Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 21, 2013 10:00am-10:30am PST

10:00 am
10:01 am
10:02 am
10:03 am
10:04 am
10:05 am
10:06 am
10:07 am
and welcome to the san francisco board meeting. we are joined today by community member supervisor norman and joined by one of our colleagues. the clerk of the committee is evans and we want to acknowledge the following members of s f g tv staff who are covering the meeting. mark bunch. >> do you have any
10:08 am
announcements? >> yes, sir. please silence all devices. files should be submitted to the clerk. items may appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. madam clark can you call items no. 1. >> item no. 1, prohibit sales of law enforcement ammunition. no. 2, police code require reporting 500 or more round >> these two items have been introduce by mayorly and supervisor co-hen. >> thank you very much. thank you. as many of you know i have joined with chief and other leaders to announce this
10:09 am
legislation late last year. this has built upon to take on gun violence. ammunition, lethal ammunition. what the law doesn't restrict is it's possession. now we also have existing regulation that require anyone selling ammunition within the city limits maintain records of their sale which are required to be available for inspection at any time. but no city law requires any reporting of these types of sales by vendors that do not have locations inside the city and county of san francisco but sell to city residents. this is enforcing our existing our regulations. the first proposes to restrict
10:10 am
not only the sale but possession of type of ammunition that is in lethal property designed for use by military personnel. anything sold black talent which was designed with sharp prongs to cause significant injury upon impact. any ammunition designated by manufactures to sale to law enforcement or military agencies only, any ammunition that serves no sporting purpose and any ammunition to disbanned or other objects that are intended to increase the damage of the target. now the ordinances also
10:11 am
required by the police department to create and maintain a public data base of brands and product lines of ammunition meeting the definition of this ordinance. the second ordinance would actually expand on the city's existing record requirements by requiring that any person selling 500 or more rounds of ammunition to someone in a single transaction they must report the sale to the police chief within 24 hours. this is required for anyone who sells ammunition in the city or delivers to city addresses. san francisco violence -- while legislation is not a panacea it
10:12 am
is another tool for our efforts to address gun violence. since introducing this legislation, my office has received significant support from members of the community, clergy and other advocacy groups that have been working on this for years. unfortunately they couldn't be with us here today, but here in this hearing we do have a very important advocate. we've got captain oh leery from the police department and from the mayor's office. dr. cambell regrets he's not able to attend this hearing but is in support of this legislation. he's the head of trauma surgery who ha provided a lot of guidance who
10:13 am
helped us craft this legislation and the impact of what these bullets do to human bodies. mr. chair, i would like to turn the meeting back to you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much supervisor cohen. i would like to ask the mayor's office on be half of mayor if they want to add anything. >> yes, thank you. s f g tv if i can get the overhead. i'm not going to repeat anything cohen said. i just want to show a couple visuals. these are hollow point bullets. we are not propose to to ban all bullets. you can see these
10:14 am
barbs here, this is what a normal hollow point looks like. it flattens out. but these barb bullets this is what they look like. they cause significant damage to internal organs. these little barbs make surgical repair impossible on a victim. i just wanted to share those visuals. thank you very much. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much mr. elliot and this you for the leadership on this issue. i see we have captain oh leery from the san francisco police department and proud to say a former police captain. good to
10:15 am
see you captain oh leery. >> thank you, good morning. good to see you again. the san francisco police department stands in support of both pieces of legislation as they will enhance public safety. my experience with firearms in san francisco has been over the last decades as a police officer i have seen countless of shooting victims and the injuries cause beyond the physical injury, they go into psychological damage as well. i also can tell you that over the years, over the last 30 years i have seen shootings combo go from one or two shots to multiple shots fired. any ammunition into these shootings would cause more havoc. i stand in support of the legislation
10:16 am
to eliminate the sale of these type of bullets as well as asking those that sell the bullets to report the sale of more than 500. >> thank you, captain. any questions for the captain. >> i don't know if there is anyone else, supervisor if you would like to bring up. let me make a couple more points before we turn it to public comment. i'm very proud of the fact that we have this legislation before this body. i think it's snag something we should be very proud of and an approach to rising problem of having too many guns on the streets. my understanding of the 2nd amendment and how it has been applied and the regulation of ammunition, is that when it comes to regulating ammunition there is a different test when the ammunition is not commonly used in the public. in this
10:17 am
case we are talking about a very narrow type of ammunition that has a military purpose. and the purpose is really to create additional injury and harm to an individual and we are not talking about banning other of ammunition that could be used for self defense. i actually think that this is a very measured approach that really strikes to our balance between the concerns that some people have about the 2nd amendment and the public safety concerns that we have. i also think that providing information is important and the law actually does not even prohibit the sale of 500 rounds. it simply requires that the police chief be notified. i think that as a matter of public safety that is a very reasonable reasonable request. so, i'm glad that supervisor
10:18 am
cohen a mayor have taken a leadership on this. i thank you for your leadership. i think this is on strong legal feeding and glad that san francisco take the lead in this position. thank you. >> i just want to echo your words in saying that i deeply appreciate supervisor's cohen and mayor's leadership issue. i grew up in san francisco, there is different periods in san francisco violence hit different neighborhoods and i lived during that time. i just think this is a very as you say a very balanced approach to how we can do legislative and make the city safer for our
10:19 am
residents. again, thank you very much. supervisor mark? >> thank you, i also want to thank chief and captain oh larry and this is nearly tailored and protecting public safety. i think this is important right now and recommend supervisor cohen for bringing this at this time. i do have a question about bullets, i will ask whether other types of hollow point bullets are appropriate and why we are limiting it to barbed hollow point because it seems that if there is no sporting purpose or other purposes for other types, i have a question of other types of bullets and their use. i will talk to you off line on that one. i commend supervisor cohen for this
10:20 am
issue. >> thank you. why don't we open to any member of the public who would like to speak on this item. please come forward. robert green and don duetel. you have three minutes. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is robert green. i want to say that i own no firearms. i stand against these ordinance. i believe the possession of certain sales of ammunition is flawed and would do little if anything to enhance public safety and i recommendation you do not pass. it would require -- one specific ground is identical to another ground. even though it
10:21 am
directs the police department to maintain, it also says failure to do so cannot be used as a defense against the violation of the ordinance. also it does not allow anyone to retain possession of what would become prohibited ordinances prohibited ammunition after the ordinance becomes effective and provides no means of deposing of ammunition for instance if someone is cleaning out their father's attic is deceased and fine that it's stored there is no risk of deposing of that without risk jail and a fine. it also makes no exceptions for someone traveling through san francisco from day-to-day would force to the east bay and san raphael in order to be able to
10:22 am
not risk jail and/or fine. in terms of the reporting of sales of 500 rounds of ammunition, i would like to thank the authors for a proposed change which make it clear that the recordkeeping requirements would apply only to vendors that have a physical presence in san francisco. however, i'm curious as to how san francisco would have the authority to regulate interstate commerce by requires outside vendors to report to the chief of police. i'm concerned that the chief of police believes that the purchase of 500 rounds by anyone raises a flag to law enforcement. it's not uncommon to go through several hundred of rounds when you go to the range and it's also -- than it is to buy 50 round at a time. i would hope that the chief would
10:23 am
be more concerned purchase by prohibited person than an arbitrary rounds by anyone. i fail to see what added benefit there is since vendors already require to maintain records of all sales. i don't see the added benefit. >> thank you, mr. green. next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is don did you dutel. i have a question on this law. has there been a demonstration from the previous legislation that has helped law enforcement by the district attorney where we have people caught with firearms or even using firearms in the city and if this legislation can demonstration where it's filling some holes
10:24 am
or something like that where people are getting off i believe all citizens would like to use that. i do have firearms. a definition that does affect sports man. it's very difficult to have components shipped to san francisco. there are many vendors that do not send ammunition to the san francisco area. 500 rounds is not an excessive amount of ammunition if shut shoot at a range. supervisor yee spoke last month and said he would like to have people work with him and i would like to offer my services that we do go after the misuse
10:25 am
of firearms. again, thank you. >> thank you very much, sir. is there any other member who like to speak on this item. please come forward. >> i did submit a card. i'm the director of district wide improvement organization that addresses land use and public safety concerns. our public safety chair has looked at the legislation and is in support of it. i want to point out that district 6 has seen a lot of homicides in a year and we have been impacted by gun violence and anything that can be done to deter additional gun violence in our community is also a welcome. i applaud this legislation, we do, the
10:26 am
organizations. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> if you would like to speak, please lineup. >> i have lived in san francisco for 61 years. i think the police chief would rather have more help in a different way. i would like to make a useful suggestion which most people oppose. i would suggest that any use especially illegal use of firearms be a mandatory federal offense. i will also a mandatory jail time. the reason why i say that is because some of us have looked at the example of chicago as one of the most strict gun control laws. everybody knows how many
10:27 am
homicides go on there. even the youngest children are victims. unfortunately innocent victims but yet many areas do not make it a mandatory federal offense and they also don't make it mandatory jail time. i think we did that rather than serve a bunch of papers to keep track of, i think that would help what we are trying to accomplish here. i think what we should do is look at areas around the country that don't have gun violence. because if i were a criticism and i was considering robbing anyone, if i somehow thought that the other person had a gun somewhere in the house, i think i would think twice before i tried to rob anybody. even if you have a diligent dog, i can still shoot the dog. but if i had any sense that
10:28 am
someone was carrying a legal, legal gun under his jacket, i would think twice before i would try to commit any crime and if i were a criminal and i knew that it was a mandatory federal offense and mandatory jail time, i would think twice before pulling a gun even a fake gun. i think that's the kind of help the police need rather than just papers and fancy words. i say if you want to help the police, make it mandatory jail time and mandatory federal offense. we'll see how many people end up in jail and in regards to people that complain that there aren't enough jails, i'm very familiar with different jails around the country that are begging for more inmates. they maybe jails run by type of
10:29 am
corporations but i know of one jail that is literally empty looking for business. so i would say, why don't we ship all the people there. thank you. >> thank you, is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? see none. public comment is closed. supervisor you want to add anything. >> thank you. i just wanted to speak to one or two points raised in public comment. to the gentleman that used the scenario to cleaning out your father's attic and you come up with any piece of ammunition. just to let you know the police department is ready and able to take that off your hands. they can receive ammunition as well as firearms. also want to remind people that we are not banning anything. i think supervisor phrased it well, i think it's a