Letters from the Public - 11 of 12 — San Jose City Council, January 25, 2022

1/25/22, 8:37 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Agenda item: 4.1 22-045 - thank you
Carlos Gonzalez <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:31 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]
I support this effort to require liability insurance for guns and the subsequent work to reduce gun violence.

Carlos González
Sent from my iPad
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.

1/25/22, 8:37 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Agenda item: 4.1 22-045
Maria Gonzalez <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:33 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear Counsel Members:

I am a San Jose resident and I am writing to support the passing of the proposed ordinance to require firearm owners to purchase liability insurance, as well as pay an annual gun harm reduction fee.

This ordinance is a step in the right direction. It is long overdue that we do something to address the costs of gun violence and incentivize responsibility and safer practices that can potentially prevent firearm deaths and injuries in our communities. We all want a safer San Jose, a safer California and a safer country. Let us set an example as a city that is moving forward with real innovative measures such as this one that will make us all safer, including gun owners.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Maria A Gonzalez

Sent from my iPhone

1/25/22, 8:37 AM 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.

1/25/22, 8:36 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
agenda item 4.1 22-045 Gun Violence Ordinance
WILLIAM CARLSON <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:44 PM
To: CouncilMeeting < City Clerk <
Cc: District 10 <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

I OPPOSE this agenda item for the following reasons
Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation (PIRE) report included in Liccardo's memo of 29 June 2021 contains an absurd claim of city cost at $5.2 Million per suicide incident, while city estimates total cost of all 205 gun incidents at about $8 million per year. This raises serious doubts about quality of PIRE data.

Proposal is highly biased against gun ownership. Liccardo admits proposal was crafted with help from anti-gun activist groups Brady Everytown and Giffords law group, and fed to PIRE. This material was not peer reviewed or fact checked but relied upon by Liccardo as factual and publicly posted as such.

Ordinance is a violation of constitution 2nd amendment "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Taxation and forced insurance is infringement.

Gun Tax is similar to illegal "Poll Tax" used to discriminate against a class of voters.

The fee is a tax when applied to a limited class for the benefit of a larger group, and California constitution Article XIII C Section 2(d) requires 2/3 voter approval of new taxes "No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote".

This ordinance does not prevent suicide, gang or criminal violence, but penalizes innocent residents to pay for events over which they have no control or responsibility.

If San Jose passes the measure, it will incur significant legal expense when taken to court, which has been promised by multiple organizations. Legal challenges will be protracted and expensive, the city could easily lose, having wasted taxpayer resources.

Proposed fees are vague and subject to manipulation, insurance coverage proposed may be costly or not available.

Gun sales hit record numbers in 2020-2021 partly for self protection in the wake of civil unrest, rioting, and looting. Many residents were first time buyers fearful of home invasions, when police response cannot be relied upon for timely protection. The city estimates 50,000-55,000 San Jose households with guns in a population of 1 million, or 5% ownership. The proposal singles out 5% of our residents for tax and insurance punishment.

1/25/22, 8:36 AM 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.

Gun ownership is not the problem, criminals are being released without bail, our police force is seriously understaffed, laws enforcing only high value of stolen goods encourages theft. We subscribe to "Nextdoor" neighborhood news for Almaden area, and nearly every day a report of home or car break-in, car thefts, stolen mail & packages, catalytic converter theft in the driveway, smash and grab from local merchants, and even stolen Christmas decorations. Liccardo could better spend the city's resources making life safer by going after criminals, rather than splashy "do something" proposals of dubious merit.

Sincerely
W. Carlson in Almaden

1/25/22, 8:36 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
1/25/2022 Item 4.1: Vote NO Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, Public Record Marguerite Lee <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:55 PM
To: Agendadesk < Jones, Chappie < Jimenez, Sergio
< Peralez, Raul < Cohen, David <
Carrasco, Magdalena < Davis, Dev < Esparza, Maya
< < Foley, Pam
< Mahan, Matt < Liccardo, Sam < City
Clerk < District1 < District2 < District3
< District4 < District5 < District 6
< District7 <

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Mayor and Council,

I am wring to inform you of my objecon to the proposed changes to Chapter 10 of the San José Municipal Code as deﬁned in the Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance Memorandum dated January 14, 2022, scheduled to be heard on January 25, 2022 as Item 4.1. I urge you to VOTE NO on this item.

Item 4.1 proposes unlawful and unenforceable changes to the Municipal Code which will not stop gun violence in San José. Legal owners of ﬁrearms will be unduly punished because, by deﬁnion, they are the only people that will be impacted by these proposals. Taxing and isolang a group of people purely based on their decision to embrace an enumerated constuonal right is discriminatory.

**Proposed Change: 10.32.210 Liability Insurance Required** “Speciﬁcally covering losses or damages resulng from any negligent or accidental use of the Firearm, including but not limited to death, injury or property damage.”
- Negligent use of a ﬁrearm is deﬁned in CA Penal Code 246.3 as someone who willfully discharges a ﬁrearm (pulls the trigger intenonally) which could result in injury or death to a person. - The City Council is requiring ﬁrearm owners to purchase insurance for intenonally pulling the trigger of a ﬁrearm to harm life and/or property, which is already deﬁned as a serious violent crime. - This type of insurance does not exist and if it did, would be so cost prohibive that it would place an unconstuonal barrier to the free exercise of the Second Amendment. - Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without deﬁning the insurance coverage type and limits, having up to six months aer the vote to deﬁne it.
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) established that the government “may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right protected by the federal constuon.”

**Proposed Change: 10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reducon Fee**

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 Reducon Fee to the Designated Nonproﬁt Organizaon each year.” - San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal acons of criminals. - The City is creang a law which forces gun owners to ﬁnancially support a business they may not agree with. - The City Council is opening the ﬂoodgate for corrupon, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonproﬁt to be paid using addional 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 aer the vote to deﬁne it.
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in queson is guaranteed by the Federal Constuon, 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.”
- Violaon of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infracon. - State law only allows for the impoundment of ﬁrearm for a felony or one of 20 deﬁned violent misdemeanors. Infracons 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 jusﬁcaon 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 registraon expiraon before they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)].

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

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

2. Establish the Gun Harm Reducon Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced community representaon

3. Enforce and prosecute exisng gun laws

4. Support recommendaons 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Commiee memorandum entled, "Community Violence Prevenon & Response"

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

6. Hire more police oﬃcers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Best regards,
Marguerite Lee
D6 resident

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/3 1/25/2022 Item 4.1: Vote NO Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, Public Record kirk vartan <
Tue 1/25/2022 12:00 AM
To: Agendadesk < Jones, Chappie < Jimenez, Sergio
< Peralez, Raul < Cohen, David <
Carrasco, Magdalena < Davis, Dev < Esparza, Maya
< < Foley, Pam
< Mahan, Matt < Liccardo, Sam < City
Clerk < District1 < District2 < District3
< District4 < District5 < District 6
< District7 <
[External Email]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Mayor and Council,
Your systems have stopped public comment and have done permanent damage to the public process.

The mayor has failed the citizens by making so many false claims it is difficult to keep up. And by making so many exaggerated statements and misleading comments, Mayor Liccardo has successfully made it impossible to actually have a conversation about this issue. And Mr. Liccardo, you know that I have personally outreached to you since 2019 and you have done nothing to engage in a public discussion.

An here we are almost three years after the Gilroy tragedy and now the VTA workplace shooting, and now you feel the need to “do something.” But when the something does nothing more then drum up dollars from legal gun owners, your approach is transparent. And why make your case in LA, posting an OpEd down there? Are our papers not good enough?

Why are you so afraid of actually having an open dialog with the public? What are you scared of? Why did you decline to participate in the San José Spotlight gun policy debate? Why won’t you get out from behind the microphone and speak with you community, not just lobbyists, donors, and the gun control voices. It’s disappointing and you continue to let your community down.

I am writing to inform you of my objection to the proposed changes to Chapter 10 of the San José Municipal Code as defined in the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance Memorandum dated January 14, 2022, scheduled to be heard on January 25, 2022 as Item 4.1. I urge you to VOTE NO on this item.

Item 4.1 proposes unlawful and unenforceable changes to the Municipal Code which will not stop gun violence in San José. Legal owners of firearms will be unduly punished because, by definition, they are the only people that will be impacted by these proposals. Taxing and isolating a group of people purely

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 based on their decision to embrace an enumerated constitutional right is discriminatory. **Proposed Change: 10.32.210 Liability Insurance Required** “Specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the Firearm, including but not limited to death, injury or property damage.” - Negligent use of a firearm is defined in CA Penal Code 246.3 as someone who willfully discharges a firearm (pulls the trigger intentionally) which could result in injury or death to a person.

- The City Council is requiring firearm owners to purchase insurance for intentionally pulling the trigger of a firearm to harm life and/or property, which is already defined as a serious violent crime.

- This type of insurance does not exist and if it did, would be so cost prohibitive that it would place an unconstitutional barrier to the free exercise of the Second Amendment.

- Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the insurance coverage type and limits, having up to six months after the vote to define it.

- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) established that the government “may not impose a 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:

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3

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,
Kirk Vartan

“We have to turn everything up-side-down, to get it right-side-up, to get from inadequate to extraordinary." Fred Kent, PPS
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.

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/8 [External Email]
[External Email]
City Council meeting 25 January 2022 – agenda item 4.1 22-045 GUN HARM

REDUCTION ORDINANCE
Giangreco Chris <
Tue 1/25/2022 12:08 AM
To: Davis, Dev < Jones, Chappie < Gomez, David
< City Clerk < <
< < <
< < D7 <
< < <
Foley, Pam <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

David, please make sure the City Clerk gets this ﬁled into public record for me. I’m doing my best here!

Sent from Mail for Windows
City Council meeng 25 January 2022 – agenda item 4.1 22-045 GUN HARM REDUCTION ORDINANCE I urge all councilmembers to vote no on the Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance.

Councilmembers,
A “YES” vote is a vote in favor of discriminaon.

A “YES” vote is a vote in favor of rights violaons.

A “YES” vote is a vote against promong equity.

A “YES” vote is a vote to change the very nature of taxes and taxaon.

A “YES” vote is a vote to violate the 2nd Amendment.

A “YES” vote is a vote to violate the Constuon.

A “YES” vote is a vote to violate your Oath of Oﬃce, in which all councilmembers did “solemnly swear (or aﬃrm) that I will support and defend the Constuon of the United States” and that you “will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constuon of the United States”.

Gun rights organizaons have guaranteed to take San Jose to court on grounds it violates constuonal rights.

If you vote yes, and if the courts ﬁnd any part of the ordinance unconstuonal, your violaon of oath of oﬃce will be conﬁrmed.

If you vote yes, and the courts rule unconstuonal, will you voluntarily resign from elected oﬃce, no maer what oﬃce you hold at that me?
Councilmember Davis, or rather future Mayor Davis, I am wring to you for four main reasons.

1. Commend you on your brave acons on Council.

2. Clearly point out all that is wrong with San Jose’s gun control ordinance.

3. Suggest soluons that will provide greater opportunies to reduce “gun harm” in San Jose than the ordinance ever could.

4. Constuonal rights of the cizens of San Jose are on the line.

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/8 As constuonal rights should never be put at stake by any acons of San Jose City Council, there is much to say. I have lost much sleep over this. Of all public input that I’ve read so far, none have said what I’ve hoped all would say. This will not be short or easy. Please bear with me and read to the end.

First, I oﬀer congratulaons to you and Vice Mayor Jones, my councilmember, on taking the courageous acons you did regarding the issue of noncizen vong in local elecons. I am guessing you both understand the potenal ramiﬁcaons to the cizens of San Jose.

As I menoned in my public comment in that meeng, this is just as much a cizen vong rights issue as an immigrant rights issue. In theory and if passed, that ordinance could allow a criminal alien gang member, who was perpetrated numerous unsolved felonious acts of “gun harm” in San Jose, the ability to cancel the legal vote of his vicm with a vote of his own. What would prevent him other than his unwillingness to register?

I believe you and Vice Mayor Jones both understand the vote to be at the very core of America itself and part of the heart and soul of what it is to be an American. At the very top of the U.S. Immigraon & Naturalizaon Services webpage, found at
hps://www.uscis.gov/cizenship/learn-about-cizenship/the-naturalizaon-interview-and-test/naturalizaon- oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United
States of America
Oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
I thank God my father’s parents and my mother’s mother made it to this greatest of naons and could take that oath. They upheld that oath. Had it not been for who my forefathers were, and the choices they made, I could have been an innocent vicm of the Nazi perpetrated holocaust or war machine, or that of a communist or totalitarian regime. In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, wrote that "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000.".

How many of those lives lived and died where overreaching governments did its best to disarm the cizenry?

Yes, I thank God not only for the forefathers I had, but also for the forefathers the naon had. Those forefathers of the naon had the wisdom and foresight to full well understand human life could be lost to the kinds of forces menoned above. That is why so many Americans and people across the planet believe wholeheartedly the forefathers of our naon’s did the best they could they with what they had at the me, “in Order to from a more perfect Union”.

That eﬀort gave us our Constuon, as imperfect as it is, arguably one of the most important and inﬂuenal documents ever created by humankind.

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/8 The Constuon gave us arguably our two most important rights, the right to vote and the right to bear arms.

These two sacred rights protect each other. Those two rights protect all others. As history has shown, when either of these two rights are put in jeopardy, so can all other rights be.

Being that bearing arms is speciﬁcally menoned in the above Naturalizaon Oath, the Oath confers the right to bear arms as established by the 2nd Amendment. Clearly, that right is integral to being an American. That right is America. Just as the vote is America.

Policians across the naon will argue our that our founding fathers could not envision AR15’s or AK47’s. They knew technology would advance. They knew mes would change. They knew polical winds would blow. They knew that the future would bring forces that would harm the rights of cizens, change the nature of taxes and taxaon, threaten the Constuon itself, if those forces were allowed to succeed.

They knew those forces would come from within.

Yes, our founding fathers could see the future, and that future is today in San Jose.

Yes, when we have a majority of Councilmembers willing to risk violang their oﬃce and the constuon because of personal beliefs, pandering to one side or the other, hatred of ﬁrearms, or for personal polical gain, we will truly have broken government in San Jose. Perhaps much more broken than some believe the immigraon system to be.

Please don’t let that happen.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Secondly, I commend your bravery for making the stand you have against this gun ordinance. I wish I could say the same for Vice Mayor Jones. So many everywhere can see how wrong the ordinance is. I wish my councilmember could.

Were it not for the VTA shoong San Jose City Council likely would not be in such controversial posion as it is in right now.

The VTA tragedy was horriﬁc. I sympathize and feel for everyone at the VTA, and I have a good understanding of what they went through on that terrible day. Just like those driving a bus or working in the VTA headquarters on that fateful day, I also was
working offsite from where a similar incident happened. That was February 16, 1988, when Richard Farley shot and killed seven people at ESL and wounded four others in Sunnyvale. Had I or anyone of the several lifelong friend I have who worked for ESL at that time, been in that building at that time, any of us could have been one of those seven, or number eight or nine. I understand. I feel for it. I get it.

The mayor has stated the ordinance will not stop the perpetration of such evil. Yet the mayor took political advantage of that act of evil, to advance a proposal, no - a political movement, that could prevent San Jose residents from defending themselves against such acts of evil.

Let’s start at the beginning of the ordinance.

Nowhere in the enre whereas secon are stascs speciﬁc to only San Jose cited. Naonal, state and county stascs are used. Of those shown, the most recent and applicable was countywide from 2016 from a 2018 S.C.C.D.P .H. report.

If this problem is so bad in San Jose, why haven’t recent stascs speciﬁc to San Jose been used?

Secon 10.32.200 Purpose and Findings A. states “Speciﬁcally, it is the intent of this Ordinance to reduce gun harm.”

A high percentage of voters believe that is not the true intent. Nothing shown in the ordinance truly indicates it will reduce “gun harm”. Instead, a signiﬁcant intent of the ordinance appears to be, like so many other ﬁrearms

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 4/8 regulaons in our state, to make ﬁrearms ownership ever more undesirable, unaﬀordable and cumbersome.

With that said, the stated intent of the ordinance may be vastly diﬀerent than the true intent of those who would vote yes for it. Righully, voters, parcularly ﬁrearm owning voters are extremely suspicious of the true intent of our mayor by advancing this ordinance.

In creang the ordinance, the mayor has partnered organizaons across the naon that have shown the most vehement opposion to the 2nd Amendment and ﬁrearm ownership.

What is the true intent of those organizaons in that partnership?

Secon 10.32.200 Findings B.

Same as the “whereas” secon, no stascs speciﬁc to San Jose are used.

Secon 10.32.210 Liability Insurance Required
This requirement will be challenged in the courts on grounds it violates 2nd Amendment. The city has been warned of this, and it invites protracted legal bales. The mayor has acknowledged this will happen.

Why will the city pass ordinances it knows will bring lawsuits and possibly violate cizens most cherished and important of constuonal rights?

Does the city require liability insurance for any other material possession?

In such economically challenging mes, this will be an unnecessary addional ﬁnancial burden to San Jose’s lowest income residents. Lowest income areas historically are those with highest rates of violent crime. Where highest rates of violent crime exit, so does the greatest need of ﬁrearm ownership for self-defense purposes.

These areas would likely have the highest insurance rates. These are most oen communies of color.

How does this ordinance promote equity, when those will be the residents most ﬁnancially impacted?

Does everyone risk having their rates changed or be dropped altogether when this insurance is requested?

Does such insurance even exist?

Secon 10.32.215 Gun Harm Reducon Fee
Voters feel this is an absolute violaon of constuonal rights. It is absolutely guaranteed to be fought in the courts. This is taxing the exercising of a constuonal right. Voters see right through the “fee” disguise and recognize it for the unconstuonal tax it is. So will the courts.

This speaks to very nature of taxes and taxaon and could change that nature. Everyone in the country regardless of polical leaning, posion on ﬁrearms & the 2nd Amendment, immigraon status, everyone should be extremely concerned about this.

10.32.225 Excepons.

This provision veriﬁes the discriminatory nature of the ordinance.

It directly discriminates against ﬁrearms owners, as they will be the only persons required to pay the tax/”fee”(a condion of exercising a constuonal right).

Provision A. Directly discriminates in favor of sworn, acve reserve and rered peace oﬃcers (a condion of speciﬁc current or former employment).

How should acve, reserve or rered military personnel feel about their exclusion?

Provision B. Directly discriminates in favor of persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon.

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 5/8

Voters, parcularly those in the 2nd Amendment community, for far too long have been extremely concerned about CCW issuance in Santa Clara County.

S.C.C. Sheriﬀ Laurie Smith is under indictment for her CCW issuance program. The 2nd Amendment community is not surprised at this, is hopeful the courts will determine the truth in the maer and is hopeful jusce will prevail. The courts should show whether CCW issuance priority was given to high dollar / high proﬁle persons, tech execuves & the like (a condion of social privilege), or campaign donors & supporters (a condion of polical favor).

Provision C. Directly discriminates in favor of persons eligible to proceed without paying court costs & fees (a condion of economic status).

Law enforcement understands that the 2nd Amendment community is one of its strongest support groups. The 2nd Amendment community empathizes with those struggling in these hard economic mes.

Requirement of paying the tax/”fee” should not hinge on discriminatory special condions.

10.32.235 Authority of the City Manager.

Provision C. Regulaons promulgated by the City Manager shall have the same force and eﬀect of law.

This enables a paid municipal employee / bureaucrat the ability to create and implement new law.

This is something straight out of Lenin’s playbook. How many terrible governments and polical systems have employed the same taccs throughout history?

This will disenfranchise the voter in the law-making process.

Provision C. Unless a later date is speciﬁed in a regulaon, a regulaon shall become eﬀecve upon date of publicaon.

This will give the City Manager the ability to create instant criminals, by creang new laws that give no me for compliance.

10.32.240 Enforcement B.

A complete schedule of ﬁnes should be fully determined and included before Council takes the ordinance vote.

Enforcement has been something of extreme concern by the 2nd Amendment community. With San Jose’s understaﬀed police force, requiring the PD to enforce an unnecessary regulaon is the last thing the city needs.

Why put addional work on a department stretched so thin.

What will the training protocols be or PD?

What if something goes terribly wrong in an enforcement acon?

A complete list of ﬁnes should be fully determined and included at the me the ordinance is voted upon.

10.32.245 Impoundment
Yes, impoundment. Conﬁscaon.

This is the true intent of those organizaons working in partnership with the mayor.

That was apparent from the beginning.

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 6/8 Authorizaon to conﬁscate for not paying an unconstuonal tax/”fee” for exercising a constuonal right?

Authorizaon to conﬁscate for not having insurance we have ever had to have?

Conﬁscaon for not having a form with an aached receipt to hand to a police oﬃcer upon request, something we have never had to do?

How is that “gun harm”?

This element of the ordinance is completely unnecessary and could put lives at risk. Pung police in this posion of having to conﬁscate a ﬁrearm for these reasons is reckless and ridiculous. It could endanger lives of oﬃcers, ﬁrearms owners and household members, anyone in the vicinity.

An accidental discharge during a calm and peaceful conﬁscaon could yield horriﬁcally tragic results. And for what, a missed tax/”fee” payment? A missed insurance payment? A misplaced aestaon form with aached receipt?

10.32.250 Fees and Charges
A complete schedule of fees should be fully determined and included before Council takes the ordinance voted.

SECTION 2. The ordinance shall become eﬀecve at the expiraon of one hundred eighty (180) days aer its adopon.

The ordinance should have a sunset provision.

One of the biggest problems is that the ordinance fails to deﬁne what “Gun Harm” is.

How can the ordinance reduce what it cannot deﬁne?

The ordinance is incomplete and should not be voted on unl it is?

The overwhelming majority of public input has been against this ordinance. So much public input came in through the Ecomment portal that it overwhelmed the system and shut down the link. Those reviewing those comments esmate a rao of approximately 100 against to 1 in favor of.

In the 11 January 2022 council meeng, Vice Mayor Jones, speaking on the topic of the development project at 1212 S. Winchester Blvd., in his disapproval of the project, said ‘just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should it’. On the gun ordinance issue, not only V.M. Jones, but the enre City Council should keep that in mind.

Yes, council apparently sll believes they can pass this, but they absolutely shouldn’t.

It has been clear from the start the mayor’s plan was to allow as lile public engagement as possible with the San Jose/ south bay 2A community or any others who might oppose his ordinance. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Lastly, I’d like to oﬀer some soluons.

Who know beer about gun violence in San Jose than the San Jose residents themselves?

Here’s how we can help and what I suggest as something to make a real diﬀerence in San Jose.

City Council pass a resoluon requiring establishment of a gun violence task force or commission.

Have that task force be broken up into ten diﬀerent groups, one group from each council district.

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 7/8 Fill each group with ten volunteers residing in that district.

Require the community, not the council member, to select those volunteers. This will prevent council members from cherry picking to serve personal or polical objecves. Allow the neighborhood associaons, starng ﬁrst with those with the highest rates of violent crime, to select their own volunteer. Move then to the neighborhood associaons who have shown the greatest amount of leadership, problem solving skills and innovaon in the community.

Have those ten from each district select a chair & co-chair for their groups.

Establish documentaon, record keeping, and informaon distribuon protocols.

Task each district group with reviewing each case of gun violence. Once an act of gun violence occurs in a community, get every detail legally possible to that district team for review. I realize a good deal of informaon might not be available as part of the invesgaon process. Those teams could start compiling data and reviewing details. Those details can be promptly distributed to those communies to keep them informed and solicit input. Suspect informaon could be distributed and might aid in quicker crime solving and apprehensions. This in turn would get gun criminals oﬀ the streets quicker and make communies safer.

Allow all informaon to the groups, emergency services costs, invesgave service costs, any data speciﬁc to that gun crime incident

Require monthly reports back to each district oﬃce.

Convene quarterly task force meengs and issue quarterly reports.

That is a basic template that could be improved upon to get communies to be involved and let them help solve problems.

This would give communies real informaon and real problem solving can happen.

Instead, what we have with the ordinance is data non-speciﬁc to San Jose used to drive gun control measures handed down by organizaons who most vehemently opposed to ﬁrearms ownership.

And it looks like those will be the groups involved in the nonproﬁt. That is like building an oﬃce for the fox inside the henhouse.

If cost recovery has been such a high concern for the city, have they employed asset forfeiture laws to recover costs in every possible instance? Why not pass an ordinance that further enables that ability, instead of trying to pass costs on to law abiding gun owners?

The very next agenda item aer the gun control measure on the June 29th 2021was item 4.2, ﬁle #21-1642 ordinance prohibing sideshow spectators.

Reckless gun ﬁring at these sideshows has been a common occurrence in San Jose, and most voters think these sideshow parcipants are largely people from outside the city. What creave measures has the city taken to curb that problem?

Has the city worked with state legislators to develop laws that hold those responsible for the incidents liable for the costs?

The public could go on and on providing viable soluons to solve real problems.

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 8/8 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.

My last queson is, why should I or any other community member oﬀer viable soluons that can truly help solve these problems?

Answer: We shouldn’t. The mayor does not want them. He wants this instead.

Alas, I’ve run out of me an energy to go much farther with this.

I must ﬁnish up and send it oﬀ to you and the city clerk.

I am quite sure you know, as a high percentage of voters know, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, that this will not realiscally solve any problems.

It will make lifelong San Jose residents think even harder about leaving our once fair city.

The biggest thing this will accomplish is speeding the exodus.

That might be part of their grand plan.

How very sad and disappoinng this whole thing is.

Future Mayor Davis,

Thank you for your me in reading this, and thank you for your bravery on council – Bravo!

I have a pilot Parking Compliance and Community Service Program ready for you and your district.

It seems to be going nowhere in D1.

Chris Giangreco

1/25/22, 8:35 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: You should be ashamed
Gregory, Barbara <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:38 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Thank You,
Barb Gregory

How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Michael Espinoza <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:33 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: You should be ashamed

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Good morning, what you are actually doing is putting shackles and chains on law abiding citizens of the city. There is no way on God's green earth that a gangster, thug or any other criminal is going to say " oh I have to go get "insurance now" really! Again your going after good law abiding citizens, AMAZING!
Concerned citizen of the United States of America

1/25/22, 8:34 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:41 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Tim Howard <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:59 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

I am opposed to Mayor Liccardo 's attempt to circumvent the Constitution by mandating every gun owner in the city purchase liability insurance and pay a yet-to-be-determined fee to fund so-called ? violence reduction initiatives.?

I oppose the legislation for these reasons:

They ordinance is unconstitutional and mandate that lawful gun owners bear the financial responsibility for the misdeeds of criminals.

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

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

The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution on special taxes, Article XIII C Section 2(d)
If passed, legal action will be taken against the City, and San Jose residents will bear the fiscal brunt of a protracted legal battle.

I urge the other members of the city council to vote against any such legislation. --
Tim Howard

1/25/22, 8:34 AM 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.

1/25/22, 8:34 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Hi
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:42 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Jo Wiggins <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:25 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Hi

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Have you considered that your gun tax is unconstitutional? I have no idea how some people can’t seem to get it into their heads that criminals don’t register guns.

So no matter what you do, there will always be guns on the streets owned by criminals. ALWAYS.

How are you going to tax them?
So basically you’re trying to punish law abiding citizens who more than likely feel that it’s nobody’s business that they own guns, so that the government, at it’s leisure can have a map of where all LEGALLY owned guns are? The idea that someone thinks that this is a good idea is kindergarten level politics.

If you want to fix legal gun ownership you can put into effect guidelines for who canand cannot buy guns. People on antidepressants would be an excellent choice, people with history of mental instability (God bless them), illegal aliens, people who have a hard criminal background, cowards, etc It’s so easy and no effort is required except instating these as required by law to purchase and own.

Can you really believe that in this day and age where 24/7 news media (propaganda) incites violence and stupidity, resembling the movie Idiocracy, that you actually know better than the founding fathers of this nation? I think not.

1/25/22, 8:34 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 I’m actually an independent btw as I am positive that you were thinking I am a “righty”. I used to be registered Democrat until the Democratic party began looking like socialism and even communism. So now when I vote, I vote for the lesser of two evils. What a damned shame that is

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

1/25/22, 8:33 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Gun laws in San Jose
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:43 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Alex Vallesteros <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:07 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun laws in San Jose

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
This is directed towards the council for tomorrows 10 am meeting on insurance for gun owners.

How do you expect poor residents of San Jose to protect themselves if only the affluent can afford to own a gun? With sky rocketing housing, inflation, taxes, and all the costs you’ve made owning a gun, how do you expect us all to pay for this? You guys are really out of your mind. How about try raising money for policing and fixing the tarnished relationship towards officers to build a better community.

Creating insurance for gun owners is out right tyrannical and will do nothing to reduce the crime San Jose residents are experiencing. What insurance company will provide insurance to residents in east side? Will it be more expensive for them? Will the insurance company just flat out refuse? Who will enforce and strip away firearms when insurance can not be afforded by those who already own guns in the city.

You guys are really just throwing out ideas to appease a certain agenda without really thinking anything through. Stop alienating people’s rights and start thinking of other ideas to curb firearm

relates crimes. Stop attacking gun owners and start doing something about CRIMINALS.

Sincerely,

1/25/22, 8:33 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 Alex Vallesteros
San Jose resident
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/25/22, 8:33 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: The proposed firearm "insurance" law
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:43 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Richard Daloisio <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:13 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: The proposed ﬁrearm "insurance" law

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

San Jose City Council,
How can anyone honestly believe this proposed law is even remotely constitutional? How can you think charging a fee to allow people to exercise their constitutional rights is legal? If the proposal was to charge people $25 to vote, would you support that? Please do not pass this ill-conceived bill and focus on the real problems in the bay area. There are so many, and they are getting worse every year.

Sincerely
Richard DAloisio

1/25/22, 8:33 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:44 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:59 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Joseph L. Macpherson
Address/Council District
Comments and/or
questions
Please do not support Item No: 4.1. This is not in support of the United States Constitution.

1/25/22, 8:33 AM 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.

1/25/22, 8:33 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: 4.1 Recommendation: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:44 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Tod <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:57 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ Liccardo, Sam < Davis, Dev < Jones, Chappie
< Esparza, Maya < Jimenez, Sergio
< Peralez, Raul < Carrasco, Magdalena
< Arenas, Sylvia < Cohen, David
< Mahan, Ma <Ma. Foley, Pam
< District1 < District2 < District3
< District4 < District5 < District 6
< District7 < District8 < District9
< District 10 < City Clerk <
Subject: 4.1 Recommendaon: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

[External Email]
Dear Mayor and City Council,
This is basically a gun tax (of law abiding gun owners) which is unbelievable and likely unconstitutional.

Reactive policy is usually not well thought out and the rushed public input from select nonprofit partners is insufficient.

It’s time for moderate Democrats (majority) to speak out against these far left wing ideas.

Please do the right thing and do NOT approve this impetuous proposal.

Thank you,

1/25/22, 8:33 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 Tod
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: tax guns
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:45 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Edward Marnez <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:45 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: tax guns

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

To whom it may concern.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concern. I don't agree on taxing citizens for practicing a human right, owning a Firearm. Would you tax a citizen for going to church and prying to their god. I believe the answer maybe no. how about having a law abiding citizen have to pay monthly because of a criminal committing a crime or will commit? I really hope the committee of San Jose chooses the fair and the right choice in saying no to the infringement of the citizens of San Jose by making them purchase insurance or taxing them for practicing their 2 amendment of the bill of rights.

Thank you Edward Martinez, San Jose,California.

1/25/22, 8:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:45 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:36 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Tsuyoshi Yashiro
Address/Council District District 10/ Matt Mahan
Comments and/or
questions Our family fully supports the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.

1/25/22, 8:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: support for San Jose's Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:46 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: robin ash <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:23 PM
To: District9 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk <
Subject: support for San Jose's Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Hello Councilmember Pam Foley,
I want to express my strong support for the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance set for a vote on January 25, 2022.

It is plain common sense.

Thanks,
Robin Ash
Doerr Park neighborhood

1/25/22, 8:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:47 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:18 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name ROSEMARY DEMELLO
Address/Council District
Comments and/or
questions
Please vote NO for this ordinance! Rather than worry about law abiding citizens who own guns...make sure that criminals who are arrested stay in jail and not let them out to break the law again!

DAs also need to stop dropping charges or downgrading them! Law abiding citizens need protection! No matter what you do about citizens owning guns, criminals will still have them and not worry

1/25/22, 8:32 AM 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. about any laws that you all make!
Start taking care of us and stop helping those who are hurting our society!
Our state and country is in a crisis with so many things...concentrate on San Jose and your constituents!

On another note: Only legal citizens should vote in our local elections...not illegal immigrants! Citizens have the rights to vote not aliens!

Thank you...

1/25/22, 8:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:48 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:06 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Jerome Woehl
Address/Council District *
Comments and/or
questions
I neither own nor want a gun, but it seems like this is tilting at windmills. There must be other straw men to attack like knives or rolling pins or fists.

1/25/22, 8:31 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:48 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:03 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Michael Kraus
Address/Council District District 4
Comments and/or
questions
I disagree with this approach. Keep the insurance element out of this. Enforce the existing laws for gun offenders and hold people accountable for their actions. Use a gun in a crime. Go to jail period.

1/25/22, 8:31 AM 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.

1/25/22, 8:31 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:49 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:10 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Steve
Address/Council District District 6
Comments and/or
questions
While it is good to get notice of this, given only one day will not enable me to fully understand this bill.

I am not a gun owner. I have never had or fired a gun. While I believe guns cause many issues in society today, it is a second amendment right to have a gun. If there was an amendment to repeal the right to a gun I would support it.

I do not support this proposed bill because it will do nothing to address the problems of guns in our society. For the vast majority of people who have guns, and the right to have the gun, they are not the cause of the problems. They would get the insurance or already have it. The people that are causing this violence will likely not get this insurance, so why add another bureaucratic process that does not address the problems of gun violence.

1/25/22, 8:31 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: Mandate vote
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:49 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Anthony Ramos <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 6:54 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Mandate vote

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Good evening,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the Gun Harm Reductiin Mandate being voted on. I am disappointed in the manner this issue is being approached, as it imposes a tax on individuals who are law abiding while gang members and other criminals continue to get a pass. This mandate imposes a tax which does nothing to hold those who commit crimes accountable.

I was raised harvesting fruit here in the area back when prune orchards surrounded this valley and I cannot believe what the leaders of this city have done and continue to do. You have let big tech move in and make the cost of living unbearable and pushed poor families out. This tax is another another way of having hard working people to pay for mistakes caused by reducing law enforcement numbers and lenient sentencing of criminals for their actions. I am against the mandate and ask that it does not pass.

1/25/22, 8:31 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:50 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 6:31 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name David Whitney
Address/Council District /6
Comments and/or
questions I am in favor of this ordinance and I urge you to vote for it.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Teri Mortola
Address/Council District (D6)
Comments and/or
questions
Dev, I support this ordinance and hope you will vote to pass it.

Thank you.

1/25/22, 8:30 AM 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.

1/25/22, 8:30 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:52 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Oﬃce of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 6:29 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Robert Shoberg
Address/Council District .

Comments and/or
questions
I strongly oppose Mayor Liccardos proposal to require all gun owners to purchase liability insurance. All it will do is involve San Jose in expensive law suits as I believe that this proposal will be unconstitutional, impossible to enforce and have zero impact in reducing violence.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:53 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Sharon Genkin
Address/Council District
Comments and/or
questions
Dear Council Members,

I am writing in SUPPORT of the Mayor's proposed Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.

Every 12 minutes, a life is stolen by gun violence in America, which is more than 110 deaths a day. Guns are now the leading cause of death for young Americans ages 1-17.

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. With this approach, we can move closer to that goal.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:34 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name G Glibas
Address/Council District District 7
Comments and/or
questions
Please vote NO for this ordinance. It is penalizes law abiding people, not the criminals who will ignore it. It is unconstitutional.

1/25/22, 8:29 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:54 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:33 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Elena Klaw
Address/Council District /16
Comments and/or
questions
I fully support gun reform, gun regulation, gun control ,and gun violence prevention.

1/25/22, 8:29 AM 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.

1/25/22, 8:29 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:55 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:26 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name M. Van Damme
Address/Council District D10
Comments and/or
questions
DO NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. STOP INFRINGING ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT. Put people in jail with a mandatory 10 year sentence, who use guns WHILE committing a crime. Fund NRA programs for gun safety for all legally held guns in private hands. I do not support any other incentive, law or ordinance.

1/25/22, 8:29 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:55 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:25 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Daniel Schumacher
Address/Council District / District 10
Comments and/or
questions
I oppose this newly proposed ordinance as I believe that it is overly simplistic and will have no effect in reducing gun violence. It does not attack the root cause of criminals with guns but instead burdens the law abiding citizens that choose to own guns. It makes no sense to me other than giving the appearance of taking some action. This is a bad idea.

1/25/22, 8:29 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
[External 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.

OPPOSE Agenda item 4.1 gun harm ordinance
J Sims <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:56 AM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Bad idea for a bunch of reasons.

You are going to get sued by everybody and their uncle.

The fee is nothing more than a tax and illegal as a Jim Crow style law This is an election year..... you have just motivated a whole bunch of people to vote against you no matter what.

J Sims

1/25/22, 8:28 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Fw: Gun tax
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:57 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Cliﬀord Bo <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:20 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun tax

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
DO MOT PASS THE GUN OWNERSHIP TAX . IF YOU DO I HOPE YOUR CONSTITUENTS ARE PAYING ATTENTION . Elections are coming. 👍
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/25/22, 8:28 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: New form response notification
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 6:57 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:19 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name Robert Rodriguez
Address/Council District .

Comments and/or
questions
Don't vote for this. Legal gun owners are not the problem. We have bigger problems than this for the mayor to be focused on.

1/25/22, 8:28 AM 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.

From: San José Constuent <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:17 PM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 <
District4 < District5 < District 6 <
District7 < District8 < District9 <
District 10 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ City Clerk < CouncilMeeng
<CouncilMee
Subject: New form response noﬁcaon

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Your form has a new entry. Here are all the answers.

Email address
Name d. ikuta
Address/Council District
Comments and/or
questions
This will not do anything to prevent gun violence do not vote for this ordanance, I certainly will not vote for you.

1/25/22, 8:28 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. (Agenda item: 4.1 22-045)
christine sterpetti <
Tue 1/25/2022 7:02 AM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear San Jose Council,

Thank you for allowing me to voice my support for agenda item: 4. 122-045 requiring ﬁrearm owners to purchase liability insurance as well as pay an annual gun harm reducon fee.

First, let me explain who I am. I am a Bay Area nave and mother of an 11-year-old boy. My son is the main reason for my concern regarding the rising gun violence in our community and country. There isn’t a day that my son doesn’t walk out the door that I don’t worry about him being hurt. On top of my mind is the possibility that he could be randomly shot or involved in some other type of encounter that would end in gun violence.

According to the CDC 45,000-gun deaths occurred in 2020. Everytown reports that ﬁrearms are the leading cause of death for children (ages 1-19) in the U.S. Every year 18k children are shot and killed or wounded. Even if a child survives a shoong, the mental impact is lifelong. On top of that, even without the presence of a shoong, our children are sll subjected to the idea that they, or someone they love, could be a shoong vicm. They see what happens on the news, they are required to parcipate in lockdown drills at school and are instructed that if a shoong happens, they are to run in a zig-zag formaon to get away. The U.S. prides itself on being civilized, but a naon that is not willing to protect its most vulnerable cannot fully be considered civilized.

In this country, we take our freedom very seriously, but with that comes responsibility. Gun owners, and I have them in my family, should absolutely be responsible for the harm and death that their guns bring. Just like car owners are required to carry insurance in the event that they injure or kill someone, so should gun owners be held to the same requirements.

Thank you for your me.

Chrisne Sterpe

1/25/22, 8:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Item 4.1 - Approve Councilmember Peralez's Memo on Gun Harm Reduction Melissa Sheklian <
Tue 1/25/2022 7:07 AM
To: District1 < District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
< The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <
Cc: Agendadesk <
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [External Email]
Dear Mayor Liccardo and San José City Council,
I am emailing in support of Councilmember Raul Peralez’s 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.

Sincerely,
Melissa Sheklian
San Jose Resident
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/25/22, 8:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/3 [External Email]
[External Email]
1/25/2022 Item 4.1: Vote NO Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, Public Record bob abuii <
Tue 1/25/2022 7:36 AM
To: Jones, Chappie < Jimenez, Sergio < Peralez, Raul < Cohen, David < Carrasco, Magdalena
< Davis, Dev < Esparza, Maya
< Arenas, Sylvia < Foley, Pam <
Mahan, Matt < Liccardo, Sam < City Clerk
< District1 < District2 < District3
< District4 < District5 < District 6
< District7 < District8 <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Hello,

Proposed Change: 10.32.210 Liability Insurance Required “Specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the Firearm, including but not limited to death, injury or property damage.” Negligent use of a firearm is defined in CA Penal Code 246.3 as someone who willfully discharges a firearm (pulls the trigger intentionally) which could result in injury or death to a person.

The City Council is requiring firearm owners to purchase insurance for intentionally pulling the trigger of a firearm to harm life and/or property, which is already defined as a serious violent crime.

This type of insurance does not exist and if it did, would be so cost prohibitive that it would place an unconstitutional barrier to the free exercise of the Second Amendment.

Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the insurance coverage type and limits, having up to six months after the vote to define it.

1/25/22, 8:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) established that the government “may not impose a 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

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent

1/25/22, 8:27 AM 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.

James Patterson
San Jose
D2

1/25/22, 8:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
[External 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 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
George Parrish <
Tue 1/25/2022 7:36 AM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

This proposed ordinance appears to be nothing more than a backdoor entry to require gun registration and ultimately confiscation of personal guns--totally unconstitutional. It would undermine the culture of freedom in our great country. I respectfully ask that you not allow this to happen.

George Parrish

1/25/22, 8:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
Item 4.1 VOTE to Oppose the Public Safety Gun Harm Ordinance Tim Clauson <
Tue 1/25/2022 8:17 AM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo < Liccardo, Sam
< Davis, Dev < Jones, Chappie <
Esparza, Maya < Jimenez, Sergio < Peralez, Raul
< Carrasco, Magdalena < Arenas, Sylvia
< Cohen, David < Mahan, Matt <
Foley, Pam < District1 < District2 < District3
< District4 < District5 < District 6
< District7 < District8 <

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As a San Jose resident and citizen I strongly encourage you to vote to Oppose the Public Safety Gun Harm Ordinance. This ordinance would only affect law abiding citizens and does nothing to limit criminal activity. This "TAX" will put a financial burden on a segment of our community or make those who cannot afford the "TAX" to become criminals themselves for not complying.

We are living in a city where our quality of life is diminishing with ramped homelessness, mentally ill and/or drug addicts roaming our streets, criminals walking into stores and stealing up to $950.00 worth of merchandise and "if caught" get a misdemeanor ticket, our parks and waterways are being environmentally destroyed, and our quality of air is being affected by toxic materials being burned in encampments. Please focus on our daily "quality of life".

Your focus on adding a TAX to law abiding citizens without community input and real data to support your cause is unconstitutional in my opinion. Please enforce the laws currently on the books and seek to remove criminals from society instead of focusing on law abiding citizens. Get tough on criminals, not your constituents! If you want to make a name for yourself then write and approve an amicus curiae resolution to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47 and

1/25/22, 8:27 AM 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.

AB109. Perhaps enforcing consequences for one's bad actions can start to restore LAW and ORDER and everyone's quality of life. COMMON SENSE Tim

San Jose City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

San Jose City Council
January 25, 2022