“Our children are in danger”
He began the one on Monday with 106 seconds of silence, in memoriam of the 106 homicide victims so far this year in Oakland. He began Thursday’s with 109 seconds of silence. Three more slayings in the last two days, including a 15-year old girl.
“Today is really disheartening,” the Chief, a father of daughters, said solemnly. “It really hurts to say I come before you to speak about the death of a 15-year old young lady from the city of Oakland.”
The Chief continued with a plea. “How many times do we have to cry out for help? Our children are in danger. The police department has not done enough. The community has not done enough. The leaders of this city have not done enough.”
It’s not often in a press conference you see someone important break up so much that they have to stop speaking, while a roomful of reporters with their cameras running waits. But at this point, with an audible exhalation of grief, Chief Armstrong halted, unable to find words, for close to a minute.
What more can be done, a T.V. reporter finally asked. Three things are needed, the Chief replied: violence prevention programs, community involvement, and a fully-staffed Oakland Police Department. “But we can’t arrest our way out of this,” he warned.
I asked the Chief how many sworn officers he’d like to see in OPD. “I’d like to see 792,” he said, referring to the number of cops Oakland’s budget theoretically funds. But, he continued, there are good arguments to be made that Oakland really needs “between 1,100 and 1,200,” given the city’s population, geographic spread and level of crime.
I doubt if Chief is going to make an issue of that—not while OPD is still under the Negotiated Settlement Agreement. But our Coalition is ready to make an issue of it. Oakland may not be able “to arrest our way out of this.” But, as the Chief affirmed, OPD could prevent more homicides, and presumably other crimes, if he had more cops.
Ghost Guns
Now, onto the topic I was going to write about, before the press conference was suddenly called.
The good news in North Oakland/Uptown (where I live) is that, in the week of Sept. 27-Oct. 3, the following crimes were down, year-to-date over 2020: justified or accidental homicides, non-firearm aggravated assaults, rape, robbery, residential and commercial burglary, larceny and arson. That should make a lot of people feel better.
The bad news is that during the same week the following crimes were up: criminal homicide (+350%), aggravated assault with a firearm (+76%), shootings in occupied homes or vehicles (+25%), shootings in unoccupied homes or vehicles (+450%), robbery using a firearm (+46%), and carjacking (+62%). That should make a lot of people feel worse.
Let’s compare last week’s numbers to the last three years. In that case, we find more good news: rape, robbery (of all kinds), burglary, and larceny all are down, in some cases considerably. But homicides, especially those using a gun, are way, way up, and so is carjacking, which almost always involves the use of a gun. So we’re left with the inescapable conclusion that guns are by far the most serious threat to our lives and property.
This is why Chief Armstrong has been so forceful in his efforts to combat guns in Oakland. A major worry of his is ghost guns, which the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says “are unserialized and untraceable firearms that can be bought online and assembled at home…often sold through ghost gun kits." They are “designed to avoid all gun laws” and are “available to buy without a background check.”
Chief Armstrong, at his Monday press conference, shared his frustration that so far, neither Sacramento nor Washington, D.C. has seriously addressed this growing problem of ghost guns. Here in California, it’s true that back in 2016, the state enacted a law placing new requirements on anyone assembling or manufacturing a firearm from a ghost gun kit. But the law is virtually toothless: a person wishing to buy and assemble a ghost gun “must apply to the California Department of Justice for a unique serial number or mark of identification unique to that firearm.” Law-abiding gun aficionados will comply, but criminals won’t. This is why the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence observes, “Compared to some other states, California law has provided dangerously weaker protections regarding the sale of ghost gun components, contributing to a dangerous, exploding market for these products within the state.”
Last year, in trying to address this problem, California passed Senate Bill 118. It sanctioned “firearm precursor parts,” such as ghost guns and their components, and gave district attorneys the power to “confiscate and destroy” them. It also imposed a fine of $1,000, or a jail term of up to six months, on individuals who sell these items, but only “to a person under 21 years of age.” Finally, SB118 prohibits anyone who is already not allowed to possess a firearm (due to prior convictions) from owning “firearm precursor parts.”
Our state Attorney-General, Rob Bonta, a few weeks ago praised SB118 as “clos[ing] a loophole in our law’s definition of assault weapons that will prevent gun manufacturers from developing and selling these firearms in California.” But, given its vague generalities, it’s far from clear that SB118 has been, can, or will be remotely effective. How can people be prevented from buying a gun kit online, especially from an overseas source, and then using it to commit a crime?
This lapse is why the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, under prodding from S.F. District Attorney Chesa Boudin, last month unanimously approved a new law “that prohibits the sale or possession of ghost guns in The City.”
S.F.’s ban—which would be enacted as a county, not a city--won’t go into effect until the Board holds a final vote. But S.F. is moving against ghost guns in other ways. Last month, Boudin sued three online gun retailers over ghost guns, suggesting that even in the absence of strong, enforceable laws against them, there are ways municipalities can make life uncomfortable for manufacturers and sellers. Back here in Oakland, Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan wrote an open letter to Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley urging her “to join…our neighbors in San Francisco…who have filed lawsuits against manufacturers of Ghost Guns.” On Sept. 15, O’Malley responded with a public statement in which she pointed out that San Francisco’s lawsuit “is filed on behalf of the People of the State of California, so our county would be included in all outcomes. We have, however,” she added, “been making efforts to learn more about the lawsuit.”
I’m not sure what “more” can be learned about San Francisco’s lawsuit, which seems pretty straightforward. At any rate, it’s clear that ghost guns are a huge and growing threat. It’s also clear that we’re struggling to figure out how to deal with them. But we have to. If you care to comment about this to the Oakland City Council, they’re holding an informational meeting on ghost guns on Oct. 19, at 1:30. Here’s the link to say something.
Steve Heimoff