Please reconsider this proposal before voting. Punish the "bad" guys with laws that are now on the books. Not the honest, responsible gun owners who legally own self defense arms. Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Steve Hipsak
Please enforce the existing laws. It's already illegal to use weapons to assault or kill others. Punish criminals, not law abiding citizens. Criminals will not pay this tax/insurance nor will they turn in their guns. This ordinance will harm law abiding citizens and do nothing to prevent crime. In fact, when the criminals start to realize that less law abiding citizens have guns, they will prey more easily upon them. Response time for Law Enforcement is not sufficient protection for my family
#1, I am an American citizen. #2, I am a CRPA member. #3, I am a registered voter in Mexifornia. I disagree with your anti responsible gun ownership/usage here in Mexifornia. Please focus your attention on more constructive issues in your town/hood.
Gun crimes are committed by criminals and you are trying to tax the legal gun owners. It is somewhat like trying to fine a sober driver who gets run into by a drunken driver. The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You are trying to tax a right guaranteed by the Constitution thus infringing on that right.
As a resident of San Jose, I strongly oppose this ordinance. I fail to see how this will ever work to solve the gun crimes by taxing the law abiding citizens !! Why can't you tax or punish the criminals ? And why can't they buy their own liability insurance ? Is this discrimination ?
San Jose is violating the Constitution. The problem you have is called criminals. You need to put them in jail so they don't terrorize society. All you're doing with your so-called gun laws is restricting law-abiding citizens to have firearms -- which by the way are increasingly more important because liberals like you are refusing to put criminals in jail!
You do realize that criminals do not have to comply with any of these schemes because they don't register guns and do not have to. They do not have to incriminate themselves. See Haynes v United States (1968).
Only the innocent citizen is punished by this nonsense.
This is nothing more than a tax on law abiding citizens and is completely wrong. There is no reason that citizens
who legally obtain guns should be punished for the actions of criminals. I do believe this is way to create a gun
registry and I oppose this action. I demand that you leave our 2nd amendment rights alone. Punish criminals
not law abiding citizens
This ordinance will not reduce “gun harm”. It is poorly thought out, discriminates the poor and law-abiding gun owners, bolsters illegal gun trade, bifurcates the public into rival political groups, and contravenes the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The City needs to focus on the cause of gun violence. Reducing the number of legally owned guns does not take guns away from criminals. Stop following this pattern and come up with something better.
I am not surprised by this ordinance or the methods used to suppress my opinion. As a senior citizen I have seen this city council do nothing for me. Of course I own some guns, many that are older than me, really a threat.
Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance: A consequence of this ordinance is a chilling effect on those who are economically disadvantaged. They will be hindered by additional cost from keeping a firearm for the security of themselves or their family. There are already considerable costs and paperwork involved in doing so. Increasing the difficulty of compliance leads to non-compliance. Such laws only affect law abiding citizens, the people who ought to be free to choose how to defend themselves.
REDUCTION OF GUN HARM – LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENT AND GUN
HARM REDUCTION FEE
Impoundment for non-compliance with insurance requirement? That is simply seizure of property guaranteed possession under the second amendment; unlike cars which are not protected by the 2nd amendment. Pretty slippery slope here. This type of thinking would justify seizure of any property - your house, any sporting goods , kitchen goods, tools - by requiring additional specific insurance. Vague and Arbitrary
Please stop spending tax payer's dollars and time on ridiculous notions like this. Law abiding citizens are not at fault for owning firearms. Criminals are responsible for committing crimes. Don't charge us for the actions of others!
This is nothing but a back door to try to confiscate the guns of law-abiding gun owners. They are not the problem!
How many illegal gun owners will have insurance? How many of them will have their firearms confiscated? You would do better to enforce the current laws on the books and arrest -- and jail -- probation violators and gang members who have firearms illegally.
Respect the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution!
Punish criminals, not law-abiding taxpayers.
Please reconsider this proposal before voting. Punish the "bad" guys with laws that are now on the books. Not the honest, responsible gun owners who legally own self defense arms. Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Steve Hipsak
Please enforce the existing laws. It's already illegal to use weapons to assault or kill others. Punish criminals, not law abiding citizens. Criminals will not pay this tax/insurance nor will they turn in their guns. This ordinance will harm law abiding citizens and do nothing to prevent crime. In fact, when the criminals start to realize that less law abiding citizens have guns, they will prey more easily upon them. Response time for Law Enforcement is not sufficient protection for my family
#1, I am an American citizen. #2, I am a CRPA member. #3, I am a registered voter in Mexifornia. I disagree with your anti responsible gun ownership/usage here in Mexifornia. Please focus your attention on more constructive issues in your town/hood.
Gun crimes are committed by criminals and you are trying to tax the legal gun owners. It is somewhat like trying to fine a sober driver who gets run into by a drunken driver. The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You are trying to tax a right guaranteed by the Constitution thus infringing on that right.
As a resident of San Jose, I strongly oppose this ordinance. I fail to see how this will ever work to solve the gun crimes by taxing the law abiding citizens !! Why can't you tax or punish the criminals ? And why can't they buy their own liability insurance ? Is this discrimination ?
San Jose is violating the Constitution. The problem you have is called criminals. You need to put them in jail so they don't terrorize society. All you're doing with your so-called gun laws is restricting law-abiding citizens to have firearms -- which by the way are increasingly more important because liberals like you are refusing to put criminals in jail!
You are punishing the law abiding citizens, totally WRONG!
Stop the madness.
Respect the constitution
You do realize that criminals do not have to comply with any of these schemes because they don't register guns and do not have to. They do not have to incriminate themselves. See Haynes v United States (1968).
Only the innocent citizen is punished by this nonsense.
we are watching
Illigal
This is nothing more than a tax on law abiding citizens and is completely wrong. There is no reason that citizens
who legally obtain guns should be punished for the actions of criminals. I do believe this is way to create a gun
registry and I oppose this action. I demand that you leave our 2nd amendment rights alone. Punish criminals
not law abiding citizens
This ordinance will not reduce “gun harm”. It is poorly thought out, discriminates the poor and law-abiding gun owners, bolsters illegal gun trade, bifurcates the public into rival political groups, and contravenes the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The City needs to focus on the cause of gun violence. Reducing the number of legally owned guns does not take guns away from criminals. Stop following this pattern and come up with something better.
Gun tax!! Tax the criminals. Try it it will work. Anyone convicted of a crime must pay a tax penalty.
I am not surprised by this ordinance or the methods used to suppress my opinion. As a senior citizen I have seen this city council do nothing for me. Of course I own some guns, many that are older than me, really a threat.
Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance: A consequence of this ordinance is a chilling effect on those who are economically disadvantaged. They will be hindered by additional cost from keeping a firearm for the security of themselves or their family. There are already considerable costs and paperwork involved in doing so. Increasing the difficulty of compliance leads to non-compliance. Such laws only affect law abiding citizens, the people who ought to be free to choose how to defend themselves.
REDUCTION OF GUN HARM – LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENT AND GUN
HARM REDUCTION FEE
Impoundment for non-compliance with insurance requirement? That is simply seizure of property guaranteed possession under the second amendment; unlike cars which are not protected by the 2nd amendment. Pretty slippery slope here. This type of thinking would justify seizure of any property - your house, any sporting goods , kitchen goods, tools - by requiring additional specific insurance. Vague and Arbitrary
Please stop spending tax payer's dollars and time on ridiculous notions like this. Law abiding citizens are not at fault for owning firearms. Criminals are responsible for committing crimes. Don't charge us for the actions of others!
This is nothing but a back door to try to confiscate the guns of law-abiding gun owners. They are not the problem!
How many illegal gun owners will have insurance? How many of them will have their firearms confiscated? You would do better to enforce the current laws on the books and arrest -- and jail -- probation violators and gang members who have firearms illegally.