How about enforcing existing laws? You can, alternatively, penalize otherwise law abiding citizens... and give them yet another incentive to leave. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/01/08/people-cant-escape-california-fast-enough-but-u-haul-is-struggling-to-keep-up-1186077/
You can't put a tax or a fee or require insurance on a right. You don't charge a fee or tax or require insurance for freedom of speach. Once again wasting tax payers monies instead of going after actual criminals who break the law.
This is an unconstitutional ordinance and will not stop any gun violence. Bad folks that want to do harm will do so outside of the law. Making more laws and harming the general public by denial of their second amendment rights is not the way to controlling gun violence. Carrying of concealed weapons by the good folks can curb the risk of innocent people being harmed. Background checks for those good folks who wish to protect themselves and others is neccessary
I strongly OPPOSE the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. It will make San Jose a more unsafe place, and does nothing but tax the legal firearm owners, with no consequences to actual criminals. As a law abiding resident, please do not pass this.
I oppose this ordinance, and the secret and manipulative way it and this meeting are being handled. You are not dictators, but are elecected officials who are supposed to do the will of the the majority. Professing yourselves wise you have now become foolish, and a poisoner of freedom.
There are no words to express how much I am opposed to this action. To tax select lawful people to cover the cost of unlawful people is reckless. If the city wants to cover the cost of unlawful people, citizens of the United States or foreign nationals, then the population as a whole should be taxed. A select group of lawful people, citizens of the United States or foreign nationals, are not the cause of the unlawful acts of others.
More firearm taxes infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Catch the bad guys that are using stolen firearms and leave the good guys alone. The good guys are background checked and use firearms for self defense, hunting and recreation.
The San Jose city counsel has let their constituents down by proposing more regulations that may hinder the populace. And with these ordnances in proposal, many low-income residencies who wish to arm themselves in defense and live within the city's district will be severely impacted by these potential mandates.
If these proposals proceed and become set-in-stone, we the people will speak with our voices and our votes in the next city council election and replace you from those positions.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113
Please OPPOSE any and all laws, one of course, is the GUN HARM REDUCTION ORDINANCE. This ORDANCE WILL NOT REDUCE CRIME; adds extra cost to legal gun owners; might be very well unconstitutional; and will not improve public safety. Thank you.
Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
WE oppose this ordinance AND the prevention from Public Comment on the subject.Everyone must be allowed to voice their opinion, no matter the perspective.
strongly OPPOSE the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
I've been a resident of San Jose for 26 years.
I oppose the Gun Harm Reduction bill. It will make San Jose an even more unsafe place.
This proposed legislation is misguided and does nothing to address the use of illegal firearms.
Now the SJ lawmakers want to to tax people out of their natural right to defend themselves.
Punish the criminals, not law abiding citizens who pay taxes to pay your salaries.
You work for us City Council. Remember that
I am a former resident of San Jose and still a resident of California.
I am strongly opposed to this proposal!
The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance does absolutely nothing to deter criminals or criminal activity. This is a punitive measure designed only to impact law abiding citizens only. Criminals do not buy guns and will not be paying this gun harm reduction fee.
This is plainly an assault on law abiding gun owners. Try going after the criminals instead, for a change.
Vote NO on the ordinance.
I appose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance as it's title is deceitful and it's aim is to deny citizens of their right to self defense. As this is a continuing effort by the city counsel has tried to pass this type of legislation the legislators will be held accountable at the ballot box.
Do impose an insurance requirements upon law abiding citizens. Focus your intention and our tax dollars on criminals. This will be challenged in court straight away, being another waste of taxpayer dollars.
Please do not tax the law abiding citizen for having firearms. If you want to prevent gun violence, put the criminals away and keep them in jail. Do not make it harder for low income people to have firearm for self defense.
How about enforcing existing laws? You can, alternatively, penalize otherwise law abiding citizens... and give them yet another incentive to leave. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/01/08/people-cant-escape-california-fast-enough-but-u-haul-is-struggling-to-keep-up-1186077/
You can't put a tax or a fee or require insurance on a right. You don't charge a fee or tax or require insurance for freedom of speach. Once again wasting tax payers monies instead of going after actual criminals who break the law.
This is an unconstitutional ordinance and will not stop any gun violence. Bad folks that want to do harm will do so outside of the law. Making more laws and harming the general public by denial of their second amendment rights is not the way to controlling gun violence. Carrying of concealed weapons by the good folks can curb the risk of innocent people being harmed. Background checks for those good folks who wish to protect themselves and others is neccessary
I strongly OPPOSE the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. It will make San Jose a more unsafe place, and does nothing but tax the legal firearm owners, with no consequences to actual criminals. As a law abiding resident, please do not pass this.
I oppose this ordinance, and the secret and manipulative way it and this meeting are being handled. You are not dictators, but are elecected officials who are supposed to do the will of the the majority. Professing yourselves wise you have now become foolish, and a poisoner of freedom.
There are no words to express how much I am opposed to this action. To tax select lawful people to cover the cost of unlawful people is reckless. If the city wants to cover the cost of unlawful people, citizens of the United States or foreign nationals, then the population as a whole should be taxed. A select group of lawful people, citizens of the United States or foreign nationals, are not the cause of the unlawful acts of others.
More firearm taxes infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Catch the bad guys that are using stolen firearms and leave the good guys alone. The good guys are background checked and use firearms for self defense, hunting and recreation.
The San Jose city counsel has let their constituents down by proposing more regulations that may hinder the populace. And with these ordnances in proposal, many low-income residencies who wish to arm themselves in defense and live within the city's district will be severely impacted by these potential mandates.
If these proposals proceed and become set-in-stone, we the people will speak with our voices and our votes in the next city council election and replace you from those positions.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113
Please OPPOSE any and all laws, one of course, is the GUN HARM REDUCTION ORDINANCE. This ORDANCE WILL NOT REDUCE CRIME; adds extra cost to legal gun owners; might be very well unconstitutional; and will not improve public safety. Thank you.
Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
WE oppose this ordinance AND the prevention from Public Comment on the subject.Everyone must be allowed to voice their opinion, no matter the perspective.
strongly OPPOSE the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
I've been a resident of San Jose for 26 years.
I oppose the Gun Harm Reduction bill. It will make San Jose an even more unsafe place.
This proposed legislation is misguided and does nothing to address the use of illegal firearms.
Now the SJ lawmakers want to to tax people out of their natural right to defend themselves.
Punish the criminals, not law abiding citizens who pay taxes to pay your salaries.
You work for us City Council. Remember that
I am a former resident of San Jose and still a resident of California.
I am strongly opposed to this proposal!
The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance does absolutely nothing to deter criminals or criminal activity. This is a punitive measure designed only to impact law abiding citizens only. Criminals do not buy guns and will not be paying this gun harm reduction fee.
This is plainly an assault on law abiding gun owners. Try going after the criminals instead, for a change.
Vote NO on the ordinance.
I appose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance as it's title is deceitful and it's aim is to deny citizens of their right to self defense. As this is a continuing effort by the city counsel has tried to pass this type of legislation the legislators will be held accountable at the ballot box.
This will do nothing to stop gun violence.
Do impose an insurance requirements upon law abiding citizens. Focus your intention and our tax dollars on criminals. This will be challenged in court straight away, being another waste of taxpayer dollars.
Taxing guns and gun owners will do NOTHING to reduce crime and is unconstitutional.
I oppose any attempt to infringe on my second amendment rights.
Please do not tax the law abiding citizen for having firearms. If you want to prevent gun violence, put the criminals away and keep them in jail. Do not make it harder for low income people to have firearm for self defense.
do NOT tax-attack legal gun owners.. I will not comply