The Law Offices of

DAVIS & ASSOCIATES

27201 Puerta Real, Ste 300, Mission Viejo, California 92691 Direct (949) 310-0817/Fax (949) 288-6894 Jason@CalGunLawyers.com
www.CalGunLawyers.com

May 1, 2013 The Honorable City Council Of the City of Los Angeles Room 395, City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 VIA FAX & EMAIL Re: COUNCIL FILE NO: 13-0113 ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF FIREARM RELATED SALES RECORDS OPPOSE

Position:

Dear Members of the Los Angeles City Council, We write on behalf of The Calguns Foundation, Inc. and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc. regarding the following City of Los Angeless (the City) proposed ordinance under review and listed on the City Council meeting, File Number 13-0113: AMENDMENT TO LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 55.11, TO INCLUDE THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF SALE OF RECORDS TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. The proposed amendment presents serious privacy, identification theft, and public safety concerns. Specifically, the ordinance, if enacted, would require all ammunition transactions to be electronically reported to the Citys Chief of Police. Reported information would include (but not necessarily be limited to): The date of the transaction; The name, address, and date of birth of the transferee; The transferees drivers license or other identification number and the state in which it was issued; The brand, type, and amount of ammunition transferred; The name of the sales person who processed the transaction; and The right thumb print of the purchaser or transferee.

Such requirements have the potential to identify the very type of firearms possessed by the purchasers of the ammunition. For instance, a purchaser of .50 BMG ammunition is likely to

The Law Offices of

DAVIS & ASSOCIATES

COUNCIL FILE NO: 13-0113 ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF FIREARM RELATED SALES RECORDS May 1, 2013 Page 2 own a .50 BMG firearm. The ownership records of such firearms have been carefully protected by the State of California through restrictions placed on the dissemination and broadcast of such information to protect the owner from theft and other criminal acts (see e.g. Penal Code 31105 and The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Pub.L. 99308, 100 Stat. 449, enacted May 19, 1986, codified at 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.). Unlike the state and federal records pertaining to firearm ownership, which expressly maintain the privacy rights of the individual gun owner, the proposed ordinance provides no such privacy protections for firearm owners whose personal and firearm related information is contained in the records required by the proposed ordinance. And, the state and federal protections against the disclosure of firearm owner information do not expressly apply to local records. Even so, if the City does take measures to amend the code and secure such data from public disclosure, it is powerless to directly affect overriding state law; indeed, the publics right of access to public records is enshrined in the California Constitution itself. The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. Const. Art I, 3 (b)(1). See also, CBS v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646.) Moreover, the City does not require any encryption or secure storage for the reported data (required to be held, also, by the seller for two years), only that the reporting occur [w]ithin five (5) calendar days and in a method approved by the Chief of Police. In a place where worldwide distribution technology is not only a common but an intrinsic part of the culture and where de minimis privacy concerns can become front page headlines1, the City of Los Angeles is attempting to compile an extremely risky and potentially life threatening database with no safeguards. In fact, it could very well offer criminals a whos-who list of gun owners to rob potentially providing criminals with easier access to information on the location of firearms and ammunition. Moreover, the proposed ordinance does nothing to stop or deter crime, but does impose great penalties and burden upon local firearms dealers and ammunition vendors. Not only would this senseless law increase the burden on dealers and be difficult to enforce, it would result in increased passed-through costs to law-abiding consumers, thereby affecting a fundamental right without a single fact supporting any connection with the reduction of crime.

Newspapers can access and publish firearm owner information (See http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/newyork-gun-permit-map) providing a roadmap for criminals to acquire firearms and ammunition and jeopardizing the lives and safety of the law abiding firearm owners and their families who reside within your City.

The Law Offices of

DAVIS & ASSOCIATES

COUNCIL FILE NO: 13-0113 ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF FIREARM RELATED SALES RECORDS May 1, 2013 Page 3 The City, if it passes the proposed ordinance, would actually be facilitating the crime it purports to desire an end to. Enacting the proposed ordinance would jeopardize the safety of law abiding firearm owners by ignoring very real public safety and privacy issues and common sense.

CONCLUSION Because of the forgoing concerns relating to the privacy of Los Angeles residents and visitors and the public safety interests of the community in not providing a road map for criminal acquisition of firearms and ammunition, we OPPOSE Council File no. 13-0113 and request that the members of the Council do the same. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, DAVIS & ASSOCIATES s/ Jason Davis JASON DAVIS