Date: 16 Aug 1995 14:05:18 -0700 From: "Johann Opitz" Subject: my letter to Murky Snooze To: "BA Firearms" In regards to the San Jose Murky Snooze's report on yesterday's city council meeting === Dear Editor: Having attended the San Jose City Council's meeting Tuesday afternoon where Trixie Johnson's 7-point plan for additional gun control by the city was discussed by the council and concerned citizens, I find the Mercury News description of the audience as "hostile" being a deliberate exaggeration and probably amounts to yellow journalism. Instead, the Mercury News should have congratulated council members Frank Fiscalini, George Shirakawa, Alice Woody, Pat Dando, and Manny Diaz for not jumping on a political-correct grandstanding bandwagon and, instead, questioning the costs, enforcement efforts (including unnecessary duplication of), and other burdens placed upon city government (especially the police department), businesses, FFL holders, and private citizens - plus questioning the effectiveness of the proposed regulations. According to the BATF about half of the licensed gun dealers in the nation have no sales inventory and sell no guns and according to the California Department of Justice, there are six major categories of FFLs who do not need a California Certificate of Eligibility, so possession of a FFL without a Certificate of Eligibility is not presumptive evidence of illegal gun sales. Furthermore, according to the California Department of Justice and the BATF, residential firearms dealers are not a problem and according to the National Institute of Justice, 93% of crime handguns are not obtained from gun dealers. According to state law, the funding and mechanisms already exist to identify and prosecute illegal gun sales and violations of gun dealer laws. Since neither Trixie Johnson nor the San Jose Deputy Police Chief could site any statistics or anecdotes showing that FFLs have been the source of gun-related crime problems in San Jose nor have they presented even one research study (because no such study exists) demonstrating that a ban on residential gun dealers results in a reduction in crime, violence, or accident, then why is there a proposed ordinance to further regulate a "non-problem" other than to harrass otherwise law-abiding citizens? In addition. according to the BATF, eighteen years of national ammunition registration (required by the Gun Control Act of 1968 until repeal in 1986 at the BATF's request) "had no substantial law enforcement value." Also, according to the California Attorney General, it is illegal under California law for local jurisdictions to attempt to regulate firearms sales through the use of zoning ordinances. While many may consider the Councilwoman's Johnson's proposed gun#030#control regulations to be very modest and tolerable changes, I remind those that do think that way of the proverbial "camel's nose in the tent" and of James Madison's words: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." Councilwoman Johnson and Mayor Hammer should do the rest of the city council members, plus the citizens and businesses in San Jose, a big favor and dispose of the proposed gun-control measures in the nearest landfill (after having EPA certify that they are not hazardous waste). Sincerely, Johann P. Opitz == Johann Opitz (W) johann_opitz@smtp.svl.trw.com == (H) johannp@aimnet.com == All Disclaimers Apply (so as to protect my employer) ==