Sacramento City Council Repeals Son of Patriot Act

Sacramento City Council Repeals Son of Patriot Act

By Dan Bacher

In a unanimous vote, the Sacramento City Council on November 30 repealed the section of the parade ordinance, known as “Son of Patriot Act,” that community members have fighting so hard against since the Ag Expo in June 2003.

The Council repealed the provisions banning the innocent possession of everyday items, such as water bottles, at public gatherings. The ordinance, in a bizarre Orwellian manner, tried to define what signs, poles, banners and other items people carry in parades were legal – and which ones weren’t.

In addition, the “revised” version written by city staff set limits on the size of “spontaneous” demonstrations – limiting them to 75 people – a clear abridgement of Freedom of Assembly.

“When we first passed the ordinance in 2003, it made a lot of sense,” explained Mayor Heather Fargo. “Now that we’ve all had time to reflect on it, the ordinance no longer fits the people of our city. We’ve heard from veterans, disabled activists and other community members and keeping the ordinance in place will create the wrong message for the Capital City.”

The loose coalition that formed against this repressive ordinance was one of the most interesting I’ve every worked on, including civil rights activists, Marine Corps veterans, VFW members, immigrant rights activists, Latino community organizations, disabled rights groups and housing activists. The Sacramento Coalition Against the Patriot Act and Sacramentans For Sustainable Agriculture played key roles in organizing the coalition.

George Marsh, the commandant of the Marine Corps League of California, blasted the provision that required veterans to apply 15 days in advance of a parade for a permit to carry rifles – and to submit all of their rifles to inspection by the City Police immediately before the event. “Going after veterans who have served their country is an insult and we ask that you reconsider this section of the ordinance,” he said.

“The ordinance, as rewritten, is unenforceable and untenable,” said Jeremy Schwarzschild, a civil rights lawyer who strongly urged repeal of the measure. “You could tweak it, but it will be difficult to enforce and provides to no benefit to the city. It takes otherwise legal items and makes them illegal to carry.”

Only one person, Dave Jenest of Citizens Community Watch/Patriot Defenders Network spoke in favor of the ordinance. Referring to the black bloc tactic of wearing bandanas and black masks over their faces during the ag expo protests, Jenest said, “People who look like terrorists, who emulate the Mujahadeen or Al Quaeda, have no place in our society.”

It was ironic that a guy who claimed he is so steadfastly for “our troops” and veterans at recent counter-protests against local peace demonstrations was on the opposite side of the marines and the VFW on this issue!

The remainder of the Parade Ordinance remains in effect at this time. There are still permitting requirements that must be met for any "parade" to be 100% legal, according to Keith Wagner, lawyer and spokesman for the Coalition Against the Patriot Act.

“From my vantage point in the audience, the key council members who took the initiative appeared to be Hammond, Tretheway, Sheedy, Fong and Fargo. McCarty, while not quite as vocal, also appeared troubled by the existing ordinance,” observed Wagner.

Waters, Cohn and Pannell all spoke at length against repeal, but then turned around and surprised everybody by voting for Fargo's motion, seconded by Hammond, to repeal the ban on everyday items. Cohn said he did it to "bring the council back together."

The Council gave direction to staff to redraft the provision again to try to better define "weapons," and some council members requested a more broad examination of the entire ordinance, right down to the rather ambiguous definition of what constitutes a "parade,” according to Wagner.

“But the amazing news is that they actually took affirmative action to repeal the most egregious provision of the ordinance, rather than just leaving it in place, again, while staff works on the new version,” said Wagner.

This victory against the “Son of Patriot Act”, like passage of the living wage and anti-Patriot Act ordinances by the council last year, shows how a coalition of diverse groups working together can achieve a surprising and remarkable victory.