This is one of the dumbest and unconstitutional ideas that I have ever heard. I am strongly opposed. I tell everyone about how strongly I feel against this proposal. Strongly Opposed.
This needs to be opposed! I can't believe legislators can come up with something like this thinking this will reduce, prevent or remediate gun violence. Punishing law abiding citizens and raising fees and taxes won't make our city any safer. This can't be passed and the Council needs to oppose such non-sense. Law Enforcement can't be everywhere all the time and adding another fee and another step between a law abiding citizen and a gun will only create more dissiparity! OPPOSE THIS, NOW!
I am writing in opposition to this ordinance. Mandating a fee and registration specifically to gun owners with the consequence of gun confiscation of otherwise lawfully possessed firearms is a violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Confiscating firearms from citizens will not improve public safety but will instead further victimize citizens and leave them vulnerable to armed criminals who have always ignored laws to begin with.
Once again the city is finding ways to make bad guys out of law abiding citizens. This will not solve the problem but only attack the ones that are not the problem. I also feel this will strongly effect lower income areas, in a city that is already extremely expensive to live. Strongly oppose this.
-Many "Studies" cited in: Supplemental Memorandum, 1/21/2022 cannot be cited as academic studies, have not been subject to review of a rigorous academic process. Any policy proposal that relies on the cited "studies" is flawed at the outset.
-The proposed fee is a tax on a fundamental right, this is the equivalent of a poll tax and will not withstand legal challenge.
-The bulk of violent crime and injuries incurred during those crimes comes from other types of weapons; knives, fists, etc.
California leads the nation by cost of living. Often the poor and disenfranchised are the ones that are hurt most when punitive measures like the ones being suggested here are enforced. How are people supposed to afford firearm ownership if they already are subjected to living in unsafe communities because they cannot afford to leave?
This proposal will set forward a punitive precedent that will overwhelmingly affect poor Californians. Exempting Law Enforcement is wrong
Just nonsensical. You're charging people for owning something that a bad actor used for criminal purposes. Would you propose a car tax in response to drunk driving incidents? Road rage? No, you wouldn't, because it makes as much sense as this "Gun Harm Reduction" fee. This is embarrassing, and you're making yourselves look bad. Oppose the ordinance.
I oppose any and all gun control measures the SJ City Council is proposing. You will end up hurting innocent people and make San Jose a dangerous place to live.
A tax on weapons will simply penalize those law abiding citizens who wish to own a firearm and do little to prevent future crime and violence. This tax will also disproportionately affect those of low and very low income who seek to own a firearm for home defense. Please take into account that those who would need this most are often in lower income areas. It's wrong to prohibit an individual by creating even more of a monetary barrier for what has been deemed a constitutional right.
Long ago, Southern Democrats imposed a poll tax on the residents of their areas hoping it would discourage people of color from participating in voting. Now San Jose Democrats are imposing a gun ownership tax to discourage law abiding citizens from participating in the second Amendment. Shame on the city counsel for this. And shame on the Mayor for not shutting it down. How weak.
At no point somebody said lets disarm criminals. Why is it always aimed at law abiding citizens? Please stop restricting constitution which was written by better people than us
Hello,
I want to add my voice and oppose this 1 22-045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. It is a tax on a constitutional right. This is unjust and punitive to those who exercise their constitutional right. Whats next taxing free speech? Passing an ordinance that is so vague as to not even give a difinitive cost to the people is ridiculous. Lastly, how does this stop crime? If you can afford to pay a tax and insurance, then why would you commit a crime? Criminals dont follow the rules.
How it is the financial responsibility of the law abiding citizen and legal gun owner to be uniquely burdened with fees and insurance policies to cover the costs of normal law enforcement against criminal activity? Are there insurance policies on syringe manufacturers to clean the streets of paraphernalia created by those using illegal drugs? Two million crimes a year are prevented by legally armed citizens. Your proposed fees and insurance burdens will have the greatest impact on the poor.
This is a ridiculous waste of money adding only more oversight and government interference, while taking away the rights of law-abiding gun-owning citizens. Instead of the city going after those who have committed crimes that are already on the books, And seeking compensation from those individuals, the city Council proposes to add additional requirements and restrictions to punish the responsible gun owners who obey and follow the myriad of existing laws. This ordinance fails basic common sense
Strongly oppose any local politician that supports this nonsense.
If San Jose were serious about charging law abiding guns owners for the costs of firearms violence, they should not exempt the police department.
We are OPPOSED to this ordinance. Instead of going after legal gun owners, go after those who own or obtain guns illegally, including ghost guns.
This is one of the dumbest and unconstitutional ideas that I have ever heard. I am strongly opposed. I tell everyone about how strongly I feel against this proposal. Strongly Opposed.
Strongly opposed
This needs to be opposed! I can't believe legislators can come up with something like this thinking this will reduce, prevent or remediate gun violence. Punishing law abiding citizens and raising fees and taxes won't make our city any safer. This can't be passed and the Council needs to oppose such non-sense. Law Enforcement can't be everywhere all the time and adding another fee and another step between a law abiding citizen and a gun will only create more dissiparity! OPPOSE THIS, NOW!
I am writing in opposition to this ordinance. Mandating a fee and registration specifically to gun owners with the consequence of gun confiscation of otherwise lawfully possessed firearms is a violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Confiscating firearms from citizens will not improve public safety but will instead further victimize citizens and leave them vulnerable to armed criminals who have always ignored laws to begin with.
Once again the city is finding ways to make bad guys out of law abiding citizens. This will not solve the problem but only attack the ones that are not the problem. I also feel this will strongly effect lower income areas, in a city that is already extremely expensive to live. Strongly oppose this.
-Many "Studies" cited in: Supplemental Memorandum, 1/21/2022 cannot be cited as academic studies, have not been subject to review of a rigorous academic process. Any policy proposal that relies on the cited "studies" is flawed at the outset.
-The proposed fee is a tax on a fundamental right, this is the equivalent of a poll tax and will not withstand legal challenge.
-The bulk of violent crime and injuries incurred during those crimes comes from other types of weapons; knives, fists, etc.
To whom it may concern,
California leads the nation by cost of living. Often the poor and disenfranchised are the ones that are hurt most when punitive measures like the ones being suggested here are enforced. How are people supposed to afford firearm ownership if they already are subjected to living in unsafe communities because they cannot afford to leave?
This proposal will set forward a punitive precedent that will overwhelmingly affect poor Californians. Exempting Law Enforcement is wrong
Won’t do anything to reduce gun crime.
Just nonsensical. You're charging people for owning something that a bad actor used for criminal purposes. Would you propose a car tax in response to drunk driving incidents? Road rage? No, you wouldn't, because it makes as much sense as this "Gun Harm Reduction" fee. This is embarrassing, and you're making yourselves look bad. Oppose the ordinance.
I oppose any and all gun control measures the SJ City Council is proposing. You will end up hurting innocent people and make San Jose a dangerous place to live.
A tax on weapons will simply penalize those law abiding citizens who wish to own a firearm and do little to prevent future crime and violence. This tax will also disproportionately affect those of low and very low income who seek to own a firearm for home defense. Please take into account that those who would need this most are often in lower income areas. It's wrong to prohibit an individual by creating even more of a monetary barrier for what has been deemed a constitutional right.
Long ago, Southern Democrats imposed a poll tax on the residents of their areas hoping it would discourage people of color from participating in voting. Now San Jose Democrats are imposing a gun ownership tax to discourage law abiding citizens from participating in the second Amendment. Shame on the city counsel for this. And shame on the Mayor for not shutting it down. How weak.
At no point somebody said lets disarm criminals. Why is it always aimed at law abiding citizens? Please stop restricting constitution which was written by better people than us
Hello,
I want to add my voice and oppose this 1 22-045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. It is a tax on a constitutional right. This is unjust and punitive to those who exercise their constitutional right. Whats next taxing free speech? Passing an ordinance that is so vague as to not even give a difinitive cost to the people is ridiculous. Lastly, how does this stop crime? If you can afford to pay a tax and insurance, then why would you commit a crime? Criminals dont follow the rules.
How it is the financial responsibility of the law abiding citizen and legal gun owner to be uniquely burdened with fees and insurance policies to cover the costs of normal law enforcement against criminal activity? Are there insurance policies on syringe manufacturers to clean the streets of paraphernalia created by those using illegal drugs? Two million crimes a year are prevented by legally armed citizens. Your proposed fees and insurance burdens will have the greatest impact on the poor.
This is a ridiculous waste of money adding only more oversight and government interference, while taking away the rights of law-abiding gun-owning citizens. Instead of the city going after those who have committed crimes that are already on the books, And seeking compensation from those individuals, the city Council proposes to add additional requirements and restrictions to punish the responsible gun owners who obey and follow the myriad of existing laws. This ordinance fails basic common sense
Stop criminalizing law abiding citizens