Not only is this tone deaf and a blatant infringement on an individual's Second Amendment rights, this ordinance, like all gun control, further punishes law-abiding citizens forthe failure of the government to address the economic and mental health problems in the community. Criminals will ignore this and go unpunished by this. Nothing will change, and all you will have proven is your own incompetence. Even if this WAS a good idea, you NEED to prove this insurance is attainable.
This bill is Ordinance is preposterous on its face. No such insurance exist for negligence, and utilizing your 2nd amendment right should not have to come with insurance. You can't vote on fees then say what they are. That leads to robbing the populace! The fee to the non profit is forced charity. How do I know how those funds are being utilized? Since it is getting tax payer money do I get an open accounting of the use? This is violation and will do nothing to reduce violent
This is an absolute ridiculous proposal being pushed by someone clearly trying to extend their political career. There is no reason to think this type of proposal will have any effect on crime involving guns. Where does it stop? Why not tax individual police officers for the harm caused by the collective police force? Why not tax all city council members and politicians when actions they take cause harm to the community?
I live and work in the South Bay. Pass through San Jose to get to Milpitas everyday.
How does this ordinance prevent crime and help SJ? Guns involved in crime have been illegally possessed, unregistered. How do you track them? This bill does not stop criminals, only the legally armed/innocent. For what? The police are stretched thin. It encourages criminals that there are less guns to stop them.
You wouldn't tax a race because some members happen to be criminals, but you are ok with this?
Sorry your comments are getting brigaded by pro-gun forums. As a firearm owner myself, I would love to see further study of harm reduction measures, including liability insurance to provide assistance for those hurt or killed due to gun violence. Additionally, I would like to see the insurance cost be decreased/offset by providing proof of firearm training or certifications, proof of safe storage purchase (lockbox/safe), etc; essentially similar to good driver or defensive driving auto discounts
The city of San Jose is proposing punishing law abiding citizens for their own failures of addressing the mental health of our populace. This legislation places an undue burden on citizens and needs to be shot down
Why is the city going out of its way to punish law abiding citizens who are exercising their second amendment rights? there are so many laws that are already on the books. go after the criminals instead of law abiding citizens. elected officials are hypocrites. they welcome armed security while doing everything in their power to disarm citizens. their betrayal of public safety is shameful!!!!
Why punish law abiding citizens for complying with the law???
This doesn’t do anything to stop crimes!!
Why don’t you go after criminals instead of releasing them?
Law-abiding gun owners already bend over backwards (quite literally) to abide by draconian CA gun laws to lawfully exercise their legal civil right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. To attempt to lay blame upon these citizens for failures by elected officials such as City Council and the DA's office to appropriately deter crime via the myriad of means available to them is pure folly. This unconstitutional conduct by Council will simply result in legal action at taxpayer-expense. I strongly oppose.
My name is Terry Anderson.
I have heard about the new legislation being proposed there in San Jose. Although I am not a resident of the city, I am still here to voice a through concern of this legislation.
It does the exact opposite of trying to make anything safe. Implementing fines and threading to take away property of those who can’t pay is wrong and inhumane. I do not agree with this new proposal for “gun safety.” Criminals don’t pay a fee to do crimes, lawful citizens shouldn’t have to.
I strongly oppose this ordinance and urge to vote NO on this item. This ordinance would destroy 2nd Amendment rights. I am not a resident of San Jose, but as a resident of California and a U.S. citizen, I (and indeed every citizen) have an interest in a law that destroys our rights. This law does not combat gun violence; rather, it simply makes it more expensive for law abiding citizens from exercising their right. In effect, only the elite will be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Though I am not a resident of San Jose, I am compelled to voice my opposition of such a poorly conceived ordinance. The proposed ordinance is intentionally vague when it comes to fees that will be forced upon law-abiding firearms owners, which will encourage abuse and expansion of said fees. Like many other existing gun laws, this proposal carves out an exemption for LEOs in order to keep them in a stupor while constitutional rights are violated. Why are they exempt from "reducing gun harm?"
I strongly oppose the approval of the Gun Harm ordinance. This is an infringement of my Constitutional right under the 2nd amendment. Taxing a resident to exercise this right is a constitutional violation. My insurance company does not cover the city requirement. VOTE NO on Item 4.1.
Spend my tax dollars on crime fighting initiatives that will actually work. This ordinance won't!!!
This ordinance is completely unreasonable. Lawful gun owners do not commit crimes and therefore should not pay a tax to reduce criminal behavior. If the City wants to reduce crime, it should look at steps that would actually affect criminals. Criminals do not obtain guns legally so such a tax would not affect them.
This law does not combat gun violence in any meaningful way. It simply is an attempt to make it more expensive and to dissuade law abiding citizens from exercising their right to gun ownership and self protection. The city continues to funnel funds away from the police department and simultaneously making it move expensive and difficult to defend yourself all while violent crime is on the rise. This is not the way to confront criminal and gang related gun violence, by taxing law abiding citizens
This is unconstitutional on its face. Any attempt to reduce gun violence through laws that only law abiding citizens will have no effect on gun violence in the city. Criminals have and will always break these laws. I vehemently oppose this proposal. It is a naked attempt to violate our second amendment rights, and whether you disagree with the right or not, the citizens have that right.
Unconstitutional, oppose before you waste more time and (my) money.
Not only is this tone deaf and a blatant infringement on an individual's Second Amendment rights, this ordinance, like all gun control, further punishes law-abiding citizens forthe failure of the government to address the economic and mental health problems in the community. Criminals will ignore this and go unpunished by this. Nothing will change, and all you will have proven is your own incompetence. Even if this WAS a good idea, you NEED to prove this insurance is attainable.
Complete and total nonsense. Gun control only hurts law abiding gun owners while doing absolutely nothing to reduce crime.
This bill is Ordinance is preposterous on its face. No such insurance exist for negligence, and utilizing your 2nd amendment right should not have to come with insurance. You can't vote on fees then say what they are. That leads to robbing the populace! The fee to the non profit is forced charity. How do I know how those funds are being utilized? Since it is getting tax payer money do I get an open accounting of the use? This is violation and will do nothing to reduce violent
This is an absolute ridiculous proposal being pushed by someone clearly trying to extend their political career. There is no reason to think this type of proposal will have any effect on crime involving guns. Where does it stop? Why not tax individual police officers for the harm caused by the collective police force? Why not tax all city council members and politicians when actions they take cause harm to the community?
I live and work in the South Bay. Pass through San Jose to get to Milpitas everyday.
How does this ordinance prevent crime and help SJ? Guns involved in crime have been illegally possessed, unregistered. How do you track them? This bill does not stop criminals, only the legally armed/innocent. For what? The police are stretched thin. It encourages criminals that there are less guns to stop them.
You wouldn't tax a race because some members happen to be criminals, but you are ok with this?
Sorry your comments are getting brigaded by pro-gun forums. As a firearm owner myself, I would love to see further study of harm reduction measures, including liability insurance to provide assistance for those hurt or killed due to gun violence. Additionally, I would like to see the insurance cost be decreased/offset by providing proof of firearm training or certifications, proof of safe storage purchase (lockbox/safe), etc; essentially similar to good driver or defensive driving auto discounts
The city of San Jose is proposing punishing law abiding citizens for their own failures of addressing the mental health of our populace. This legislation places an undue burden on citizens and needs to be shot down
Why is the city going out of its way to punish law abiding citizens who are exercising their second amendment rights? there are so many laws that are already on the books. go after the criminals instead of law abiding citizens. elected officials are hypocrites. they welcome armed security while doing everything in their power to disarm citizens. their betrayal of public safety is shameful!!!!
Why punish law abiding citizens for complying with the law???
This doesn’t do anything to stop crimes!!
Why don’t you go after criminals instead of releasing them?
Law-abiding gun owners already bend over backwards (quite literally) to abide by draconian CA gun laws to lawfully exercise their legal civil right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. To attempt to lay blame upon these citizens for failures by elected officials such as City Council and the DA's office to appropriately deter crime via the myriad of means available to them is pure folly. This unconstitutional conduct by Council will simply result in legal action at taxpayer-expense. I strongly oppose.
My name is Terry Anderson.
I have heard about the new legislation being proposed there in San Jose. Although I am not a resident of the city, I am still here to voice a through concern of this legislation.
It does the exact opposite of trying to make anything safe. Implementing fines and threading to take away property of those who can’t pay is wrong and inhumane. I do not agree with this new proposal for “gun safety.” Criminals don’t pay a fee to do crimes, lawful citizens shouldn’t have to.
Don't punish law abiding gun owners. This will do nothing to deter a criminal!
I strongly oppose this ordinance and urge to vote NO on this item. This ordinance would destroy 2nd Amendment rights. I am not a resident of San Jose, but as a resident of California and a U.S. citizen, I (and indeed every citizen) have an interest in a law that destroys our rights. This law does not combat gun violence; rather, it simply makes it more expensive for law abiding citizens from exercising their right. In effect, only the elite will be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Though I am not a resident of San Jose, I am compelled to voice my opposition of such a poorly conceived ordinance. The proposed ordinance is intentionally vague when it comes to fees that will be forced upon law-abiding firearms owners, which will encourage abuse and expansion of said fees. Like many other existing gun laws, this proposal carves out an exemption for LEOs in order to keep them in a stupor while constitutional rights are violated. Why are they exempt from "reducing gun harm?"
I strongly oppose the approval of the Gun Harm ordinance. This is an infringement of my Constitutional right under the 2nd amendment. Taxing a resident to exercise this right is a constitutional violation. My insurance company does not cover the city requirement. VOTE NO on Item 4.1.
Spend my tax dollars on crime fighting initiatives that will actually work. This ordinance won't!!!
This ordinance is completely unreasonable. Lawful gun owners do not commit crimes and therefore should not pay a tax to reduce criminal behavior. If the City wants to reduce crime, it should look at steps that would actually affect criminals. Criminals do not obtain guns legally so such a tax would not affect them.
This law does not combat gun violence in any meaningful way. It simply is an attempt to make it more expensive and to dissuade law abiding citizens from exercising their right to gun ownership and self protection. The city continues to funnel funds away from the police department and simultaneously making it move expensive and difficult to defend yourself all while violent crime is on the rise. This is not the way to confront criminal and gang related gun violence, by taxing law abiding citizens
This is unconstitutional on its face. Any attempt to reduce gun violence through laws that only law abiding citizens will have no effect on gun violence in the city. Criminals have and will always break these laws. I vehemently oppose this proposal. It is a naked attempt to violate our second amendment rights, and whether you disagree with the right or not, the citizens have that right.
This punishes lawful gun owners by spreading the cost of accidental or negligent discharges across many gun owners which have never had one.
What insurance policies exist which satisfy this requirement?