Meeting: City Council

Meeting Time: January 25, 2022 at 1:30pm PST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

4. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

  • Default_avatar
    Jeffrey Fylling over 4 years ago

    I am opposed to this ordinance. Stop penalizing the responsible gun owners.

  • Default_avatar
    Larry Czoka over 4 years ago

    I strongly OPPOSE the so-called Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
    This law does absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime. Law abiding gun owning citizens are not the ones that are committing the crimes, and these are the people that you are trying to punish.
    Please address the real issue of being soft on criminals and enforce the existing laws you have. You will not stop gun violence by punishing law abiding gun owners.

  • Default_avatar
    Frank VanSant over 4 years ago

    This just another way for money to be brought into the coffers of politicians that can't do their fiduciary responsibility. This also targets law abiding gun owners which is so very wrong on many levels.

  • Default_avatar
    Concerned Voter over 4 years ago

    Taxing a subset of our local population in the name of public safety is wrong.

  • Default_avatar
    Frederick Sorensen over 4 years ago

    Once again politicians propose an ordinance to penalize legal gun owners to pay for criminal behavior.
    this is outrageous. Stop this nonsense. Enforce the gun laws on the books and punish the criminals. The Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
    THE SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE GUN HARM BY REQUIRING GUN OWNERS TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
    ANNUAL GUN HARM REDUCTION FEE

  • Default_avatar
    Dave Ickert over 4 years ago

    This proposal limits those without the funds to own a means of self defense.
    Please spend Our tax dollars by pursuing criminals with weapons that they intend to use on us, the good tax paying citizens of San Jose.
    Why do you continue to waste our tax dollars on an initiative that you know in advance does not pass the legal smell test?

  • Default_avatar
    Gene Piellusch over 4 years ago

    Your communist agenda will not be tolerated, and anyone on the town council needs to be removed for failure to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America--Live up to your oath!

  • Default_avatar
    Drew Azevedo over 4 years ago

    The focus of this act will do nothing to combat those who have obtained guns illegally or prevent further crimes from happening. All it does is add further restrictions and financial hardship to those who have followed the rules and maintained responsible gun owners since the beginning. It alludes to legal gun owners being the ones at fault rather than those who continue to commit gun violence. Address the actual problem.

  • Default_avatar
    Gary Tritt over 4 years ago

    Your ordinance to tax gun owners is an infringement of the right to own or bear firearms. This is a misguided ordinance that will only create confusion and divisions within the city of San Jose.

  • Default_avatar
    Cole Fournier over 4 years ago

    Make the criminals with weapons pay for their acts not the law abiding 2A folks!

  • Default_avatar
    Albert Zhou over 4 years ago

    Shall not.

  • Default_avatar
    Jeff Burmann over 4 years ago

    It is not in the interest of law abiding citizens to have any rights removed, especially if they relate to self defense. Any rule or ordinance you create to hinder the lawful right to bear arms in any way will only adversely affect these good people. If you wish to make meaningful impact on these issues, you must punish criminals to the fullest extent to disincentivize bad behavior. There is no excuse and no room for crime in our society.

  • Default_avatar
    Gary Levy over 4 years ago

    You cannot tax a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. The policies of big cities have created untenable quality of life and spiking crime rates in urban areas. It seems San Jose is no different. Its leaders care little about arresting criminals and wants to punish law abiding citizens, and make them dependent on law enforcement, which has been rendered substandard for their basic protection. Don't restrict the right to self-defense.

  • Default_avatar
    Rodolfo Adame over 4 years ago

    It is illogical to tax law abiding citizens in order to pursue criminals.

  • Default_avatar
    Steve Bledl over 4 years ago

    Requiring insurance and fees is unacceptable.

  • Default_avatar
    Allen Umbarger over 4 years ago

    Go after the criminal not the law abiding citizen

  • Default_avatar
    Greg Tucker over 4 years ago

    Please don't infringe on the second amendment. Don't tax the law abiding citizens. Put criminals in jail and quit letting them out on a ticket just to break the law again.

  • Default_avatar
    rita piziali over 4 years ago

    I 100% OPPOSE the Gun Harm Reduction Notice. It is in clear opposition to both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. It must be stopped and you much vote to oppose it and drop it. We are entitled to keep and bear arms as citizens and if you enforced the law, this would be a non-issue. Focus on the root of the problem and prosecute criminals. It is clearly not lawful citizens owning guns to protect themselves or hunting.

  • Default_avatar
    Tim Reissmueller over 4 years ago

    This racist proposal needs to be stopped. You are either supporting the ownership of illegal weapons or simply supporting legal ownership for the elite. Please vote no on this and show us that you care about all of society and not just those that can afford the protection you receive.

  • Default_avatar
    Ronald Barton over 4 years ago

    Read the 2nd amendment, again....and read it ALOUD