Posted by Tortious, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2008 at 4:59 am
The Town's anti-air gun language should be amended to include a privilege to defend one's home, land, and pets from intruders. Why can't responsible home owners use an air gun to defend their property against varmints? Who in Portola Valley would hesitate to use an air gun to defend their dog or cat from a bobcat or mountain lion? Under this ordinance, such uses are now prohibited. A windfall for Voles, but a loss for dear ole-Fido.
Posted by Tortious, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 7:23 am
Thanks for your reply. I hope you're assumptions are correct (though that is a big assumption). However, I still disagree with the town's ordinance. Not only is the ordinance legislative surplusage (there are adequate remedies available for harmful discharges of these weapons -- think criminal and civil penalties); it is unenforceable. Do you really think the sheriff's department is going to waste resources responding to someone's otherwise harmless use of an air gun? If they are, wouldn't that the money the spend so responding be better spent on our schools?