I ask city council to OPPOSE This unconstitutional ordinance.
1: it will unfairly punish lawful and peaceful gun owners while having no impact on criminals.
2: it will not withstand legal scrutiny, and will be a waste of taxpayer money.
3: the ordinance does not specify the amount of the fee, how can you vote to enact a fee without knowing the amount?
4: No insurance exists to satisfy the requirements of this ordinance.
Thanks for information! Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a powerful idea of promoting company and its products and services on the internet. Of late, the number of internet users has been increased to the great extent so that it has become important to get your products and services promoted on the net. Let's visit my games website : <a href="https://13.213.182.248" title="https://13.213.182.248">MPO Slot</a> dan <a href="https://lotus99.co.uk/" title="LOTUS99">LOTUS99</a>
San Jose city council I am oppose this ordinance and ask you to VOTE NO on Item 4.1 at the Tuesday, January 25th meeting. Legal safe gun owners are taxed enough with out this ordinance.
How about instead of creating more hoops to force law abiding citizens to jump through you focus on getting actual criminals and drug addicts off the streets to make our neighborhoods safer.
I completely oppose the whole thing, first off California already has enough “gun tax” we don’t need more. Secondly how is anyone supposed to get an insurance that covers negligent discharge when none do. How about instead of creating more hoops to force law abiding citizens to jump through you focus on getting actual criminals and drug addicts off the streets to make our neighborhoods safer.
Please OPPOSE this ordinance. It's not right to make legal safe gun owners pay for those who choose to not be safe. And those that you desire to target with this likely won't educate themselves on the ordinance or comply. There are many local hobbyists in San Jose who go to activities such as trap and skeet shooting at local ranges. The sport is already becoming more expensive and challenging to comply with all the CA laws. This would be another unfair burden on them.
You cannot legislate away crime because criminals do not follow the law. This is an open attack on the right for the responsible law abiding citizens of this city to keep and bear arms and take personal responsibility for ones own safety, instead of leaving it in the hands of a governing body. Taking ones firearms before due process, is not due process. Voting on a law before the price tag is even deliberated is asinine. No insurance company would cover this; or make it ungodly expensive.
I am minority, law-abiding US citizen that owns firearms to protect my family.
- These policies will only affect law-abiding citizens like myself, we are being taxed for exercising our rights
- Criminals will not be affected by this. They use unregistered and stolen weapons
- The insurance required does not exist, no insurer will cover negligibility
- SJPD can take minutes to respond to a call, and when your life is being threatened, you don't have minutes, you have seconds
- Unconstitutional
I am a minority that saw a rise in hate crimes over the last 2 years and this is one of many wasteful, tone-dear, ignorant policies that punish those that pay taxes, contribute to society and seek to protect themselves. No such proposed insurance exists and this law does not address criminal violence the San Jose government happily overlooks. I will be taking my six figure tax revenue out of state this year, as I can no longer support a farce posing as a representative government
This proposal ridiculous. We as citizens in this city should not be subject to these type of prohibited taxes and infringements. Why is it that if someone steals and unlawfully possesses a firearm they are simply slapped with a misdemeanor and goes about his merry way. It’s about time the city places higher penalties on true criminals and not infringe on honest citizens. Any councilmember willing to vote yes on this issue will definitely not get my vote ever.
My name is Josh Guilbert. I am a San Jose District 2 resident and ask city council to OPPOSE This unconstitutional ordinance.
1: it will unfairly punish lawful and peaceful gun owners while having no impact on criminals.
2: it will not withstand legal scrutiny, and will be a waste of taxpayer money.
3: the ordinance does not specify the amount of the fee, how can you vote to enact a fee without knowing the amount?
4: No insurance exists to satisfy the requirements of this ordinance.
It is completely illogical to force people to pay this fee that is in a sense, a form of mass punishment through fees on gun owners. The same effect for most of this ordinance is already achieved through civil court cases that could punish someone monetarily due to their unlawful or negligent actions with firearms. Instead, this ordinance wants to punish every gun owner for the actions of few.
I strongly oppose this Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance as it does nothing but punish those that do not harm anyone. Every legally purchased firearm in this state, such as those this proposal seeks to add fees to, is registered. The weapons used in crimes are not registered, and therefore unable to be taxed because the state does not know about them. I would propose instead to increase punishments for violent gun crimes and make criminals that harm pay financially instead of people that do no harm.
Criminals are more likely to commit gun violence than those who actually spent time and money to go through California's background checks, restrictions, and various fees. We have people around the Bay Area in all walks of life who wish to exercise constitutional rights such as the 2nd Amendment, and this bill damns it and would try to make people deter away from guns as a financial loss rather than a right to defend themselves.
I am completely against this proposal. Complete violation of privacy and won't combat any gun violence.
I ask city council to OPPOSE This unconstitutional ordinance.
1: it will unfairly punish lawful and peaceful gun owners while having no impact on criminals.
2: it will not withstand legal scrutiny, and will be a waste of taxpayer money.
3: the ordinance does not specify the amount of the fee, how can you vote to enact a fee without knowing the amount?
4: No insurance exists to satisfy the requirements of this ordinance.
Thanks for information! Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a powerful idea of promoting company and its products and services on the internet. Of late, the number of internet users has been increased to the great extent so that it has become important to get your products and services promoted on the net. Let's visit my games website : <a href="https://13.213.182.248" title="https://13.213.182.248">MPO Slot</a> dan <a href="https://lotus99.co.uk/" title="LOTUS99">LOTUS99</a>
San Jose city council I am oppose this ordinance and ask you to VOTE NO on Item 4.1 at the Tuesday, January 25th meeting. Legal safe gun owners are taxed enough with out this ordinance.
How about instead of creating more hoops to force law abiding citizens to jump through you focus on getting actual criminals and drug addicts off the streets to make our neighborhoods safer.
I completely oppose the whole thing, first off California already has enough “gun tax” we don’t need more. Secondly how is anyone supposed to get an insurance that covers negligent discharge when none do. How about instead of creating more hoops to force law abiding citizens to jump through you focus on getting actual criminals and drug addicts off the streets to make our neighborhoods safer.
Please OPPOSE this ordinance. It's not right to make legal safe gun owners pay for those who choose to not be safe. And those that you desire to target with this likely won't educate themselves on the ordinance or comply. There are many local hobbyists in San Jose who go to activities such as trap and skeet shooting at local ranges. The sport is already becoming more expensive and challenging to comply with all the CA laws. This would be another unfair burden on them.
You cannot legislate away crime because criminals do not follow the law. This is an open attack on the right for the responsible law abiding citizens of this city to keep and bear arms and take personal responsibility for ones own safety, instead of leaving it in the hands of a governing body. Taking ones firearms before due process, is not due process. Voting on a law before the price tag is even deliberated is asinine. No insurance company would cover this; or make it ungodly expensive.
Legal guns are not the problem.
Statistically gun owners commit less crime
Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime.
states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders
Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws
Gun control efforts have proved ineffective.
there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Or any other control efforts
I am minority, law-abiding US citizen that owns firearms to protect my family.
- These policies will only affect law-abiding citizens like myself, we are being taxed for exercising our rights
- Criminals will not be affected by this. They use unregistered and stolen weapons
- The insurance required does not exist, no insurer will cover negligibility
- SJPD can take minutes to respond to a call, and when your life is being threatened, you don't have minutes, you have seconds
- Unconstitutional
I am a minority that saw a rise in hate crimes over the last 2 years and this is one of many wasteful, tone-dear, ignorant policies that punish those that pay taxes, contribute to society and seek to protect themselves. No such proposed insurance exists and this law does not address criminal violence the San Jose government happily overlooks. I will be taking my six figure tax revenue out of state this year, as I can no longer support a farce posing as a representative government
This proposal ridiculous. We as citizens in this city should not be subject to these type of prohibited taxes and infringements. Why is it that if someone steals and unlawfully possesses a firearm they are simply slapped with a misdemeanor and goes about his merry way. It’s about time the city places higher penalties on true criminals and not infringe on honest citizens. Any councilmember willing to vote yes on this issue will definitely not get my vote ever.
My name is Josh Guilbert. I am a San Jose District 2 resident and ask city council to OPPOSE This unconstitutional ordinance.
1: it will unfairly punish lawful and peaceful gun owners while having no impact on criminals.
2: it will not withstand legal scrutiny, and will be a waste of taxpayer money.
3: the ordinance does not specify the amount of the fee, how can you vote to enact a fee without knowing the amount?
4: No insurance exists to satisfy the requirements of this ordinance.
It is completely illogical to force people to pay this fee that is in a sense, a form of mass punishment through fees on gun owners. The same effect for most of this ordinance is already achieved through civil court cases that could punish someone monetarily due to their unlawful or negligent actions with firearms. Instead, this ordinance wants to punish every gun owner for the actions of few.
No ty
Unconstitutional. Punish and charge the people who are breaking laws.
This bill is ridiculous you guys need to rethink this https://snowrider3d.com
I strongly oppose this Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance as it does nothing but punish those that do not harm anyone. Every legally purchased firearm in this state, such as those this proposal seeks to add fees to, is registered. The weapons used in crimes are not registered, and therefore unable to be taxed because the state does not know about them. I would propose instead to increase punishments for violent gun crimes and make criminals that harm pay financially instead of people that do no harm.
Criminals are more likely to commit gun violence than those who actually spent time and money to go through California's background checks, restrictions, and various fees. We have people around the Bay Area in all walks of life who wish to exercise constitutional rights such as the 2nd Amendment, and this bill damns it and would try to make people deter away from guns as a financial loss rather than a right to defend themselves.
I oppose this ordinance due to the unconstitutionality of being forced to pay to exercise a constitutional right.
This bill is ridiculous you guys need to rethink this