City bans guns at schools, government buildings

BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer

Palo Alto City Council voted tonight (March 6) to ban guns at schools, polling places and government buildings in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that greatly expanded Second Amendment rights.

Council members said they wanted to ban guns in more places, such as churches and libraries, but they were limited by a June ruling in “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” a Supreme Court case that challenged New York’s restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm.

“It’s a solid wall. A wall without chinks in it,” Councilwoman Vicki Veenker said about the potential for extending the ban.

City Attorney Molly Stump told council that courts had narrowly defined what is considered a “sensitive place.” Guns can only be banned in those places, or the city could get sued, she said.

Burt, Tanaka rhubarb

Councilman Greg Tanaka and Councilman Pat Burt got into it after Tanaka questioned what kinds of incidents the ban was trying to prevent.

Tanaka said that his parents legally owned a gun because they lived in a rough neighborhood with a serial killer on the loose.

Tanaka asked for evidence that gun permit holders had committed any shootings in Santa Clara County or Palo Alto, and neither Stump nor Veenker confirmed any incidents.

Burt said Tanaka was interrogating them and making “specious arguments.”

No gun law would solve the whole problem, but that’s not a reason to do nothing, Burt said.

Tanaka ended up voting yes along with his colleagues, but he later encouraged them to be civil.

“I don’t think we need to necessarily attack each other because we are trying to argue the other point of view,” he said. “Nobody here was arguing — so I decided I would do that, because I think it’s important for us to make better decisions.”

Lockdown at Paly recalled

Veenker told a story of when she got a call that her daughter was on lockdown at Palo Alto High School because of a shooting threat in March 2019.

“There was nothing I could do to protect my daughter in that moment,” she said.

Vice Mayor Greer Stone said he was teaching that day and was locked down with his students.

The threat turned out to be a hoax, but Stone said that it took him a year or two to stop thinking back to that moment when the loudspeaker went on.

Stone questioned the Supreme Court’s logic and said more gun laws may fall next, such as requirements for background checks and safety training.

“We’re already starting to see the flood gates start to open,” he said. “It’s going to be far worse in the near future when these cases start winding their way through the court system … I don’t see much hope there.”

The ban was passed unanimously as an “urgency ordinance” so it takes effect immediately.

It applies to people who have a license to carry a concealed weapon. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine of up to $1,000 and six months in jail.

Sunnyvale has passed a similar ordinance as Palo Alto.

The Bruen case challenged New York state’s law that required someone to show they have a special need for self-protection in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon.

The high court said the state’s “proper cause” requirement for a concealed weapon license violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection provision by preventing people with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

New York’s “proper cause” requirement is similar to California’s requirement that a person have “good cause” for carrying a concealed weapon in order to receive a license.

Following the Supreme Court decision, California police departments and sheriff offices have dropped the requirement to have a “good cause” for obtaining a license.

As a result of the court’s decision, “It is foreseeable that firearms may be present in greater numbers in public and private spaces in California,” according to a report to council.