i am opposed to any tax on people exercising their rights under the second amendment to the u.s. constitution.
this is no different than a poll tax on voting.
for the record, most of my politics are liberal/progressive.
please vote "no" on this proposed legislation.
I have a degree and Criminal Justice Studies - this will do nothing but penalize law abiding citizens and divert police resources. Please go after the real criminals - ghost guns, repeat gang and theft offenders. This will not affect any of the serious criminals in our community.
The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance is nothing more than a continued attack on then RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I urge you to vote no. Stop the harassment of law abiding citizens. If you want to keep this city safe, start by keeping criminals in jail.
This is a continuation of California trying to lay at the feet of honest law abide gun owners, the violence, and sins of the world. During this time of the pandemic and other economic hardships, you now want to tax citizens for owning a firearm, and mandate firearm insurance when many are just trying to protect their families and put food on the table. This is just another way of violating our 2nd amendment rights.
Questions on taxation of privately owned firearms via the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Will your city impose a tax on the following?
Our freedom of speech, and all other Rights?
The Supreme Court of the United States stated in Heller, the Second Amendment is not a second-class Right, but is equal to all other rights.
Do you expect criminals to stop because you tax good citizens their right to exercise defense from these violent offenders?
Tax criminals and gang members for violations.
Your city's behavior smells just like that of San Luis Obispo. Wherein the city council, in session, states "if you would like to speak, raise your hand and you will be recognized"...then the entire council stares at their worksheets and continues the meeting. I find their and your behavior to be very childish and definitely not complimentary to the word of the people. I strongly encourage you to oppose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Dr. Bill Plummer
I would love to reduce or eliminate violence of all kinds in our chaotic world. However, placing (silly) restrictions on law-abiding citizens will solve NOTHING! We start by taking the criminal element off the streets. thank you
Dear councilmembers, I am opposed to the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance ! As a law abiding gun owner I feel that California has the best laws on the books already concerning gun safety. We are required to keep firearms locked up and away from people not familiar with safe gun handling practices. Your notion to tax law biding gun owners and require insurance will do little in the name of gun safety. Thanks for allowing me to share on this subject, Scott Mondloch
I should not be forced to pay for someone else’s criminal liability. I will vote against the mayor and every other public official if this passes. This will also be an embarrassment to the city given its unconstitutionality.
Democrats need to stop harming the society ASAP. California and San Jose are becoming a joke in the world. The San Jose government and Mayer are harming human rights.
I travel to Santa Clara County on business regularly. I urge the city council to oppose this unjust Gun Harm Reduction ordinance. It is another attempt to create overly burdensome rules that seek to undermine people's right to defend themselves. It does nothing to protect the law abiding and will not have an impact on the criminal.
I am a frequent visitor to the city of San Jose and routinely conduct business there. As such, this seems to be in conflict with state law. Section 10.32.210 (A) requires "gun liability insurance policy ... specifically covering .. resulting from any negligent..."
It is specifically illegal in California to issue an insurance policy covering negligence. http://bergerkahn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Making-Sense-of-Californias-Accident-Requirement-in-Liability-Insurance-Policies-Part-I.pdf
i am opposed to any tax on people exercising their rights under the second amendment to the u.s. constitution.
this is no different than a poll tax on voting.
for the record, most of my politics are liberal/progressive.
please vote "no" on this proposed legislation.
I have a degree and Criminal Justice Studies - this will do nothing but penalize law abiding citizens and divert police resources. Please go after the real criminals - ghost guns, repeat gang and theft offenders. This will not affect any of the serious criminals in our community.
This will never help to stoping criminals who tend to do illegal things.
Insuring a right as a citizen makes no sense. This is another attempt to make legal firearm ownership more difficult. Vote No
Will you ban alcohol and drugs if we present the same logic? Why two standards if we are only to look at the outcomes?
The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance is nothing more than a continued attack on then RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I urge you to vote no. Stop the harassment of law abiding citizens. If you want to keep this city safe, start by keeping criminals in jail.
Policing criminals rather than taxing people with arms. Banning guns won’t stop crimes. People who arm with guns can make criminals fearing.
This is punishment to legal citizens
This is a continuation of California trying to lay at the feet of honest law abide gun owners, the violence, and sins of the world. During this time of the pandemic and other economic hardships, you now want to tax citizens for owning a firearm, and mandate firearm insurance when many are just trying to protect their families and put food on the table. This is just another way of violating our 2nd amendment rights.
Questions on taxation of privately owned firearms via the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Will your city impose a tax on the following?
Our freedom of speech, and all other Rights?
The Supreme Court of the United States stated in Heller, the Second Amendment is not a second-class Right, but is equal to all other rights.
Do you expect criminals to stop because you tax good citizens their right to exercise defense from these violent offenders?
Tax criminals and gang members for violations.
Each person should be responsible for his own action, not responsible for other’s stupid action.
Your city's behavior smells just like that of San Luis Obispo. Wherein the city council, in session, states "if you would like to speak, raise your hand and you will be recognized"...then the entire council stares at their worksheets and continues the meeting. I find their and your behavior to be very childish and definitely not complimentary to the word of the people. I strongly encourage you to oppose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. Dr. Bill Plummer
I would love to reduce or eliminate violence of all kinds in our chaotic world. However, placing (silly) restrictions on law-abiding citizens will solve NOTHING! We start by taking the criminal element off the streets. thank you
Dear councilmembers, I am opposed to the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance ! As a law abiding gun owner I feel that California has the best laws on the books already concerning gun safety. We are required to keep firearms locked up and away from people not familiar with safe gun handling practices. Your notion to tax law biding gun owners and require insurance will do little in the name of gun safety. Thanks for allowing me to share on this subject, Scott Mondloch
I should not be forced to pay for someone else’s criminal liability. I will vote against the mayor and every other public official if this passes. This will also be an embarrassment to the city given its unconstitutionality.
Dear Sirs, I Protest and Oppose this new ordinance and direct you to do the same on my behalf.
Democrats need to stop harming the society ASAP. California and San Jose are becoming a joke in the world. The San Jose government and Mayer are harming human rights.
I oppose any requirement for specific liability insurance tied to gun ownership and I oppose any annual tax/fee for gun owners.
I travel to Santa Clara County on business regularly. I urge the city council to oppose this unjust Gun Harm Reduction ordinance. It is another attempt to create overly burdensome rules that seek to undermine people's right to defend themselves. It does nothing to protect the law abiding and will not have an impact on the criminal.
I am a frequent visitor to the city of San Jose and routinely conduct business there. As such, this seems to be in conflict with state law. Section 10.32.210 (A) requires "gun liability insurance policy ... specifically covering .. resulting from any negligent..."
It is specifically illegal in California to issue an insurance policy covering negligence. http://bergerkahn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Making-Sense-of-Californias-Accident-Requirement-in-Liability-Insurance-Policies-Part-I.pdf