Most people aren’t shocked when they discover a politician has lied, for it seems to be a common occurrence and folks are pretty tolerant of the indiscretions of their favorite representatives, but rarely have I found such blatant lying on paper or in a public forum. Leave it to Oakland City Councilmembers Kaplan, Kalb, & Washington to score a triple double by lying in print and in person about their legislation that turns your neighbors into criminals.
First, a quick review:
Law makers must be truthful in the language of the ordinance. In that regard, a statement that is not true is a false statement, otherwise known as a lie.
When politicians possess but don't don't tell you about the information they know you need to be aware of, and pretend that the information is not important enough to tell you, or are purposefully vague with the details, they are lying to you or otherwise deceiving you.
When true statements are mixed with false statements, the entire ordinance becomes tainted by falsity, and is a lie.
When the city council votes to approve a statement composed of some truth and some lie, they are violating the trust of the citizens and are acting dishonorably.
One lie in a law is one too many.
EXAMPLE 1. AGENDA REPORT 15-424, Item 12 by Councilmembers Kalb & Washington
Page 4, FISCAL IMPACT
Here, the lie is that Kalb & Washington state that there could be a temporary, minor impact from the cops enforcing the magazine ban, since they don’t know how many mags would be turned in in 90 days. That’s bullshit. Oakland’s law was copied word for word from Los Angeles’ law. It was immediately and widely reported that not one single magazine was turned in in LA. So they should have known enough to make a better cost estimate than the idiot-like “no known”, and are either stupid or lying when they say they didn’t know.
Actually, that’s more like 2 lies. Or, deceit plus 1 lie. The deceit is their refraining from stating that the costs could be very high, in the millions of dollars, to enforce the law.
Think about it, even if the councilmembers didn’t think much at all: OPD may have to investigate and find out who in Oakland has the banned magazines (that takes a lot of investigating); OPD would have to assign a team of heavily armed and protected officers – some on OT – to search the premises where they think they may find the magazines with metal detectors and other expensive equipment; when they don’t find the mags, Oakland will eventually have to pay several thousand dollars in compensation for damages to each of the many searched premises and civil rights of the accused.
In similar fashion they claim no additional costs for the “Safe Storage” law. Again, they lie. Or, they refrain from stating any estimate of a realistic cost to our city. At the Public safety hearing, I proposed persuasion instead of criminalization, and I proposed Oakland obtaining (by purchase or donation from the anti-gun moneybags) trigger locks. Since the councilmembers seem as short on math skills as they are on truthfulness, I’ve done the math for them: $100,000 will buy at least 10,000 locks.
EXAMPLE 2. ORDINANCE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES
“WHEREAS” on page 3
This lie is really laughable – so I’ll print the whole “WHEREAS” here:
“WHEREAS, large-capacity magazines are not necessary for individuals to vindicate their right to self-defense. Only in an extraordinarily rare circumstance would a person using a firearm in self-defense ever be required to use a large-capacity magazine to defend himself or herself effectively. This is particularly true in an urban center like Oakland where law enforcement can and does respond quickly to threats and incidents. Conversely, the dangers of large-capacity magazines are heightened in dense urban areas like Oakland; and”
I’ll skip quickly past the 1st part of the paragraph only saying that it is biased opinion without any supporting evidence. Then comes the funny part about responding quickly.
What idiot/liar wrote “This is particularly true …”?
In Oakland law enforcement responds quickly to threats and incidents?
By the time you get thru listening to the tty signal and a couple of foreign languages and get put on hold, a long time could pass. You could pass. And after the hold and the dispatcher’s questioning, “quickly” is not really happening.
You should ask the councilmembers: “just when does the “quickly” part begin?”
EXAMPLE 3. Rebecca Kaplan in San Francisco Bay Times "To Stop The Shooting, We Must Stop The Illegal Guns"
In this story published before the 12/15/15 Public Safety hearing, Kaplan belies her comrades and the Ordinance by stating: "We need to improve police response to shootings, including responding when gunshots begin -- even before someone is hit by a bullet -- to catch people engaged in shootings, stop things before they escalate, and take guns off the street". She continued: "And, at the local level, we need to strengthen our own tracking and response to shootings, ..."
So, in other words -- in truthful words not laden with political double-talk, we find the fact is just as most Oaklanders know: police respond too long after the threat occurs to protect us when we are in the most danger, and there is nothing "quickly" about it. In those critical moments of emergency, the only way to save your life or your family is to exercise self-defense. WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE ONLY MINUTES AWAY.
Kaplan clearly states that the city needs to improve its response; in plain language: we aren't there yet -- even though the "WHEREAS" says we're already enjoying the quick response.
A political trifecta of lies.