Town Square

Post a New Topic

Portola Valley bans firing of pellet and air guns

Original post made on Nov 19, 2008

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

Comments (5)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tortious
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David Boyce
Almanac staff writer
on Nov 19, 2008 at 8:36 am

David Boyce is a registered user.

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.


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tortious
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
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?

Cheers,

Tortious


 +   Like this comment
Posted by lonewolf
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Nov 20, 2008 at 11:36 pm

another stupid law passed by the minority, why not put this on the
ballot and let the people vote on it instead of unintelligent
Town Council


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Why I Became Active in Palo Alto Forward
By Steve Levy | 12 comments | 2,369 views

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 2,027 views

What Are Menlo Park’s Priorities?
By Erin Glanville | 32 comments | 1,302 views

Death with Dignity
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,168 views

Water Torture
By Paul Bendix | 1 comment | 432 views