Guns and firearm violence has been of increasing concern across the nation. While the city of Davis has only one licensed firearms dealer in Davis – Big 5 – the city is looking into a proposed ordinance to regulate local firearms dealers.
The ordinance, if passed, would require among other things a Davis Firearms Dealer Permit, and require “an investigation of the business to ensure compliance with the provisions of various laws and security requirements.”
It would further require “background checks on the dealers and those engaged in the firearms-related business” and “impose security requirements and alarms for the safe storage and display of firearms.”
Big 5 and other businesses potentially would be required to “[e]xclude, both physically and visually, persons under 18 from areas of establishments displaying firearms.”
The staff report notes, “The Police Department recently reached out the manager of Big 5 regarding this proposed ordinance. The manager said they had already been talking at their district sales level about moving firearms from the Davis store to another area store with a higher sales demand, however, no firm decision has been made.”
Should Big 5 continue firearms sales in their Davis store “they would be required to come into compliance with the new ordinance within the required timeframes. Their legal department was provided staff contact information in case they wanted to discuss the proposed ordinance.”
Importantly, staff writes, “by passing this ordinance now, Davis will have a full regulatory scheme for imposing strict security measures for dealers should any additional want to operate in Davis in the future. In other words, a dealer wanting to go into business here would have fair warning of the local permit and security requirements.”
Under state law, notwithstanding Second Amendment considerations on the right to bear arms, cities have “the broad power to suppress, prohibit and regulate all things injurious to the public welfare.”
City staff notes that cities cannot pass ordinances in conflict with the US or State Constitution, but the state has “not preempted a city from enacting local ordinances.”
Local ordinances, staff writes, “are permitted in many instances, including the areas that are identified in the proposed Davis ordinance.”
In addition, state law could change. SB 220 would impose “standardized security requirements for firearms dealerships operating in California” and is making its way through the state legislature.
According to staff, the Davis proposed ordinance mirrors that of SB 220. However, “even if SB 220 becomes law, its sets minimum-security standards and the new law, if passed, specifically states that local jurisdictions retain the authority to create stricter firearms dealership security requirements than the minimums imposed by State law.”
The author of SB 220 notes, “Guns are stolen from gun stores due to a lack of adequate security. In some cases, guns are left in their display cases without suitable locking mechanisms, making them easy targets for burglars.”
Data from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) show that between 2012 and 2017 over 1,600 guns were reported as stolen from federally licensed gun dealers in the state.
The author adds that “stolen guns are unlikely to be found or recovered. According to a Federal Department of Justice analysis of firearms stolen during household burglaries, no more than 20% are recovered within 6 months of being stolen.”
However, in 2017, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill to SB 220, arguing: “This bill would require additional security enhancements on the premises of all licensed firearms dealers in California. State law already requires that firearms dealers enact security measures to avoid theft.”
He added, emphasized by city staff, “Local jurisdictions can-and have-gone further by adding additional specific requirements. I believe local authorities are in the best position to determine what, if any additional measures are needed in their jurisdictions.”
Wow, a PERMIT. A piece of paper stored at City Hall. Scary.
We an install an entire bureaucratic process to inspect one store, Big 5? And I’m sure there are all sorts of other arms dealers just waiting to open up in Davis, so why not? Maybe it will solve our economic problems.
That’ll make us all safer. I’m sure Big 5’s insurance company doesn’t already impose such.
I have an idea: when shootings occur and we all feel helpless, let’s pass a meaningless, feel-good, local ordinance that does nothing in reality, so we feel like we did something?
Great idea!
I’m sure the Davis City Council will agree with me and pass this unanimously.
There’s only so much cities can do on regulating firearms sales. I prefer to encourage rather than mock those efforts.
It wouldn’t require an additional bureaucracy. We are already inspected annually by the fire department for safety reasons, and we pay a fee for that. They would, I assume, simply add this specific inspection to that process.
We have no idea what they require. This would codify it.
Brown vetoed the law because it was duplicative, not because it was a bad idea. This really will do something? This really will stop someone?
I think it’s people feeling helpless and finding a wasteful way to channel that feeling, instead of accepting how difficult it is to stop the next event, being mental health screenings of a country to pinpoint a ‘next event’ is all-but impossible, given knowing a geographic location in the vastness of the country is all-but impossible, given the time and date that the event will strike is all-but impossible. These are the realities.
It’s like trying to stop suicides along the rail lines — WHO, WHEN, WHERE we ask! And one cop patrols miles of lines, or a security guard sits at a crossing while someone jumps in front of a train by hopping a fence 1/4-mile down. No way to enforce, no way to predict, no way to find. Sucks, doesn’t it?
Mass shootings are even more difficult to know WHO, WHEN, WHERE. Sucks. Just sucks.
America doesn’t have unique mental health issues. America has unique mass shooting incidences. The goal is to reduce ease of access to guns for those who shouldn’t have them. Regulating the security of gun access is one possible part of that.
No, it’s like trying to prevent airplane hijackings. Which we largely did by implementing security procedures at airports.
A terrible comparison. Those have unique portals and limited numbers – still costs billions. The landscape of mass shootings is the entirety of the US.
Also a terrible comparison. My comparison to stopping kids from smoking pot – pass lass, maybe discourage a few kids, probably not the kids who may have problems and will find a way.
Alan – It’s defeatist attitudes like yours that got us where we are today. What do you see as the primary cause, if not absurdly easy access to guns, and what’s your proposed solution?
Thanks for the personal shot, that made my day. Defeatist to point out that this will do nothing? That’s just reality. The primary cause is a contagion of attention to those with mental illness. But you changed the subject – cause wasn’t the issue. And how will making access ‘less absurdly easy’ prevent someone who wants guns and ammo from getting guns and ammo? Again, pot is illegal for children, and it’s absurdly easy for them to get some. How does that prevent children who may have a problem from pot from getting some? They will find a way.
So apparently this is a uniquely American problem, this “contagion of attention to those with mental illness.” Admittedly, I have no idea what you mean by that phrase, so it’s possibly true. But not likely.
It’s possible there is some other aspect that is uniquely American. Just can’t quite put my finger on it.
So, I take it you would advocate the repeal of laws that prohibit the sale of marijuana to children because they are, in your view, ineffective. In your words, “they will find a way.”
Not at all, and I already stated that. “they will find a way results in millions of stoned teenagers — maybe not what we want, but does not kill children-at-schools, movie&concert-goers, people-at-work, etc. “they will find a way”, which they will with guns, results in dead people.
. . . and yes, I know what you are going to say next, so go right ahead, I’ll answer . . .
. . . eventually.
Alan,
It is not that a piece of paper is scary. It is about placing barriers between those they would harm and who would do harm with weapons and ammunition by making them harder to acquire. I realize this act of prevention through having to jump through hoops is against your basic philosophy. But I also imagine that routinely occurring massacres also goes against your grain.
But who is jumping through hoops? This is like trying to prevent teenagers from smoking marijuana by making it illegal for them to do so. OK, maybe that’s a thing to do, but let’s not actually think it will stop teenagers from smoking marijuana. And this isn’t about smoking marijuana, it’s about a very, very, very, very, very, very small percentage of people acquiring a gun and ammo. In other words, they will find a way. So let’s be real that this law won’t do sh*t.
And EG it’s that I’m mocking the law. No, I’m mocking people who think such a law will be effective. And unfortunately, that’s a lot of people.
Alan – The NRA’s response to every proposed gun control measure is that it wouldn’t have prevented a particular mass murder, or, criminals will find ways around the law. Your argument, like those of the NRA, is a rationalization for doing nothing.
I’m not a fan of the NRA nor do I come from their vibe. However, how is doing something – meaningless — helpful?
It lets people move on.
I am going to demonstrate in a very personal way, how placing barriers can affect behavior. I have never smoked weed alone. As a teen, I didn’t smoke weed not because I wouldn’t have liked to have my own, but because I was too intimidated to go out to buy it on my own. I only got it from friends and offered to pay them for it. They usually declined. The laws served as a deterrent to me. Not to everyone. Probably not to most. But they were essential to my very low level of usage. I doubt I am the only one.
A tad off topic, Tia, but maybe not so much…
As to guns… Dad had to carry/use one in WWII… he was a Medic, in the Pacific… they gave medics 45’s, because they knew the medics could hit the broadside of a barn with a rifle… as far as he could remember, although he carried a 45 and had to shoot it, he doubted he had ever hit anyone (they gave medics 45’s, just in case they got lucky and hit someone… 45’s could put someone ‘down’, rendering them a bit helpless, even if you hit them in the shoulder…)
Dad never owned a gun… he figured that if someone, like a burglar, came into the house, that would ‘arm’ them… most burglars want to avoid a weapons charge if they get caught, so don’t “carry”. I’ve never owned a gun.
But Dad and I loved target shooting, and I was quite good at it. Other folk’s guns.
Guns aren’t the problem, per se… “Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people”… I hope the ordinance focuses on ammo at least as much as ‘the delivery system’… think I read where Israel has no limits on the guns you can own, but severely restricts how much ammo you can buy.
Banning huge clips, limiting purchases of ammunition, getting rid of military style automatic weapons automatic weapons, etc. can be effective.
If I were to own a gun for home protection, I’d own a double barreled shotgun… pretty much neutralize anybody. Probably wouldn’t even kill them… if I need to fire a gun, wouldn’t wait “to see the white of their eyes”.
So, getting back to topic, I have no problem with the ordinance… but have a real problem with folk posturing that it will matter (not even one scintilla!) to keep Davis, Yolo County, the State, or the US, “safe”, or “safer”…
I am not against gun ownership… might even own a shotgun and a 22 some day… but neither will be automatics… and the shotgun will be for protection and skeet (I’m pretty good at that, too), and the 22 rifle will be for putting holes in paper targets… an eyesight test… or maybe plinking a can or two. But the ordinance doesn’t interfere, one iota.
The NRA has been mentioned… they should be commended for their focus of gun/hunter safety training, advocacy for trigger locks, gun safes, making sure that folk don’t let their young kids to have access, except under supervision, even if they go weird when anything ‘threatens’ to impinge on their narrow/biased reading of the 2nd amendment… a mixed bag… NRA is neither God nor Satan.
There’s no way to know one way or the other. But each such security measure might deter someone at sometime with minimal burden on gun dealers.
As to the NRA, its mission and focus have changed over the years. It is now the mouthpiece for firearms manufacturers and dealers. Its primary mission is to prevent virtually any gun control regulations. So, perhaps not Satan but definitely diabolical.
Not uniquely American, possibly exacerbated by the culture. Possibly not fair as I did not define the phrase. What I mean is someone who starves for attention and feels a ‘hole’ that cannot be filled to be someone, to be known or recognized in a society that broadcasts the values of popularity and stardom. Because the media broadcasts and glorifies the perpetrators of mass shootings and publish their manifestos, each new perp becomes a ‘star’ in the eyes of the next mentally ill, attention-starved loon, fueled also by the instantaneous information spread in social media. The next potential perp sees that they, too, can become media stars and have all their thoughts published and known to all, with bonus points and more attention for killing more people, and a gold-star from Satan if you set a record for the most people ever killed by a loon. Thus, a perpetuating, ever-growing ‘contagion for attention’, if you will. And it’s possible you will not.
I’m sure having the local Big-5 regulated by the City of Davis so it has an extra lock on it’s gun case will put a dent in the 400 million guns available in the US, 3/4 of which are unregistered. Any chance a determined perp will be deterred from acquiring a gun if they are determined to kill en masse, because the Big 5 aisle next to the guns has a “No One Under 18 Allowed” sign over the counter . . . do you BELIEVE that? I will hang my head in shame if an unregulated Davis Big 5 becomes the buying point for a mass shooter — although no points if it’s perpetrated by some attention-starved Davis Vanguard loon commenter doing so to spite yours truly.
OK
I assume you mean there are a lot of guns? I dunno for sure, since we obviously don’t think on the same planet of logic. But that’s the point — there are 400 million guns, most of which are not registered. The military operation to gather all those up would take decades if not centuries, and end up with a lot more people killed than mass shootings. I mean, even if you successfully gathered up 100 million guns by 2145, you’d still have 300 million to go. So how in any way is this ordinance a sane way to ‘solve’ mass shootings, or even put a dent in them? And is it not redundant of state law and Big 5 policy most likely anyway, like the law Brown vetoed?
It’s not likely, to say the least. But, not seeing any particular harm in the local ordinance, either.
Seems like gun control is being approached on a piecemeal basis by local and state governments, as well as some businesses who sell guns.
Kind of reminds me of the differences in laws/regulations between local and state governments, vs. the federal government. With the local/state governments eventually “wearing down” the federal government laws and regulations, at times.
I’d agree that it’s difficult to put the Genie back into the bottle, regarding gun availability. And ever-more so, over time. Nor is it likely that news coverage can be effectively/completely “censored”, via the Internet.