Portland Hears New Gun Ordinances.
Last night, Portland held a hearing on Mayor Sam Adams’s proposed ordinances to fight “gun violence.” No vote was held but one is scheduled for December 1st. Video available here.
The proposal includes new curfews for juveniles who have been convicted of “gun related” offenses and are still on parole, and the designating of “hotspots” where persons convicted of “gun-related” crimes may not go while they are on parole or probation. Adams said the “hotspots” had been the center of gun violence for 2 decades but failed to explain why the city just didn’t send more cops there.
The usual cast of characters were on hand including Ginny Burdick, who told the panel that most gun owners “agreed with her” and that in spite of all that love,through her long battle she had received many death threats. Sam Adams thanked her for her years of service and noted that by introducing these ordinances, he was “standing on her shoulders.” If that’s not a weird enough mental image for you, he also thanked Multnomah County Commissioner Judy Shiprack for “mentoring” him. Given Sam’s definition of “mentoring” we really don’t want to go there. Shiprack testified that the County would be looking at similar proposals in January.
Former House member and anti-gun extremist Joanne Bowman testified that she was fine with the gun restrictions but opposed exclusionary zones because they would mostly affect young black men. She testified that since the new ordinance was targeted at only 20 to 30 people the city should just get them all together for a “community meeting.” As relieved as we are that she no longer has a vote in Salem, we do kind of miss the comic relief.
The new ordinances also impose a more stringent curfew on minors convicted of “gun crimes” but make exceptions for “church activities.” Council member Amanda Fritz was quick to clarify that this definition would include “mosques.” That actually made sense except that she also wanted to make sure it included synagogues, apparently so that the many Jewish gang bangers in Portland would not be inconvenienced. (Some of those bar mitzvahs have gotten out of hand.) Fitz also wanted to know if guns had serial numbers.
An exchange near the end of the hearing demonstrated that no one there had a clue what the laws are concerning open carry.
The city presented some interesting statistics. They said that while “persons of color” made up 25% of the city’s population, they were over 50% of the victims of homicide. At no time was any mention made of the race of the perpetrators of these homicides. The Portland Mercury quotes Adams as saying “People being murdered by guns are Portlanders of color.” People are being murdered by guns? Not other people, guns? They’re self-animated now? The Mayor did not mention what color the guns who were murdering people were.
The city also stated of the homicides from 2007 to 2010, firearms were used in 42%. That leaves 58% of killings totally unaffected by Adam’s proposals.
There are two provisions of special interest to gun owners.
The first is a new offense if a gun owner does not keep his firearms locked up. If a child gains access to a firearm, the gun owner faces 10 days in jail and a $500.00 fine. If a child gains access to a firearm and leaves the premises, the punishment is 20 days in jail and a fine of $750.00. If the child gains access and takes the gun to a school or school related event, the gun owner faces 30 days and a $2500.00 fine.
The exceptions are if the “child” broke into your home or your guns were locked up or you had a trigger lock on your gun. The ordinance also states that it does not apply if you gave your child “permission” to have the gun. This is an interesting exception. Both sections 1 and 2 of the lock up ordinance state that the “child” had to gain access without your permission. Section 1 describes a “child” gaining access to a firearm, and section 2 describes a “child” getting access and leaving the premises. So, if you are a gun owner with a young gang banger residing with you, and you decide to leave your guns lying around and your micro-thug takes one down to the local gang recreational area, you have not committed an offense if you gave him permission.(Makes sense to us.)
Oregon’s state preemption law addresses this pretty clearly:
166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]
Emphasis added.
So how can Portland regulate the storage of firearms? Well according to their lawyer, David Woboril, they were not regulating “storage”, they were regulating “access management.”
The second new ordinance of interest to gun owners is a proposal to make it a crime if you fail to report a lost or stolen gun. If you fail to provide a serial number for the stolen gun, the city will charge you $200.00 as an “administration fee.” You’re robbed once by a burglar and once by the city. No word on what they are administering.
We’re still trying to determine what legitimate gun owner would NOT report a stolen gun. But oddly, there is a built in defense if you simply say you didn’t know it was missing. (OK, we get it.)
The ordinance states that this provision “enables police to respond more rapidly to a report that a gun was stolen and possibly return it to its owners or track down the thieves.” (Which means the police can respond more quickly to a report of a stolen gun, if there is a report of a stolen gun.)
That’s on page 3. On page 2, the ordinance states the following: “Over 150,000 firearms were reported lost or stolen in 2008. 85% of these guns were never recovered and tens of thousands more were likely never even reported.” So we can certainly see the value of this idea. Of course we’re not sure how they conclude that “tens of thousands” were likely never even reported, because, well…they weren’t reported.
Adams’s proposals are pathetic. We’ll keep an eye on this and keep you informed.