COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 7, 2005, 1:50 p.m. - - - 050107 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By the Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Home Rule Power to Prevent and Reduce Gun Violence" calling on the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Governor to pass legislation that will permit Philadelphia to enact constitutionally lawful legislation to prevent and reduce gun violence; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 050120 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By the Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Home Rule Power to Prevent and Reduce Gun Violence" calling on the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Governor to pass legislation that will permit Philadelphia to enact constitutionally lawful legislation to prevent and reduce gun violence. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO 3 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 PROCEEDINGS
Law and Government Committee, City Council of the City of Philadelphia, is now in session considering the proposal to amend the Charter. I ask the clerk of the committee to read the proposed legislation.
Bill No. 050107: An ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Home Rule Power to Prevent and Reduce Gun Violence" calling on the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Governor to pass legislation that will permit Philadelphia to enact constitutionally lawful legislation to prevent and reduce gun violence; fixing the date of a special 4 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. And Resolution 050120: A resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Home Rule Power to Prevent and Reduce Gun Violence" calling on the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Governor to pass legislation that will permit Philadelphia to enact constitutionally lawful legislation to prevent and reduce gun violence.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like 5 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 to thank City Council for its support for the number of bills that Council and rest of the members introduced and supported. I thank you for your support over the last two years. And actually some people thought that there was not an opportunity for -- and I hate to use this term -- a snowball's chance in hell that we would have an opportunity to locally help legislation deal with the level of crime that we've been experiencing in the City of Philadelphia, but I'm happy to say that today we actually have a number of legislators on the state level who are circulating a bill that would give the City of Philadelphia the power to enact legislation. State Representative Myers is a prime sponsor. He has indicated he's got substantial support throughout the Commonwealth and that upon the introduction of that bill, we'll be having a press conference to talk about the prospects of the passing of that bill. 6 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 Without the support of this Council, we wouldn't be in a position to move this forward. That will on the state level essentially authorize the City of Philadelphia by referendum to pass a law to enact legislation that will be solely used in the City of Philadelphia. The purpose of these bills today will set the table for that referendum. Hopefully we will get the support of the minimum of 12 members of Council to get that on the ballot this spring. And, additionally, you will have a bill that will talk about our ability to regulate gun violence on a local level. And I'm quite excited about the prospects of getting this done. So again I just want to thank you and look forward to the support of this committee. And I think also both people in Harrisburg and people in the Commonwealth have a true sense of what is the center of this particular community. Right now we 7 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 essentially act as Council body, but I think it's important for the citizens to have an opportunity to speak.
I think it's a very creative way. You have it clearly on the record for the people of Philadelphia and maybe the State will recognize full authority Philadelphia ought to have. So thank you very much for introducing this legislation. Introduce yourselves for the record and state your affiliation.
Good afternoon. My name is Bilal, spelled B-I-L-A-L, last name Q-A-Y-Y-U-M. And on my right is Mr. Raymond Jones. We are both cochairs of Men United For a Better Philadelphia. Men United is an organization of concerned men whose sole purpose is to reduce violence and homicide in the City of Philadelphia. Every day one member of Men United is on the corners in Philadelphia trying to stop the senseless violence in our city. I appreciate this 8 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 opportunity to testify in favor of Bill 3 050107, an ordinance calling for amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new section entitled Home Rule Power for Prevention and Reduction in Gun Violence, and also support of Resolution No. 050120 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter and creating a new section titled Home Rule Power to Prevent and Reduce Gun Violence. Our comments today will be brief and I hope to the point. Men United, today myself and Ray Jones, we represent Men United with over 500 members of our organization. We see gun violence in the city as the number one problem facing the citizens of our city. Therefore, we are very happy to see our Council representatives step up and take the bold move and action to help solve the senseless killing taking place in our neighborhoods. First let me state that last 9 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 year in 2004 more than 3,000 citizens of our great city were victims of gun violence. This number is a number you hear very little about in the newspaper. You always hear about the homicide number but not the number of citizens that were victims in the city of gun violence. In the City of Philadelphia, these numbers represent individuals that 80 percent of them were victims of violence from guns, handguns in particular. So we see this effort as a major effort to help reduce this problem in the city. As mentioned earlier by Councilman Clarke, we also are strongly supporting State Representative John Myers' legislation he's proposing in Harrisburg. Second, let me state very clearly that last year Men United for a Better Philadelphia has visited over 350 corners in every section of the City of Philadelphia in our street campaign and in each of these corner neighborhoods gun violence and gun activity has become the 10 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 normal daily life for the citizens who live in these neighborhoods. Therefore, there is no doubt in our minds that limiting the number of guns will be a big help for our daily work as we move forward in the city but also save lives in the City of Philadelphia. So we hope Council will take the necessary steps to stop this senseless violence and support both of these bills unanimously. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. Any questions by members of the committee?
I don't have a question, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to take the opportunity to thank Men United for their consistent support not only supporting our efforts to curb gun violence but their consistent efforts with employment resolution, conflict resolution and other issues going on. I just want to say on the 11 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 record I really appreciate the support you give this Council and this city.
How many years have you been at work actually on this matter? It seems to me for a long time.
Well, we might not be too far apart, but in all seriousness I have been involved since really -- when I started, I worked in West Philadelphia working in the early '70s trying to reduce gang violence in the city. That work was I would say very rewarding because our work did reduce, as you're well aware, the gang violence in the city where homicides were taking place and 80 young folks were being killed per year down to zero young folks being killed, eliminating gangs in the City of Philadelphia. Since that time, we have been involved with the Men United for a Better Philadelphia in our third year of operation. The first year we became 12 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 organized we did see a drop in homicides in the City of Philadelphia down to the lowest it has been in years, which is 5 288 murders in the City of Philadelphia. 6 But once again even 288 murders were too 7 many residents of our city being killed 8 on the streets. Eighty to 90 percent of 9 those murders could have been prevented 10 if those guns were not in the hands of 11 the perpetrators that committed those 12 crimes. And once again, most of the 13 homicides in the city are committed by 14 individuals who use guns as a weapon of 15 choice. So over the years, Councilman, 16 we have seen dips and highs and lows with 17 the homicide rate. But to be very honest 18 with you, if we do see increase of acts 19 of violence in the city as stated by the 20 testimony, what you don't hear about is 21 the number of gun victims not being 22 killed but people being shot. And if you notice as you go around the streets in the City of Philadelphia, you see a lot of young folks now walking with canes and 13 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 in wheelchairs. They are the victims of this gun violence that is taking place in our community. So we look at the number of folks that have been shot over the years. We are witnessed in the City of Philadelphia as many folks being shot and killed as over in Iraq. We feel once again eliminating the number of guns is definitely going to help our work and also the work of decreasing the number of homicides in particular or shootings in the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you very much. Any comments by members of Council? If not, would the next member of the panel state his or her name?
Yes, sir, thank you. My name is James Higgins. I am a vice president of the Million Mom March United with the Brady Campaign, Pennsylvania Chapter. I am not a mom. I am a father and husband. I'm married to 14 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 a mom. I'm very proud to work for this organization. We were founded as a citizens' lobby dedicated to passage of sensible gun violence prevention laws. We have over 8,000 members in Pennsylvania and 4,000 members in five Philadelphia area counties. Our national organization has chapters in all 50 states and counts its membership in hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. I am pleased to give testimony today to City Council's Committee on Law and Government on the subject of the passage of an ordinance providing for the submission to the voters of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. Mr. Qayyum has already indicated what the purpose of the amendment is. Our chapter wholeheartedly proposes the ordinance and referendum. Widespread gun violence in Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia is a preventable tragedy. Legislation is 15 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 needed to allow City Council to take the steps to prevent such tragedy, but it will take action by a majority of the members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, following enactment of your ordinance and passage of the referendum, to help Philadelphia attack gun violence. As we know, the General Assembly has preempted Philadelphia and other local governments in the field of regulation of gun sales, distribution, gun tracing, recordkeeping, and a host of related endeavors. In justification of this preemption, the legislative leaders argue there must be uniformity throughout the 67 counties in the Commonwealth in the matter of gun regulation and only the legislature can guarantee such uniformity. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the General Assembly overlooks the significant difference between and among those 67 counties as to the nature and extent of the use of guns in the 16 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 commission of crimes. It is beyond argument that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have significantly different and more severe gun crime problems than, say, Centre, Armstrong, or Elk Counties. Since we have measured greater gun crime problems in Philadelphia, it stands to reason that Philadelphia should have Home Rule Power to address such problems with legislation. Other arguments are repeatedly used to stop common sense gun laws. It is unfortunate that narrow special interests in Pennsylvania time and again dwarf the passage of law that the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians favor. Polls repeatedly show that 60, 70, 80 percent of the public endorse changes in laws to some or all of the areas I will discuss in a moment. Now, our organization does not seek -- I'd like to pause just here for a second. Our organization does not seek to deprive people of the right to own and 17 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 use guns. Guns have a legitimate place in our society. We are not opposed to the right to have handguns or rifles in the home. We are certainly not opposed to hunting. In fact, hunting is a positive, beneficial recreational activity for hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians. Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller and others have noted and you, Councilman Cohen, have noted time and time again that officials of our Sheriff's Department and Police Department are severely handicapped in their efforts to stem the tide of gun violence. Simple changes in our ordinances would help immeasurably. On the national level, my organization, the Million Mom March United with the Brady Campaign, advocates changes in federal laws in areas very similar to what City Council currently seeks authority to regulate, and we endorse ordinances pending before Council 18 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 on such subjects.
For example -- with your permission, I'll go through quickly four of your pending ordinances so that members of the public who are in attendance and other council members and the press understand how this referendum can help the citizens of Philadelphia.
First of all is gun-running and straw purchasing. These are two very, very hurtful activities that result in large numbers of crimes with guns. It is well known that a person who is disqualified from buying a weapon because of a criminal conviction or his age can and does hire a person to make the purchases for him. It is not unusual for a dozen weapons to be purchased at one time under circumstances such as these. Immediately, the weapons are transferred to the person barred by law from making the purchase, and in turn 19 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 he sells the weapons on the street to criminals and others for antisocial activity. When we read of a street shooting or a shooting outside a school in Philadelphia, we can most likely assume the weapon was purchased in the above scenario. Your Bill No. 040117 would prohibit such straw purchasing by reducing the current right to purchase unlimited numbers of weapons to a scheme allowing one gun per month to be purchased as Mr. Qayyum has noted. Such a bill also has been introduced in the General Assembly. The second major areas we hope are --
May I ask a question? Why would a person need one gun a month? It would be a tremendous improvement, but I've never understood why or how anybody could use up a gun a month.
I've been asked 20 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 that question many times. When you look at the current situation, which is an infinite number of allowable purchases, then one gun seems like a tremendous achievement. And we realize we have capable opponents who are going to fight us on these issues. If we advocated you could only have one gun per year, I think you'd have tremendous opposition. I think one a month, a year, which is 12 plenty for one person, is an alternative we should strive for as a solution. Secondly, assault weapons are semiautomatic civilian versions of weapons designed for military use. They are capable of holding large-capacity magazines that allow a shooter to fire up to 150 shots without having to reload. These are favored weapons of street criminals and drug pushers and have no 22 other purpose than to kill or harm people, usually large numbers of people in a matter of seconds. Your Bill 040315 would ban the ownership, use, transfer, 21 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 and possession of these firearms. Thirdly, the lack of licensing in persons owning a firearm results in people purchasing weapons who have no 6 business doing so. A person convicted of a violent crime or of the Uniform Firearms Act, a convicted drug dealer, or a person under age should not be 10 allowed to purchase or sell a firearm. 11 Bill 040136 would allow the police to 12 screen out persons who do not meet 13 objective eligibility criteria while at 14 the same time allowing the purchase by 15 honest law-abiding citizens. 16 And, fourth, establishing a 17 system of gun tracing. The Police 18 Department needs authority to trace recovered firearms from persons not permitted to possess them. The tracing would be through the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. And, lastly, three or four pending ordinances in one category: Reporting requirements regarding 22 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 concealed firearms, temporary removal of guns from people posing a risk of harm, and the reporting of ammunition sales. These are other areas deserving of legislation by City Council which would help the police in stemming the tide of gun violence. I think I have spoken too long. I apologize for that.
I would like to just conclude saying the Million Mom March United with the Brady Campaign, Pennsylvania Chapter, fully endorses Bill 16 050107 and Resolution 050120 and hopes the City Council of Philadelphia will move to pass them swiftly. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say ditto to the support that has been given by the 23 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 Brady Campaign, Million Mom March. Their support over the last year or two has been invaluable. I just wanted to say I congratulate you on what you're doing and look forward to your continued support.
Thank you. I congratulate you on your efforts to try and change the picture of legislation in Philadelphia.
I will make sure all of you have a seat on the bus when we take our fight to Harrisburg to try and get the needed legislation passed in the state legislature. I'm quite sure we will have to take our battle to them.
Good afternoon. Thank you Councilman Clarke, Chairman Cohen, any other members of the Committee on Law and Government and the Council-At-Large for asking CeaseFire PA 24 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 to participate in today's proceeding. My name is Diane Edbril. I'm the executive director of CeaseFire PA. The CeaseFire was founded approximately three and a half years ago by a group of concerned citizens from all corners of the state who felt that state-based response was what was really needed. The way I see it, today's hearings are about two things, the means and the end. The end we all agree is an end to epidemic levels of gun violence in the City of Philadelphia. Whether we do that by measures such as one handgun per month, licensing and registration, an assault weapon ban, or tough standards for permits is certainly important. However, I believe the means is far more pressing right now. How exactly are we all to accomplish our goals? CeaseFire PA wholeheartedly endorses the bills whose numbers have been read over and over by the members and the participants in this hearing. We too support the referendum 25 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 and the ordinance that is before this committee right now. I think one thing I wanted to bring to this meeting today was to discuss the tactics that the opposition has used over the years in determining our own path on how to undue the progress that's been made. About to years 10 ago in wake of the federal Brady Bill's 11 passage and enactment of the latest state 12 legislation, the extremist gun lobby, a relatively small but well-organized coalition, began to undo whatever progress had recently been made. They were galvanized by the perceived threat that gun regulation would pose to the lifestyle of rugged individualism that these extremists espoused. The gun lobby saw that Pennsylvania has a split personality in terms of its population demographic, and correspondingly the people's relationships to guns. About half our citizens live in rural areas where gun Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 usage is largely related to hunting, recreation, and in many isolated communities self-protection. On either end of the state, however, in our large cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and more recently in cities within the Lehigh Valley and the northeastern corner of the state and northwestern corner of the state, gun use was more frequently observed among criminal elements. Seeing this dichotomy, the gun lobby seized on it and has done several things to increase its power base. Many years ago there was no 16 preemption statute in Pennsylvania, and it was up to local government to determine how many concealed carry permits to issue. Philadelphia was allowed to and did limit the possession of firearms within its boundaries. It determined who should receive a gun carry permit and gave out only a few hundred each year. Then the gun lobby did two things. First, it persuaded the members 27 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 of the General Assembly to pass preemption legislation so that local government could no longer regulate guns and ammunition, and then it got them to pass "shall issue" concealed carry legislation. That meant as long as someone was not disqualified by virtue of a felony conviction or commitment for mental illness, they must be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This had the effect of increasing by many, many times the numbers of Pennsylvanians now permitted to carry a loaded firearm when and wherever they wanted. And we all know that it is much harder to take something away once people have become accustomed to it than it is to keep something away in the first place. So the gun lobby in pretty short order created a whole new gang of supporters by creating this demand for guns and the ability to carry them everywhere they went. From there, it has been a 28 Law/Gov't - Nos.
050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 constant battle to keep the gun lobby from making even further strides. On the federal level, the gun lobby is working mightily to close off courts to litigants seeking redress and industry change for practices and products that cause injury and death. At the same time, they're trying to create a federal cause of action against police and prosecutors who enforce the gun laws we have on the books. They've been very effective in keeping gun violence-related public health data from being collected so average Americans and policymakers alike can't see the financial and health care burden we are all carrying as a result of this epidemic. But the tide is turning I believe and the gun lobby has overplayed its hand. By ignoring the reasonable requests of law enforcement, by opposing measures that will strengthen our homeland security, by closing its eyes and ears to the pleas of urban 29 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 communities unable to let their children play outside, the gun lobby has written its own death warrant. It is up to all of us to keep drawing the public's attention to the craven positions advocated by organizations like The National Shooting Sports Association and others, to show these untruths, these inconsistencies, and the propaganda for what it is. Here in Philadelphia, the message is rising up loud and clear that gun violence is a public health epidemic and public safety crisis, that it is better for all Pennsylvanians to reduce gun violence than not to, that we can save lives and money and still respect the range of views about lawful gun use enjoyed by our citizens. Just as the gun lobby expanded its power base ten years ago, so must we now. We must ally with health care advocates, with children's advocates, with law enforcement agencies and groups, with faith-based 30 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 organizations. We must reach out to these constituencies throughout the state just as the gun lobby did to reach out to their constituencies a while back. By holding these hearings, City Council has begun the process. Many experts have and will come before this body and give testimony, thereby increasing the amount of information available to the general public. In Harrisburg, we must seek hearings as well so lawmakers throughout the state can hear the truth as well. Physicians must talk about gun violence with their patients and peers, ministers with their congregations, parents with their children, and neighbors with their friends. We must reach out to different communities across the state to find our allies and find those who have yet to become our allies. We must be relentless, creative, and highly focused on our goals just as the NRA and other organizations have been on theirs. 31 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 CeaseFire PA applauds the efforts of Councilman Clarke and others, and we thank you for this opportunity today. We've been working with like-minded advocates across the state and nation and will help Philadelphia's effort in any and all ways possible. Once we get over this first hurdle which is being considered here today, we believe our first legislative priority should be one handgun per month. As our law enforcement leaders know all too well, the gun violence epidemic in Philadelphia is fueled by easy access to handguns. Whether from a straw purchaser who buys a handgun for a friend with a felony conviction or from a trafficker who sells them on the street market to gang members and youths, prohibited persons find it all too easy to get handguns in Philadelphia. Until we stop this by limiting access to handguns, we will be seeing 5,000 or more crime guns recovered in our city streets each year. 32 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 We will be seeing four, five, or more gun injuries in our emergency departments each day.
One handgun per month has been shown to work in other places and it will reduce the number of crime guns circulating in our communities. The particular legislation that CeaseFire PA supports on a state level has been vetted by local police agencies as well as the Pennsylvania State Police. It has exceptions for legitimate situations such as lost or stolen handguns and licensed gun collectors. It will not affect new purchases of guns and the status of handguns that people already own. It has been designed to work with Pennsylvania's existing background check system and will be very, very cost-effective to implement. In short, it is a good fix for a real problem. We're familiar with the legislation Representative Myers is or is about to introduce in Harrisburg. And we 33 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 applaud it too as the first step in a long road in the right direction. However, we would urge this Council and its allies throughout the city and state to consider legislation on a statewide basis as our foremost priority. While banning multiple handgun sales in Philadelphia is a good start, the only thing it's going to accomplish in the practical world is to push multiple sales out to the surrounding communities. This was found to be the case in Illinois years ago. The City of Chicago enacted very strict handgun limits and, in so doing, after time crime guns were increasingly traced back to gun sellers in the suburban communities beyond the city's limits. We fear that this is exactly what will happen here if we pass legislation that doesn't reach to the four corners of the states but, rather, stops citywide. I've brought a couple of copies -- many thanks for helping me out 34 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 with them in my xerox machine meltdown -- of our legislation and I'll be sending along some more. I urge all the members of City Council to look at this legislation, to copy it and talk about it as you see fit. We believe this is the first step in a long road in the right direction and we thank you for helping put us on the path with you. Once again, thank you all for your opportunity today, for this opportunity. On behalf of CeaseFire PA, I look forward to working with the City Council of Philadelphia on this worthy act. Thank you.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for your testimony. Real briefly, in response to the whole -- and I agree with you the need to have statewide legislation. As an elected official, I sometimes have to be somewhat practical. I understand the 35 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 nature of the beast that we deal with in the State of Pennsylvania. I understand we probably have per capita the highest number of NRA representatives in the State of Pennsylvania, which was quite amazing to me when I found that out. So the reality is in the short term to be able to get statewide legislation I think is beyond now. I felt, as members of Council that support this measure felt, that sometimes the willingness of elected officials to support something that doesn't affect friends dear to the constituency but enhance our chances of getting it, while I agree with your statewide lead, I think we're trying to take baby steps first. As an example, I happen to chair the Mayor's task force on auto insurance reduction, chaired that for the last three years, and early on in that process again it was thought we would never get reduction in the City of Philadelphia. We believed we were being 36 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 treated unfairly by the insurance industry. We did, in fact, ultimately get an agreement that reduced the insurance for citizens of the City of Philadelphia, auto insurance, which is unprecedented. But as a part of that process, it was also understood that people across the state were paying more than they should for insurance, both for limited tort and full tort. Ultimately, we ended up getting reductions for everybody in the State of Pennsylvania. Hopefully, this will be a similar process and we can replicate what we did. Again, we start it here. I did have a couple questions. And actually Police Commissioner Johnson was going to be here, but I think he had a family emergency. My understanding is he would be very supportive of this legislation as he indicated in earlier hearings. We had a question as it relates to the time line without a permit to carry. It's my understanding you have 37 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 a permit to carry, you can walk in the store and that's your preapproved authorization. Is there a difference if you don't have a permit to carry in terms of the time line to walk out of the store with the gun?
Well, my understanding is even if you do have a permit that a background check still has to be run at the time of the purchase because, as you know, a disqualifying event could happen, somebody gets convicted of a felony, unless -- I don't think that the state and local agencies when they give out the permits do that followup on a regular basis, which is the kind of followup that would be needed. There is a short waiting period in the event that the check cannot be concluded definitively immediately. Pennsylvania is a cooperating state within the national instant check system and so some large percentage of the time you get back your result then, 38 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 but if there's some question that's left open such as maybe an open and pending case and the fact an arrest has gone about on but there's no disposition reported, there's a certain amount of time that law enforcement agencies have to follow up in determining an answer to that. Under Pennsylvania law, the state has two weeks to figure that out, but under federal law, that time frame used to be 72 hours and now it's been whittled down by administrative regulations to just 24. In Pennsylvania, the default position if they couldn't get an answer in that time frame was to deny the sale, but under federal law, the default position is to allow the sale. And because the records are only being maintained for a very short period of time, as a practical result of that, the sale does occur to the person. Law enforcement doesn't have any time to prepare that sale and find out that a mistake was made. 39 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 I do want to say that I do support the efforts to accomplish what this hearing is setting out to do, Representative Myers' legislation is setting out to do. I mentioned the state versus local solution simply because I think it's part of our responsibility as advocates to make the policymakers aware of everything that might bear on the decision to pass that particular legislation or not. We certainly support an effort within the City of Philadelphia. And, in fact, knowing that the potential exists for purchasing patterns to change, we would suggest that perhaps there be some money if that's available anywhere or some effort made to compare changes in gun crime patterns over time if we do pass a local law and see whether crime guns get traced back to Philadelphia gun dealers at lower levels but suburban gun dealers at higher levels. And certainly I think it would support the argument we do need stand-by 40 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 legislation and for people to really understand what's happening and you can't just draw the line at a city limits but you really need to do it across the state. As a matter of federal law, you can't go to another state to buy a handgun. That's not the case with all guns, but you can only buy a handgun in your state of residence. So a lot of gun advocates say, well, they're just going to go somewhere else, go buy their guns in New Jersey or New York and Maryland. That's simply not the case. You can't buy a gun lawfully in another state. If you are buying them on the street, there's plenty here in Pennsylvania. I certainly didn't want to put any pressure.
Trust me. I understand. Reality is when we did the research, we found out that approximately -- I don't recall the specific number, but I do recall it was in the mid 30s in terms of percentage 41 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 used in the commission of crimes were purchased in the city of Philadelphia. So I think that's a substantially higher number. If somehow we can force people to not purchase that 30 percent of guns used in the commission of crimes, to go to other municipalities, while that's not the intended purpose, I think if those guns are subsequently traced to other counties, people will feel the need to do something on their level. But right now we see it as a substantial problem in the City of Philadelphia and a good percentage are being purchased local, particularly ones purchased by straw purchasers.
Absolutely. And I think too the byproduct of limiting purchases, it's an economic analysis. When the product gets scarcer, the price goes up. If there's fewer handguns, then their street price is going to go up and become somewhat less accessible to purchasers on the street as well. 42 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05
Any studies made in the Chicago case after Chicago banned purchasers within Chicago and the sales increased in suburban Illinois and the guns come back to Chicago?
You know, I don't have that information exactly, but I can try to nail that down for you, Councilman, and get back to you with the actual statistics. But they saw that crime gun tracings resulted in greater tracings -- fewer tracings coming back to Chicago gun dealers and greater numbers in tracings going to gun dealers in the suburbs, but I don't know if it affected overall crime rates within or outside of the city of Chicago. I'll see if that study -- if that information is available. 43 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05
We actually had a situation in the State of California where the City of Los Angeles enacted one gun law and subsequently the state enacted one gun law based on what was happening in the city. So it was successful in Los Angeles to a degree in terms of reducing violence and subsequently was adopted by the State of California. Actually, I think Massachusetts within the last few months enacted a gun law.
Any study made about gun and gun violence in the schools? Because I assume there must be some somewhere.
I don't know that I have studies on it, sir, but I know that our organization nationwide is very active in education. Margaret Montgomery, who is president of the Pennsylvania chapter of our organization, 44 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 spends half of her waking hours taking kids into the schools in Philadelphia, public and private and parochial, and teaching kids about avoiding guns and avoiding using guns and also talking about avoiding violence in general. I'm not sure that we have studies yet. It might be a little soon because that is a relatively new phenomenon that reflects the epidemic -- reflects the fact we are trying to grapple with these epidemic of school shootings that have happened in the last six or seven years. But if there are some studies, I'll try to find them for you and get them to you.
I would appreciate it because I've always had difficulty understanding how the gun lobbies were so successful in getting people to believe that other people had rights to guns. The easiest way not to have gun violence is not have guns. No 24 kid could get hurt with a gun if there's no gun in the house. 45 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05
Well, that's exactly true, Councilman. The studies in your question -- I think you asked two different things: Number one, whether educational programs resulted in lower rates of gun violence. And I think there are some studies out there and I can try to get you that information. Guns in the home, as you recognize, are the single greatest factor for predicting gun violence. A home with a gun in it is -- if there's a gun in the home, it's 14 times more likely that a member of that 15 household or friends of that household 16 will be injured with that gun than that 17 gun will be used to overpower an intruder 18 or prevent a crime in that household. 19 That statistic is easily obtainable for 20 you as well. 21
I think that 22 figure ought to be constantly raised in the language of the groups opposing gun violence because to me the simplest, most dramatic way you can make immediate 46 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 improvement is by taking the guns away. Now, I know the gun lobby has been very successful in convincing many people that people have a right to guns, but I've never understood it. I've never heard of one single reason why the kind of guns that kill on the street should be permitted, even in the parts of Pennsylvania where hunting is a favorite activity.
Our organization does not stand for the confiscation of guns or abolition. I think if we ever took that position, we would have a far more difficult time getting legislation passed at any level, this level, state, or federal. We think that the opposition is on the extreme. To take another extreme position where we abolish the private ownership to defeat our goals -- I'd like to be right in the middle. Let people own guns, let them have them in their homes, let them hunt, but enact reasonable restrictions on what type of 47 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 weapons are available, how often they can buy them, and what they have to show to purchase them. If we do those things -- as far as in the home, maybe legislation requires a manufacturer to have a locking device to lock children out of the ability to use the gun. If we do those things, we'll have a much better world, more safer world, and in the meantime we won't take away the right of people to own and use firearms.
Councilman, I support your decision. That's my personal. I think we should eliminate guns completely. I agree with you. I think that that's the most we can do as citizens. But I understand Councilman Clarke saying that isn't very practical and that would never fly. There is a study I'm aware of that was done in Seattle, Washington, where they tracked it appears -- I think five or six years ago where they tracked 60 legally purchased guns that ended up over this 48 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 five-year period being used in some kind of illegal activities and they were legally purchased guns. The majority of the guns were stolen and some of those guns were actually used where a family member had used them against another family member. So there are some studies out there that show having a legal gun in the house is not necessarily the best thing to have either. And I think that this whole effort once again trying to eliminate the number of guns is going to make a big difference in reducing gun violence and also reducing the high incidence of young folks getting their hands on guns in some neighborhoods. And I know there's a gentleman that can talk about that some young folks in the City of Philadelphia can buy a gun easier than they can buy crack cocaine because of the availability of the guns.
If I may add something, we were out on the street corners in neighborhoods across the city 49 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 and ironically enough there are too many children familiar with guns, know someone who has a gun, have seen a gun and in some cases handled a gun. I think that it's incumbent upon us to move swiftly and in a distinct focus in spite of the powerful resources of the opposition. I think in a lot of ways this is going to be our civil rights movement and in terms of the impact guns have on the quality of life across the city and state. So I think we even need these to continue to keep us focused.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, since we're talking about positions on guns versus non guns, I am a gun owner. As a matter of fact, I own two guns. So I'm just on the record telling people I'm not against people owning weapons legally and responsibly. In today's times, I think it is prudent for me to have a gun in my home.
But you're not 50 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 buying 60 guns a month.
I have two guns, so the assumption is that I purchased them over a period of time. But I think that the need to have multiple guns, 15, at a time, is just, 8 frankly speaking, ridiculous. I also 9 have an issue with the fact that local 10 law enforcement is not allowed to have 11 any level of registry of weapons. The 12 reality is on a national level if there 13 are consistent multiple purchases by an 14 individual legally, at some point the ATM 15 is triggered -- ATF. I'm sorry. I'm 16 thinking about getting some money -- ATF 17 is triggered at some point in time. But, 18 as you know, federal investigations take 19 a long time. And I actually spoke off 20 the record with a representative of the ATF and he talked about investigations for a multiple straw purchaser and it was three years. I think if we had the ability on a local level to have some sort of 51 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 registry so the City of Philadelphia Police Department if a person was purchasing weapons, was not a 5 collector, was not even a hunter, that 6 would trigger a signal something's going 7 on here, but unfortunately we don't have 8 the wherewithal to do that. That's why 9 one of the pieces of litigation talked 10 about the ability to register a weapon, 11 particularly if that individual is 12 authorized to carry that weapon on the 13 streets of the City of Philadelphia. I 14 think if the person has the ability to 15 buy 15 guns, we should have the ability to know how many guns do you have, particularly since we administer the program. We issue the permit to carry, but yet we can't ask that person how many guns they have. I think that's ridiculous. So I think there are a number of ways. I'm not trying to eliminate guns. I just don't think that's reasonable in all due respect to your 52 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 opinions. I just don't think it's going to happen. But I do, in fact, feel the need to limit the number of weapons that are sold on a legal basis and eliminate straw purchasers.
At least once in every discussion I have to express my view. I think we ourselves have been kind of brainwashed into believing that there is something very important about the right to possess a gun. I don't know of anything that fits that category. And that's the reason I expressed it although I agree with you gentlemen that probably makes the job much harder to eliminate them. And, therefore, I remain quiet most of the time. For heaven's sake, there seems to be so many different ways to be handled to accommodate the needs of hunters. I'm not trying to do anything about the sport of hunting. There could be a way of having lawful weapons. 53 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 People do it in other sports. They have their golf clubs held somewhere else if there's no room in the house or if the wife or husband complained too much about the presence at home, people find other ways. I'm hoping that some day we'll decide it's much more important to worry about the life of the youngsters and the safety of everybody in society than even bowing necessarily to the notion guns are an interest. As a war veteran, I see no good about the presence of a weapon because I think many more times it induces a feeling of confidence which causes lack of safety. But I don't intend that to be a major meeting campaign because I respect others who are sensitive about it and hunters' needs. But, frankly, I don't see the usefulness of weapons except when you're at war. And then that's an entirely different situation. But I think we have to end the war in the city streets. And to me if I 54 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 were to get mad at somebody and want to do them in, I'd be a safe individual to be around if there were no weapons that could feed my feeling of aggression. And I think that's true of everybody. You can't throw something at somebody if there's nothing to throw at them. So the feeling will ultimately pass and nobody will be hurt. I find this discussion very, very helpful in focusing attention.
I'm Bryan Miller. I'm the director of CeaseFire New Jersey from across the river. Thank you very much for allowing me to come over here and speak to you all. I have written testimony which I have provided so I'm going to speak off the cuff and short if you will. What I'm here to talk about basically is I'm here to make a plea to the citizens of Philadelphia and City 55 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 Council to enact this legislation. And the reason I say that is because as you may know, Councilman, the City of Camden, New Jersey, right across the bridge was recently chosen America's most dangerous city. The reason it's the most dangerous city is it's just a bridge between Philadelphia and its gun black market and the City of Camden. Straw buying in any ATF statistics, you'll see gun buying and gun trafficking is more powerful in this city, Philadelphia, than any city in the United States, which means guns are very available in the illegal market, which is increasingly efficient in Philadelphia, and they can come across the bridge. In New Jersey, we have very strong laws, gun laws relative to Pennsylvania. And we don't have straw buying. We have very little straw buying. People don't go to a gun shop in New Jersey and buy 15 handguns because in order to do that, they have to go to the local police department, fill out a form 56 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 for each of those handguns, fingerprint it and go through a significant background check that takes at least two weeks. No bad guys can go through that local police department. So we don't have straw buying. But as long as Philadelphia's gun black market is so close to the City of Camden, which is trying so hard, so hard to lift itself up out of poverty and disease and all the many problems that the city has, as long as Philadelphia has such gun black market working so efficiently, it will never happen. Camden will continue to be the poor sister, if you will, of the City of Brotherly Love. So we in New Jersey, myself representing the statewide group, are here to say please, please enact this legislation, please start to get a handle on the issue of gun trafficking in Philadelphia. You'll be doing it not only for the citizens of Philadelphia. You'll be doing it for the citizens of 57 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 Camden, New Jersey. They need you to do this. We really support this litigation and ask you to do it.
Thank you very much for that statement with special emphasis on the testimony today because Philadelphians look at Camden and feel they're superior. In fact, Philadelphia is maybe feeding crime and violence that occurs in Camden. So we thank you very much for coming. Darrell, I think there's another panel.
My name is Howard Levin. I'm an attorney with Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley. I wanted to thank you all for giving us the opportunity here today to address very brief comments. A few months ago I was listening to the national public radio and had the privilege of hearing Councilman Clarke discuss this issue. I have to admit it occurred to me that good social change is 58 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 effective oftentimes by not only good legislation but by civil liability. That's why I'm here. I wanted to introduce my partners to you. That's Dan Siegel to my immediate right and Mark LeWinter to my far right. We are a civil litigation firm representing victims' rights. And so I thought by coming here and having them give you a brief dissertation on our view of this issue, it might lend some new insights into this matter. Thank you.
Thank you, members of Council. I'm Dan Siegel. When I walked in this room, it brought back a lot of memories. The first time I was in this room was roughly 15 to years ago 20 when this body was debating the assault weapons ban. And at that time I was wearing a hat as a representative of handgun control in Washington. I've worked with Councilman Cohen. I remember when Councilman Clarke was -- 59 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05
Yes. I guess I've aged as well. But what hasn't changed and why I'm glad I'm here is because I'm still involved. I'm on the board of Pennsylvania Against Handgun Violence. I was their founding president. But this body even back years ago what you were 11 doing with the assault weapons ban was 12 the momentum that propelled Pennsylvania 13 to change, some of it good, some of it 14 not so good. And what you're doing now 15 is again starting that momentum. Back when you passed the assault weapons ban, it was then that the legislature over Governor Casey's veto tightened preemption. There had been preemption in Pennsylvania since the initial Uniform Firearms Act in the '20s and '30s, but there was a loophole. Councilman Ortiz and others along with the City Solicitor saw that loophole and used it. Unfortunately, the legislature 60 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 tightened the loophole, but then Harrisburg looked at the issue and we had the Uniform Firearms Act in 1995 from the Fumo Commission, which I was on as a representative for gun control. That legislation as it was presented was a model piece of legislation and that came about because of what this body did on the assault weapon ban. Unfortunately, the things that we opposed in amendments came true. They removed the heightened scrutiny in Philadelphia for permits to carry allowing anyone to carry. They removed with a vote -- the swing vote was then Senator Salvatore, who flipped. And as a result, we no longer had a waiting period for handgun purchases in Pennsylvania. Those two provisions were disastrous and they have led to the problems that bring us here today. There are provisions in the bill, one of which I authored dealing with promoting civil liability, which my firm is involved in, where you sue 61 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 dealers for illegal sales, but the reality is that we're here because the legislature did some good things and they did some very bad things, but they did them all because this board had the gumption to challenge what was out there and to say it's time to make another change. And you pushed the assault weapons ban and even though I think everyone knew how difficult it would be and what would happen. You did it and started the gun control movement as a viable loud issue in Pennsylvania. Gun control isn't a viable loud issue in Pennsylvania anymore and that is not good. People don't realize the amount of violence that goes on in the cities because if they're not in the cities, they simply don't care. I have always said it's about them, not about us. When it hits in State College with a sniper, then they care for a few months, but they simply don't care. So I'm pleased to see that this body is pushing 62 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 for home rule on the issue. We know there are issues with preemption, but it's time that you take the lead and that you are taking the lead to bring back gun control as an issue within both the city and the state. And people talk about it in all different languages, but the reality is it is gun control. It is keeping the guns out of the wrong hands and preventing people who never should have had the gun from getting it, whether it's straw sales, whether it's children, all those types of people. There's a lot of good that can come out of this. I applaud you and appreciate the opportunity. It's been a long time, 15 years at least, since I was in this room, but it brings back memories and I hope again it's a spark for another movement. MR. LeWINTER: My name is Mark LeWinter. I am a partner at Anapol, Schwartz as well as. I'm here specifically to talk about a 7-year-old boy by the name of Nafis Jefferson. 63 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 Council may recall he was a 7-year-old gunned down in South Philadelphia on April 19, 1999, coming up on the sixth anniversary on his death. This was covered extensively in the media.
He was riding his scooter in South Philadelphia when another 7-year-old picked up a gun and pointed it in a playful way and pulled the trigger not realizing it was loaded, and he died an hour later. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the estate of Nafis Jefferson, and in that case the gun dealer was sued that sold this gun. The gun dealer was from up in Williamsport. That gun was traced to a dealer by the name of -- a trafficker by the name of Perry Bruce, who was since convicted. What we learned from this case, which is important today, is that was one of 30 guns purchased by Mr. Bruce, who testified in this civil case, and Mr. Bruce testified that he was in there, he was high at the time he bought these guns, he was unemployed, the 64 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 dealer had to know what he was doing, and as a matter of fact was often told to wait until other customers left the store before the purchase could be completed. These guns were cheap, inexpensive handguns classically called Saturday night specials. They have no collector's value and nobody needs 30 guns for protection. I will tell you the only way we can deal with this problem in terms of a civil justice system to hold dealers accountable, which I was able to do in this case, but I will tell you if this dealer was in Philadelphia and this one gun a month provision was in place, Nafis Jefferson would be alive today. This is not going to be the answer. I think all of us in this room acknowledge it's a problem. We want to prevent the senseless death of the youth of our city and it's not going to solve the problem. We all know that. However, it's almost like a speed bump for illegal gun 65 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 trafficking. It's going to slow it down. Yeah, it's not the total answer, but perhaps if we do something to make it harder for these traffickers like Perry Bruce to go and walk into a store -- and, by the way, he had the license to carry so there was no check being done, and he was able to walk out many times with two or three of the exact same gun under circumstances that obviously raised red flags. So I think I applaud the efforts of Council. One gun a month is not going to be the answer. It's a start. And I think that we need to do something. Fifty percent of all the ATF investigations in Philadelphia are illegal straw purchases. And if the gun dealers won't regulate themselves -- and most of them are good statistically, but those that aren't account for a high percentage of these guns. If they won't do the job themselves and be responsible, then we have to basically limit the 66 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 amount of guns that we can sell to people that are going to engage straw purchases. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions, Councilman Clarke, or comments?
No. I just want to thank the gentlemen for coming. I understand the uphill nature of this battle. What we need is as broad-based coalition as possible from all angles and we welcome the support of your firm coming to support us on this issue. I want to thank you for coming to testify.
Is there any way of getting the Bar Association to act since maybe through them we can develop a strong immediate force?
If I may, the Bar Association on one occasion or possibly twice has passed a resolution by the Board of Governors supporting the assault weapon ban. I believe they also supported -- I'm racking my memory, but I 67 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 believe it was about eight years ago they did support one gun a month legislation through the Board of Governors.
Maybe instead of seeing a pass of the resolution, they may set up committees and visit communities and speak on this. I think the effect of the Bar Association speaking out would be very helpful.
Seeing none, the hearing on the matter before this committee will stand in recess and the public meeting of the Law and Government Committee will now be in order. I will ask Darrell Clarke for a motion to adopt.
Bill No. 23 050107: An ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment 68 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 7 8-500 entitled "Home Rule Power to Prevent and Reduce Gun Violence" calling on the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Governor to pass legislation that will permit Philadelphia to enact constitutionally lawful legislation to prevent and reduce gun violence.
Is there a motion? Mr. Clarke, President Verna asked you be added to this committee. I'm going to announce you are officially a member of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 050107 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first 69 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 reading at our next session.
The ayes have it. The motion's carried. The next matter is the resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 18 050120 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
None. All in favor of the resolution, please say 70 Law/Gov't - Nos. 050107, 050120 - 3/7/05 aye. (All say aye.)
The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted. There will be no further business. (Whereupon the hearing concluded at 3:15 p.m.) - - - 71 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing taken on March 7, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ Kimberly A. Overwise Registered Professional Reporter Certified Shorthand Reporter Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)