Posted by Jesse, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2008 at 1:24 pm
So some heartless idiot shoots a pet and the response is to punish everyone for the crime? Would such an ordinance deter a miscreant from harming animals? I think that greatly increasing the penalty for cruelty to animals would be a much more effective response than banning pellet guns. That would cover harming or killing innocent pets by any means, not only pellet guns.