|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Gun owners in Palo Alto would be required to keep their firearms safely secured or face penalties under a new law that the City Council is preparing to adopt.
On early Tuesday morning, in its final action of the year, the council endorsed a proposal in a new memo from Mayor Adrian Fine and council member Alison Cormack to create a safe-storage requirement. By a unanimous vote, members directed City Attorney Molly Stump to draft an ordinance establishing the new storage rules. Once the law is approved, Palo Alto will join a growing number of cities and counties that require gun owners to keep the firearms stored in locked containers or disabled with a trigger lock.
In backing the requirement, Palo Alto is joining a crowded group of cities and counties throughout the region that have adopted safe-storage rules in recent years. San Jose adopted its safe-storage law in 2017, joining cities such as San Francisco and Oakland that have already had such a requirement in place. Redwood City followed suit in April 2019 with an ordinance that bars residents from keeping a firearm in any residence unless they are carrying it, storing it in a locked container or have it disabled with a trigger lock.
Santa Clara County approved a similar requirement in November 2019, when it approved a safe-storage ordinance for the county’s unincorporated areas. In explaining the need for the new law, a report from county staff noted that 39,773 people in the U.S. lost their lives in firearms-related incidents in 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 486 were due to accidental discharge of weapons.
The report noted that 11% of the injury deaths in Santa Clara County in 2016 were due to firearms.
“Studies have found that safe storage of a firearm and keeping the firearm unloaded both decrease the risk for suicide,” the report states. “Further, studies have found that the vast majority of guns used in youth suicides, unintentional shootings among minors and school shootings perpetrated by minors are acquired from the minor’s home, or from the homes of relatives or friends.”
The memo from Cormack and Fine similarly cites the 2017 numbers, as well data from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that shows about 114,000 people are shot every year in the U.S., of whom 8,000 are 17 years old or younger.
“A safe storage requirement can help prevent the theft of firearms and may reassure and protect our public safety personnel,” the memo states.
Cormack called the new safe-storage requirement a “public health necessity” rather than a Second Amendment debate.
“It’s clear that we can prevent tragic death by firearms,” Cormack said.
The memo states that the proposal is “not intended to criticize firearm owners nor abridge the rights protected by the second amendment to the Constitution.”
“Rather, by protecting firearms from theft and misappropriation, it is meant to propose well-researched and common-sense measures that can save lives and prevent injuries in our community,” the memo states.
Fine pointed to examples in the east bay and on the Peninsula and said a safe-storage requirement has been on his mind for a long time.
“Even though we’ve dealt with a lot of emergent issues in 2020, every month or two I see an article about gun sales seeing records in 2020, many of them to first-time buyers,” Fine said. “I think there is actually an increase in need for this in our community.”
Several residents and citizens groups, including the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, urged the council to move ahead with the new requirements.
Kelly Travers, a physician who volunteers with Moms Demand Action, said gun storage laws help prevent unintentional deaths of children and teen suicides. A safe-storage device, she noted, can be obtained for as little as $40.
“Under COVID, because of the dramatic rise of gun sales we have seen a shocking 45% increase in intentional death of small children due to all the excess time now being spent in the home and a 7% increase in what was already a very high (number) for teen suicides using guns,” Travers said.
She also noted that her organization supports a civil, rather than criminal, penalty for violating the ordinance. This could be a fine or a community service.
“A criminal penalty is unnecessary,” she said. “Most firearm owners are law-abiding and will follow the law if it is simply in place — like the seatbelt law. That really just changed the culture. People now pretty much all do it.”
My UK family are farmers and own firearms to deal with agricultural pests.
Those firearms are required to be kept in a locked approved cabinet which is subject to inspection and only a firearm trained registered owner has access to the locked guns. And the pests are kept well under control.
Death rate by firearms in the UK is 0.23 per 100,000.
Death rate by firearms in the US is 12.21 per 100,000.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
>”Redwood City followed suit in April 2019 with an ordinance that bars residents from keeping a firearm in any residence unless they are carrying it, storing it in a locked container or have it disabled with a trigger lock.”
^ Curious…who walks around their house carrying a loaded gun?
>”A safe storage requirement can help prevent the theft of firearms and may reassure and protect our public safety personnel,” the memo states.”
^ What about the ammo?
> “Cormack called the new safe-storage requirement a “public health necessity” rather than a Second Amendment debate.
^ Anytime restrictions on guns are involved, it immediately becomes a 2nd Amendment issue.
While we don’t own any firearms, many proponents in ‘open carry states’ believe an open carry provision reduces crime as no sane person will argue with a loaded gun. Currently only California, Illinois, New York & the District of Columbia outlaw open carry & ironically, these states/districts have the highest national crime rates.
Many folks who do not own a gun are all for further restrictions on law abiding citizens who own guns for self defense in their homes. What most non-gun owners who have never shot a gun do not realize is there is a strong culture of gun safety by most gun owners that goes far beyond what they imagine. Look up the “four rules of gun safety” if you do not know them for example.
Lee and Gun Safety – please explain this huge difference:
Death rate by firearms in the UK is 0.23 per 100,000.
Death rate by firearms in the US is 12.21 per 100,000.
However, the homicide rate in the UK is 1.17 vs 4.7 in the US so even when you take away guns, folks still find other ways to do this terrible act.
Rape per 100K in UK is 30.2 vs 27 in the US
https://knoema.com/aqqpdkf/rape-rate-per-100-000-population
Interesting distraction but off topic.
>”Lee and Gun Safety – please explain this huge difference:
Death rate by firearms in the UK is 0.23 per 100,000.
Death rate by firearms in the US is 12.21 per 100,000.”
^ Illegal gun ownership…black market sales & related inner city crime + urban population densities of various ethnic backgrounds.
In addition to lower urban population densities, open carry states have lower gun-related crimes because (1) everyone is packing heat & (2) there are explicit laws against firearm misuse/abuse. Discharging a weapon under the influence of alcohol or shooting someone in the back are felonies punishable by severe prison time.
As aforementioned, we do not own any firearms but it is not for us to deprive others of their constitutional rights.
Responsible gun ownership & operation is paramount to a safe & free country…unfortunately there are those who are seemingly incapable of bearing such responsibilities.
“Responsible gun ownership & operation is paramount to a safe & free country”
That is what the Australians believed until that had a mass casualty gun event that changed their minds:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/port-arthur-massacre-shooting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476
@Peter Carpenter…
That Australian incident was obviously an example of irresponsible gun ownership & operation.
In retrospect, one probably wouldn’t want to be around an armed Dick Cheney either.
Lastly, when only the police & armed forces are allowed to carry/own firearms, you will have in essence…a repressive society.
Peter,
This is a topic I have to agree with you on.
I grew up in the center of the American Revolution, next door to Concord Mass. the first formal government to exist in the British Colonies separate from Great Britain.
No one ever proposed undisciplined posession of firearms in any way. In fact technically the 2nd amendment implies this in the text:
“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.”
But are we living with “well regulated Militia”, or are we with unregulated and unsafe possession of firearms?
Any rules to establish discipline in the ownership and use of a firearm OUTSIDE a Militia is in fact perfectly constitutional. Many do not look at the entire 2nd Amendment.
“Lastly, when only the police & armed forces are allowed to carry/own firearms, you will have in essence…a repressive society.”
Actually IMHO many countries where only the police and armed forces are allowed to own guns are much “freer” than the US.
I do not consider myself to be freer because I have to fear 20 times the gun violence here in the US than I would in the UK.
>”…many countries where only the police and armed forces are allowed to own guns are much “freer” than the US.”
Historically speaking…not quite.
https://www.newswars.com/a-brief-history-of-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws/
another community > CP
Lee – A perfect example of cherry picking.
What about all of the dynamic democratic countries that do have strict gun controls vs the handful you cited that are neither democratic or free?
The death rate from firearms per 100K is less than 4 in Santa Clara County, which is the jurisdiction where this takes place. I’m sure it’s much lower in Palo Alto. In addition, the rate of suicides to homicides is about 2 to 1 for firearms in Santa Clara County. So if you’re worried about death from a firearm, you can choose to not own a gun and that will reduce your risk. Unfortunately, even if we took away all firearms it would be unlikely to significantly reduce the suicide rate in Palo Alto.
People vary wildly in their depression levels and emotional volatility. I have never once in my life felt like killing myself or another or physically lost control as an adult so you need assess your own risk. However, it’s also true that one or more bad guys can bust into your house and kill or rape you and a gun is by far the best way to protect yourself in that situation. See this data on causes of death in Santa Clara County:
https://www.livestories.com/statistics/california/santa-clara-county-gun-firearm-violence-deaths-mortality
It should be noted you more likely to die of hypertension than from all types of homicides and suicides combined in Santa Clara County. See data below:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=5bc49b0d95384bbaac6ca4bb787385d7
>”What about all of the dynamic democratic countries that do have strict gun controls…”
^ Not sure if any of these countries could be considered ‘dynamic & democratic’ (or whether they have a national zero gun ownership policy) but given their respective crime rates, some citizens might be in favor of packing some heat as a crime deterrent…even though their country isn’t being run via a conventional dictatorship.
Note the United States is #1 in globally ranked crime & even during the early days of the pandemic, gun sales were up alongside toilet paper.
https://www.trendrr.net/8838/countries-with-highest-crime-rate-world-statistics/
Here are the facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
It is easy to see any correlation between more guns and more gun related deaths.
On the other hand here are some alternative examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control
Again, I have to agree with Peter about one thing.
There are MANY instances of even simple ACCIDENTAL killing of people due to unsafe practices regarding firearms.
And what is really bad is that in most of those cases, NO ONE is held in REAL account for it.
Most “prosecutors” will simply let it slide. There is NO real effort to get gun owners to be aware of the SEVERE consequences they should face even in those situations.
Of course there are also the suicides that are done either DIRECTLY when a person shots themselves or the SUICIDE BY COP to avoid insurance blocking benefits to the people in their lives. They use the guns to threaten a cop which then shoots them dead.
It just seems that prevention of problems is such a better option. I hope Peter does see the irony here because he is now agreeing prevention is better than cure?
” I hope Peter does see the irony here because he is now agreeing prevention is better than cure?”
No irony, you simply don’t understand my position.
In some cases cures are usually better than prevention and in others prevention is the better strategy.
Careful analysis distinguishes between these cases.
Peter,
By the way, we have gotten our first adverse reaction documented based on an UNKNOWN allergic anaphylaxis’s response in Alaska.
This person had NO HISTORY of it. In less than 3 days in the U.S.
Does this mean we are going to get more unpredicted problems?
I hope not.
Prevention is preferable to cure still right?
“Does this mean we are going to get more unpredicted problems?
”
No. Read the Emergency Use Authorization – it notes that there will be adverse reactions and requires that those adverse reactions be tracked and reported.
The EUA also requires that fact sheets that provide important information, including dosing instructions, and information about the benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, be made available to vaccination providers and vaccine recipients.
The company has submitted a pharmacovigilance plan to FDA to monitor the safety of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The pharmacovigilance plan includes a plan to complete longer-term safety follow-up for participants enrolled in ongoing clinical trials. The pharmacovigilance plan also includes other activities aimed at monitoring the safety profile of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and ensuring that any safety concerns are identified and evaluated in a timely manner.
The FDA also expects manufacturers whose COVID-19 vaccines are authorized under an EUA to continue their clinical trials to obtain additional safety and effectiveness information and pursue approval (licensure).
Peter you wrote:
“”Does this mean we are going to get more unpredicted problems?”
No. Read the Emergency Use Authorization – it notes that there will be adverse reactions and requires that those adverse reactions be tracked and reported.”
The word NO cannot be used here because you even stated that adverse reactions to be tracked and reported. You should have said YES, because your answer in fact says they are ANTICIPATED because you also said the studies are ongoing.
Nonetheless, I still agree with you regarding the gun safety issue. It is also a serious ongoing PANDEMIC. In fact, there have been attempts to track gun violence in the same way as a virus. But the NRA has done everything it can to prevent or quash publication of such research.
It is due time to raise the consequences of unsafe ownership or usage of firearms to such a degree that the UNANTICIPATED injuries or deaths are prevented, right?
““”Does this mean we are going to get more unpredicted problems?”
No. The adverse reactions that are being seen were predicted problems and that is why the vaccine received an EUA rather than an New Drug Approval.
We are both off topic. If you want to pursue this discussion please read the FDA recommendations to the Vaccine Committee and the text of the EUA and then start a new topic.
This thread is drifting from outlawing firearms to Covid-19 innoculations.
That said…until FULL public confidence is established, a sizable % of the population will be reluctant to accept the purported safety & long-term efficacy of these recently developed vaccines.
It is interesting to note that a majority of these so-called medical pundits advocating the mass administering of ‘preventative’ vaccines haven’t been innoculated themselves or part of any test group.
Talk is cheap.
Sorry, I was not trying to start a new discussion on the COVID issue.
I still agree with Peter regarding Firearm safety completely.
Unsafe management and operation of a firearm is very serious and firearms should be required to be handled and used correctly.
They clearly are NOT safe products are they? I am hoping that some day there can be a way to make them “safer”. But they clearly are not designed for safety, but to do damage, right?
Kind of like a cigarettes, but very directly designed to do damage.
Concerning death rates here and elsewhere we (USA) have death rates wildly higher than all other nations, with far lower gun ownership rates. As an example of our permissive standards (fought to maintained, tooth and nail by the NRA) , NO country other than the USA allows military type weapons for private citizens . . . the kind of weapons used most frequently in mass shootings, such as all those kids in Florida.
Guns kill people in the USA in numbers comparable to auto deaths – nearly 100 per day.
With noise about “restrictions” of personal freedom, there have been good judgements all the way up to the Supreme Court supporting things like gun safes, gun locks and such. Such things do reduce the half of killings which are so-called accidental gun deaths – guns left around carelessly, even by law enforcement officers, or guns easily reachable and played with by kids and some pseudo-adults . . . These “restrictions” don’t violate the 2nd amendment – they don’t take guns away from anybody, they merely want them to be dealt with for safety.
Gasoline, propane and the like are required to be kept in safe containers . . . is that different?
>”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.”
^ Security is the key word & subject to further interpretation…a free state threatened by outside hostilities or from within?
>”But are we living with “well regulated Militia”,”
^ Armed forces yes and though it is not ordinarily considered a definitive or traditional militia…police firearm regulation remains questionable in the United States.
>”Any rules to establish discipline in the ownership and use of a firearm OUTSIDE a Militia is in fact perfectly constitutional. Many do not look at the entire 2nd Amendment.”
^ Depends on how ‘militia’ is to be defined…government sanctioned (i.e. armed services, National Guard etc.) or private (of which there are many, including both rogue groups & mercenary-style contractors hired for clandestine government operations).
And chances are…they are going to match firepower so as not to be at a technical disadvantage.
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” – D.C. v. Heller (2008)
Dicta:
“[A] statute which, under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense [is] clearly unconstitutional.”
Since the ACLU has made it’s presence well known in certain PACC decisions (i.e. Foothills Park access) perhaps they will intervene on this proposed firearm ordinance citing DC vs Heller (2008).
Either that or a potential home invasion victim will need to request a ‘time out’ from the pepetrator in order to reassemble their firearm or search for the trigger lock key.