Will New L.A. Ordinance Turn Gun Owners Into Outlaws?

If you’re a gun owner in the city of Los Angeles, you may soon be a criminal.

The City Council has passed an ordinance that bans the possession of any firearms magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. With the mayor’s signature Friday, owners of the prohibited magazines now will have 60 days to turn them over to police, destroy them personally or move them to a location outside the city limits. The ordinance says owners can sell them, but don’t try it — state law prohibits the sale of “large-capacity” magazines and has since Jan. 1, 2000.

Because that state law banned the sale but not the possession of large-capacity magazines, existing property was effectively “grandfathered.” The Los Angeles ordinance makes no such accommodation.

“With a stroke of a pen the Los Angeles City Council has not only turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding L.A. residents into criminals, they have made property that was legally purchased under state and federal law illegal to possess overnight,” said Paul Nordberg, director of the Calguns Foundation and president of Calguns.net, a highly trafficked online forum for California gun owners. “To the best of my knowledge there is no method or funding for informing the public of their change in status from law-abiding citizen to criminal.”

Nordberg says the people who will be hardest hit are those who participate in the sport of competitive shooting, enthusiasts who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on fees and equipment. Magazines with a capacity of 15 rounds are standard in national competitions. “I refuse to call them ‘high capacity,’” he said, “Fifteen rounds is the standard, and words have meaning.”

People who don’t live in Los Angeles are unaffected by the ordinance, unless they drive through L.A. to get to a shooting range or competition in an area outside the city’s boundaries. Then, Nordberg says, they risk “arrest, confiscation of property and possible loss of civil rights for simply doing the same thing they did the day before and have done for years, simply going to the shooting range with the legal property they have owned for over a decade.”

The City Council is working on a second ordinance that would mandate the use of gun locks in the home. That ordinance is modeled on laws in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have so far been upheld by the federal courts.

But that may not last. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not happy with the lower courts’ decision to uphold the mandatory gun lock law. “Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it,” he wrote.

Still, the Supreme Court decided not to hear a challenge to the mandatory gun lock law — yet. So Los Angeles jumped right in to pass a similar ordinance.

California is one of only six states that has no “right to keep and bear arms” in its state constitution. In Nevada, for example, the state constitution says, “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”

The Arizona constitution says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” In Texas, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

But in California the state constitution is silent, so gun owners in the Golden State must depend on the federal courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment to protect their rights from infringement. That means lawsuits will be filed to challenge the two city ordinances, and city taxpayers will incur the costs of defending the ordinances in federal court.

To better protect Second Amendment rights in California, an amendment to the state constitution is needed that secures for Californians the protections that gun owners have in 43 other states. Without that, we’re at the mercy of politicians who like to score political points by criminalizing the actions of people who didn’t do anything to anybody.

____________________

Susan Shelley is a San Fernando Valley author, a former television associate producer and twice a Republican candidate for the California Assembly. Reach her at Susan@SusanShelley.com, or follow her on Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

Seattle moves forward with “gun violence tax” on all weapons, ammo

[SO LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO PROTECT THEMSELVES BUT THE CRIMINAL'S  WILL STILL HAVE THE WEAPONS.]


This week the Seattle City Council moved one step closer to imposing a sweeping sales tax on both weapons and ammunition which appears to fly in the face of a thirty year old state law banning such restrictions. A committee vote took place on Wednesday and the proposal will move to a full vote tomorrow. And this is just a bad deal all the way around.

The committee voted unanimously this morning to send the proposal to the full city council for consideration next Monday, according to the Seattle P-I.com. Monday’s vote could set the stage for a legal confrontation, and there were hints that existing gun shops could move out of the city, and that gun owners living in Seattle will simply shop outside the city, thus thwarting any dreams that this tax will generate $300,000 to $500,000 annually for the city’s gun control efforts.

Waiting in the legal tall grass are the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They’ve already advised against the tax proposal, primarily on the grounds that it will violate the state’s 30-year-old model preemption law.

Even if this move were to pass muster in terms of the state’s preemption law, it is bound to accomplish very little beyond the thinly veiled intent of punishing lawful gun owners and gun shops. A tax such as this is certain to do almost nothing to total volume of sales except for those truly living on the edge and simply shifts business from one location to another. NRA ILAsummarizes the concept.

The burden of regressive taxes like the Seattle proposal falls squarely on those that are least able to afford them. Persons of means will simply drive outside the city to purchase firearms and ammunition, while those without such options will be forced to go forego their rights or pay the tax. This is especially egregious considering how those at the lower end of the economic scale also tend to reside in areas where violent crime is the highest. One wonders whether this type of social engineering on the downtrodden is an intended feature of the legislation rather than an unfortunate consequence.

Supporters are claiming that this tax could bring in a half million dollars in revenue, but under the best of circumstances that sounds vastly inflated. It also doesn’t take into account how much it could affect the local market. As one local gun dealer pointed out, it’s a competitive sales space and they already sell pretty much on the margins. If he has to jack up the price of a ten or fifteen dollar box of ammunition by five dollars, shooters will simply go outside the city limits and buy their rounds where the tax is not applied. The same goes for new gun purchases. If sales plummet, the tax revenue goes down by default and if the shops close, the revenue disappears entirely.

Of course, that’s been the idea all along. This isn’t a tax intended to raise revenue for vital services. It’s a political statement. That’s why the supporters of the proposal even call it the gun violence tax. They’re not expecting to raise cash or reduce violence. They’re simply looking to show their base constituents how “serious” they are about restricting gun rights. The irony behind all of this is that the city will doubtless face a series of expensive lawsuits if the tax is put in place and they’ll probably lose. In the end they will wind up getting no revenue and the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for the court costs and associated expenses.

But hey… this is Seattle. What did you really expect?

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading.....

[COMMENTARY] Something is missing from Los Angeles’ jobs strategy

Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson made headlines earlier this month by declaring that Los Angeles lacks a strategy to attract jobs. He pledged to rectify the situation by creating a special committee focused on job growth — a move applauded by business leaders who frequently find themselves at odds with the council.

Few would find reason to fault an effort to bring more jobs to L.A. But the devil, of course, is in the details — and Wesson would be wise to heed the lessons of the past.

While vows to increase employment are de rigueur for elected officials, the last full-scale attempt to harness the power of local government to create jobs was led by former Mayor Richard Riordan. Far from being a template to replicate, Riordan’s strategy serves more as a cautionary tale.

Riordan, of course, was elected in part on the strength of his free market experience, and his vows to make L.A. friendlier to business. One of his signature initiatives was the Los Angeles Business Team, which was created in 1995 to attract and retain businesses by packaging public subsidies and expediting business permitting. While the LABT, as it was known, succeeded in making the development process more efficient, it failed in what arguably are the most important measures of job growth strategy.

First, Riordan’s team did not make job quality a criteria for the awarding of public subsidies. Many of the firms that received taxpayer dollars as an incentive to expand or locate in L.A. paid wages that left their employees mired in poverty — and often dependent on more taxpayer subsidies in the form of food stamps and other assistance. Rather than encouraging the growth of high-wage jobs, Riordan and his team facilitated the growth of low-wage employers.

Second, the LABT did not give priority to firms operating in poor communities — a key tenant of forward-looking economic development, which seeks to direct subsidies to the neighborhoods and residents with the greatest need. Third, Riordan’s team did not prioritize growth industries. Only a small percentage of taxpayer subsidies went to industries with a strong track record of growth.

All of these findings are documented in an exhaustively researched study released in 2000 by the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. That report should be required reading for Wesson and his council colleagues as they embark on a new effort to attract jobs to L.A.

There will be powerful voices advocating for a jobs strategy that does not take into account job quality or opportunity for disadvantaged communities. Some of these forces will cynically point to L.A.’s recent decision to increase the minimum wage as a reason not to distinguish between employers, arguing that the new wage floor — which many of them fought — ensures that all businesses must provide good jobs.

Via: LA Daily News

Continue Reading....

SOUTH CAROLINA: Columbia City Council’s new gun safety law assailed

COLUMBIA, SC 

The president of a prominent South Carolina gun rights group said Friday that an emergency Columbia city ordinance enacted last week to allow police to quickly arrest armed and dangerous people is not lawful.

But a council member said members had checked state law and determined that they were allowed to pass the temporary ordinance.

Council passed the measure Thursday night after hearing warnings from law enforcement that demonstrations relating to the Confederate flag at the State House might attract violent gun-toting people and groups that might do harm.

“It’s illegal,” said Gerald Stoudemire, president of the Gun Owners of South Carolina, who teaches concealed weapons classes, runs a gun shop and has testified on gun laws before various S.C. House and Senate committees.

Stoudemire, 68, said the new city ordinance flies in the face of a state law that says local governments cannot pass ordinances that put more restrictions on firearms than state law.

The city’s emergency ordinance, passed Thursday night, made illegal the carrying of firearms by citizens within 250 feet of the State House. The ordinance will expire around Aug. 9. It basically gives police the right within that zone to check out people they think might be carrying concealed weapons and arrest them if they are.

Council members passed the ordinance after hearing from city police Chief Skip Holbrook that police intelligence units were picking up information that various “hate groups” whose members are known to carry weapons might converge on Columbia for Friday’s lowering of the Confederate flag ceremony.

Police are also concerned that armed and potentially violent people will show up at a planned July 18 Ku Klux Klan rally at the State House, according to the ordinance passed by city council.

While state law prohibits the carrying of firearms by citizens on State House grounds, state law currently allows people to carry guns – including concealed guns if they have a permit – just off State House grounds, Stoudemire said. Thus, council’s action to restrict the rights of people to carry guns around the State House property goes further than state law and is illegal, Stoudemire said.

Council member Tameika Isaac Devine said that city council had weighed Stoudemire’s concern as well as the section of state law to which he is referring.

Devine said city officials determined that under state law, city council does have the right to pass emergency measures when health and safety are at stake.

“We can do this on a temporary basis, but we couldn’t do a permanent basis,” she said.

The ordinance will expire after 30 days, unless council extends it, she said.

“It depends on how things go in the next 30 days, what law enforcement is picking up on the Internet,” she said. “I’m hopeful that we will just let it expire.”

“Irregardless – for one day, it’s illegal,” Stoudemire said.

Stoudemire said he intends to ask a lawmaker to get an attorney general’s opinion on whether the ordinance is legal. Previous attorney general opinions support his position, he said.

Stoudemire also warned that the city might get sued and have to pay damages if it wrongfully arrests someone who has the right to carry a concealed weapon.

“It’s going to look bad if they arrest somebody and they sue the city,” Stoudemire said. “I figure the first fellow who gets arrested, he’s going to be asking for some big figures.”

Under the ordinance, anyone arrested and convicted of carrying a weapon in the prohibited zone would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could be fined up to $500 and put in jail for 30 days.

After Friday’s Confederate flag lowering at State House grounds, Holbrook told The State newspaper that no one had been arrested. State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel also said officers had made no arrests.

Via: The State

Continue Reading.....

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article27019810.html#storylink=cpy

Los Angeles poised to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour

Following the lead of other west coast cities, the Los Angeles city council appears ready to raise the minimum wage from $9 an hour to $15 an hour by 2020.
LA Times:

Workers are currently supposed to earn at least the California state minimum wage of $9 an hour, which will rise to $10 an hour in January. Under a plan endorsed by a key panel of City Council members last week, Los Angeles would increase its required wage year-by-year to reach a minimum of $15 hourly by July 2020 

Small businesses -- those with 25 workers or fewer -- would get an additional year to phase in the increases. Nonprofits that meet certain requirements could ask permission to do the same.
Under the plan, the wage requirements would continue to rise automatically every year starting in July 2022, based on the average increase in the consumer price index over the previous two decades. 

The wage proposal would hike pay more slowly than some activists wanted. But leaders in the Raise the Wage Coalition nonetheless heralded it last week as a sound plan to improve the standard of living for low-income workers and their families.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Seattle City Councilmember-elect shares radical idea with Boeing workers

SEATTLE — 

Seattle City Councilmember-elect Kshama Sawant told Boeing machinists her idea of a radical option, should their jobs be moved out of state 

“The workers should take over the factories, and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine,” Sawant announced to a cheering crowd of union supporters in Seattle’s Westlake Park Monday night.

This week, Sawant became Seattle’s first elected Socialist council member. She ran on a platform of anti-capitalism, workers’ rights, and a $15 per-hour minimum wage for Seattle workers.

On Monday night, she spoke to supporters of Boeing Machinists, six days after they rejected a contract guaranteeing jobs in Everett building the new 777X airliner for eight years, in exchange for new workers giving up their guaranteed company pensions.

Via: KIRO-TV

Continue Reading.....

Seattle seizes elderly woman's parking lot to turn it into -- a parking lot

The city of Seattle is forcing a 103-year-old woman to give up her private waterfront parking lot to make way for a city-owned parking lot.

The City Council voted Monday to use its power of eminent domain to acquire the lot owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson, who has repeatedly turned down offers to purchase the property, Q13FOX.com reported.

According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, the city wants to acquire Woldson's property to mitigate the loss of other parking lots during the construction of a $2.1 billion tunnel that will replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

City officials have said that they plan to keep the lot for surface parking, even though city and state transportation documents call for structured parking along Seattle's central waterfront area, including Woldson's lot, the newspaper reported.

Gary Beck, president of Republic Parking Northwest, which operates the lot, told the Puget Sound Business Journal that Woldson once turned down a $20 million-dollar offer for the property.

“It makes no fiscal sense to me to have the city condemn a parking lot to make more parking,” Beck said.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading......

Los Angeles: 'Fracking' moratorium proposed by two L.A. City Council members

Los Angeles City Council members Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin are calling for a moratorium on the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which is used by energy companies to extract hard-to-reach oil.

In a prepared statement Tuesday, the councilmen called fracking and its related processes a “major threat” to the city’s local water supply, air quality and private property. During fracking, oil companies add a chemical mix to pressurized water to improve oil and gas production in wells.

A similar process, called acidization, uses hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids to break down shale formations covering potential oil reserves. Koretz and Bonin have called a Wednesday press conference to announce their support for a moratorium.

They will be joined by representatives of consumer and environmental groups, including the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community.

Critics say the drilling techniques carry risks because chemicals could leach from wells into nearby water supplies. Oil companies say the processes have been used for decades without problems and are safe. Any action to ban the extraction methods would have to go through committee reviews, public hearings and a vote by the full council.

The council Tuesday voted unanimously to back a state legislative proposal, authored by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), that would for the first time impose a regulatory framework on so-called well-stimulation processes.  

Pavley’s bill has been controversial because it would require oil companies to disclose the precise mix of chemicals used in fracking and acidization, something the industry has resisted. Four previous attempts to ban or impose a moratorium on fracking at the state level have failed.

Councilman Bernard C. Parks introduced a separate motion Tuesday that would direct the Planning Department and other City Hall officials to establish land use regulations and zoning laws that would “ensure public health and safety is protected from the negative impacts of fracking activities.” His motion will go to committee for review.

Via: LA Times

Continue Reading....

D.C. Considering Restricting Sizes Of Sodas

AP

Some on D.C. Council favor restricting sugary drinks

Mark Segraves

WASHINGTON - Several members of the D.C. Council have come out in favor of restricting the sizes of sugary sodas sold in the District - a ban similar to one in New York City.

At a recent debate between candidates for the at-large council seats, current Councilmembers Michael Brown and Vincent Orange said without hesitation they would vote to ban the sale of large drinks.

That news was music to Councilmember Mary Cheh's ears.

"I'm very excited by that," said Cheh (D-Ward 3), who fell one vote short of passing a tax on sodas and other sugary drinks.

Cheh authored the Healthy Schools Act and says she thinks the New York City ban is a good idea she'd like to bring to the nation's capital.

"If I could get the votes to do it I would certainly try to put that in place," Cheh tells WTOP.

"I would consider legislation to do that, I would like to see that done," she added.

While Cheh, Orange and Brown are the only three elected officials to come out in support of the ban, several others say they are open to a ban, including Mayor Vincent Gray.

"I think there probably are some good health reasons to support something like that," Gray said. "We'll be happy to look at it, we haven't taken a position on that one way or another."

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson agreed it's an idea worthy of consideration.

"The issue of nutrition is of critical importance to public health. We need to look at different strategies so people understand what the effect is of the large volume of soft drinks they're drinking," Mendelson said.

Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) also was open to considering a ban.

"I am open to anything that will help young people be healthier," Wells said.

Via: WTOP

Continue Reading...

Systemic Medicare Fraud Under Houston's Sheila Jackson Lee

Will Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee have to distance herself from Houston's Riverside General Hospital now that top administrators have been caught in a major Medicare fraud scam?

Last week's roundup makes me wonder why the Obama administration is cracking down on Medicare/Medicaid fraud in the first place.  Aren't they the ones shelling out hundreds of millions to their Solyndra-like cronies with no consequences?

Is it to make them look tough on crime, or is it to make sure the recovered monies are going into their own wallets at the end of the day?

Since her days on the Houston City Council, Jackson Lee has pushed to use city funds to keep Riverside's doors open.  At that time, the councilwoman suggested that the facility was a good investment for the city. 

Jackson Lee's interest in Riverside goes back to the '80s when her husband Elwyn C. Lee, now University of Houston vice-chancellor (see video), served on Riverside's board from 1981-1988.  In his last year at Riverside, Mr. Lee was made chairman of that board, and over the years, husband and wife have been influential in keeping the financially strapped hospital open.  Jackson Lee was voted into Congress in 1994, representing the 18^th district, where Riverside is located.

The president of Riverside, his son, and five others were arrested on October 4 as part of a nationwide Medicare fraud sweep.  Earnest Gibson III, chief executive officer of Riverside General Hospital for 30 years, has been charged with bilking $158 million out of Medicare over the last seven years.

His son, Earnest Gibson IV, was charged with thirteen counts, including money-laundering and conspiracy to commit health care fraud.  The older Gibson became president around the same time Jackson Lee's husband was appointed to the board in the early '80s.

Via: The American Thinker

Continue Reading...

LA CONFIDENTIAL: MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA COVERS UP $400M TAXPAYER BOONDOGGLE

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who also ran the Democratic National Convention, has now embroiled himself in a scandal of epic proportions with taxpayer dollars. Villaraigosa and staff negotiated a deal with Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) to build a football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. The price tag for the taxpayers: almost $400 million in debt, supposedly to be repaid by AEG. The stadium will be built on land currently occupied by the Los Angeles Convention Center. Los Angeles, as you may recall, doesn’t have a football team.

Sounds like a typical stadium boondoggle.

Except that it turns out that AEG is being sold, which means that the group that will perform the contract with the City of Los Angeles is not the same as the group that negotiated the contract. Here’s where it gets truly ugly: Villaraigosa knew about the upcoming sale, and told nobody. He kept it a secret. He said nothing to Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry Miller and City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana. Members of the City Council, who will have to sign off on the deal, were kept in the dark, too.

“I’ve met with ... people who are looking to bring a football team. I'm not going to tell everybody everything we’re doing because we want a football team. And a lot of what happens here is, it’s got to be negotiated quietly,” said a frustrated Villaraigosa to the media.

Now, there is only one reason for Villaraigosa to hide the AEG sale from those who most needed to know about it. According to mayoral candidate Kevin James, that reason is simple: AEG received a sweetheart deal at taxpayer expense, which upped AEG’s sale price. Now the new buyers will have a great deal with the City of Los Angeles. And Villaraigosa will get to look like a hero for bringing the NFL to Los Angeles. Perfect for his gubernatorial run.

There’s something seriously fishy going on here. The details of the AEG deal must be examined closely, especially given the fact that Los Angeles already carries a $258 million deficit and a $27 billion unfunded pension liability.

But this is how Democrats do business. There’s a reason that Villaraigosa and Barack Obama are thick as thieves – when it comes to taxpayer dollars, they are thieves.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...