This proposed ordinance is going to target the poor of San Jose for the most part.
The method whereby you are not hunting down people on the CA DOJ's firearm registry and instead only targeting processing whether or not they've got their papers in order from tickets and/or arrests; is only going to target minorities in San Jose.
That's not even stepping on the constitutional issues; which this is filled with. The state and city will get sued into oblivion for this, by me, if need be.
This is pure virtue signaling on the part of politicians. This will not even address their stated goals and when the city inevitably loses the lawsuit against this inconstititional taxing of an enumerated right - they will likely have to pay the other sides legal fees as well. This is a waste of time and money when the city has bigger issues like homelessness to address.
An impediment to the exercise of constitutional rights is unconstitutional on its face. Well documented case law in this regard. This is pure and simple a Gavin style gun grab, abs you should all be recalled for even considering such a thing.
Legal, law abiding, and registered gun owners should not have to fund the cities’ war against gun ownership. Enforce the laws already on the books, and prosecute those found guilty.
The contents of this ordinance unfairly infringe on residents' second amendment rights.
The exceptions in this ordinance, specifically exempting peace officers, retired peace officers, concealed weapon holders, and other persons associated with lower income or disabilities. We do not exempt these persons from vehicle liability insurance requirements. Why are they exempted here from this insurance requirement?
The impound clause lacks any due process, pre or post seizure.
As elected officials, it is your sworn duty to uphold and protect the Constitution, including all its amendments. This proposal is blatantly unconstitutional. Therefore it is your sworn duty to turn it down.
ANNUAL GUN HARM REDUCTION FEE: stop the nonsensical and unconstitutional tax on law abiding gun owners. It's just a money grab and an outrageous tax on those that cannot afford it.
This will do nothing to prevent future attack's, what if the perp lives out side your city and comes in to their work place in the city..?? Once again burdening honest tax paying citizens just for their right to own a firearm. Hope you don't go bankrupt fighting this, cause you are going to court!!
Legal, law abiding, and registered gun owners should not have to fund the cities’ war against gun ownership. Enforce the laws already on the books, and prosecute those found guilty.
As a resident, I OPPOSE the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. As an owner of a few firearms since the spike in crime from 2020, I learned the hard way of how ridiculous gun control laws have become in California. A law abiding citizen has so many hoops to jump and fees to pay, yet criminals don't do. The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, which is a misnomer, does not reduce gun harm or crime. All it does is tax residents that legally own firearms, usually not used for the purpose of committing a crime.
This is only harming law abiding citizens. Why should those that follow all the rules be the ones that have to pay for those that don't? Put your efforts into getting the ghost guns off the street.
I am writing to oppose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. The Ordinance is a penalty to law abiding citizens that of guilty of nothing except owning a firearm. This is clearing a discriminatory drafting Ordinance that will clearly not withstand a legal challenge. If fact by passing this Ordinance the Council is placing the City of San Jose at risk of paying opposing legal fees. This fee will in no way reduce crime.
This proposed ordinance is going to target the poor of San Jose for the most part.
The method whereby you are not hunting down people on the CA DOJ's firearm registry and instead only targeting processing whether or not they've got their papers in order from tickets and/or arrests; is only going to target minorities in San Jose.
That's not even stepping on the constitutional issues; which this is filled with. The state and city will get sued into oblivion for this, by me, if need be.
You need to go after the criminals not law abiding citizens. This is evil work of Satan so stop it now! In Jesus Name.
This is pure virtue signaling on the part of politicians. This will not even address their stated goals and when the city inevitably loses the lawsuit against this inconstititional taxing of an enumerated right - they will likely have to pay the other sides legal fees as well. This is a waste of time and money when the city has bigger issues like homelessness to address.
An impediment to the exercise of constitutional rights is unconstitutional on its face. Well documented case law in this regard. This is pure and simple a Gavin style gun grab, abs you should all be recalled for even considering such a thing.
Legal, law abiding, and registered gun owners should not have to fund the cities’ war against gun ownership. Enforce the laws already on the books, and prosecute those found guilty.
The contents of this ordinance unfairly infringe on residents' second amendment rights.
The exceptions in this ordinance, specifically exempting peace officers, retired peace officers, concealed weapon holders, and other persons associated with lower income or disabilities. We do not exempt these persons from vehicle liability insurance requirements. Why are they exempted here from this insurance requirement?
The impound clause lacks any due process, pre or post seizure.
Please vote NO on any and all gun control bills.
This will not stop crime. This an illegal taxation on legal gun owners and must not pass.
Oppose Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance does nothing to stop crime. Why not change the name to We want to outlaw all firearms not controlled by us.
As elected officials, it is your sworn duty to uphold and protect the Constitution, including all its amendments. This proposal is blatantly unconstitutional. Therefore it is your sworn duty to turn it down.
ANNUAL GUN HARM REDUCTION FEE: stop the nonsensical and unconstitutional tax on law abiding gun owners. It's just a money grab and an outrageous tax on those that cannot afford it.
unconstitutional, idiotic, unnecessary,
This will do nothing to prevent future attack's, what if the perp lives out side your city and comes in to their work place in the city..?? Once again burdening honest tax paying citizens just for their right to own a firearm. Hope you don't go bankrupt fighting this, cause you are going to court!!
Legal, law abiding, and registered gun owners should not have to fund the cities’ war against gun ownership. Enforce the laws already on the books, and prosecute those found guilty.
As a resident, I OPPOSE the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. As an owner of a few firearms since the spike in crime from 2020, I learned the hard way of how ridiculous gun control laws have become in California. A law abiding citizen has so many hoops to jump and fees to pay, yet criminals don't do. The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, which is a misnomer, does not reduce gun harm or crime. All it does is tax residents that legally own firearms, usually not used for the purpose of committing a crime.
This is a bad idea. Harass the innocent
This is only harming law abiding citizens. Why should those that follow all the rules be the ones that have to pay for those that don't? Put your efforts into getting the ghost guns off the street.
Hello,
I am writing you to let you know that I oppose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance that you are proposing.
It is an unconstitutional attack on lawful gun owners and does not affect criminals.
Thank You,
Jeff Muth
Oppose Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance does nothing to stop crime.
I am writing to oppose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. The Ordinance is a penalty to law abiding citizens that of guilty of nothing except owning a firearm. This is clearing a discriminatory drafting Ordinance that will clearly not withstand a legal challenge. If fact by passing this Ordinance the Council is placing the City of San Jose at risk of paying opposing legal fees. This fee will in no way reduce crime.