Dear City Council, I am writing to follow up on the proposed safe storage ordinance and the discussion held during the April 21, 2020 City Council meeting. I appreciate the Council's consideration of my comments and the decision to further consider whether the proposed ordinance makes sense and consult with the City Attorney. While I do not believe that the video of the meeting is currently available, I wanted to address two items that I believe were mentioned. First, I believe that the City Attorney represented that there were State and County laws already covering this topic applicable to Menlo Park. Were that true, then, of course, there would be no purpose in Menlo Park passing an ordinance. But, of course, there is no such law applicable to Menlo Park (at least that I am aware of). That is why one is being proposed. What is true is that California Penal Code Sec. 25100(a) (amended effective January 1, 2020) contains provisions making it a crime if: 1) a firearm is stored; 2) a person knows or reasonably should have known that a child or prohibited person was likely to gain access to the firearm without permission; and 3) the child or prohibited person, in fact, gained unauthorized access and causes death or great bodily injury. The proposed ordinance is, of course, substantially broader than the State law (eliminating the whole "child gains access to the firearm and injures or kills someone" requirement). San Mateo County Code of Ordinances, Chap 3.54.030 (adopted in February 2019) contains provisions similar to the proposed Menlo Park ordinance (except the penalty provisions). However, by its own terms, the San Mateo County ordinance only applies to the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County (See Chap. 3.54.010). To my knowledge, the City of Menlo Park is not part of the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. Whether other cities in San Mateo County have passed such an ordinance is a matter between those cities and their residents. Thus, the proposed ordinance would be the first such law applicable to Menlo Park and seeks to penalize the exercise of constitutional rights. Again, if the Council had not previously been made aware of all of the above by the City Attorney, I strongly encourage the Council to seek other representation. Second, I believe that, based on the erroneous belief that there were other applicable laws, Vice Mayor Combs indicated that he thought potential litigants would have "bigger fish to fry" than Menlo Park and its proposed ordinance. As noted above, there are no such laws applicable to Menlo Park and the proposed ordinance would be the first instance that a Menlo Park resident would have standing to challenge such a law. Vice Mayor Combs' "bigger fish to fry" comment actually makes my point about finances (though not in the way he appeared to mean). Respectfully, I suggest that Menlo Park has bigger fish to fry with its limited resources (especially now) than to step into a heated national debate on gun rights, especially when it does not appear to be a matter of pressing urgency on the City. Were the City to let that national debate reach some conclusion (which seems relatively imminent), then the City could avoid spending its resources unproductively. Of course, no one wants to see anyone injured by a firearm (especially a child) and I understand the motivations of those who advocate such an ordinance. That said, rather than infringe on constitutional rights, there are other ways of addressing that goal. In my view, one area that Menlo Park should be devoting its resources to is saving as many of the local businesses as possible from closing as a result of the coronavirus shut down. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Regards, James Pistorino Received on Wed Apr 22 2020 - 10:01:45 PDT
