I do not support yet another "gun control" action. Cities with the most strict gun control laws see the highest level of homicides and gun related crimes. This action taxes the legal gun owners and does nothing to stop the unlawful gun owners that are more likely to commit crimes with a gun. Again, this law "does nothing" to stop unlawful gun ownership or violent use of a firearm. Are you ready to tax all car owners to cover DUI costs? Quit taking advantage of law abiding citizens of San Jose!
I believe that Sam Liccardo's proposal to require gun owners get liability insurance will only have one effect - involve San Jose in an expensive law suit. From reading the proposal it appears to be unconstitutional, almost impossible to enforce, and will do nothing to reduce violence. I'm strongly opposed to this proposal.
Violating the second amendment rights of law abiding gun owners in San Jose by adding additional taxes & fees is absolutely not the ideal method to slow restless criminals and evil entities from carrying out their destruction in our beautiful city. Owning a firearm is not a privilege you have to pay a “fee” or tax for, it is a constitutional right for every American and shall not be infringed upon. Please do not pass this ordinance!
I wish to remain anonymous, but this “fee” is ridiculous. Imagine proposing a fee on the right to vote. Ridiculous. Second, how would criminals ever follow this. Show us statistics detailing who perpetrated the gun violence you speak of before trying to pass some ordinance without even giving us the costs. Focus on providing mental healthcare along with cleaning up our streets both figuratively and literally.
This new law will do nothing to prevent or reduce gun violence. How do you think you can impose new taxes and requirements to the group of people who already follow the law and legally poses firearms? Criminals will never buy insurance or register a gun.
Maybe you could work on the homeless issue rather that something that is lacking in common sense.
Please do not penalize people who wish to protect themselves & their families. Times are especially perilous now with so many police departments having issues and the increase in crimes. Please understand that criminals do not follow laws-which is why they are criminals. Enforcing the laws that we already have & punishing the 'bad guys', firearms/protection in the hands of law abiding citizens would not be an issue. Thank you for taking into consideration the safety of your citizens.
Honorable San Jose City council,
I respectfully urge you to dismiss this ordinance. This measure will not make San Jose a safer city, and will impose a unique burden on its residents. These open the city itself to legal challenges and legal costs. This annual NGO "fee" should be legislated like a TAX. The required liability insurance does not exist as an insurance product. And the mandate to produce forms to an officer on request is an Orwellian "papers please". I urge you to oppose.
I am a law abiding citizen and I have worked in the police department. There are many ways to reduce violent crimes and this isn’t it. As a California native, I have seen the Second Ammendment being stripped away And at a faster rate in recent times. In the interest of justice, please do not me move forward with this proposal.
This only seeks to have law abiding gun owners of San Jose to pay a yearly fee plus insurance to cover for violence and crimes they were never involved with. There are already several state and city laws that already address gun ownership with California being the top three strictest in the nation. Why is this attempting to be passed without the details worked out first? Undetermined administrative fees. It is unlikely to find insurance that will cover negligence or even firearms.
I strongly oppose this "gun harm reduction ordinance". I don't really see the need to impose such requirements on the gun owners when they have done nothing wrong. These ordinances will do little to nothing to reduce the amount of violence on the streets. If criminals want to break the law, these ordinances will not do anything to deter their behaviors. This ordinance will undoubtedly place undue burdens on the rights to keep and bear arms for the citizens of San Jose!
Strongly oppose this “gun harm reduction ordinance”. Why impose such a thing on law abiding citizens? I saw a news brief with the SJ mayor comparing gun ownership to driving a car and car insurance. Driving is a privilege...owning a gun is a constitutional right. Privileges versus Rights are vastly different and one can’t compare the two in the same sentence!
I respectfully urge you to oppose the Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. This ordinance does nothing to increase public safety. It places an undue burden on the law abiding of their constitutional rights by creating legal and monetary punishments for the residents of the City of San Jose. It will have no effect on criminals who possess illegal firearms. The provisions in this plan make zero sense. Residents of San Jose will lose confidence in the city’s leadership with this ordinance.
I strongly oppose this position, potential legislation, and egregious government overstep. Gun ownership is a constitutional right, not a privilege. The mayor's assertion that vehicle fatalities reduced more than 80% due to insurance is ridiculous. Maybe, I don't know, vehicle safety and technology improved over time? This will do absolutely nothing to stop gun violence. It will only cause undue financial hardship on law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Oppose this position!
Gun ownership isn’t just a right for those who can afford to pay high fees. Unlike driving, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right.
This is clearly a violation of that.
While the Supreme Court has entertained many creative methods to deprive citizens of rights, this isn’t one that is likely to succeed.
Please don’t waste time, money, and public trust on a crusade against your own citizens and voters.
Don’t justify the fears of “gun grab” politics and deepen the divide with bad laws.
I do not support yet another "gun control" action. Cities with the most strict gun control laws see the highest level of homicides and gun related crimes. This action taxes the legal gun owners and does nothing to stop the unlawful gun owners that are more likely to commit crimes with a gun. Again, this law "does nothing" to stop unlawful gun ownership or violent use of a firearm. Are you ready to tax all car owners to cover DUI costs? Quit taking advantage of law abiding citizens of San Jose!
There's just no way that this is constitutional. It won't hold up in court and is a huge waste of resources for the city.
This fee is absurd and only affects law abiding citizens NOT criminals!
I believe that Sam Liccardo's proposal to require gun owners get liability insurance will only have one effect - involve San Jose in an expensive law suit. From reading the proposal it appears to be unconstitutional, almost impossible to enforce, and will do nothing to reduce violence. I'm strongly opposed to this proposal.
Will only hurt the law abiding citizens.
punishing good people with taxes and fees doesnt do anything to change a criminals behavior
Violating the second amendment rights of law abiding gun owners in San Jose by adding additional taxes & fees is absolutely not the ideal method to slow restless criminals and evil entities from carrying out their destruction in our beautiful city. Owning a firearm is not a privilege you have to pay a “fee” or tax for, it is a constitutional right for every American and shall not be infringed upon. Please do not pass this ordinance!
I wish to remain anonymous, but this “fee” is ridiculous. Imagine proposing a fee on the right to vote. Ridiculous. Second, how would criminals ever follow this. Show us statistics detailing who perpetrated the gun violence you speak of before trying to pass some ordinance without even giving us the costs. Focus on providing mental healthcare along with cleaning up our streets both figuratively and literally.
I strongly oppose this law.
This new law will do nothing to prevent or reduce gun violence. How do you think you can impose new taxes and requirements to the group of people who already follow the law and legally poses firearms? Criminals will never buy insurance or register a gun.
Maybe you could work on the homeless issue rather that something that is lacking in common sense.
I oppose this new law
I oppose this ordinance, you shouldn't be required to pay additional fees for the firearms you own or plan to buy.
I oppose this ordinance. I shouldn't be required to pay additional fees for the firearms I own or plan to buy.
Please do not penalize people who wish to protect themselves & their families. Times are especially perilous now with so many police departments having issues and the increase in crimes. Please understand that criminals do not follow laws-which is why they are criminals. Enforcing the laws that we already have & punishing the 'bad guys', firearms/protection in the hands of law abiding citizens would not be an issue. Thank you for taking into consideration the safety of your citizens.
Honorable San Jose City council,
I respectfully urge you to dismiss this ordinance. This measure will not make San Jose a safer city, and will impose a unique burden on its residents. These open the city itself to legal challenges and legal costs. This annual NGO "fee" should be legislated like a TAX. The required liability insurance does not exist as an insurance product. And the mandate to produce forms to an officer on request is an Orwellian "papers please". I urge you to oppose.
I am a law abiding citizen and I have worked in the police department. There are many ways to reduce violent crimes and this isn’t it. As a California native, I have seen the Second Ammendment being stripped away And at a faster rate in recent times. In the interest of justice, please do not me move forward with this proposal.
This only seeks to have law abiding gun owners of San Jose to pay a yearly fee plus insurance to cover for violence and crimes they were never involved with. There are already several state and city laws that already address gun ownership with California being the top three strictest in the nation. Why is this attempting to be passed without the details worked out first? Undetermined administrative fees. It is unlikely to find insurance that will cover negligence or even firearms.
I strongly oppose this "gun harm reduction ordinance". I don't really see the need to impose such requirements on the gun owners when they have done nothing wrong. These ordinances will do little to nothing to reduce the amount of violence on the streets. If criminals want to break the law, these ordinances will not do anything to deter their behaviors. This ordinance will undoubtedly place undue burdens on the rights to keep and bear arms for the citizens of San Jose!
Strongly oppose this “gun harm reduction ordinance”. Why impose such a thing on law abiding citizens? I saw a news brief with the SJ mayor comparing gun ownership to driving a car and car insurance. Driving is a privilege...owning a gun is a constitutional right. Privileges versus Rights are vastly different and one can’t compare the two in the same sentence!
I respectfully urge you to oppose the Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. This ordinance does nothing to increase public safety. It places an undue burden on the law abiding of their constitutional rights by creating legal and monetary punishments for the residents of the City of San Jose. It will have no effect on criminals who possess illegal firearms. The provisions in this plan make zero sense. Residents of San Jose will lose confidence in the city’s leadership with this ordinance.
I strongly oppose this position, potential legislation, and egregious government overstep. Gun ownership is a constitutional right, not a privilege. The mayor's assertion that vehicle fatalities reduced more than 80% due to insurance is ridiculous. Maybe, I don't know, vehicle safety and technology improved over time? This will do absolutely nothing to stop gun violence. It will only cause undue financial hardship on law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Oppose this position!