A gun control bill that would give local control for Oakland to enact stronger restrictions than the rest of the state passed the Assembly Tuesday. The bill, authored by Oakland Assemblyman Rob Bonta, aims to allow the Oakland City Council to fashion legislation that would curb rising gun violence within its borders.

The bill, authored by Oakland Assemblyman Rob Bonta, aims to allow the Oakland City Council to fashion legislation that would curb rising gun violence within its borders. It now heads to the State Senate after winning passage by a 45-25 vote.

“This is a unique law relating to unique circumstances in Oakland,” said Bonta on the floor of the Assembly. Following over 4,000 shootings in Oakland, in addition to 131 homicides last year, Bonta says he is seeking to give Oakland city officials to option to tighten local gun laws. Through the end of this May, Oakland has already suffered nearly 40 homicides

Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, one of the bill’s sponsors said the legislation only seeks to confer the same opportunity the Legislature recently gave Los Angeles and its own specific problems with gun violence. “This bill recognizes that one size does not fit all,” said Skinner.

Gun rights advocates, however, fear AB 180 is an attack on their right to bear arms that could spread to other municipalities.

Assembly Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia), one of the right’s strongest Second Amendment supporters and likely gubernatorial candidate next year, said the bill is “onerous” and a “really bad idea.”

“It is going to deny every citizen in Oakland the right of self-defense,” said Donnelly. “If this were about the polls every Democrat’s mic would be up. They would be opposing this saying, this is a poll tax.

“This is really a poll tax on your right to defend your own life.”

Donnelly added during his floor speech, cities with skyrocketing crime are also places with the strongest gun control. “Just because people live in a certain zip code, I do not believe we should pass a law to deny them a fundamental, God-giving, Constitutional right to defend their lives and their families and their businesses.”


Cross posted from East Bay Citizen..Photo reposted from East Bay Citizen,http://bit.ly/15iJe0o, Used with permission

About The Author

18 Responses

  1. Cletus O'Bannon

    Moving forward with stupid! Apparently Oakland desires to be in direct competition with Chicago! And this is the perfect way to do it. Clamp down on those that are not inclined to break the law so that those who are willing to do so can do so with impunity. There has to be something in the air or maybe the water or it could be the organic food, that makes Californians stupid.

  2. miguel

    It’s unfortunate that this article doesn’t explain what the bill actually does. It allows Oakland to add some kind of “poll tax” to guns?

  3. Wayne Marchant

    Diane Finstein has armed boy guards and maybe a CCW permit, and Obama secret service TAKE THEIR GUNS will fix things for sure.
    They would likely be killed. Homeowners who are law abiding citizens should be issued CCW permits for their legally registered firearms.
    Better yet just announce that OPD has no problem with legally owned guns in the owner’s possession in public.
    Now if a felon with a illegal gun is killed OPD should feel lucky and not arrest anyone except the felon’s buddies.
    What is up here is the politicians have insulation and clouded thinking to benefit themselves.
    The “Rodney King ROT syndrome” is obvious to police officers and should be to the public at large as well. The lowest of all acts up with the dice roll of benefit and are rewarded. Behave, make something of yourself to be productive and not a parasite on society is not understood by thugs.
    There is a lot of good folks in Oakland that if given the power would clean it up but the police protect the thug and prevent it.
    The layer of laws is now selectively enforced and knee jerk is going to make more laws because that is the wind bags job.

  4. baffomet

    I couldn’t agree more Cletus! 1) They think that if Oakland had stricter gun laws that criminals will magically not be able to get them from neighboring cities. 2) The article didn’t include the fact that even Bonta acknowledged that guns used in crimes in Oakland are stolen!!! How is more laws and restrictions going to prevent gun violence when a crime to obtain the gun has already occurred?????

    This is going to more money wasted when the state/city gets sued and then have to pay all the legals fees that will not stand up in court.

  5. todd

    It’s amazing the amount of misinformation being offered by the posters here. A link to the bill is below. Read it. AB 180 allows the city of Oakland to enact an ordinance or regulation regulating the registration or licensing of firearms that is more restrictive than those enacted by the state. That’s it. No poll tax. No limiting of the rights of legal gun ownership. Further, it specifies that any such ordinance or regulation must be in accordance with federal law (which since Heller in 2008 makes gun ownership an individual, not just a collective right). It allows local law enforcement to quickly ascertain those guns that are legally owned and those that are not. I wish the other posters would actually read the bill before telling us all how bad it will be.

    • doubting thomas

      todd- read the discussions and read the lae as you requested. my question is just how much of a free hand do you want to give a bunch of politicians in oakland. there are no specifics in the law and to go a step further take time to look at all the laws relating to guns proposed by the kalifornia legislature

    • todd

      I honestly have a hard time understanding your question. I mean, we live in a republic, right? Since our whole basis of government is a representative form of government, I don’t share your apparent disdain for politicians. They were elected by a majority, and I have a hard time understanding people who ridicule
      the will of the people. Now I’ll admit there are questions about how far they can go, questions we’ve been discussing here quite vigorously, but ultimately, as a resident of Oakland, I want the politicians to be as aggressive as the constitution allows when it comes to the regulation of all handguns.
      How about you?

  6. M. Sage

    It’s amazing the level of cognitive dissonance Todd is suffering from when he posts here. According to him, having more restrictions on the possession and purchase of firearms is not restrictive. Hmm, interesting.

    Todd, you do realize that these things will not only make it harder for law abiding people to obtain and keep firearms, but increase the costs associated with them? If that’s not a poll tax, I don’t know what is.

    • todd

      Funny how you offer nothing factual to support your statement. Just the same old personal belief that all gun nuts offer up and expect all to believe….just because you say so. The bill in question does nothing to prohibit lawful ownership of guns. Heller states you have a right to own a gun for protection, and this bill does nothing to limit that right. If you’re not capable of stating factually what is wrong with this bill, then why are you even commenting here?

    • HDStreetBob2009

      Todd says, “AB 180 allows the city of Oakland to enact an ordinance or regulation regulating the registration or licensing of firearms that is more restrictive than those enacted by the state. That’s it. No poll tax. No limiting of the rights of legal gun ownership.” We’ll, if these bills are MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THOSE OF THE STATE, your words, then they are in fact limiting rights because when you RESTRICT you are limiting. Second, Heller did not make a right of individual ownership as opposed to a collective right. What it did was remind the government that the right is a natural right in existence prior to the Constitution. It’s stems from the right of self defense. The Bill of Rights, which the 2nd Amemndment is part of, are not exclusively collective rights. Yes, they are meant for all the people, but they are also a guarantee of individual rights so that neither government nor the collective masses can deprive the individual of his/her rights. We are individuals with individual aspirations, not drones in a collective colony. This bill will be either vetoed or found to be unconstitutional. At a minimum, it violates California Constitutional law. The problem is that many of these Democratic legislatures in California have not bothered to read either the California and/or US Constitution.

    • todd

      So you’ll just be spewing NRA propaganda. How refreshing. Until Heller, communities had the right to restrict gun ownership beyond felons and the mentally ill. That’s how the cities of Morton Grove, Washington D.C., and New York did it. That’s because in US v Miller the second amendment was deemed a collective right to arm as part of the militia (all able bodied citizens). Heller was the first instance of the court ruling we had the right as individuals to have a gun to protect our home. You say different Bob, and I challenge you to site the case. You wont be able to, but the time away from foxnews doing a little research will certainly do you some good.

  7. Kilo Mike

    This bill is great. I hope it makes everybody feel better about gun violence in Oakland. Finally, all the criminals in Oakland will have to register their firearms. This is great, because we’ll be able to return all the stolen guns to their rightful owners. Why just today, somebody drew down on an Oakland PD officer w/ a pistol that was stolen out of Georgia. Didn’t turn out so good for the perp, but maybe if he had registered the gun and it was found to be stolen, it could have been returned to Georgia.

    OH WAIT, this would never happen. Criminals are criminals, and if you’re going to 1) have a stolen firearm you are 2) probably not allowed to have a firearm in the first place and 3) if you’re going to draw down on the cops you’re probably not going to register the damn thing.

    Whatever, we’ll see how it goes. I’m happy to register my firearms, but then again…mine aren’t stolen and I don’t have a record.

  8. Hector

    My english sucks can somebody tell me the meaning of this sentence from the bill:

    “The bill would also provide that those provisions relating to the carrying of a handgun within the person’s place of residence, place of business, or on specified property do not affect the application of the aforementioned authorization to the City of Oakland.”

    Can I STILL open or conceal carry on MY property?

  9. Garvin

    When ever a politician wants to infringe in any way on you 2nd Amendment rights you need to ask yourself, “What does this politician have in their agenda that would make them fear law abiding lawfully armed citizens?
    Remember the first step to confiscation is registration. History has shown us that on multiple occasions. From Germany prior to WWII to just recently in England. But we don’t have to worry about that here, right? What just happened in NY? Get a clue folks, don’t let anyone infringe in any way with your civil rights. Weather it’s the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to privacy in your personal papers and property. READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS, LEARN WHAT IS SAYS AND MEANS.

  10. OaklandCitizen

    What is the law? What is a synopsis of the law? If I had an opinion or observation about the law, what would I be commenting on? Great that you are on the web, I “love you”, I ain’t mad at you and you have not told me a single thing about the law…
    (which I thought was the main point of your article)

  11. Max Allstadt

    “Saturday Night Specials” (cheap handguns) are banned in Oakland. This has had no effect on their use in crime in Oakland.

    It is illegal to purchase ammunition by mail in Oakland. This has had no effect on ammunition being used in crime in Oakland.

    Local gun control laws targeting law abiding citizens will not change a damn thing. The guns used in Oakland crime are already mostly illegally owned. The people who illegally own them are not going to suddenly register them just because Oakland says they must.

    Further, the Oakland Police Department solves so few violent crimes that it doesn’t have reliable data on how many guns stolen from lawful Oakland gun owners end up being used in crimes. There is, however ample evidence that out-of-state guns are being used by Oakland criminals, because the police routinely recover guns that are banned in California.

    This is a law that makes a hassle for law abiding citizens and makes nobody safer.

    If you want a gun law that does make us safer, create a system where anyone convicted of using a weapon in a violent crime must have a special encoding on their ID for 5-10 years. If a policeman scans the ID, it would show up as a “weapon offender”, and anyone who is a weapon offender should be subject to warrantless searches of their home and person for weapons. We have many repeat offenders, and this would give them pause about carrying illegally.

    • todd

      Great idea Max. Seriously, really great idea. We all might not agree on gun control, but I for one wish our politicians would take the time to think outside the box, as you have obviously done here.

  12. Libby Schaaf

    Here’s a related article I wrote about AB180 http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/05/the-limits-of-local-gun-laws-community-voices/ . As Bonta’s local partner in developing this bill, my first interest for a local law if AB180 passes is to create a gun confiscation procedure when people become “prohibited” from gun ownership due to a felony conviction or mental health diagnosis. Oakland would not be able to ban guns under this law. It would only allow Oakland to pass stricter registration and licensing laws if needed. Cities like New York, Chicago and Washington DC have benefited from stricter licensing. Oakland should have the option too.
    Oakland City Councilmember Libby Schaaf


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.