A bill giving the Oakland City Council a blank slate to enact stronger gun control measures than the rest of the state heads to the governor’s desk.

The legislation authored by Oakland Assemblymember Rob Bonta, passed Friday by the State Senate, allows the city stricken by gun violence to potentially offer gun laws along the lines of federal regulations, which are more restrictive than the state’s current laws.

The bill’s primary focus rests with the registration and licensing of commercial firearms, but contains does not contain specifics for how public officials in Oakland should implement the new rules. That will rest with Oakland City Council, a body known for its infighting, but regarding the issue of gun violence, have typically been unified in recognizing its corrosive effect on the city.

“No one can deny that Oakland is suffering from among the highest levels of gun violence in the state and in the nation,” Bonta said in a statement late Friday. “AB 180 is a smart and sensible bill that empowers Oakland and provides local control in addressing gun violence–where it is needed most.”

Budget cuts at the statewide level and locally have created a disastrous situation in Oakland as steep cuts in the number of cops on the street has exacerbated its problem with crime, Bonta added.

Gun rights advocates fear Bonta’s bill could set a precedent for tighter gun control measures across the state. During a discussion o then topic last May, Republican Assemblymember Tim Donnelly said the bill’s unintended consequences threaten law-abiding residents. “It is going to deny every citizen in Oakland the right of self-defense,” said Donnelly, who added. “This is really a poll tax on your right to defend your own life.”

 Cross posted from The East Bay Citizen

 

About The Author

7 Responses

  1. Rand Foster

    Hurry up and get this experiment up and running so we can collect the statistics.

    Reply
  2. Mike

    Please explain to me how turning law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen is going to control criminals, who by definition don’t obey laws? I would also like to know how you can justify taxing a specific group of people (gun owners) and yet whine about making people show a valid ID in order to vote, and call that a poll tax?
    Also based on every VALID study done (including the FBI study), restricting firearms to the law abiding public increases the crime rate. I would venture to say that these types of laws are pro criminal as the politicians writing these laws make it easier for the criminals to commit their crimes without fear of armed confrontation. Historically, crime has gone down in cities where gun control hasn’t run wild and crime control is implemented.

    Reply
  3. Mike

    Based on the FBI study, increasing the number of anti-gun laws will have but one result. More crime! Failed experiments like NYC, Detroit, and Chicago prove this point. So why does our local government want to disarm law abiding citizens and leave them to the mercy of the criminals who don’t obey these laws anyway? By disarming the law abiding populace, they are aiding and abetting the criminals. WHY?

    Reply
  4. Len Raphael

    Oakland bad guys here don’t buy their guns in Oakland and probably not even in California.

    This bill will enable Oakland council members to continue to pay lip service to reducing violent crime.

    Gives council members and the Mayor an opportunity to show how tough they are on crime while avoiding making the hard decisions on funding crime reduction efforts.

    Worse than paying Bratton to do nothing because, it will cost us big legal bucks to defend against gun rights groups who will be attracted like flies to honey. Just what we need. More lawyer bills.

    Bonta should have included several million in legal defense in that bill so we don’t spend money on lawyers that would be better spent on more cops and more effective anti-violence programs.

    Reply
  5. Gunny

    One can’t even buy a gun (any type) in Oakland! City Council raised taxes so high on gun sops that the ONLY remaining shop owned by a women shut its’ doors. City Council appealed to the NRA for help but did not listen. The city council wants to tax the gun owners out of existence. Criminals do not get their guns or ammunition from stores unless they rob them! What I see is another “Chicago” or worse a “Detroit” in the making. Gun owners will hang on until either taxed out of their gun(s) or they leave insuring that the criminals will have an increasingly safer work environment.

    Reply
  6. A

    Also, I don’t understand how making it MORE difficult for law abiding citizens along with a lack of police force is going to somehow make things safer for anyone. Oakland is NOT an island or is walled off from other cities. How is passing laws here going to stop criminals from simply just going over a city to get guns going to do anything???

    All they are doing is weakening the citizens here. Hopefully Governor Brown has some sense and vetoes this lame bill.

    Reply
  7. JJ in Oakland

    Because letting cities enact their own gun laws has worked so well in Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, Los Angles…The Oakland City Council is no better then the Democrat leaders in these cities where their local gun ordinances only effect the law abiding citizens typically leaving them defenseless against a criminal element that will not follow these local laws. If Oakland had a similar amount of police officers on the street as other cities of comparably size and population the crime rate would be less of an issue; the people of Oakland, myself included, voted and have been paying for increased police officers on the street but the city has stalled and paid lip service to this obvious defficantcy correlation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.