I oppose the gun ordinance. The law abiding citizens who are gun owners are not the ones committing the gun crimes, but have to pay for those who do. It makes absolutely no sense to keep avoiding the part that "guns do not kill people" but rather "people kill people." There have been tons of warning signs and even police acknowledgement of having information on previous mass shooters. The inability to do something about these serious threats is the real issue. Take accountability for failures!
*Not a gun owner*
The city should focus on strengthening mental health, family outreach, and rehabilitation programs. The real criminals buy their guns off the black market. In reality the city will unfairly tax responsible adults. Additionally, taxing gun owners will discourage the middle and lower class from legally practicing their 2nd amendment right. If this does pass, I hope LEAs are included because they too cause damage, shoot innocent people, and commit suicide with their own weapons.
I oppose taxing the Bill of Rights and therefore the proposed gun ownership tax. Southern democrats once charged a poll tax on people of color to discourage them from participating in voting. Now San Jose Democrats are attempting a gun ownership tax to discourage residents from participating in the second amendment. Shame on the city council for this. Shame on the Mayor for not correcting them.
Oppose
It is unconstitutional, immoral and reprehensible to tax an enumerated right.
It is wrong to single out a segment of the law abiding population and force them to bare the burden of paying for criminal activity for which they have no control.
It is unvirtuous to provide funding to third party entities which will in turn provide political support to their benefactors.
This will have no effect on deterring criminal activity but chill and burden the exercise of a constitutional right.
Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
1. The ordinance is a violation of court rulings against Jim Crow laws that tax constitutional rights.
2. The city has already been placed on notice that if the ordinance is passed it will be sued by numerous organizations. The city will be bogged down in legal actions for at least 5 years.
3. The non-profit group set up to manage this ordinance is nothing more than a slush fund. The proposal states the city can not direct how funds are used.
From an anti-gunner:" It requires those who own guns be responsible for the costs incurred by San Jose taxpayers when responding and dealing with gun related crimes."
Response... Nonsense. Enforce existing laws!
From an anti-gunner: "There is no other industrialized nation in the world that experiences the amount of death from guns."
Response... Take out the large city slaughters and the USA is very low on the list. Another misinformed person.
This is a divisive issue which will only turn more voters Republican, and democracy is already hanging by a thread. The entire Republican Party has gone off the deep end of refusing to abide by election results in favor of Trump's cult of personality. Do you really want to sacrifice any more votes to that camp? Do not pass this.
Your concern about firearms crime - while well founded - is acutely off the mark with this proposed ordinance.
What is critical for all those in government - throughout the Nation - to understand, is that nearly 90 percent of those arrested the very first time wherein firearms-involved charges are exclusive and or inclusive, will be rearrested within the same criteria. It is - 9 times out of 10 - the repeat, violent offender committing violent crimes. Time for tougher sentencing!
I strongly oppose the “Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance”. It is completely illogical to claim that adding costs for law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights will help reduce crime. Are you really not aware that actual criminals don’t care about your laws?
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Taxing law abiding gun owners will not solve the problems created by criminals illegally discharging firearms or people who cause harm because they are mentally ill. Please don't react with a knee-jerk reaction, rather seek to understand and solve real problems caused by criminals and mentally ill people.
Please use common sense to gun violence and do NOT tax law abiding citizens as a means to address this issue such as the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Law abiding citizens do not need further taxation or fees levied on them when purchasing firearms. Work with the CPRA to help improve gun education! These futile methods will not work, and only punish law abiding citizens.
Good morning. I am writing to express my opposition to the above proposed ordinance.
Criminals are the problem, not law abiding gun owners. You do not have the right to tax people for exercising their Constitutional Rights. In addition, using the tax you collect to defend your unconstitutional ordinance is morally reprehensible.
This is yet another pointless attempt to vilify and punish LAWFUL FIREARMS OWNERS for simply exercising their constitutional right to possess them. We shooting sports participants should not be required to purchase some completely unnecessary insurance policy which would be totally ineffective for the purposes this ordinance is proposing. It's nothing more than a punishment to rightful gun owners and a backdoor way of getting all our firearms registered for your REAL GOAL of total CONFISCATION.
Good morning. I am writing to express my opposition to the above proposed ordinance.
Criminals are the problem, not law abiding gun owners. You do not have the right to tax people for exercising their Constitutional Rights. In addition, using the tax you collect to defend your unconstitutional ordinance is morally reprehensible.
Sincerely,
Mark Hicks
This law would serve to increase inequality and institutionalized racism in our society by disenfranchising and criminalizing the poor who lack the means to pay additional expenses to exercise their rights or means to live in more expensive neighborhoods where they feel safe and have adequate police protection.
Another tax on the law abiding citizens isn't the solution. If you really care about gun crime you and any other official that agrees with you should fund this proposed program with a percentage of your salary. It will do two things at minimum. 1 it will demonstrate how deeply you care. 2 you won't impose a tax on people that don't break the law and try their best to survive at a time when inflation is above 7%. Taxing the people to fund a program you want isn't right. Respect our lives
Illegal and stupid. Prosecute actual criminals and don't persecute the law abiding. Read the Constitution. You don't have the authority to violate the
the rights of Americans. The voters will hold you accountable.
Dear Council: Your 'Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance' is primarily monetary. What harm will be reduced?
Criminals create the harm and honest citizens would pay. If you want to reduce harm, direct your efforts towards those that create the harm, the criminal element. Wait, already done with the current laws criminals don't follow.
I oppose the gun ordinance. The law abiding citizens who are gun owners are not the ones committing the gun crimes, but have to pay for those who do. It makes absolutely no sense to keep avoiding the part that "guns do not kill people" but rather "people kill people." There have been tons of warning signs and even police acknowledgement of having information on previous mass shooters. The inability to do something about these serious threats is the real issue. Take accountability for failures!
*Not a gun owner*
The city should focus on strengthening mental health, family outreach, and rehabilitation programs. The real criminals buy their guns off the black market. In reality the city will unfairly tax responsible adults. Additionally, taxing gun owners will discourage the middle and lower class from legally practicing their 2nd amendment right. If this does pass, I hope LEAs are included because they too cause damage, shoot innocent people, and commit suicide with their own weapons.
I oppose taxing the Bill of Rights and therefore the proposed gun ownership tax. Southern democrats once charged a poll tax on people of color to discourage them from participating in voting. Now San Jose Democrats are attempting a gun ownership tax to discourage residents from participating in the second amendment. Shame on the city council for this. Shame on the Mayor for not correcting them.
Oppose
It is unconstitutional, immoral and reprehensible to tax an enumerated right.
It is wrong to single out a segment of the law abiding population and force them to bare the burden of paying for criminal activity for which they have no control.
It is unvirtuous to provide funding to third party entities which will in turn provide political support to their benefactors.
This will have no effect on deterring criminal activity but chill and burden the exercise of a constitutional right.
Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
1. The ordinance is a violation of court rulings against Jim Crow laws that tax constitutional rights.
2. The city has already been placed on notice that if the ordinance is passed it will be sued by numerous organizations. The city will be bogged down in legal actions for at least 5 years.
3. The non-profit group set up to manage this ordinance is nothing more than a slush fund. The proposal states the city can not direct how funds are used.
From an anti-gunner:" It requires those who own guns be responsible for the costs incurred by San Jose taxpayers when responding and dealing with gun related crimes."
Response... Nonsense. Enforce existing laws!
From an anti-gunner: "There is no other industrialized nation in the world that experiences the amount of death from guns."
Response... Take out the large city slaughters and the USA is very low on the list. Another misinformed person.
VOTE NO!
This is a divisive issue which will only turn more voters Republican, and democracy is already hanging by a thread. The entire Republican Party has gone off the deep end of refusing to abide by election results in favor of Trump's cult of personality. Do you really want to sacrifice any more votes to that camp? Do not pass this.
Your concern about firearms crime - while well founded - is acutely off the mark with this proposed ordinance.
What is critical for all those in government - throughout the Nation - to understand, is that nearly 90 percent of those arrested the very first time wherein firearms-involved charges are exclusive and or inclusive, will be rearrested within the same criteria. It is - 9 times out of 10 - the repeat, violent offender committing violent crimes. Time for tougher sentencing!
I strongly oppose the “Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance”. It is completely illogical to claim that adding costs for law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights will help reduce crime. Are you really not aware that actual criminals don’t care about your laws?
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Taxing law abiding gun owners will not solve the problems created by criminals illegally discharging firearms or people who cause harm because they are mentally ill. Please don't react with a knee-jerk reaction, rather seek to understand and solve real problems caused by criminals and mentally ill people.
Please use common sense to gun violence and do NOT tax law abiding citizens as a means to address this issue such as the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Law abiding citizens do not need further taxation or fees levied on them when purchasing firearms. Work with the CPRA to help improve gun education! These futile methods will not work, and only punish law abiding citizens.
Good morning. I am writing to express my opposition to the above proposed ordinance.
Criminals are the problem, not law abiding gun owners. You do not have the right to tax people for exercising their Constitutional Rights. In addition, using the tax you collect to defend your unconstitutional ordinance is morally reprehensible.
This is yet another pointless attempt to vilify and punish LAWFUL FIREARMS OWNERS for simply exercising their constitutional right to possess them. We shooting sports participants should not be required to purchase some completely unnecessary insurance policy which would be totally ineffective for the purposes this ordinance is proposing. It's nothing more than a punishment to rightful gun owners and a backdoor way of getting all our firearms registered for your REAL GOAL of total CONFISCATION.
Good morning. I am writing to express my opposition to the above proposed ordinance.
Criminals are the problem, not law abiding gun owners. You do not have the right to tax people for exercising their Constitutional Rights. In addition, using the tax you collect to defend your unconstitutional ordinance is morally reprehensible.
Sincerely,
Mark Hicks
This law would serve to increase inequality and institutionalized racism in our society by disenfranchising and criminalizing the poor who lack the means to pay additional expenses to exercise their rights or means to live in more expensive neighborhoods where they feel safe and have adequate police protection.
Another tax on the law abiding citizens isn't the solution. If you really care about gun crime you and any other official that agrees with you should fund this proposed program with a percentage of your salary. It will do two things at minimum. 1 it will demonstrate how deeply you care. 2 you won't impose a tax on people that don't break the law and try their best to survive at a time when inflation is above 7%. Taxing the people to fund a program you want isn't right. Respect our lives
Illegal and stupid. Prosecute actual criminals and don't persecute the law abiding. Read the Constitution. You don't have the authority to violate the
the rights of Americans. The voters will hold you accountable.
Please do not tax the law abiding citizens of San Jose with the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
Criminals are going to take advantage of this unconstitutional law and we, the law abiding citizens ,will suffer.
Dear Council: Your 'Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance' is primarily monetary. What harm will be reduced?
Criminals create the harm and honest citizens would pay. If you want to reduce harm, direct your efforts towards those that create the harm, the criminal element. Wait, already done with the current laws criminals don't follow.