Portola Valley bans firing of pellet and air guns Portola Valley, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Nov 19, 2008 at 4:59 am
In response to the killing of a cat by a pellet gun, the Portola Valley Town Council has outlawed the firing of pellet and air guns -- unless the shooters are defending themselves or others.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 10:15 PM
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 David Boyce, Almanac staff writer, on Nov 19, 2008 at 8:36 am David Boyce is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Dear Tortious - Note that the amended ordinance does not prohibit ownership of guns, including air-powered guns, nor does it preclude the use of an air-gun or other weapon to defend oneself or others.
I suspect that the self-defense clause includes one's pets.
Posted by stupid lawmakers, a resident of another community, on Nov 19, 2008 at 8:46 pm
This is just another dumb feel good law. It does nothing. If Im going to be evil and shoot someones pet this does nothing to stop it. Isn't animal cruelty a criminal offense?
and while you are pumping up your daisy red rider to defend anything Ill let loose with my .357 magnum...have a nice day.
Posted by Tortious, a resident of the Portola Valley: Westridge neighborhood, on Nov 20, 2008 at 7:23 am
Dear David,
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?
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
