I urge the council to reject this measure. Multiple forms of ID are required and a fingerprint are now required to legally purchase a firearm. A picture
This will add an unnecessary burden on licensed firearms dealers and will only be an unconstitutional infringement on lawful firearms purchasers.
I urge you to reject this proposal. Taking pictures of someone purchasing ammunition or firearms will not stop them from doing so. The SJPD has plenty of pictures of criminals on file. Not once has all that data stopped a criminal from committing a crime. Further the cost of the audio/visual equipment and the vast data storage necessary to meet this requirement is punitive. It would bankrupt these lawful businesses.
Oppose, strongly. A reverse Takings Clause scenario. Dont know if I coined that, but its forcing businesses to spend money on things that will serve no compelling state interest. What is the stated government interest? Will this serve it?
Also, this would require law enforcement to obtain a subpoena to see and listen to those proposed ideas. A further waste of taxpayer money to the judiciary system and law enforcement functions.
I urge you to reject this proposal. Taking pictures of someone purchasing ammunition or firearms will not stop them from doing so. The SJPD has plenty of pictures of criminals on file. Not once has all that data stopped a criminal from committing a crime. Further, the cost of the audio/visual equipment and the vast data storage necessary to meet this requirement is punitive. It would bankrupt these lawful businesses.
I urge the council to reject this measure. Multiple forms of ID are required and a fingerprint are now required to legally purchase a firearm. A picture
This will add an unnecessary burden on licensed firearms dealers and will only be an unconstitutional infringement on lawful firearms purchasers.
RE: GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROPOSAL
I urge you to reject this proposal. Taking pictures of someone purchasing ammunition or firearms will not stop them from doing so. The SJPD has plenty of pictures of criminals on file. Not once has all that data stopped a criminal from committing a crime. Further the cost of the audio/visual equipment and the vast data storage necessary to meet this requirement is punitive. It would bankrupt these lawful businesses.
Oppose, strongly. A reverse Takings Clause scenario. Dont know if I coined that, but its forcing businesses to spend money on things that will serve no compelling state interest. What is the stated government interest? Will this serve it?
Also, this would require law enforcement to obtain a subpoena to see and listen to those proposed ideas. A further waste of taxpayer money to the judiciary system and law enforcement functions.
RE: GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROPOSAL
I urge you to reject this proposal. Taking pictures of someone purchasing ammunition or firearms will not stop them from doing so. The SJPD has plenty of pictures of criminals on file. Not once has all that data stopped a criminal from committing a crime. Further, the cost of the audio/visual equipment and the vast data storage necessary to meet this requirement is punitive. It would bankrupt these lawful businesses.