I understand you are considering charging fees (taxes) on persons that legally own firearms. I would definitely oppose this. It would have zero effect on illegal behavior. Please reconsider.
Charging fees for constitutional rights is illegal and will not stand up to legal scrutiny. The arguments comparing fees for motor vehicle insurance are fallacious as driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right. Elections matter, as the city council will soon find out.
As a resident of SJ who works with the local law enforcement. In my experience, a great deal of the guns seized from criminals are unregistered "ghost guns". This ordinance will do nothing to stop the gun violence as criminals will continue to buy incomplete unregistered 80% guns and complete them to commit their crimes with. This ordinance does nothing but punish law-abiding gun owners. Law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners should not be required to pay for crimes committed by others.
I strongly oppose this new ordinance. It unlawfully attacks lawful gun owners and creates an unfair tax and fees. It will not reduce gun violence or crime and will cost tax payers millions of dollars in litigation if it passes.
Are you going to tax my use of this public comment page? If you're going to tax the second amendment, it seems only logical that your next step will be to tax the first amendment. This will do nothing to improve safety since only law-abiding citizens will be affected and you're adding another barrier to low-income law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves through lawful gun ownership under the second amendment. "Pay to play" is not how the Bill of Rights works. You should be ashamed.
This taxation proposal is purely reactionary to the unfortunate shooting that happened last year. It is in no way “common sense” as it taxes people’s rights. It also prices out lower income families from protecting themselves and their families. This proposal is the most ridiculous anti civil rights and constitutional infringement I’ve seen in a while. This is shameful and the city of San Jose should be ashamed of themselves for even proposing it.
I am in complete opposition to this. If this ordinance is passed what stops us having similar ordinances requiring specific religious groups from being required to pay a safety tax because their members are part of an extremist view that wishes harm on non-believers.
If the ordinance cared about costs and public safety they should instead implement a large fine + civil damages going after the assets of violent criminals for restitution (irrespective of how they commit their violent crime)
I am sorry, but seriously, are the inmates running the asylum? The right to own arms is essential, codified in Common Law and so important the framers placed that right in an Amendment to the US Constitution. You cannot tax a right. You cannot demand insurance to exercise a right. You are wasting taxpayers' money on a ludicrous ordinance that will be shot down in Federal courts, never mind violation of state pre-emption.
I am in opposition to your ridiculous proposal. Like most of the anti-gun laws in California, this will do nothing to promote gun safety and there will be little to no compliance. I suggest you enforce laws against illegal gun owners and gangs. Stop targeting law abiding gun owners with illogical regulations. TAKING GUNS AWAY AND/OR RESTRICTING GUNS DOESN’T MAKE IT SAFER AGAINST BAD PEOPLE, IT ONLY MAKES IT SAFER FOR BAD PEOPLE.
Your proposed anti firearms ordinance is a disgrace. Preemption laws in California try to make regulations (however restrictive) standardized throughout California. Your proposed law fly's in the face of that concept.
Lock up your criminals and gun violence will be eliminated!
Do not place the burden of complying with new ordinances on law abiding citizens while criminal will continue to do as they please.
ML
Your anti 2nd Amendment Ordnance shows your disregard of our U.S. Constitution. Your rational is ludicrous on its face, as having liability insurance to reduce the death rate has no bases in any research done by any reliable unbiased groups. Your required city gun fee is a TAX and it must go through a ballot initiative and passed by the citizens. This city tax (fee) is an INFRINGEMENT as is the insurance requirement and is very much racist towards minorities and low income.
Stop punishing legal gun owners with taxes and regulations. Crack down illegal gun ownership and gun violence instead. People elect you to serve the communities not to pushes them.
I am in opposition to your blatant anti-gun ordinance. The idea that you should ask to pay a fee for exercising my 2nd amendment rights is plain unamerican. What is next, asking me to pay a fee to exercise my 1st amendment rights? While I am in favor of removing illegal guns from the streets and reducing gun violence, targeting law abiding citizens will not accomplish this. I suggest that you increase law enforcement of street gangs and illegal behavior,
I suggest you read the article in the latest TIME magazine related to the current gun problem. The author discusses how the issue has been successfully dealt with in certain other cities with larger problems than we are experiencing locally. He states that the issues are centralized within areas of the cities. He refers to an Oakland CA approach which was successful. Punishing responsible recreational users of firearms doesn't solve a problem caused by criminals and crazies.
Law and Constitution abiding citizens(unlike yourselves) are not the problem and a tax for being law abiding shows what you are. The problem promoting violence.
Dear Sir: I am opposed to the possibility of firearm owners being taxed because first it could be abused for future issues that have nothing to do with firearms and second legal law abiding owners have nothing to do with those who break the law. If you wish to act consider passing laws beyond state laws that imprison and/or fine those who posses or control firearms when they are prohibited from doing so.
Data shows that while violent crime soared in 2020, violent crime with guns fell dramatically by 27%
Guns are NOT the problem. Bad guys with stolen guns ARE the problem.
Use General Fund money (not new taxes on gun owners) to pay law enforcement to protect people and have them enforce existing laws!!
This ordinance will do nothing to stop gun violence as criminals will continue to use unregistered or otherwise illegal guns to commit their crimes unabated. Meanwhile, law-abiding gun owners in our city will suffer nothing more than blatant financial harassment.
Why should the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty?
Why should a city that claims to care about equality place taxes & fees on its citizens for using their constitutional rights? Do only the wealthy deserve them?
Please vote NO!
I understand you are considering charging fees (taxes) on persons that legally own firearms. I would definitely oppose this. It would have zero effect on illegal behavior. Please reconsider.
Charging fees for constitutional rights is illegal and will not stand up to legal scrutiny. The arguments comparing fees for motor vehicle insurance are fallacious as driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right. Elections matter, as the city council will soon find out.
As a resident of SJ who works with the local law enforcement. In my experience, a great deal of the guns seized from criminals are unregistered "ghost guns". This ordinance will do nothing to stop the gun violence as criminals will continue to buy incomplete unregistered 80% guns and complete them to commit their crimes with. This ordinance does nothing but punish law-abiding gun owners. Law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners should not be required to pay for crimes committed by others.
Stop the non- common sense action.
I strongly oppose this new ordinance. It unlawfully attacks lawful gun owners and creates an unfair tax and fees. It will not reduce gun violence or crime and will cost tax payers millions of dollars in litigation if it passes.
Are you going to tax my use of this public comment page? If you're going to tax the second amendment, it seems only logical that your next step will be to tax the first amendment. This will do nothing to improve safety since only law-abiding citizens will be affected and you're adding another barrier to low-income law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves through lawful gun ownership under the second amendment. "Pay to play" is not how the Bill of Rights works. You should be ashamed.
This taxation proposal is purely reactionary to the unfortunate shooting that happened last year. It is in no way “common sense” as it taxes people’s rights. It also prices out lower income families from protecting themselves and their families. This proposal is the most ridiculous anti civil rights and constitutional infringement I’ve seen in a while. This is shameful and the city of San Jose should be ashamed of themselves for even proposing it.
I am in complete opposition to this. If this ordinance is passed what stops us having similar ordinances requiring specific religious groups from being required to pay a safety tax because their members are part of an extremist view that wishes harm on non-believers.
If the ordinance cared about costs and public safety they should instead implement a large fine + civil damages going after the assets of violent criminals for restitution (irrespective of how they commit their violent crime)
I am sorry, but seriously, are the inmates running the asylum? The right to own arms is essential, codified in Common Law and so important the framers placed that right in an Amendment to the US Constitution. You cannot tax a right. You cannot demand insurance to exercise a right. You are wasting taxpayers' money on a ludicrous ordinance that will be shot down in Federal courts, never mind violation of state pre-emption.
Unconstitutional Taxation of law abiding citizens will never be justified.
I am in opposition to your ridiculous proposal. Like most of the anti-gun laws in California, this will do nothing to promote gun safety and there will be little to no compliance. I suggest you enforce laws against illegal gun owners and gangs. Stop targeting law abiding gun owners with illogical regulations. TAKING GUNS AWAY AND/OR RESTRICTING GUNS DOESN’T MAKE IT SAFER AGAINST BAD PEOPLE, IT ONLY MAKES IT SAFER FOR BAD PEOPLE.
Your proposed anti firearms ordinance is a disgrace. Preemption laws in California try to make regulations (however restrictive) standardized throughout California. Your proposed law fly's in the face of that concept.
Lock up your criminals and gun violence will be eliminated!
Do not place the burden of complying with new ordinances on law abiding citizens while criminal will continue to do as they please.
ML
Your anti 2nd Amendment Ordnance shows your disregard of our U.S. Constitution. Your rational is ludicrous on its face, as having liability insurance to reduce the death rate has no bases in any research done by any reliable unbiased groups. Your required city gun fee is a TAX and it must go through a ballot initiative and passed by the citizens. This city tax (fee) is an INFRINGEMENT as is the insurance requirement and is very much racist towards minorities and low income.
Stop punishing legal gun owners with taxes and regulations. Crack down illegal gun ownership and gun violence instead. People elect you to serve the communities not to pushes them.
I am in opposition to your blatant anti-gun ordinance. The idea that you should ask to pay a fee for exercising my 2nd amendment rights is plain unamerican. What is next, asking me to pay a fee to exercise my 1st amendment rights? While I am in favor of removing illegal guns from the streets and reducing gun violence, targeting law abiding citizens will not accomplish this. I suggest that you increase law enforcement of street gangs and illegal behavior,
I suggest you read the article in the latest TIME magazine related to the current gun problem. The author discusses how the issue has been successfully dealt with in certain other cities with larger problems than we are experiencing locally. He states that the issues are centralized within areas of the cities. He refers to an Oakland CA approach which was successful. Punishing responsible recreational users of firearms doesn't solve a problem caused by criminals and crazies.
Law and Constitution abiding citizens(unlike yourselves) are not the problem and a tax for being law abiding shows what you are. The problem promoting violence.
Dear Sir: I am opposed to the possibility of firearm owners being taxed because first it could be abused for future issues that have nothing to do with firearms and second legal law abiding owners have nothing to do with those who break the law. If you wish to act consider passing laws beyond state laws that imprison and/or fine those who posses or control firearms when they are prohibited from doing so.
Data shows that while violent crime soared in 2020, violent crime with guns fell dramatically by 27%
Guns are NOT the problem. Bad guys with stolen guns ARE the problem.
Use General Fund money (not new taxes on gun owners) to pay law enforcement to protect people and have them enforce existing laws!!
This ordinance will do nothing to stop gun violence as criminals will continue to use unregistered or otherwise illegal guns to commit their crimes unabated. Meanwhile, law-abiding gun owners in our city will suffer nothing more than blatant financial harassment.
Why should the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty?
Why should a city that claims to care about equality place taxes & fees on its citizens for using their constitutional rights? Do only the wealthy deserve them?
Please vote NO!