SDCGO Opposes Supervisor Lawson-Remer’s Effort to Punish and Villainize Law-Abiding Gun Stores

At the Tuesday October 8th, 2024 County Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Lawson-Remer continues with her extremist war against law-abiding gun owners by introducing her “Reducing Gun Violence Through Responsible Firearm Procurement Ordinance.” The ordinance (see attached) places unreasonable and nonsense requirements on federally licensed firearms dealers (FFL) in San Diego who would like to service the law enforcement community. If passed, local law enforcement agencies will have fewer options when putting out a bid to buy necessary equipment which will result in likely higher prices. The requirements punish local gun shops and prevents them from doing business in an attempt to further Lawson-Remer’s anti-gun agenda.

There are multiple issues with this proposal. It is extremely common for an FFL to have violations, but do not confuse a violation with breaking a law. Not all violations are equal. Violations can be as simple as a misspelling on the required federal firearms form or not having an informational sign displayed properly. If an FFL violation breaks the law, the FFL is quickly put out of business by the many levels of regulation like ATF, CA DOJ, or local law enforcement. Not allowing an FFL to bid on a government law enforcement contract would most likely be punishing a good, honest business that abides by the law and is helpful with law enforcement efforts.

“The bottom line is if an FFL is in business, they are a law-abiding business. If they aren’t law-abiding, they aren’t in business. Being in business should be the line for doing business with government agencies like police departments. If the U.S. government and the California government believe that an FFL is in compliance to continue to operate their business, the County has no place or authority to contradict this conclusion.”, Michael Schwartz, San Diego County Gun Owners.

It is also very easy to sidestep the proposed restrictions. A person can hold multiple FFLs which would allow them to have one FFL that only sells to government agencies. The same person could hold an FFL full of violations and hold a second FFL that has no violations because they only buyers are government agencies.

The vast majority of the requirements under this proposal are already actively required and completed through state and federal regulations. In other words, this proposal is merely burdening federal firearm licensees with additional and unnecessary reporting documentation on issues that are entirely regulated by state and federal authorities.

For example, the proposal’s documentation requirements under (f.)(ii.) are entirely unnecessary. Firearms sales are prevented to prohibited individuals and when identified by California’s Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) submission or federal eligibility, the sale is denied. Any and all denials of a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm are already reported to the California DOJ through the DROS system.

As another example, under subsection (f)(iii), the proposal requires documentation of policies and practices concerning “preventing theft of firearms.” Again, this is entirely duplicative of state and federal law. Federal Firearms Licensees are already required to report lost or stolen firearms. In addition, they are required to store all firearms in a safe and secure manner to prevent theft in accordance with state and federal regulations. Requiring licensees to file additional documentation regarding actions that are already required by state and federal law does nothing to prevent any alleged gun violence.

Finally, subsection (f.)(vi.) of the proposal, provides yet another example of an entirely useless and wasteful requirement. Under the proposal, federal firearm licensees would be required to create and provide documentation of polices and practices concerning “operation of digital video surveillance systems. If the City wants a detailed written documentation of the FFL’s policies and practices of the operation of digital video surveillance, they City need only to read California Penal Code, or visit the California DOJ’s website: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/dealervid.