Letters from the Public - 10 of 12 — San Jose City Council, January 25, 2022

1/24/22, 10:57 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The City is creating a law which forces gun owners to financially support a business they may not agree with.

The City Council is opening the floodgate for corruption, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonprofit to be paid using additional monies from taxpayer dollars in the form of City grants. No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board.

What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the State [or Municipality] has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.”

State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors. Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property.

Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes:

California state law does not grant peace officers the authority to impound a vehicle on site for lack of insurance and requires a minimum of six months registration expiration before they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)].

Focus on Real Solutions to Stopping Gun Violence
Our elected officials need to address the criminals who commit violence in our city and the solution to this problem should not be to punish the innocent law-abiding residents of San José.

Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence:

1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent

1/24/22, 10:57 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 Proposed Change: 10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.” San José is taxing gun owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals The City is creating a law which forces gun owners to financially support a business they may not agree with
The City Council is opening the floodgate for corruption, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonprofit to be paid using additional monies from taxpayer dollars in the form of City grants. No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board.

What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U S 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the State [or Municipality] has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.”

Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment
“The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.”
Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property.

Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes:

Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence:

1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent

1/24/22, 10:57 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources

1/24/22, 10:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes:

1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent

1/24/22, 10:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Marc Sandoval <
Mon 1/24/2022 4:27 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

San Jose City Council members,
I am asking you to not pass this ordinance. Here are my reasons;

1. The ordinance i a violation of court ruling again t Jim Crow law that ta con titutional right .

2. The city ha already been placed on notice that if the ordinance i pa ed it will be ued by numerou organization . The city will be bogged down in legal action that will la t at lea t 5 year .

3. The non profit group et up to manage thi ordinance i nothing more than a lu h fund. The propo al pecifically tate the city can not direct how fund are u ed by the lu h fund.

4. Gun owner cant comply with the ordinance. There are no in urance policie in e i tence that are available for gun owner to buy.

5. The ordinance will do nothing to top the two overwhelming cau e of firearm death : uicide and criminal activity. A 2017 PEW re earch tudy howed 97% due to uicide and criminal activity.

6. The ordinance i window dre ing..... It ignore tep the city could take that are known to be effective at topping gun violence: Confi cate gun in the hand of KNOWN armed prohibited per on . Target gang member and drug eller .

7. If pa ed, thi ordinance will be moot after the United State Supreme Court rule on New York State Rifle & Pi tol A ociation v. Keith Corlett, No. 20 843 later thi year .

8. The propo al implement ta e at the local level, in violation of the California Con titution on pecial ta e , Article XIII C Section 2(d)
Best regards,

Marc Sandoval

1/24/22, 10:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Re: Agenda Item 4.1 22 045
Christine Panella <
Mon 1/24/2022 4:33 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

To Whom it May Concern:

This ordinance is an innovave approach to address the costs of gun violence and incenvize safer pracces that can potenally prevent ﬁrearm deaths and injuries We all want a safer San Jose, a safer California, and a safer naon. With this approach, we can move closer to that goal.

Sincerely,
Chrisne Yang-Panella

1/24/22, 10:55 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: Firearms tax
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 5:06 PM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: Loro Paterson <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:23 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Firearms tax
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
It is not fair to firearms owners for just owning a firearm.

Only the law abiding citizens which are not the people causing problems would be burdened by such a tax.

Please see that the persons that will be ruling on this issue see my comments.

Thank you,
Loro Paterson (retired Peace Officer)
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:55 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: Don’t tax constitutional rights
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 5:07 PM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: Dustin Rodriguez <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:33 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Don’t tax constitutional rights
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Please don’t pass this, it is wrong.

Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: taxation of gun owners opposed
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 5:07 PM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: h <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:12 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: taxation of gun owners- opposed
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
To the SJ City council,
Taxation of legal, law-abiding gun owners will be an ineffective approach at curbing gun violence. They are not perpetrators.

If you are serious about a reduction instead legislate against those involved in the "actual harm":
establish gun checks for known gangs and their associates, increase routine checks on felons and make sentencing guidelines to reflect a violation, increase the penalty for selling to felons, underage, etc. outside the process.

To protect children, have gun owners in homes with children submit proof of gun lockboxes and gun locks.

Of course, you should take responsibility for the increase in home robberies and property damage rampant because of the lack of will to prosecute.

Harry Prest
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:51 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.” **Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment** “The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.” - Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction. - State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors. Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property. - Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes: California state law does not grant peace officers the authority to impound a vehicle on site for lack of insurance and requires a minimum of six months registration expiration before they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)]. ***Focus on Real Solutions to Stopping Gun Violence*** Our elected officials need to address the criminals who commit violence in our city and the solution to this problem should not be to punish the innocent law-abiding residents of San José. Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence: 1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109 2.

Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation 3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws 4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response" 5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county 6. Hire more police officers 7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs Yours Sincerely, A concerned CA resident

1/24/22, 10:51 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board. - What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it. - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the State [or Municipality] has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.” **Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment** “The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.” - Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction. - State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors.

Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property. - Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes: California state law does not grant peace officers the authority to impound a vehicle on site for lack of insurance and requires a minimum of six months registration expiration before they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)]. ***Focus on Real Solutions to Stopping Gun Violence*** Our elected officials need to address the criminals who commit violence in our city and the solution to this problem should not be to punish the innocent law-abiding residents of San José. Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence: 1.

Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109 2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation 3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws 4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response" 5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county 6. Hire more police officers 7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs
Yours Sincerely,
A concerned Californian

1/24/22, 10:51 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Agenda item: 4.1 22 045
Valerie Simler <
Mon 1/24/2022 5:34 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

I would like to show my support for this ordinance which would address the costs of gun violence and encourage safer practices that can potentially prevent firearm deaths and injuries I believe that gun owners should take more responsibility by having liability insurance and helping to support the costs of programs related to gun safety
Thanks for your consideration in this matter
Steve and Valerie Simler

Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response" 5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county 6. Hire more police officers 7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs Yours Sincerely, Your Constituent

1/24/22, 10:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.” **Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment** “The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.” - Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction. - State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors. Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property. - Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes: California state law does not grant peace officers the authority to impound a vehicle on site for lack of insurance and requires a minimum of six months registration expiration before they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)]. ***Focus on Real Solutions to Stopping Gun Violence*** Our elected officials need to address the criminals who commit violence in our city and the solution to this problem should not be to punish the innocent law-abiding residents of San José. Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence: 1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109 2.

1/24/22, 10:49 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Re: Agenda Item 4.1 22 045
Shani Eshel <
Mon 1/24/2022 6:36 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

Hello San Jose representative,
This ordinance is an innovative approach to address the costs of gun violence and incentivize safer practices that can potentially prevent firearm deaths and injuries. We all want a safer San Jose, a safer California, and a safer nation. With this approach, we can move closer to that goal.

Shani Eshel Krohn

1/24/22, 10:49 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 charge for the enjoyment of a right protected by the federal constitution.” **Proposed Change: 10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee** “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.” - San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals. - The City is creating a law which forces gun owners to financially support a business they may not agree with.

- The City Council is opening the floodgate for corruption, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonprofit to be paid using additional monies from taxpayer dollars in the form of City grants. No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board.

- What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the State [or Municipality] has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.”

**Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment**
“The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.”

- Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction. - State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors. Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property.

- Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes: California state law does not grant peace officers the authority to impound a vehicle on site for lack of insurance and requires a minimum of six months registration expiration before they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)].

***Focus on Real Solutions to Stopping Gun Violence***
Our elected officials need to address the criminals who commit violence in our city and the solution to this problem should not be to punish the innocent law-abiding residents of San José. Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence:

1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs Your Constituent,
Patty Fishburn

1/24/22, 10:49 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 SJ Action
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.” San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals.

The City is creating a law which forces gun owners to financially support a business they may not agree with.

What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes:

Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence:

1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent
Rendell Boguiren

1/24/22, 10:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources

1/24/22, 10:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This is for Agenda item 22 045 1 4.1
ECHS <
Mon 1/24/2022 7:44 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

I oppose this unenforceable ordinance because :

1.) They are overwhelmingly unconstitutional and mandate that lawful gunowners bear the financial responsibility for the misdeeds of criminals

2.) The ordinance is a violation of existing court rulings against Jim Crow laws that tax constitutional rights

3.) Insurance companies do not issue policies for firearm liability which means gun owners would not be able to comply with the law

4.) The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution on special taxes, Article XIII C Section 2(d)

5.) If passed, legal action will be taken against the City, and San Jose residents will bear the fiscal brunt of a protracted legal battle

6.) This is worthless and is ripping off taxpayer's money Jaime

1/24/22, 10:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2

1/24/22, 10:47 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Agenda item 22 045 1 4.1
Ms Dao <
Mon 1/24/2022 7:54 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

Stop this nonsense ordinance. This ain't going nowhere. It won't stick simply because not only it would not help to reduce crime, it will make honest and law abiding gun owners becoming criminals. That's very ludicrous.

You are smarter than that, Liccardo. You simply take personal vengeance against innocent gunwoners after the VTA shooting incident. Your ordinance is worthless and will prevent nothing except severely violating our constitutional rights. You should step down.

1/24/22, 10:47 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.” - San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals. - The City is creating a law which forces gun owners to financially support a business they may not agree with.

- What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

**Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment**
“The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.”
- Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction. - State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors. Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property.

1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Thank you in advance for your efforts to promote true safety and kindly vote NO on item 4.1.

Very truly yours,
Jesus L Borrillo MD

1/24/22, 10:47 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

1/24/22, 10:46 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Agenda item: 4.1 22 045
Jen <
Mon 1/24/2022 8:47 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in SUPPORT of Mayor Liccardo s proposal to require firearm owners to purchase liability insurance as well as pay an annual gun harm reduction fee.

The epidemic of gun violence in our country costs tens of thousands of lives every year, and has ripple effects throughout every family and community that is affected. It also costs ta payers billions of dollars a year. Law abiding citizens certainly have a right to bear arms, but ta payers shouldn t have to foot the bill for poor choices that some gun owners make.

Thi ordinance i an innovative approach to addre the co t of gun violence and incentivize afer practice that can potentially prevent firearm death and injurie We all want a afer San Jo é, a afer California, and a afer nation With thi approach, we can move clo er to that goal Thank you for your con ideration
Sincerely,
Jennifer Burton

1/24/22, 10:46 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. agree with.
- The City Council is opening the floodgate for corruption, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonprofit to be paid using additional monies from taxpayer dollars in the form of City grants. No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board.

- What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representation

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

5. Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent

1/24/22, 10:46 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 Pay an annual gun harm reduction fee to a designated nonprofit organization that will use the fee proceeds to provide gun harm reduction services to residents of the City who own or possess a gun or to members of their household; and
Pay any cost recovery fees associated with program implementation, including any associated third-party costs.

The intent of this ordinance is to address the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our society and cuts so many lives short each and every day. I am happy to support the ordinance and pleased to see that it was returned to us so quickly, following robust community input. Moving forward, I want to ensure that we keep our focus on how we as a City can address the root causes of violence.

On September 22, 2021, the Rules and Open Government Committee approved my proposed initiative entitled
Community Violence Prevention and Response, a three-pronged approach at examining and ultimately addressing the social and mental causation of gun violence in our community. We have an opportunity to break down traditional silos and engage in a robust dialogue on how to provide help to tho e who need it before they cau e harm to them elve or other That i why I have written a
memo to my colleagues calling on the City Manager and City Attorney to:

1. Report back with a status of the Community Violence Prevention and Response initiative as well as next steps on any outstanding items;
2 Schedule a joint tudy e ion with the County Board of Supervi or with a focu on gun violence prevention as it relates to mental health, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) and substance abuse with a diverse panel that includes but is not limited to mental health professionals, social service professionals and firearm experts; and

3. Provide a timeline and work plan on designating a nonprofit to administer the Gun Harm Reduction policy before it take effect, and re pond to a number of important que tion about the efficacy and sustainability of the program.

These recommendations will not only strengthen the proposed ordinance but also refocus our efforts on preventing violence in all forms in our community and ultimately save lives.

Please consider sharing your support for my memo by emailing my Council colleagues or by speaking during public comment at the City Council meeting. The item will be heard no earlier than 6:00pm. You can
join via Zoom or call into the meeting by phone: (888) 475 4499. The Webinar ID is 993 4684 3938. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called.

Click here for a pre drafted email you can edit The te t i al o included below if you prefer to copy and paste. And please feel free to make the message your own! Thank you in advance for your support.

Raul Peralez
Councilmember, Di trict 3
City of San José
SUBJECT: Item 4.1 - Approve Councilmember Peralez's Memo on Gun Harm Reduction Dear Mayor Liccardo and San José City Council,
I am emailing in upport of Councilmember Raul Peralez’ memo on the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. As we seek to address the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our society and cuts so many lives short each and every day, we must center our policies around meaningful and collaborative solutions to ending violence in all forms and creating a safer and healthier community for all of our residents.

1/24/22, 10:45 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Opposition to Agenda item 22 045 1
<
Mon 1/24/2022 9:26 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

I am emailing in OPPOSITION to the short-sighted, unconstuonal aempt to circumvent the Second Amendment by the City of San Jose.

1. The ordinance is a violaon of court rulings against Jim Crow laws that tax constuonal rights.

2. The city has already been placed on noce that if the ordinance is passed it will be sued by numerous organizaons. The city will be bogged down in legal acons that will last at least 5 years.

3. The non-proﬁt group set up to manage this ordinance is nothing more than a slush fund. The proposal speciﬁcally states the city cannot direct how funds are used by the slush fund.

4. Gun owners can’t comply with the ordinance. There are no insurance policies in existence that are available for gun owners to buy.

5. The ordinance will do nothing to stop the two overwhelming causes of ﬁrearm deaths : suicide and criminal acvity.

6. The ordinance is window dressing….. It ignores steps the city could take that are known to be eﬀecve at stopping gun violence: Enforce exisng laws. Plus, conﬁscate guns in the hands of KNOWN armed prohibited persons . Target gang members and drug sellers.

7. If passed, this ordinance will be moot aer the United States Supreme Court rules on New York State Riﬂe & Pistol Associaon v. Keith Corle, No. 20-843 later this year .

8. The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violaon of the California Constuon on special taxes, Arcle XIII C Secon 2(d)

Douglas Bolsover, Esq.

California resident

1/24/22, 10:58 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
David Germain <
Mon 1/24/2022 10:20 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: David Germain
San Jose, CA 95118
Please reject the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance in its present form. There are several defects that will prevent it from being implemented.

The Second Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A longstanding Supreme Court ruling finds any charge (a ta or fee, especially directed at a specific group) to allow the e ercise of a constitutionally protected right by a state or municipal government is unconstitutional.

"The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor ta , a Right guaranteed to the people, and No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore. Murdock v.

Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
The proposed ordinance imposes two unconstitutional charges; the Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee and the charge for liability insurance on residents so that they may e ercise their right to keep and bear arms within the city. If proof of payment of the Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee and the attestation of liability insurance is not produced upon request of a law enforcement officer, the firearm may be impounded (confiscated) further violating the resident's Second Amendment right "to keep ...

Arms" and violating a resident's Fifth Amendment Right ..."nor be deprived of ... property, without due process of law;"
The Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee should be specified within the ordinance and collected from all residents of San Jose. It need not be a condition of gun possession within the city.

1/24/22, 10:58 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

While liability insurance that covers accidental injury, death or property damage is a good idea, it cannot be required as a condition of exercising a resident's Second Amendment right (lawful possession, transport and use of a firearm). It is within the City's police power to enforce state law for any negligent use of the firearm, including fines and prison time. The City Council is free to propose an ordinance to recover the costs of investigating accidental use of a firearm that causes injury, death or property damage from the individual(s) involved. Such an ordinance would motivate gun owners to obtain liability insurance voluntarily.

The Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee should be identified as a tax and levied on all residents of San Jose as any resident can become a victim of gun violence. Perhaps it can be levied through a utility fee (power or water). This would broaden the tax's base, increase the revenue and likely fully cover the costs attributed to gun violence estimated in the Incidence and Cost of Firearm Injuries in San Jose, CA report dated January 19, 2022.

While it is commendable the City Council wants to address gun violence and devise a way to cover the costs attributed to careless or unlawful gun use, the Council should not run afoul of costly litigation challenging this unconstitutional approach.

Respectfully,
David Germain
Lifetime resident of San Jose

1/24/22, 10:58 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/2 Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance; Agenda Item #4.1 Christian Shindler <
Mon 1/24/2022 10:22 PM
To: City Clerk <
[External Email]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
My name is Christian Shindler. I live at 553 Dales Pony Dr, Oakdale CA 95361.

Please vote no on this new ordinance
This ordinance requires that people pay to exercise their right to bear arms. This places a heavy burden on the people trying to exercise their rights. This could be too much for people to afford. This will cause great confusion and make people criminals that already own firearms but don’t stay up to date on firearm news because they aren’t enthusiasts.

Under this ordinance people will likely have to pay big fines or potentially go to jail for simply being unaware of this ridiculous new law.

This will cause trouble for people who have run-ins with law enforcement simply for passing through town because they happen to have lawfully owned firearms on them for lawful purposes, but they don’t live in the area and don’t have the required paperwork or insurance.

Making law abiding citizens who own firearms pay additional fees on top of all the other CA firearm related fees, will not reduce gun harm, but it will burden American Citizens with fees for trying to exercise the second amendment.

Lastly this ordinance does not list how much the fees to own firearms will be. This is an undetermined number that will be decided after it is passed. This number could be outrageously high. This ordinance is unconstitutional and it needs to be voted down.

Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 10:58 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Agenda item 22 045 1 4.1 “Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance” nighthawk <
Mon 1/24/2022 10:31 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important

This is a poorly thought out proposal.

Liability insurance doesn't cover assault.

Insurance companies don't issue policies for firearm liability.

This will be impossible to enforce.

You can't tax a constitutional right.

This ordinance is a violation of both the state and US Constitutions.

This will disproportionally affect people with limited means and those in minority communities.

This is just going to get tossed out by the courts and make you look silly.

Vote "NO" on this proposal.

San Jose City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

San Jose City Council
January 25, 2022