m. - - - BILL NO. 990289 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 9 10-800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Safety, by adding a new section providing that any person (including, but not limited to, any registered or licensed firearms manufacturer or dealer) who transports, sells, exposes for sale, possesses for sale, assigns or transfers any firearm shall be liable in tort, without regard to fault or proof or defect, for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or death if the bodily injury or death results from the discharge, within the City of Philadelphia, of the firearm, unless the firearm incorporates within its design, and as part of its original manufacture, technology which automatically limits the firearm's operational use so that it may only be fired by the particular individual to whom it is sold; all under certain terms and conditions. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL NO. 990289 PAGE MAYOR EDWARD G. RENDELL ---------------------- COMM. JOHN TIMONEY, Phila. Police Dept. ----- 36 GERALD MC HUGH, Phila. Trial Lawyers Assoc. -- 41 BRYAN MILLER, Ceasefire New Jersey ----------- 46 MARK CHILUTTI -------------------------------- 62 - - - 3 BILL NO. 990289 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Good morning. Frank Rizzo, Jim Kenney, David Cohen, Frank DiCicco being here, a quorum being established, hearing on Bill 5 990289 will be begun. Before we begin, I want to make a few remarks as we move forward in these proceedings. Today in America, especially in urban centers, we're facing an epidemic of the kind no one would have imagined. I feel obligated to outline some depressing and staggering data that should illustrate why we're here today. In 1995, 35,957 Americans were killed by firearms in this country. This is more than those killed in the entire Korean War, 33,651; and represent 62 percent of those killed in the Vietnam War, 58,148. In 1996 firearms were used in two out of three murders in the United States, 54 of these involved the use of a handgun. Of all the gun-related homicides, only 176 were found to be justifiable by private citizens. Children are evermore becoming the victims of gun violence. In 1996 2,866 children and teenagers were murdered with guns. About 1300 committed suicide with guns, and a remaining 468 4 BILL NO. 990289 died in unintentional shootings. 84 percent of murder victims, age to years old, were killed 4 with firearms. In 1997, 56 of all murders among 5 those under 18 involved firearms. This is up 38 percent from 1986. African-Americans and other minorities are disproportionately represented in these morbid statistics. The National Center for all Statistics, gun-related homicide is the leading cause of death for black men aged to 34. 11 I think we don't have to continue 12 outlining the adverse impact that handguns and other 13 firearms have in our communities and neighborhoods. 14 For the last few decades, addressing this concern 15 has stirred controversy of all kinds. There are those who would ban guns altogether, while others would prefer to arm the populist to the hilt arguing the best defense is an armed offense. The fact is that new laws have been enacted having increasingly severe penalties. Enforcement efforts have also been stepped up. Those must continue, but we must go beyond. I believe this bill we're considering today represents a reasonable middle ground between gun control advocates and gun owners. The so-called 5 BILL NO. 990289 smart gun ordinance accomplishes two central goals.
It deals with the increasing illegal and often unauthorized access to handguns; and two, it increases the level of accountability by those who are in some way or another the custodians of those weapons. The legislation before this body is not necessarily a panacea, but is one of the many preventative measures that collectively, I believe, will go a long way in helping to eradicate this epidemic. I thank Mayor Rendell and this City Council for having the political will to consider the passage of this bill. I look forward to the enactment. Mr. Mayor, the floor is yours. Identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Edward G. Rendell, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia. To my left is David Yarkin who serves as the administration's press secretary. He has been helpful in assembling the mass of information, some of which we're going to present to you and ask to be 6 BILL NO. 990289 made part of the record. Today, if the Chair pleases, I'd like to introduce our witness list. Of course all of you are familiar with our great police commissioner, John Timoney. No one understands the need for eliminating the access and availability of guns more than a career police officer who's dedicated his entire life to fighting violence. After Commissioner Timoney, Gerald McHugh who is the president of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association will testify. He will testify to the impact that this bill will have on future litigation. Imposing strict liability, we think, is a dramatic and extraordinarily impactful step. Following Gerald McHugh is Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey. As you know, Mr. Chairman, New Jersey with Ceasefire New Jersey's help, there's a bill in the New Jersey legislature that would mandate that after a set period of time no gun could be sold in New Jersey that wasn't personalized, that wasn't a smart gun. That bill has obvious advantages. One of its disadvantages is that it would only apply to New 7 BILL NO. 990289 Jersey. So Jerseyites could go to Pennsylvania, to New York and buy whatever guns they like. There is going to be an attempt in Congress to do a piece of federal legislation that would mandate that no guns sold in United States after a certain date could be sold without being personalized, without being smart guns. Again, as we all know, that bill would probably face an uphill battle in the Congress. After Bryan Miller, we'll hear from Mark Chilutti who many of you know already. Mark was the victim of gun violence. But rather than rue what happened to him, he has been a great and outspoken advocate for restricting the availability of guns, and Mark will have some very poignant testimony. And the next piece of testimony we want to offer is not in person, but by letter. I asked the National Institute of Justice to testify today, to send us a representative. They did not do that. They do not want to get involved in these type of legislation. They don't want to take a position on legislation. But I wanted to introduce into the record, and this may be as good a time as any, the letter from Jeremy Travis, the Director of the 8 BILL NO. 990289 National Institute of Justice which summarizes their efforts up to now in terms of trying to develop smart gun technology and their belief that smart gun technology can be a tremendous asset to increasing public safety. I will refer back to the letter in my testimony, if I might. One thing, I want to start my testimony by piggybacking on what Councilman Ortiz has said. You all know, I think, that I've been involved in the forefront of the effort of the United States Conference of Mayors to do something about gun violence. You all know the level of gun violence in this City. And although the good news is that adult gun violence is decreasing, the bad news is that juvenile gun violence has stayed at the same extraordinarily high level here in the City of Philadelphia. And when we say that adult gun violence is decreasing, it is decreasing to a level that is obviously unacceptable to all of us. There is a decrease, but it is still at a level that is God-awful and not acceptable to any member of the administration or this City Council. I won't belabor those points, but I do want to say that Councilman Ortiz is absolutely 9 BILL NO. 990289 right, that the solution to gun violence in America and in Philadelphia, the solution rests on a comprehensive approach. We are not here to take sides on the political question of gun violence.
We're here to take another step in adding to the weapons that we have against gun violence and we are interested in trying to develop as many things that work to curb gun violence as possible. So as you know, the City has undertaken its own Operation Cease Fire which will dramatically increase law enforcement's response to people who illegally possess firearms, convicted felons, juveniles. Operation Cease Fire has already had tremendous results in the two short months that it's been underway. So clearly, we do need to step up our law enforcement efforts. And when critics of gun control legislation say that, we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand; we should be absolutely clear that they are correct and that we are doing that. But it is also just as clear that the availability and accessibility to guns to juveniles and to convicted felons is one of our greatest problems. Juvenile gun violence, the recent report of the ATF, the recent ATF report released in this 10 BILL NO. 990289 region indicated that close to one-half of all of the guns used in juvenile gun violence came from multiple purchases. Again, as all of you know, the City has been very active in Harrisburg trying to get enacted one-gun-a-month legislation which would cripple the ability of straw purchasers to go in and buy 10, 12, guns at a time and resell them in the 9 streets of our City. So we are taking this type of 10 comprehensive approach that Councilman Ortiz 11 mentioned in his opening statement. However, each 12 one of those things individually solves a component 13 of the problem. But cumulatively, they don't solve 14 all of the problems. And this smart gun legislation today goes, in my judgment, a giant stride in dealing with some of the significant problems of unauthorized gun use. If I would tell you what the most significant problems are, they are, number 1, guns that are discharged accidentally. We all see that. Three or four guys sitting around at home, someone takes out the latest firearm, doesn't know it's loaded; boom, best friend kills best friend. Children playing with guns in the house; four-year-old child killed by six-year-old brother. 11 BILL NO. 990289 What happened in Philadelphia just a month ago with seven-year-old Nefice Jefferson, a great tragedy. A young boy riding his bike down the street shot in the head and killed because another young boy, a 10-year-old, finds a gun in an abandoned vehicle and accidentally discharges it. Obviously, the type of personalized handguns that we are talking about today, render, once and for all, accidental discharge. Impossible. Secondly, suicide. We have a number of young people who use firearms to kill themselves, despondent young people. Clearly, again, personalized handguns would eliminate that possibility as well. It would also eliminate the possibility of a despondent young person taking a handgun out of their own home, go into a school and opening up with that handgun on teachers or fellow students. They simply wouldn't be able to do it. It would not discharge. Theft, as you know in Philadelphia now, one of the prime motivations for house burglaries is stealing a weapon, a firearm, because firearms are easily disposable on the street. You can reap a 12 BILL NO. 990289 significant profit on a firearm. It would mean that anybody who tried to burglarize a house and steal a gun would have a product that they could not sell on the streets because it can only be discharged by the original owner. And most importantly of all, to our crime rate, to the carnage that guns bring about in the City of Philadelphia. Most importantly of all, you could not resell guns. This doesn't change the right of any individual to go in and buy 9 12 millimeter automatic pistols at one stop at a gun 13 shop. As long as that individual passes the Grady 14 requirements, he can under the current law do that.
15 But each one of those 15, 9 millimeter semiautomatics would have to be fitted to the personal characteristics of that individual, and that individual only and could not be resold, could not be resold on the streets. You will hear today from me and other witnesses about one of the developmental stages of so-called smart guns. It is a project that Colt Manufacturing Company is undertaking for the NIJ for police departments where there is a microchip that is inserted into the firearm. The police officer is 13 BILL NO. 990289 equipped with a ring. And only when the ring is within a certain distance of the microchip and lined up in a certain way can that firearm be activated. That is a help for police officers because, as you know, a significant percentage of our police officers who are shot, are shot by their own gun. And if they're disarmed during a struggle, the assailant could not turn the gun against them. But it does not fit our definition of personalized handguns for the very reason if we had ring technology, the fellow who goes in and wants to make a huge profit and buys nine millimeter automatic 14 pistols would buy 15 rings, one ring for each gun, 15 and would be able to sell them on the street and just give the buyer ring and gun; ring and gun. And you'd have convicted felons just wearing another ring and another ring which enables them to fire an illegal weapon. So that will not fit the definition that we have put into this bill. And it's very important because although that is a step down the road to developing this technology, it doesn't solve all of the problems. Now, where is the state of this technology? I would not come before Council and ask 14 BILL NO. 990289 you to enact this bill if it was unreasonable, if it raised a level of expectations that could not be met. But I want to tell you a little bit about the state of technology. I want to introduce for the record a recent New York Times editorial, and if I may just read a brief part of it. " Thirty patents already underway. The head of Smith and Wesson, a man by the name the of Ken Jorgensen was quoted in a recent article in the Trenton Times. He was quoted as saying, "Anyone who wants to stay in this industry I think is working on a product like this," meaning a smart gun, "But it's so competitive that no one really wants anyone else to know how far along they are or even what they're pursuing because I think the first company that comes out with a viable product is going to have a tremendous advantage. 15 BILL NO. 990289 "Although he hesitated to answer the question, Jorgensen said his company expects to have a product that would meet the deadline in the New Jersey bill. '" In a recent Newsweek article, the head of Colt, an investment banker by the name of Donald Zilka who owns Colt said that his company is also pursuing so-called smart gun technology that would render a handgun useless to anyone but the owner by scanning a fingerprint, a feature that may someday be required on police weapons. I wanted to make sure about the accuracy in this Newsweek article, and on Wednesday I spoke to have Steven Sliwa, S-l-i-w-a, who is the CEO of Colt Manufacturing, and he confirmed to me that Colt is working on a gun that will only be discharged by a fingerprint scan. So Colt and Smith and Wesson, two of the nation's largest manufacturers are working on that technology. And lastly, I want to, again, read from an article in the Trenton Times. Steven Terret (ph) who is the director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research was quoted as to 16 BILL NO. 990289 the question of whether this was feasible. Terret said that in 1992 he gave three undergraduate engineering majors at Johns Hopkins a disabled revolver and $2,000 and told them to produce a personalized handgun for a senior project. He said that they bought off-the-shelf components and produced a gun that had to be activated electronically through contact with a ring worn by the user.
For $2,000, three engineering students took us a giant step towards our goal. Again, I'm not satisfied with the ring technology because it doesn't eliminate the straw purchaser aspect of this, and that would not qualify under our bill. But think about it. If three engineering students in a senior project with $2,000 to spend could go that far, how can anybody say anywhere, anytime that this technology isn't feasible, that it cannot be developed? Now, we are also, though, cognizant of the fact that developing this technology, getting from where we are now to what would qualify under our bill is not going to be easy. That is why we put the time delay into our bill. And I'll talk about that in a moment. 17 BILL NO. 990289 Let me tell you how, in my judgment, pathetic our federal government's efforts have been to foster smart gun technology. If you look at Mr. Travis' letter, you will see he details that in 1994 NIJ awarded Sandia National Laboratory $620,000 to conduct a research initiative to assess the law enforcement needs for a smart gun. In 1996, Colt was awarded a $500,000 grant to refine its existing smart gun and deliver two working prototypes to the NIJ. And as I said, Colt is working on perfecting the ring technology. He indicates in his letter that although there's been no direct funding for smart gun technology in the past, the administration's FY 2000 budget request includes $4 million to support the development of smart gun technology. If this funding is provided, NIJ will issue a direct solicitation for proposals of alternative smart gun technology. That's a drop in the bucket to what I think we need to ensure that we get there as quickly as possible. In the last session of Congress, there was a bill introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly from Connecticut that would have 18 BILL NO. 990289 appropriated over a five-year period $100 million, $20 million a year, to facilitate smart gun research. The bill never got out of committee. It wasn't voted down, it just never moved in the last Congress. Congresswoman Kennelly ran for governor of Connecticut and is not in the Congress today. And towards that end, I've been in touch with Congressman Anthony Weiner representing Brooklyn, New York. And I'd like to submit to you as part of the record a letter I sent to Congressman Weiner asking him essentially to reintroduce the Kennelly bill appropriating the hundred million dollars in research over a period of time anywhere between three to five years. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: One question, Mr. Mayor.
Sure. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: The profitability factor, profits to the gun manufacturers, will this smart gun cut down on that?
No. One of the questions to be answered, it's pretty clear now that the technology can get us there. In five years with the right type of money, it can get us there. The 19 BILL NO. 990289 question is, will the finished product be at a cost that can be afforded by the ordinary consumer. And of course, there are people who say no. But those are the same people who told us that you couldn't put air bags in cars because it would increase the price of a car way beyond the reach of the ordinary American. Now automobile companies are fighting over themselves to put additional air bags in because they've become so popular. No, to the contrary. If it can be done at an affordable price, and I believe eventually it can be done, if it can be done, it will actually increase, as Mr. Jorgenson of Smith and Wesson, part of his statement that I read to you, it will actually increase the scope of potential gun buyers. They have done market research and have found that if there were truly a personalized handgun that can be discharged only by the owner, that it would increase the number of buyers. It would open up a new market. Housewives who are alone a lot who don't want a gun now because they read all the horror stories about accidental shootings, et cetera, things like that, it would open up a new market. 20 BILL NO. 990289 So I believe -- in fact, I want to also introduce into the record from the Colt Manufacturing Company's web site, I want to introduce part of their web site that we have included for you, and it has some very interesting comments. Number 1, it reiterates Colt's complaint about not having enough money for the development of this technology, but it says, "The concept of a smart gun for general consumer use would be to develop a handgun which could not be misused by children or others in the household or taken by a criminal and used against its owner. It could use fingerprints, voice, skin conductivity or other physical features . . Surveys have shown 30 percent of those who don't currently own a firearm would be in favor of gun ownership for personal safety or for sport if an electronic personalized technology existed. This would be good news to those who are interested in seeing our rights to bear arms protected. " Leaving aside the political nature of 21 BILL NO. 990289 that, I think it shows you that this is a marketable idea, this is feasible, it can be done, and it is something that I think could bring the manufacturers, mayors, and city councils, gun control advocates, all of them together, to support certainly the research bill in Congress, to support that bill. Now, on the Colt web site, they say they're against mandates, they're against mandating this personal technology. And obviously, it won't work unless we mandate it. So I want everyone to be aware that, one, we wouldn't be here if we didn't believe the technology existed now and could be refined so to make it practicable within a limited time. And number 2, we wouldn't be here if we weren't also pushing for the type of federal funding that will be necessary to up-tempo these research efforts. Now, having said all of that, I want to make two last comments. Even though this was a bill 23 that was drafted by the Administration, we want to suggest three amendments, and we will submit them, Mr. Chairman, to you in writing. But the three 22 BILL NO. 990289 amendments are in the definition section A1 where it says, "So that it may only be fired by the particular individual to whom it is sold," I would like to add "or to that individual's husband or wife or member of immediate family," because there are many families who buy a gun to protect the home and they want that gun to be used by any of the adults possibly in the home. That would be their choice. When Bryan Miller testifies, he will show you a fingerprint technology that has evolved. He will show you a gun which can be fingerprint activated now. It can be take up to 10 different sets of fingerprints.
Now, we want to limit this to adults in the immediate family, choice of purchaser. " No. You can scan in the fingerprint of almost every adult in the family. We will work on specific language. Secondly, in Section 2, the strict liability section, it talks about beginning three years after the date this section becomes law, any person, including but not limited to any registered or licensed firearms manufacturer or dealer, who 23 BILL NO. 990289 transports, sells, exposes for sale, possesses for sales, assigns or transfers any firearm shall be liable in tort without regard to fault or proof defect, et cetera, et cetera. That clearly needs amending, and it should read "Transfers any firearm manufactured after the operative date," because otherwise we'd be holding gun manufactures, distributors, strictly liable for a gun produced 10 years ago that wasn't adapted to smart gun 11 technology. And that would be unfair. We can't ask 12 them to go out and reclaim every gun on the street 13 and adapt it to smart gun technology. We can do 14 this going forward. " Let me tell you. The recent ATF study found that well over 60 percent of the guns used by juveniles in violence were three years of age or younger. So this business that there's so many guns out there gun control won't work, more than half, 60 percent of the guns used by juveniles were three years of age or younger. So this will have an effect. So we need to amend that. And lastly, I would like to change the 24 BILL NO. 990289 three-year limitation. I would suggest to you to change the three-year limitation to four years. One, I want to make sure that we're not being unreasonable and we do give the technology the time to develop in a safe and effective and efficient way. The New Jersey bill is three years, but it gives the Attorney General of New Jersey the right to increase the time limit twice by one year each. So the Jersey bill, and Mr. Miller will talk more definitively about the Jersey bill, the Jersey bill 12 will extend it to five years. I would like to change our bill, and again this is something that obviously members can discuss among themselves, but I think that four is a much fairer limitation than three. I believe that this legislation can have a significant effect on this debate. The New York Times and other people have contacted us about this legislation. I believe this legislation will send a very clear message to gun manufacturers that it is time to up-tempo their efforts. It will send a clear message to the Congress that local government is moving with or without them. So I believe this is a very important piece of legislation. 25 BILL NO. 990289 Lastly, let me address myself to a question that Councilman Ortiz asked me to address. And that is, can this bill withstand the state preemption statute? My answer is yes, because the state preemption statute forbids us -- or for that matter any locality, but it was obviously directed at us. Forbids us from doing anything that would attempt to regulate the distribution, sale, transfer of guns. We're not attempting to do that. If gun manufacturers, gun distributors, and gun shops want to continue to produce, distribute, sell non-smart guns, they can. We are not changing the law. They can do that. We're just saying, if you do that, you do that at your peril because in Philadelphia strict liability will apply unless it is a personalized handgun. So we are not attempting to interfere. They have the choice to continue to sell, possess, distribute, transfer firearms in any way that they so choose, in any way that they so choose. We're just saying in this county, there will be a price to pay if those guns aren't personalized. It is my judgment that this is one area that the preemption statute has not taken away from us. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Will that also apply, BILL NO. 990289 as Councilman Kenney just leaned over to me and said, to the tort liability that goes with the bill?
My question is, is the issue of tort liability a state jurisdictional issue? Can we in Philadelphia set up a different tort liability than Lebanon County or Allegheny County?
There is nothing in the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that says that an individual subdivision cannot create different tort liability, different contract liability, et cetera. Unless there is a specific statute that deals with the issue, there is no 16 reason that we can't legislate.
Do we have something from the Law Department that would give us that opinion prior to the passage of the bill that we can at least be on sound footing from the liability standpoint? I understand your argument on the state preemption. That I understand. But on the liability issue, I just have some concerns that --
In the absence of a statute that deals with the issue, any political 27 BILL NO. 990289 subdivision I think can impose -- and maybe Mr. McHugh can testify more to that in general. But any political subdivision can impose their own limits and limitations.
If we can get something from the Law Department, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. McHugh will also comment about that. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Mr. Mayor, could you tell us and do you have the information as to the cost to the City right now of gun violence in terms of money, in terms of what it is that we have to take out of our budget.
As you know, we have prepared to file litigation if we believe that that is an alternative that is necessary for us, and in that preparation we did a study on our costs, and it comes to roughly $58 million a year. That is only cost incurred by the government, by the taxpayers. If you were to add the cost to Philadelphia hospitals for the un-reimbursed care that they give as a result of gun violence, that would add an additional 20 to 30 million dollars on top of that. 28 BILL NO. 990289 The specific answer to your question, the government of the City of Philadelphia, the taxpayers, we believe we could prove to pay roughly $58 million a year as a cost of gun violence. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: And that's money taken out of our budget yearly?
Good morning, your Honor. Excuse my attire. I have to be out selling papers shortly. Does that 58 million include the cost of the courts, what we incur in the court system?
Thank you. Mayor, the guns that are already out there, if a person is involved in an incident with a gun that doesn't have this technology, what's the ramification?
Well, for guns that are already out there manufactured previously, then the existing laws would apply. There would be no strict liability. You'd have to proceed under a negligence 29 BILL NO. 990289 theory, under a public nuisance theory, et cetera, et cetera. And as you know, Councilman Rizzo, there have been multiple, hundreds of lawsuits filed by individual victims of gun violence. Only one has reached a successful verdict, and even that successful verdict was problematic because most of the gun companies sued were found not liable because the actual damages assessed were very little. So it's very difficult, and it's a question that we asked Mr. McHugh to address when he testifies before you,, it is very difficult to win those suits for an individual who's been shot. If Mr. Chilutti, for example, wanted to sue or a mother of a deceased, if Nefice Jefferson's mom wanted to sue, it's very difficult to win those suits now.
Mayor, because of the availability of guns -- I'll refer to them as the bad guys. I know there's a lot of issues here, we've got children being accidentally shot, but we're talking about the bad guys. If the bad guys want guns to commit crime, don't you think that with legislation like this will generate a new manufacturing, underground manufacturing of guns? Have we done any type of research to know that are 30 BILL NO. 990289 all the guns that are used in crime made by major manufacturers or will some entrepreneur say, "Hey, look, now that this it tightening up, if you've got $5,000 you'll be able to buy a gun that's manufactured in some underground cave someplace."
Basically, could someone, like they do with drugs, produce speed in a basement of a house and sell them? Mr. Miller might want to take a crack at that, but my experience tells me no. It is a very difficult proposition to get the steel necessary, the technology necessary. It's very difficult to do this. If you set up a major operation in a mountainside somewhere, we would -- every gun, for example, in Philadelphia, and Commissioner Timoney can testify about this, we now try to trace every gun in Philadelphia. Defendants are interviewed, where did you get the gun from, et cetera. We would find out about that type of operation very readily. And frankly, from my law enforcement experience, which you know dates back 30 years now, the only sort of manufactured guns that don't go through the regular process were the zip guns of the fifties and sixties. Councilman Ortiz remembers those. But basically to get a 31 BILL NO. 990289 firearm that is capable of doing the things -- the bad guys, as you know, they want state-of-the-art. They don't want a six-shooter that fires six bullets. They want the state-of-the-art automatic weapons that discharge as quickly as possible. Those can only come from a major manufacturer.
Just to follow-up on my final question. Once this technology -- and I like this idea of technology to prevent those accidental shootings. But again, I think we need to be the devil's advocate there for a few minutes to think about if you were a bad guy and this law became in effect in four years, what you would do to get the guns that you need to commit your crime and your violence. Would you go to foreign countries, would you buy existing guns that are out there even though current technology --
Councilman, I think if you're talking about sophisticated crime rings, organized crime rings, they will find ways to get guns. They will smuggle them in from foreign countries, et cetera. But most of the people who are the victims of gun violence here, 99 percent of them, are not the victims of gun violence by 32 BILL NO. 990289 sophisticated organized crime rings. They are the victims of gun violence by hoodlums who have prior records but are just robbers and bad guys. They're the victims of juveniles who get guns from the gun traffickers. And that would all grind to a halt. The reason I gave you the statistic in the ATF study that most of the guns used by juveniles are three years and younger, because it belies the belief that a number of people stated -- when I ran for governor in 1986, I said gun control is a red herring because there's so many guns out there now, it doesn't matter; it would take 80 years before gun control would have any effect in this country. That has been proven to be wrong. And, again, will there be an exception, will there be sophisticated high-financed organized crime rings that will get guns imported? Of course, there will be; of course, there will be. But remember, for them, they're a small, small slice. I don't think -- Commissioner Timoney might add to this. I don't know if we've had a killing, a homicide from an organized crime ring in a significant period of time here. Or if we have, it's been very few in number. 33 BILL NO. 990289
But this could drive the price of existing guns on the street up. The ones that don't have the smart technology, legislation like this could drive the price up of the current millimeter, which is a very adequate 7 gun to be a criminal. The guns that are out there, 8 we could be bumping the price up of those existing 9 guns.
Which wouldn't be so bad because it would make it tougher for a juvenile to buy one.
I agree, the juvenile, the accidental. I'm talking about the drug dealers that we're talking about that are out there killing cops. In my opinion, it's not the kid, the hoodlum in the block, that necessarily is the one that I'm pointing to.
Again, even in police shootings, you will find that very few of those police shootings occur from organized crime rings. They're more just two or three guys robbing a store with guns, the Burger King. I mean, you can go through them. Those are not -- that's not our gun violence problem; organized crime rings are not our 34 BILL NO. 990289 gun violence problem. They are part of it, but they are not a significant part of it. Again, I go back to what Councilman Ortiz said. This is not a panacea. That is not going to eliminate 100 percent of our problem. But, gosh, if it eliminated 50 percent of our problem, that would be a godsend. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman Cohen.
Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say on this, if your answer to Councilman Rizzo had been if this eliminates 1 percent of the problem, it would be a great forward step. I think anything we can do is worth trying to do. I think this legislation may well have problems, but that's because of political reasons. And I think there will be a lot of opposition to it by the very people that promote the number of guns that we have today. But I want to commend you for taking this step. I think it focuses attention on it, it helps in the educational process. And if you're right, and we hope you are, technologically it will produce an additional weapon on our side, but a safe weapon to get these guns off the street.
Councilman, may I note, 35 BILL NO. 990289 the worst thing that happens here is that we're sued and we lose in court; the worst thing that happens here. Councilman Cohen, you and Councilman Ortiz know that when you made your courageous fight on our own ability to legislate gun controls initiatives here in Philadelphia. There's no disgrace in fighting and losing. The disgrace is if we sit back and don't try to do anything. Can I guarantee that we will win in court? Of course not. No one can ever guarantee. When I was in the private practice of law people would come up to me and tell me their story and say, "Mayor, can I sue" -- they didn't say "Mayor." They said, "Mr. Rendell, can I sue?" And I said, "Of course, you can sue. It's the wrong question. The right question is, can I win? And I don't know the answer to that." But if you tell me that we might lose in court, it wouldn't dissuade me for two seconds. Let's try. Let's try to do something about the carnage that's going on. You will hear from Mr. McHugh that if it does succeed, it will be a powerful weapon, a powerful weapon, in forcing gun manufacturers to do what I think they ought to do anyway, and that's personalize all handguns going 36 BILL NO. 990289 forward as soon as the technology becomes available.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman Cohen, can we pass legislation even if we're not sure that it's legal? (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: I think this is a step forward. We will get that opinion from the City Solicitor and the Court, but Jim and I were just having a conversation. They were able to go to Harrisburg and pass preemptive legislation on the assault weapons. I don't think the Trial Lawyers Association would pass legislation limiting the ability of tort. I think it's a different perspective here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Commissioner Timoney. Commissioner, you know the routine already. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the committee. Thank you for the invite to participate. I think in giving evidence in this important piece of 37 BILL NO. 990289 legislation -- CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Identify yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I am Police Commissioner John F. Timoney, the Police Commissioner of Philadelphia. I'm here this morning to testify in support of the Smart Gun Ordinance. We've all heard the claim that guns don't kill people, that people kill people. Either way, too many people are dying. Smart guns will prevent people from killing people by rendering the weapons inoperable in all but the lawfully registered owners' hands. Less than two months ago, and the Mayor referenced this earlier, we had an incident in South Philadelphia where a young seven-year-old got his hands on a drug dealer's gun from a car and accidentally discharged it killing another seven-year-old. Just last weekend at a party up in the Northeast, a retired police officer's residence, his gun was picked up by an 18-year-old friend, and kids being kids, being curious, mistakenly thought that the gun was unloaded. There was still one in the 38 BILL NO. 990289 chamber and kind of, I guess, goofing around accidentally discharged it and killed a 17-year-old young woman. I've been a police officer for over 30 years and I've attended far too many funerals of police officers who are killed by their own gun; and in one situation, two police officers that were killed by another police officer's gun. Smart gun technology would have prevented these assailants from firing the officer's gun should the officer have been disarmed during the struggle. Guns also kill indiscriminately. A gun will fire for whoever pulls the trigger. Guns are also easily transferred from a legitimate owner to criminals and children. All illegal guns were at one time legally owned. And criminals can lease guns from another criminal entrepreneur. Rent-a-gun shootings in this town are common. Ballistics traces often reveal a single gun was used in many different shootings committed by many different assailants. The smart gun technology before you would prevent such sharing of guns. Strawman purchasers also buy guns legally. A single licensed buyer often buys dozens 39 BILL NO. 990289 of guns and then re-sells them to criminals and children who could not lawfully purchase them. Another problem exists with guns which are stolen from legitimate owners and then used by criminals. Again, if these guns were equipped with smart gun technology, no one other than the legal purchaser could fire them. Therefore, this ordinance would increase the exposure to civil liability for those manufacturers who sell firearms in Philadelphia without smart gun technology. I urge you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the committee to please pass this legislation. Sir, if there are any questions. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Again, I want to thank you for inviting me here. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Commissioner, do you have any statistics on the numbers of handguns that are sold within the border of Philadelphia, within the County of Philadelphia yearly? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: What I do have are the statistics with regards to the guns we recover or confiscate. And clearly, for example, if 40 BILL NO. 990289 you compared the guns recovered in New York versus the guns that are recovered by the police in Philadelphia, you'll find a startling difference. The guns, about 90 or 95 percent of the guns that are recovered by the New York Police Department come from outside of New York State, mostly from five southern states and now Pennsylvania has now become a source state for New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
If you look at the guns that the Philadelphia Police Department confiscates on a yearly basis, about 85 percent of them come from the State of Pennsylvania. And out of that 85 percent, about 75 percent come from within the City. So for us, it's kind of a home-grown problem. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: It is a home-grown problem. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: And this type of legislation would have a significant impact on this problem. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I think a dramatic impact. I know the Mayor used the term 50 percent, and Mr. Cohen correctly said even if it was percent. But my sense is it's actually higher. I 41 1 BILL NO. 990289 think both of them are being very conservative. I think it will be better than 50 percent. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Any questions? Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Can we have Gerald McHugh, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Gerald McHugh and I am president of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association. I was asked by Mayor Rendell if I would evaluate this ordinance 14 as an expert in the field of product liability and advise him as to whether it would be a valuable tool in terms of reducing gun violence in the City of Philadelphia. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Maybe you can answer Councilman Kenney's question here also.
I can begin by doing that if you want, Mr. Chairman, and that is to say that while a state statute can define liability per se, which is to say violation of the statute automatically confers liability. Violation of an ordinance is not quite so automatic; it does not 42 BILL NO. 990289 create per se liability. It is, however, relevant and admissable in a trial in order to establish the standard of care. Let me use an analogy, if I might. People who own property across the Commonwealth by state law have an obligation to maintain their properties. In every municipality, there are specific codes and ordinances that then define that. For example, in the City of Philadelphia, ordinances about sidewalk repair, ordinances about drainage. In a case in any county, you may introduce the ordinance as expressing the values of that county and the will of the political body there. It is not per se liability, but relevant and admissible; and for that reason is a very valuable tool in defining the standard of care. For that reason, I believe that by passing this, we do not violate state law. And although there's not per se liability, indeed a fact-finder, be it judge or jury, then knows that the City of Philadelphia has ordained there must be smart technology in guns. Strict liability means what its name implies, which is to say you are strictly liable for something that you do. The victim need not prove 43 BILL NO. 990289 fault, need not prove culpability, need only prove that there was a mandate from the Council and that the manufacturer of the gun did not comply with the mandate. In practical terms, that is incredibly significant, because as Mayor Rendell said, with the gun litigation around the country, individual victims have not been able to prevail and the resources of the gun industry are so immense as against the individual claimant that -- except for the one case in Brooklyn that was a partial victory and in large part due to Judge Weinstein's courage in allowing the case to proceed -- no victim has prevailed. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: That was my professor, by the way.
And a great federal judge and set an example in that case. What this ordinance will do is level the playing field and it will give an individual victim the ability to prevail. Under Pennsylvania law, a product may be considered defective and strict liability may attach if it lacks something necessary to make it safe for 44 BILL NO. 990289 intended use. By passing this ordinance, you say smart technology is necessary to make guns available for their intended use. I would like to point out that what would happen here is consistent with what is happening with many other significant social problems. That is to say, the litigation system becomes an adjunct for public policy. We have seen that with asbestos; we have seen that with air bags, as the Mayor pointed out; we have seen that with tobacco. What it allows is individual victims and consumers to step forward and assert their rights. The ordinance is balanced in that it preserves all of the defenses that would ordinarily be available to a manufacturer. It follows Pennsylvania common-law -- CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Excuse me, Mr. McHugh. For the class that is here, the students, we're having a hearing today on a law that would prohibit the sales of guns that do not have a computer chip on them that will only allow the individual who buys that gun, once they get their fingerprint into that computer chip program, into that computer chip, to fire the gun. We're trying 45 BILL NO. 990289 to prevent the sale of wholesale guns in the City. So I just want you to -- when you're hearing the testimony here that we're trying to pass legislation that would make our streets a little bit safer for children like you and your parents and individuals like us. Go ahead, continue, Mr. McHugh.
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, the ordinance really is consistent with general principles of common law in terms of the way it defines a liability, in terms of the way it allows manufacturers a defense, and in terms of measure of damages. So in terms of consistency, I do not see a problem and think that just simply expresses within the City of Philadelphia this is the standard to which we will adhere. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about the technical/legal aspects of it. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: I think you answered the question that we had in terms of our ability to be able to pass legislation along this line and in terms of whether we'd be preempted by state ordinance. Unless anybody else has questions. 46 BILL NO. 990289
Mr. McHugh has been very clear, and we thank you for it. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Thank you very much.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Bryan Miller, Executive Director of Ceasefire New Jersey. They've been firing towards Philadelphia during the last few years and I thank you for coming here for Ceasefire is very good.
It's my pleasure. As you heard, I am Executive Director of Ceasefire New Jersey. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Identify yourself for the record first.
I am Bryan Miller, Executive Director of Ceasefire New Jersey. Ceasefire is the state-wide coalition of groups and individuals in New Jersey devoted to reducing gun violence. I thank you very much for inviting me here today. It is a honor and a privilege both to address City Council and follow such remarkable men as Commissioner Timoney and the Mayor. It will be my pleasure today to inform you as to our experience in New Jersey, where 47 BILL NO. 990289 Ceasefire has led the effort to gain passage of what we see as a ground-breaking childproof handgun bill. First, let me tell you that Ceasefire has existed for over a decade. And furthermore, we began to promote our childproof handgun bill nearly three years ago. Knowledge of the concept of smart or personalized or, as we prefer, childproof handguns was limited to very few gun manufacturers and some folks in the field of injury prevention. I personally became executive director of Ceasefire in September 1996 when I gave up a 20-year career in international business to devote myself to the reduction of gun violence. C. Metropolitan Police Headquarters by a lone gunman wielding a concealed assault handgun. Imagine, one disturbed man was able to acquire, conceal and operate sufficient firepower to overwhelm a room full of trained and armed peace officers. That says to me that if the gun-makers can build such concealability and lethality into 48 BILL NO. 990289 their products, they can certainly childproof them. Our childproof handgun bill, which enjoys bipartisan prime sponsorship in both houses, defines a childproof handgun as one that is designed and manufactured so that it can be fired only by an adult authorized user or users. The bill does not define any particular technology as acceptable, but sets a standard that is essentially identical to that included in the ordinance before you today. The relevant committee of the New Jersey Senate, the Law and Public Safety Committee, has twice taken testimony from interested parties on both sides including many of the 32 civic, educational, religious, health, and law enforcement groups that have joined our PUSH, People United for Safer Handguns Coalition. The committee, I'm happy to report, voted unanimously two weeks ago to report a version of our bill to the full Senate with a recommendation for passage. And the Senate President has been quoted in the press as promising to post the childproof handgun bill for a full Senate vote in about two weeks' time and has expressed support for its passage. 49 BILL NO. 990289 The childproof handgun bill in New Jersey as passed by committee would require that upon enactment any purchase of a new handgun in our state must either be accompanied by a trigger lock or be a childproof handgun. Three years after enactment the New Jersey Attorney General must make a determination as to whether childproof technology is available. If so, the trigger lock mandate will immediately expire, thereby requiring that all new handguns sold in the state be childproofed. If, however, the AG determines that the technology is not available, he can postpone the sun-setting of the trigger lock mandate for one year. The Attorney General, if he or she follows that path, may revisit the technology availability issue one year later at the end of the fourth year from enactment, but not for a third time. So the trigger lock mandate wil expire no later than the end of the fifth year from enactment leaving only the childproof handgun mandate intact. We believe that the prospects in the full Senate are excellent. We also have hopes that Governor Whitman, who said in her January State-of-the-State, address that she, "did not want 50 BILL NO. 990289 one more gun sold in the state without built-in protection for our children," will soon cease promoting her own weak version of a childproof handgun bill and adopt ours.
The Governor's bill 6 differs from ours in that it defines no date certain beyond which gun makers can supply only childproof handguns. In our view, this provides cover for the gun industry to continue to avoid making its products safer. We've always known that the Assembly in Trenton would be a harder lift than the Senate. However, our childproof handgun bill has enjoyed enormous public support for quite some time, support which has grown and become more vocal since the Littleton massacre. Success in the Senate will increase support and momentum. And happily, the press in New Jersey understands this issue very well and reflects public interest through its extensive coverage. We commissioned a survey of Republican voters only in October 1998 to see where attitudes were in the state about our childproof handgun bill, and I'm happen to say -- this is long before Littleton -- much to our surprise, 73 percent of 51 BILL NO. 990289 Republican voters in the State of New Jersey support our bill. And in fact, even 70 percent of Republican gun-owners support our childproof handgun bill, which actually makes some sense because most gun-owners are very concerned about safety. And that's what our bill is, it's a gun safety measure. So why do we need this bill in New Jersey and why do the citizens of Philadelphia need today's ordinance? And it's simple: Too many people are being killed or injured because handguns as currently sold do not incorporate readily available means to limit their use to authorized adults; and too many children are finding guns and unintentionally shooting friends, neighbors, or siblings; and too many adolescence are picking up a parent's handgun at a time of momentary depression and ending lives full of promise; and too many teens are taking operable handguns to school and threatening classmates and teachers or harming them; and finally, too many felons are stealing handguns from homes and then using them as tools of crime. Whatever the statistics, and you have heard some frightening numbers today, can anyone rightfully say that it is not true that too many 52 BILL NO. 990289 have died and too many have been injured? I think not. We have at Ceasefire firmly believe that passage of both the simple consumer product safety regulation in our childproof handgun bill and the liability provisions of today's ordinance will cause the gun industry to do what the makers of virtually every other American product do every single day: Make their products as safe as they can be made. To those who have any misgivings about any availability of technology to childproof handguns, let me make two brief points and tell you a short true story. First, there are over 30 patents that have been granted for different techniques to childproof handguns, some dating back more than years. Second, former Colt 18 Manufacturing CEO Ron Stewart wrote almost two years 19 ago to the effect that if we could send a vehicle to 20 Mars, gun-makers can certainly develop childproof handguns. And finally, a true story: I have an acquaintance, he's a life-long NRA member and he's always kept a handgun in his home for protection. When his wife had a baby girl, my acquaintance sent 53 BILL NO. 990289 his handgun away in reply to a magazine ad. A few weeks later his handgun was returned to him along with two special rings. His handgun looked the same as it always had but would fire only if the user was wearing one of the special rings. It had been childproofed. The remarkable thing about this story is not the childproofing of the handgun, but that the daughter in question has now completed college and moved away. Yes, my acquaintance had his handgun childproofed over years ago. And, yes, 12 the gun manufacturers have refused to adopt or 13 improve such readily available technology for over 14 two decades and they continue to so refuse 15 ingenuously saying that the technology does not 16 exist. 17 The moral of this little story is clear.
18 Absent the sort of date certain that is integral to 19 our childproof handgun bill and today's ordinance, 20 the gun-makers will continue to do nothing. And while they dither, dozens or perhaps hundreds of kids and teens in New Jersey and Philadelphia will die needlessly. I, therefore, implore you to do the righteous thing and adopt this simple life-saving measure. 54 BILL NO. 990289 I have here, if you'd like it, a model of one of the technologies. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Yes, I'd like to see it.
Now, let me tell you, they're actually many different technologies. This is just one of more than 30. This is a solid block plastic.
Excuse me. To the new class, we're trying to pass safe gun legislation in the City so that guns are not readily available. To all the students that are here, readily available in the streets of Philadelphia. And this is one of those -- not any gun can be safe for the children. I want to be very clear: Guns are not safe. But we're trying to make sure that we can childproof guns, and this is one of those childproof guns that have been childproofed.
This is a model of a Smith and Wesson 9 millimeter semi-automatic handgun. And it's got some cutouts on each side which is just to show the fingerprint scanner, which in this case is in the back. It could be here if you were a left-handed user. But in this case, it's at the 55 BILL NO. 990289 back. This a fingerprint scanner made by Thompson. It's a French electronics company. The developer of this, Oxford Micro Devices in Shelton, Connecticut, has developed a chip that is inside the grip of the gun. This chip can store up to fingerprints. So 7 the gun just lying there is inoperable to anyone. 8 But if the right person picks it up and touches this 9 fingerprint scanner, in less than a tenth of a 10 second the scanner communicates with the chip and, let's say, my fingerprint matches one in the gun in the chip, the gun is immediately operable, a tenth of a second, less than a heartbeat. The front of the grip is pressure sensitive so that if I have now made this gun operable, it's my gun, I've made it operable, as soon as I release the grip, it's inoperable so that no one can take the gun from me and use it against me or I can't lay the gun down and have a kid pick it up. As I said, this is one of more than 30 different techniques, but it's one -- this company has come and testified in New Jersey about their technology. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: I grab it, I scan it, I 56 BILL NO. 990289 can shoot; but if I let go it immediately deactivates?
That's correct. You have to be one of those fingerprints, otherwise, it 6 won't work for you at all. 7 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Frank says it's 8 pressure and fingerprints. 9
Right. This technology, 10 the company that developed this, Oxford Micro Devices, have said that if a gun manufacturer, and they talked to many of them, purchased a licensed for this technology, that it could be in production within to months. 15 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: What would be the 16 cost?. 17
This would add 50 to $100. 18 CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Fifty to a hundred dollars?
Fifty to a hundred dollars. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman Cohen.
I think such a gun is an advance over a gun that can be fired by anyone, but why shouldn't we limit it to a single fingerprint? 57 BILL NO. 990289
Yes, because I think with respect to matters of domestic violence, I don't think there ought to be a weapon that's operable by both the husband and the wife because I think a lot of use of guns in domestic violence comes from the fact of the availability of the gun. And if that gun were only able to be activated by one of the two parties, I think it would eliminate a great deal of the deaths that occur.
I think you might be right. Politically, I would say, in our state at least, that we would doom the bill to -- its passage would be doomed because this is one of the arguments that initially the NRA used against this was, gee, you're limiting it to one person. We were then subsequently able to say, no, you're not. But I understand your point, certainly, sir.
And I understand your point, too. I just think the more we limit -- you know, it's a strange irony, the United States with respect to tobacco as a result of the many years of educational work, the United States is the nation that's most conscious of the dangers of tobacco, and 58 BILL NO. 990289 the cigarette manufacturers are being forced to rely on sales to other countries. In weapons and guns, it's just the reverse. The statistics show that the United States is the most backward country in the whole world with respect to an understanding of the threats of gun violence. The facts are so clear, one wonders how we manage to live this way with the multitude of guns available to us. It makes absolutely no sense. Nobody can argue the position. You've given us poll information that we didn't have before that shows that even probably NRA members would overwhelmingly favor this kind of legislation. So what accounts for our inability to pass these laws?
Well, we hope we do pass our law. But I would say that the National Rifle Association is a very, very powerful organization. They don't work out in the open very often; they tend to work behind the scenes. But they're very effective in getting their people out and communicating with legislators and making their relatively small numbers of members, in our state at least, seem very large because they're one-issue people, so they all do something. But we believe 59 BILL NO. 990289 that our public support is so broad on this that even legislators who really don't want to even talk about guns are going to support it.
Since you come from the State of New Jersey, probably one of the most restrictive states in the nation when comes to the ownership -- let me be very accurate. I'm not sure about the ownership, but the ability to get a permit to carry, New Jersey --
Well, one of the most restrictive according to many people. I think what we have to do is, and I think you used the term gun safety versus gun violence. In my opinion, legislation can make guns safer, but I don't think at this point that this immediately, and I know that this can take a long time, to lessen the violence with guns. Because, again, as I said earlier, the bad guys are going to get guns. And if a bad guy wants to commit -- if a drug pusher wants a gun, he's not going to go buy, in my opinion, or even 60 BILL NO. 990289 think about a smart gun. He's going to go to the streets and find a gun that doesn't have that technology, and there's a lot of guns out there available. No question that we need to move forward in making guns safer, but I'm not necessarily convinced that there will be less violence because of this legislation.
If I may, Councilman. In fact, more than half of gun violence is not crime related. If you look at the numbers of total incidents of gun violence and you put together unintentional shootings, accidental shootings, suicide, these are gun violence, you come up more than 50 percent of gun violence. So in my opinion, you're right, there's a crime issue here, but it's not just a crime issue.
Again, an accidental shooting, you can call it violence, to me it's an accident with a gun. If you want to call it violence, that's fine. But I'm talking about one of our police officers in the City that's trying to make a car stop and has three people that are in the business of selling drugs fire upon he or she. I'm not convinced that that smart gun technology is 61 BILL NO. 990289 going to stop that from happening. That accidental discharge, that's different in my opinion. Thank you. I appreciated your testimony.
Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: But it will prevent those three individuals from getting the guns from the police individual and shooting that police with their own gun.
Certainly. And in fact, the whole idea was originally developed for law enforcement. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: And that's exactly part of the problem that we have, as Commissioner Timoney said. This reminds me of the period of time in the United States when Ralph Nader was advocating for safer cars. And the auto manufacturers kept saying, you know, the problem is not the cars but the drivers. And he said safer cars will save lives. And he finally convinced the American people that that was the right way to go and the manufacturers came around obviously because we had trial lawyers out there like us and so on suing them 62 BILL NO. 990289 and getting big judgements, and it became profitable for them to be able to make safer cars. But this reminds me of the same sort of arguments that we had, and Ralph Nader at one point looked like someone just whistling in the wind and finally people began to believe he was right. I thank you for showing us this model. I think it shows what can be done and what is available right now that can be put together. Thank you very much.
Good morning. I'll state for the record my name is Mark Chilutti. I'd like to tell you that I'm happy to provide this testimony this morning, but that would not be the entire truth. I'd much rather be standing behind a counter at my jewelry store waiting on customers, but because of the gun violence I can't stand and I know longer have a jewelry store. Instead, I'm here today for you to put a face to a problem that is growing day by day. While I'll spare you from hearing the entire story, since many of you are already familiar 63 BILL NO. 990289 with it, I will stress one major part of it. I was shot at point blank range and left paralyzed with no 4 feeling or control from the chest down by a felon with 17 previous convictions who obviously could not own a gun legally. Smart guns; what an oxymoron that seems to be when you think about it. This technology, however, can save lives, injuries, and millions of dollars. As I said before when speaking about gun issues and we've alluded somewhat to that today, I wish someone could explain to me why Ford can't sell you a car without a safety belt, yet Smith and Wesson can sell you a gun, a deadly weapon, without a lock. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to any of us. This bill being addressed today, however, is very timely and of major importance. Gun violence in our streets is a daily problem and seems to be getting worse as time marches on. The need for responsibility and accountability, both legally and financially is long overdue. You've already heard that the cost of gun violence is millions of dollars every year. Just to put a real face, again, to those numbers, my first year after 64 BILL NO. 990289 injury alone reached about $300,000 for medical care; and I'm one small instance. Passing this bill, allowing the victims to seek financial compensation from owners of weapons involved in crime, injury, and accident is long overdue. In keeping with my earlier comparisons to the auto industry, I'll elaborate a little further. If you or someone gets into an accident with your car, you are financially responsible. Why should it be any different for an accident or injury from your gun? And to those in the gun lobby who will say it's unfair or unconstitutional to make people conform to this legislation and pay an extra 50 to a hundred dollars as it would cost for that gun for the smart gun technology, I invite you to come and explain it to the patients I work with at Magee Rehabilitation Hospital, people like me whose goals instantly in the course of an eight and a half minute experience went from making a hundred thousand dollars a year by my 30th birthday as a successful businessman to being able to tie my shoes again all because of gun violence and a gun that was in the hands of somebody who should not have owned it. Or go with me to any school in the City and 65 BILL NO. 990289 show me one kid whose life is not worth that 50 or a hundred dollars extra. Better yet, let me have your name and phone number so when another seven-year-old child is killed by a gun found in the streets that we could have made the difference with, you can explain it to his parents why this technology is not worth it. Gun violence in our streets and communities knows no color nor is it limited to certain areas of the city. It's not a Democratic problem, it's not a Republican problem; it's an everyday Philadelphia problem. Whether by accident or intent, people of all ages and walks of life are getting shot. Some live to tell about it, many don't. With smart gun technology and laws for financial responsibility enacted immediately, perhaps the day will come when our news can be filled with the great accomplishments of our children instead of their lost dreams. I myself can only dream that I will live long enough to see that day. Taking these bills and every gun control issue very seriously can perhaps help this new dream of mine make up for the ones that were stolen from me 66 BILL NO. 990289 by a bullet.
I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Thank you, Mark. I think you are a prime example of what we are talking about. Not that it would have prevented it, but I think what the Mayor said when he was here, and that hit me, that the age or the time that a gun has been out in the public, accessible to the public and so on is only three years and less. Putting an age to a gun, the age of guns used in committing some of the violence and some of the murders that we have had in the City of Philadelphia is three years or less, really it puts a certain perspective that if we can pass legislation that will go into effect, let's say, four years from now, that four years after that, the level of guns accessible out in the streets of Philadelphia that are not with this technology would be minuscule. I would hope that they would be in very small proportion to the overall numbers that are there now. That, to me is a very big step forward and I agree. Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chilutti, I find your statement interesting and the question you ask 67 BILL NO. 990289 in your written statement appears in paragraph 3 when you say, "I wish someone could explain why Ford can't sell you a car without a safety belt, yet Smith and Wesson can sell you a gun, a deadly weapon, without a safety lock." Well, maybe we can do something in Philadelphia to help you get a list of people to whom you can call and ask that question. We're going to find out in City Council. And we're going to give you an opportunity to talk to any Council Members who may vote against this bill because I think we have to start somewhere. I think Philadelphia is a good place. I think this bill 15 has, as every bill, always has questions as to how effective it will be, but I think it begins to educate people more and more. And as we educate, I think we achieve success. So I'm just telling you, we may be able to give you a list of telephone numbers, though I hope, I feel very confident that I'm going to call you and tell you, Mr. Chilutti, there's nobody on City Council that you can ask that question of because everybody voted for this bill 24 and it passed unanimously. I think that would be a wonderful message. But if that's not the message I 68 BILL NO. 990289 can give you, it's going to include the names of those who I'd like you to call up and ask your question.
And as anybody who knows me knows I'll be happy to talk to anybody that will listen.
We're going to do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Councilman Rizzo.
Thanks for coming today. You might not be the right guy to ask this question of, but with all you've done, you might know the answer. You indicated 50 to a hundred dollars additional. I think you said that, in the cost of a gun. Now, if I wanted to give my gun or leave my gun to a family member at my death, how does that gun able to be zeroed out and given to an heir or if you trade it into a gun shop and get a different gun, has anyone thought of how that is dealt with?
I don't know a definite answer, and somebody else may be better answering that question, but I would think the same way that a gun shop is able to -- because it is going to be the 69 BILL NO. 990289 gun shop that when they sell you the gun that is going to help program that. I would think that the same way you need to transfer paperwork at a gun shop, you would be able to do it that way.
I think also, for the record, we have to realize that a smart gun is as deadly a weapon one that's not smart. And in a family environment where a family member has only the ability to discharge a weapon, if there's an argument, a smart gun could be as deadly as one that's not. So I think we have to remember that a gun in a family environment that has four different fingerprints associated with it can be just as deadly as any gun that's in that home right now.
I totally agree with you, but as I'll tell you just as I tell the kids that I talk to in schools every day, we're never going to solve the problem or reach everyone sitting in the room, but as Councilman Cohen, alluded to earlier, if I can make a difference on one or two of them, my time is well spent. I think if we can do that through this technology -- you know, we're never going to solve the problem completely, but any dent that we can make into it is worth its time. 70 BILL NO. 990289
Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ORTIZ: Thank you, Mark. Because the Mayor's amendments are not yet ready, we will recess the hearing to Thursday, 6 o'clock, June 10 at 9 o'clock. And if the Mayor can 7 send me the amendments, I can distribute them to the 8 members. And on Thursday at 9 o'clock there will be 9 a meeting of the committee on Bill No. 990289 in order to vote it out of committee at 9 o'clock just before Council so it can be read in that session of City Council. Thank you very much all for coming. (Council adjourned at 11:45 a.m.) - - - 71 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of June 4, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public