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
    Russell Vanwinkle over 4 years ago

    Requiring a Citizen to pay a “fee” to exercise an enumerated Right is clearly unconstitutional. This would be equivalent to requiring a “fee” to be paid every year for your right to political speech. I strongly suggest the Council spent a few minutes with a dictionary, the US Constitution, and the State Constitution paying particular attention to the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” clause and the State’s Article 1 Section 1’s right to protect property.

  • Default_avatar
    Quoc Nguyen over 4 years ago

    Criminals shoot law abiding citizens but you want to make law abiding citizens who want to defend themselves to pay?

    Make the criminals pay first. Owning guns legally doesn't endanger the public

  • Default_avatar
    J Garcia over 4 years ago

    I have been around the block for a day or two and I may consider if and only if, that me paying for insurance guarantees that the City of San Jose shall issue me a CCW permit valid in California. Why else would I need insurance if no permit is issued?

  • Default_avatar
    ROGER FELLOWS over 4 years ago

    Crime increases, police defunded; let's shift the blame to law abiding citizens...

  • Default_avatar
    Mark Philbrook over 4 years ago

    We dont need another ordinance that penalizes law abiding citizens exercising their 2 Amendment rights!

  • Default_avatar
    Andrew Gacanich over 4 years ago

    Let Second Amendment Reign !

  • Default_avatar
    Ke Li over 4 years ago

    That was illegal. Please do the right things for the city of San Jose.

  • Default_avatar
    S Allen over 4 years ago

    When sanctuary is given to criminals, both citizens and non-citizens, that is a formula for an increase in crime. When crime is not punished, police are hamstrung by politicians, and DAs do not prosecute criminals that is the cause of a breakdown in law and order. How despicable to especially target the law abiding gun owners to pay for the consequences of the violence perpetrated by criminals.

  • Default_avatar
    Binh Tran over 4 years ago

    At a time when hate crimes against people of color and other vulnerable communities is rising at alarming rates, I believe any laws aimed at hindering people’s right to protect themselves is not only wrong, but inherently racist. The police are not only ineffective, but it is clear, they are complicit in violence against people of color. This will not reduce violence, only create more victims of hate crimes and worse. Our lives matter.

  • Default_avatar
    Sean Xu over 4 years ago

    This is another scam of the government to infringe on Americans' constitutional right, to rob more hard earned money from a extremely diverse group of responsible gun owners, all in the name of safety. The people have woken up to these scams and will defeat any such attempts.

  • Default_avatar
    Michael Jones over 4 years ago

    Constitutional rights are not taxable.

  • Default_avatar
    Donald Task over 4 years ago

    This scheme is just another ploy to collect revenue. It will NOT curtail crime. It will NOT make our community safer

  • Default_avatar
    Chris Lugatiman over 4 years ago

    Anyone with common sense does not understand how taxing law-abiding citizens would lower and/or stop crime. Criminals obtain firearms in underground black markets, not firearms stores or gun shows where the laws are followed. Taxing law-abiding citizens exercising their American right is like going to a heart surgeon for hip surgery, you are not addressing the real problem with real solutions.

  • Default_avatar
    Kyle Bowles over 4 years ago

    This law is just another attempt to punish, trip-up, & infringe on the rights of reasonable responsible gun-owners by the city of San Jose.
    It doesn’t define the fee to be charged. How the fees are to be spent is horrible broad & vague, leaving it ripe for abuse. It excludes various privileged people who have special friendships or made generous gifts to the sheriff for Conceal Carry permits.
    Furthermore it sets a dangerous example of how to disengage local gun owners from reasonable policy.

  • Default_avatar
    Colin Gallagher over 4 years ago

    As spokesperson for DCR (DefendingConstitutionalRights.com), I state for the record that any proposal which would require gun insurance and a tax on guns, ammunition or both, is clearly unconstitutional. While U.S. Congress might be able to make a law relating to change in FAET (Firearms, Ammunition and Excise Tax), that would be the decision and purview of Congress, not of the State(s) or of local jurisdictions. The City's proposed Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance must be rejected.

  • Default_avatar
    Steven Jordan over 4 years ago

    Please legislate laws that are truly useful and beneficial

  • Default_avatar
    Steven Chirco over 4 years ago

    Why is it politicians always want to attack law abiding gun owners rights?! All the while our DAs will not charge crimes where the suspect used a gun appropriately. They consistently fail to charge the gun enhancement for use of the firearm. There are all ready enough gun laws on the books, just have the DAs actually charge appropriately and lock criminals up! I am a retired army vet & all I see is government curtailing our Constitutional Rights. What the h*** did I fight for overseas then?!

  • Default_avatar
    Janett Miller over 4 years ago

    I'm a democrat, and I even think this is sketch. What's next? Taxing social media to pay for a socialized mental health program?

  • Default_avatar
    AV V over 4 years ago

    Oppose. Why you tax the law binding citizen to protect themselves? Why you don't tax the criminals? Why you don't stop the corrupted politician who abuse their authority, tell them stop the corruptions and stop wasting our tax money!

  • Default_avatar
    Greg Lytle over 4 years ago

    This proposed ordinance and any variation of it should be permanently abandoned. There is no clear path to achieve the stated objective. It is a thinly veiled attempt to rid San Jose residents of lawful firearm ownership yet does nothing to effect illegitimate use of firearms.