense"

....................

"Art Kellermann was raised in eastern Tennessee, where his father taught him how to shoot a long gun when he was 10 years old. Kellermann grew up to become an emergency room doctor — and a target for gun-rights groups when he started asking questions like, "If a gun kept in a home was used, who did it shoot, and what were the consequences?"

Kellermann found people turned those guns on themselves and others in the house far more often than on intruders. "In other words, a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense," he says."

Would doubt very seriously if the Palo Alto Mayor has ever fired or held a firearm in his life. Pretty sure that he gets all his limited information on possession and use of firearms from bias media reports and his inability to research Constitutional rights with an educated unbiased opinion. How sad that the same group that asked him to sign "their" petition didn't bother to include information pertaining to mental illness issues involving recent high profile crimes. How unfortunate that the mayor chose to use a public meeting to encourage ignorance and use his office to express personal opinion. Oh well, hop onboard the feel good wagon!

I believe that bearing arms is an individual right, per the 2nd Amendment, as the Supreme Court has clarified. I was raised in a culture of guns, and hunted a lot, as a youth. I don't ever want to kill another member of the wildlife community. I still have a shotgun in my house, just in case I happen to have a major threat to my home.

However, I am probably to left of many, in that I think guns needs to be regulated. I think semi-automatic guns/rifles/pistols should be banned. Pistols should only be revolvers with six rounds or less; guns and rifles should be limited to three rounds (pump action or bolt action only). Background checks for criminal backgrounds and mental instability should be mandatory. Given such restrictions, I also believe in concealed-carry permissions, since I think it would reduce crime.

Now watch me catch it from all sides!

"his inability to research Constitutional rights " This farcical statement was already addressed by the 2nd amendment, and you obviously missed the post by 6905:

"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.

Well regulated."

Poll after poll show folks want regulation to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

just the first poll hit on google:

"In general, do you think gun control laws should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"

bad formatting when I copy the poll, but its: 51 more strict, 36 same, 11 less strict

That wins an election every time, more of a landslide than Obama's 5 million vote win over Romney.

All the polls on stricter background checks win by far bigger margins. Americans want gun regulation, just like the 2nd amendment tells us.

"In April, a bill that would have expanded background checks on gun purchases did not receive enough votes in the U.S. Senate to pass. If it comes up for another vote, do you think Congress should pass a bill that expands background checks for gun purchases, or not?"

Should expand checks - 69%, should not expand checks 28%

A collection of polls: Web Link

The fringe will think its a bunch of liberal bias and the polls are wrong, just like they said Obama was really losing on election night because they refused to believe the polls.

It's science and math. They rock. Obey the math or look like Karl Rove on election night. Web Link

[Post removed.]

jay, one of millions who love voting when it goes his way and hate it when it doesnt. "Democracy" unless you vote against what I like.

sparty: Jay recited facts. Numbers. Reality. The Constitution.

You gave your *opinion*. Since you can't be bothered with supporting your opinion with facts, let's ask what your opinion of the facts might be...

What is your opinion of the polls? "Should expand checks - 69%"


What is your opinion the Constitution? "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.

Well regulated."

We'll wait.

sparty,

I think that most telling facts are about guns being used against the owner or someone they live with, such as 'guns are 7 times more likely to be used on you or a loved one'

Your only use of numbers is "one of millions who love voting" as part of an ad hominem attack.

Did I miss something? Lots of folks love voting. Last election, 65 million loved voting more for Obama than the 1 term governor. What's your point? (if you have one)

...well I guess if you get all your factual(?) information from Google and other internet search sites, it must be true. Saves oneself from practicing in traditional educational means offered by higher education institutes. It is unfortunate that Americans now rely on pie charts and simple line graphs put forth by questionable internet search sites and media outlets to formulate constitutional law opinion. Oh Well! What a pity! The point of the story was, and is, that the Mayor used a public meeting to encourage ignorance and misused his office to express personal opinion.

@ohwell "Saves oneself from practicing in traditional educational means offered by higher education institutes.... rely on pie charts and .. graphs put forth by questionable internet search sites and media outlets..."

You mean Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the CDC, and the most prestigious: JAMA? Just trashy, questionable sites like that?

Most of the valid stats ARE from universities since the NRA and the GOP started banning government agencies from tracking stats about gun use and shootings.

Harvard School of Public Health: Web Link includes research from University of Michigan, JAMA, foundations, etc..

Johns Hopkins: Web Link

poster @ohwell - don't worry sweetie, they use charts and graphs so you can understand them.

As for constitutional opinions, why not start with this one:

"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."

Another idiotic and purely symbolic gesture, which is what ANYONE to the right of 'fanatic liberal' has come to expect with Palo Alto. I was born here many years ago. We were a nice mix of working class and upper class. Now all we have are ultra leftist idiots, case in point, our city government.

SO our mayor is not against illegal guns. If they're already illegal then EVERYONE would be technically against them. Why don't the just tell the truth and call themselves "Elitist Mayors who will use any lie or gimmick to harass gunowners and limit gun ownership, despite overwhelming evidence that punishing the law abiding does NOTHING to change the actions of the Lawless.

NRA Member- Your anger and misinformation on the subject is unfortunate. Continuing to post your anger and hide your identity on minimally posted threads such as this one only encourage irreverence. If you choose to base your opinion on important issues using search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and the likes...great! However stating information gathered on these sites as fact is somewhat simple minded. I am sure, however, that information gathered on these sites are always party favorites and encourage conversation. The point of the article written was that the Mayor used a public meeting to encourage ignorance and misused his office to express personal opinions.

"ohwell": "Continuing to post your anger and hide your identity "

Hahahahaha. Pot, meet also anonymous kettle "ohwell". Too funny!

Ohwell also ignores hard data from Harvard, JAMA, John Hopkins, etc.. and again labels it as "...your opinion on important issues using search engines such as Google, Yahoo..."

JAMA ain't no google! Look it up, you obviously have no clue what it is!

Loser. No facts. Just start an ad homiem style attack with "Your anger and misinformation..."

Dude who posts no facts has no choice but to go ad hominem against the poster who uses JAMA, university studies, etc..

Awesome!

Ohwell: "his inability to research Constitutional rights"

Start with: "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.

Well regulated."

Palo Alto... who would have guessed that they would fall for liberal bs??? Bloomberg is trying to get all guns banned - except for those that protect him and the liberal elite, of course:

Web Link

This is a major step supporting the effort to bring sanity to the streets of our country. Thank you Mayor Scharff for taking immediate action. As our Congress stumbles on this issue; I'm proud of the 1000 plus mayors who are taking local corrective action.