After Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, Oakland is one step closer to approving stricter gun control laws.

The Council unanimously approved a measure proposed by Larry Reid, who represents East Oakland. It includes three proposed changes: Require the reporting of lost or stolen firearms to the Oakland Police Department, requiring a thumbprint for all ammunition purchases, and enforcing strict permit requirements for the sale of firearms and ammunition in Oakland. The City Council is expected to consider the proposal for a final vote on Feb. 16.



That idea to restrict the sale of firearms in Oakland has riled some people, because, as The San Francisco Chronicle reported, Oakland does not have any firearms dealers who sell to the public. On its Web site, Calguns, the gun-rights group, said that the ordinance was “an extensive, draconian regulation of firearms, firearm components, and ammunition vendors, which will basically make it impossible to have a gun store in the City of Oakland.”

This is the second time in two weeks that city officials have asserted a gun-control stance. On Jan. 19, the Council authorized the city attorney, John Russo, to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago, which is to begin oral arguments at the Supreme Court this March. McDonald would decide if state and local gun control laws are subject to the Second Amendment (the Court’s landmark gun control decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, applied only to Washington). Oakland joins other jurisdictions, like Richmond, Sacramento and Alameda County, in asserting that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and municipal governments.

On Tuesday, I spoke to Mr. Russo and Reygan Harmon, a legislative analyst for Mr. Reid, about the status of gun-control laws in Oakland. Their comments have been condensed and edited.

Q.

How did these proposals come about? What was the strategy?

A.

Ms. Harmon: The Legal Community Against Violence approached the City of Oakland almost two years ago, when they did an audit of our municipal code. They gave us suggestions on enhancing local gun-control laws.

A lot of the laws that are on the books prior to these proposed changes are no longer applicable because California state laws have changed. This is cleaning up the municipal code, because we haven’t really looked at gun control laws in ten years.

A.

Mr. Russo: The national landscape is in flux. Our strategy is to try to find ways to protect ourselves. That’s really what it’s about. The reality is that we’re trying to fashion solutions in the real world, as opposed to these people who want to have a very academic discussion about the scope of the Second Amendment.

Q.

Why include a proposal that regulates firearms dealers, when there currently are no licensed dealers in Oakland that sell to the public?

A.

Mr. Russo: Council member Reid has one of the more challenged districts in the city. I think he wants to be sure that nobody gets any ideas of opening something. And if they did, they could regulate it under this law.

Q.

What impact can one city’s gun control laws have?

A.

Mr. Russo: The reality is that this is something that’s better handled federally or at the state level. No question about that. The irony is that’s the argument that gets made by largely pointy-headed, theoretical pro-gun people. But at the same time, they are vehemently opposed to federal regulation.

Still, if a couple people end up not getting killed, I’m not going to apologize. I’m not going to try to take away efforts that will only be incrementally successful if they are life saving efforts.

Ms. Harmon: I think one city can do the best they can, and that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re working with neighboring cities like Richmond, San Francisco and San Mateo so we have similar legislation to make it more difficult for people to go city to city. All we can do, or all San Francisco or Richmond can do, is tighten up the laws in their cities.