As a San Jose lifelong resident, I strongly oppose this proposed legislation as directly violates and prevents my constitutional rights and my ability to protect myself and my family. Last week, my family has experienced an attempted break-in at home. It took over 40 minutes for the police to drive by and not check in with us. We still see the individual appear in our area weekly. This proposed legislation does not provide any meaningful impact in preventing crime or facilitating firearm safety.
This is a direct violation of the constitution. Since when can San Jose require money for the right to exercise a constitutional right? How much do I have to pay to have free speech in San Jose? How much do I have to pay to have freedom of religion in San Jose? How much do i have to pay for my constitution rights in San Jose?
I strongly oppose this attempt to punish law-abiding gun owners as they have nothing to do with gun violence, which is mostly committed by criminals. This ordinance will not be creating any problem for a criminal because a criminal gets the gun to use it, not to legally store it, thus additional fees will never be an issue for such a person.
This ordinance is a violation of the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed with firearms STOLEN from them is unconstitutional and wrong. Forcing them to "donate" money to an organization they might not agree with is wrong. This "insurance" helps noone be safer. Please vote against this ordinance to uphold peoples rights to defend themselves.
I am against the implementation of the Gun Harm Reduction Oridanance due to its nature of burdening the people who have a constitutional right to posses and own firearms.
I am against the implication of this law. You do not infringe on the rights of American citizens. You wouldn't put a tax or a fee on the freedom of speech, so there should be none on firearms either.
This Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance proposal is similar to how car insurance would work. Except owning a car and driving one is a privilege, not a right. Adding to that analogy, you wouldn't charge everyone a tax for drunk drivers right? Additionally, if this were passed it would be giving the city a blank paycheck to tax law abiding citizens who own firearms for any amount they want. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
All this law this does is put more Road blocks in the way of good citizens. How is it due process to take your guns till you see if I have broken the law. Police officers time and time again have arrested people for in accurate info or proper training. This law is unethical and should be thrown out. This is un-American and against the constitution that you are to up hold as elected officials.
I am against the implementation of the Gun Harm Reduction Oridanance due to its nature of burdening the people who have a constitutional right to posses and own firearms. Further addition of hurdles for law abiding citizens will create an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Amendment 2 states," A well regulated Malitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Please don't enact an apartheid gun law. This will only affect and harass the legal firearm owners! What are you going to do if san jose resident's keep their firearms somewhere else in the state, and not in san jose? This is an illegal effort to harass and make legal firearm ownership ILLEGAL!!
This proposal is another example of incredible overreach from elected officials in California. Any attempt to follow the logic of this idea falls short of understanding and existing law and precedent. This is a blatant assault on law abiding citizens and civil rights.
This proposed action is an unlawful, unconstituional and unconsionable infringement on the rights of private citizens in the city of San Jose. It is clear that this proposal would not stand the test of any level of applied scrutiny in a court of law and is clearly being proposed as an additional barrier to gun ownership imposed on citizens in a county that has a reputation marked with corruption and disregard for the average citizen with regards to their second ammendment rights.
This is just as much of an infrindgement as everything else California does. It is illegal to tax or add fees to a constitutional right. This is literally illegal and no one in San Jose should be participating in compliance with this nonsense. All of you who proposed this should be removed from office, forcibly is need be.
This is incredibly intrusive to the second amendment. Not only is it attempting to place a pseudo tax on the rights of the people, but it also attempts to extort them with additional fees. All of this is being potentially voted on without even placing an amount to the "fees". Besides this being obviously unconstitutional, it will also be driving out people from the city. Not just people that live there, but also potential visitors. There is quite literally no positive outcomes from passing this.
Are you serious? There is no way we are paying constant fees and taxes to keep and bare arms! You are all idiotic, you claim that the poor will be exempt from these fees? Do you seriously not realize the poor are the people committing serious firearm crimes! How are you so blind to it! If you really cared about people not getting hurt by firearms, then maybe you should stop letting violent criminals out of prison so soon! Or maybe stop giving them little to nothing on bail.
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.
The Second Amendment states, "Shall not be infringed." Everything the city is trying to do with gun control is against this amendment! Law abiding gun owners will have to pay for insurance, but the thieves, robbers, and murderers will be considered, "Poor" and unable to pay the fees to keep their guns that they use to violate others!? The city and mayor have reached a new level of tyrannical laws against their people. Vote no on this! It's 100 percent unconstitutional!!!!
This is unconditional in my eyes.
This is an unconstitutional and blatant attack on our civil rights.
As a San Jose lifelong resident, I strongly oppose this proposed legislation as directly violates and prevents my constitutional rights and my ability to protect myself and my family. Last week, my family has experienced an attempted break-in at home. It took over 40 minutes for the police to drive by and not check in with us. We still see the individual appear in our area weekly. This proposed legislation does not provide any meaningful impact in preventing crime or facilitating firearm safety.
Owning firearms is a constitutional right
Free speech is a constitutional right
This is a direct violation of the constitution. Since when can San Jose require money for the right to exercise a constitutional right? How much do I have to pay to have free speech in San Jose? How much do I have to pay to have freedom of religion in San Jose? How much do i have to pay for my constitution rights in San Jose?
I strongly oppose this attempt to punish law-abiding gun owners as they have nothing to do with gun violence, which is mostly committed by criminals. This ordinance will not be creating any problem for a criminal because a criminal gets the gun to use it, not to legally store it, thus additional fees will never be an issue for such a person.
City of San Jose,
This ordinance is a violation of the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed with firearms STOLEN from them is unconstitutional and wrong. Forcing them to "donate" money to an organization they might not agree with is wrong. This "insurance" helps noone be safer. Please vote against this ordinance to uphold peoples rights to defend themselves.
I am against the implementation of the Gun Harm Reduction Oridanance due to its nature of burdening the people who have a constitutional right to posses and own firearms.
I am against the implication of this law. You do not infringe on the rights of American citizens. You wouldn't put a tax or a fee on the freedom of speech, so there should be none on firearms either.
This Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance proposal is similar to how car insurance would work. Except owning a car and driving one is a privilege, not a right. Adding to that analogy, you wouldn't charge everyone a tax for drunk drivers right? Additionally, if this were passed it would be giving the city a blank paycheck to tax law abiding citizens who own firearms for any amount they want. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
All this law this does is put more Road blocks in the way of good citizens. How is it due process to take your guns till you see if I have broken the law. Police officers time and time again have arrested people for in accurate info or proper training. This law is unethical and should be thrown out. This is un-American and against the constitution that you are to up hold as elected officials.
I am against the implementation of the Gun Harm Reduction Oridanance due to its nature of burdening the people who have a constitutional right to posses and own firearms. Further addition of hurdles for law abiding citizens will create an infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Amendment 2 states," A well regulated Malitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Please don't enact an apartheid gun law. This will only affect and harass the legal firearm owners! What are you going to do if san jose resident's keep their firearms somewhere else in the state, and not in san jose? This is an illegal effort to harass and make legal firearm ownership ILLEGAL!!
You can't put a tax or a fee on a right. You don't charge a fee or tax or require insurance for freedom of speach.
This proposal is another example of incredible overreach from elected officials in California. Any attempt to follow the logic of this idea falls short of understanding and existing law and precedent. This is a blatant assault on law abiding citizens and civil rights.
This proposed action is an unlawful, unconstituional and unconsionable infringement on the rights of private citizens in the city of San Jose. It is clear that this proposal would not stand the test of any level of applied scrutiny in a court of law and is clearly being proposed as an additional barrier to gun ownership imposed on citizens in a county that has a reputation marked with corruption and disregard for the average citizen with regards to their second ammendment rights.
This is just as much of an infrindgement as everything else California does. It is illegal to tax or add fees to a constitutional right. This is literally illegal and no one in San Jose should be participating in compliance with this nonsense. All of you who proposed this should be removed from office, forcibly is need be.
This is incredibly intrusive to the second amendment. Not only is it attempting to place a pseudo tax on the rights of the people, but it also attempts to extort them with additional fees. All of this is being potentially voted on without even placing an amount to the "fees". Besides this being obviously unconstitutional, it will also be driving out people from the city. Not just people that live there, but also potential visitors. There is quite literally no positive outcomes from passing this.
Are you serious? There is no way we are paying constant fees and taxes to keep and bare arms! You are all idiotic, you claim that the poor will be exempt from these fees? Do you seriously not realize the poor are the people committing serious firearm crimes! How are you so blind to it! If you really cared about people not getting hurt by firearms, then maybe you should stop letting violent criminals out of prison so soon! Or maybe stop giving them little to nothing on bail.
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.
The Second Amendment states, "Shall not be infringed." Everything the city is trying to do with gun control is against this amendment! Law abiding gun owners will have to pay for insurance, but the thieves, robbers, and murderers will be considered, "Poor" and unable to pay the fees to keep their guns that they use to violate others!? The city and mayor have reached a new level of tyrannical laws against their people. Vote no on this! It's 100 percent unconstitutional!!!!