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

1/25/22, 10:12 AM 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: 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, 10:12 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

1/25/22, 10:12 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: ‘No’ on gun insurance
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:39 AM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: mmcpharlin <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:21 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: ‘No’ on gun insurance
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Please do not pass the bill requiring insurance on legally owned guns. You are penalizing law abiding citizens and not addressing the real problems like ghost guns, straw purchases, and access to illegal guns from surrounding states and countries. Criminals do not care about laws or regulations. Please vote ‘no’ and work towards more effective solutions. Thank you.

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

1/25/22, 10:12 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
Agenda item 22 04514.1 Public SafetyGun Harm Reduction Ordinance. mikesiri <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:40 AM
To: City Clerk <

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

I urge each council member to vote no on this ordinance. A few of the many reasons for your no vote would include the following;
A a gun owner, I and all other would not be able to comply with the ordinance ince there are no in urance policie in e i tence that are available for gun owner to buy.

The ordinance will do nothing to stop the two overwhelming causes of firearm deaths : suicide and criminal activity. A 2017 PEW research study showed 97% due to suicide and criminal activity.

The ordinance ignores steps the city could take that are known to be effective at stopping gun violence. Including: Confiscate guns in the hands of known armed prohibited persons . Target gang members and drug sellers.

The ordinance would implements ta es at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution on special ta es, Article XIII C Section 2(d)
There are many more reasons not the least of which is that this will only adversely effect law abiding citizens, which is not where the problem resides.

Please vote no on this flawed illogical ordinance.

Thank you,
Michael Siri
Sent from my cell phone

1/25/22, 10:12 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.

1/25/22, 10:11 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Forwarding email from Michele Lew Health Trust regarding item 4.1 Guimera, Christina <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:47 AM
To: City Clerk <
Forwarding email regarding item 4.1
Dear Mayor Liccar
do and City Council Members:

The Health Trust supports the Gun Harm Reducon Iniave As a nonproﬁt operang foundaon focused on building health equity in Silicon Valley, we believe that gun violence is a public health concern that demands immediate aenon.

In California, 71% of homicides involve the use of a gun, and Black Californians are 10 mes more likely to die from gun violence than white Californians. In addion, 85% of all inmate partner gun homicide vicms are women. Horriﬁcally, guns are the third leading cause of death for children and teens in the State, more than child and teen deaths by motor vehicle accidents.

The me has long passed for us to collecvely move from thoughts and prayers to acon, and we can no longer wait for naonal change.

We welcome connued collaboraon on both this and future iniaves to address gun violence in our community. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we might be of assistance.

Sincerely,
Michele Lew
Chief Execuve Oﬃcer
The Health Trust

1/25/22, 10:11 AM 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.

Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Donn Diebert <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:56 AM
To: City Clerk <

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

To the members of the San Jose City Council,
Agenda Item 4 1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance should not be passed. The United States Constitution identifies life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It specifically calls out several amendments just so it is clear what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means. Free speech is the first amendment which above all else allows open and honest discussion. So thank you for the ability to comment on the above titled proposed odinance.

As representatives of the people (all people), you should be aware that Item 4.1 22-045 Gun
Harm Reduction Ordinance does not address Gun Harm. It actually harasses law abiding citizen, with legally owned firearms, by placing an extra burden to gun ownership that violates the constitution by infringing on the rights of gun ownership. It does nothing to the criminal element and would probably not be enforced against them.

I say the above based on what is happening here and other parts of the country were judges and politicians continuing to release convicted criminals before they have paid their debt to society. Even though there a minimum sentence guidelines the politicians just release criminals early. Now with DA's being soft on crime and police being defunded this is not the time to continuing to burden financially struggling law abiding people through additional taxes.

Do not pass this Ordinance!
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Donn Diebert

1/25/22, 10:11 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, 10:11 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/4 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance; Agenda Item #4.1 Beau Radoicich <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:59 AM
To: City Clerk <

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

Greengs Council Members,
I have friends and family in San Jose, and one them asked me to submit a comment concerning the proposed Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance I'm no lawyer, but I tend to follow Gun Control bills & policy in the state rather closely, and read many of the related Federal Circuit Court decisions.

I visit San Jose somemes when I get free me to take mom to see her old hometown again. I usually try to get dinner at Original Joe's, which has some of the best food in the area (The ﬂaened Italian Saus ge there is perfect as a side to a good steak dinner), and it's also the restaurant where my grandfather proposed to my grandmother, so there's a senmental charm to it also. In general vising the San Jose area is a treat and usually a good day to be enjoyed.

But enough about me and adversing for Original Joe's, located on the corner of South First Street and San Carlos, open tonight from 4PM to 10PM! Instead, I'll start discussing the ordinance. I generally oppose the proposed ordinance, however I don't think it's helpful to the City Council that I tell them merely that I oppose the ordinance Instead, I will primarily discuss the technical issues of two provisions of the proposed ordinance, and then a summary. This way, even if you do not oppose the ordinance, maybe you'll see wisdom in vong no tonight, as you may see the ordinance sll needs some work.

1.) Secon 10.32.230: The paperwork requirement.

As proposed in the ordinance, each gun owning/possessing San Jose resident shall "keep the aestaon form with the Firearms
where they are being stored or transported", that's the proof of insurance, and "aﬃx proof of payment of the annual Gun Harm Reducon Fee to the aestaon form and keep it with the Firearm or Firearms where they are being stored or transported", and as introduced in the memorandum on 1/21, shall "present the form when lawfully requested to do so by a peace oﬃcer who knows or has reason to believe that a person possesses a ﬁrearm" Reading this, I see a lot of issues with how this is supposed to funcon in the real world. Consider the following: A SJPD oﬃcer pulls a driver over, perhaps solely for a moving violaon or perhaps as a pretextual stop. The oﬃcer asks for license and registraon, and then goes to their computer, which is hooked into CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunicaon System), which also has access to AFS (Automated Firearm System), which means the oﬃcer can cross reference any person with their ownership records at California DOJ; so any traﬃc stop could become pretense for a SJPD oﬃcer to check for this paperwork from any gun-owning resident. However, maybe the oﬃcer saw a bag or case that looked like it may contain a ﬁrearm.

1/25/22, 10:11 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/4 So then the oﬃcer goes back, and asks the driver if they have any ﬁrearms with them. The driver says they do The oﬃcer then asks them to present their paperwork The driver then reaches for the ﬁrearm, because the paperwork, according ordinance, is to be stored with the ﬁrearm. I think about one person when considering this part of the ordinance, and that's Philando Casle. For those who aren't aware or don't remember, Philando Casle was a 32-year old black man who was a Nutrion Services Supervisor at a school in Minnesota, and also possessed a legally issued conceal carry license He was pulled over for a traﬃc stop with his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds in the passenger seat and her four year old daughter in the back seat. The oﬃcer asking for his proof of insurance and ID. Aer that, Philando Casle informed the oﬃcer that he had a ﬁrearm. Someme aer that, when Philando Casle was reaching for his ID, the oﬃcer shot 7 shots, 5 of which struck Philando Casle, ending his life As proposed, this ordinance's paperwork requirement will lead to more police interacons that result in shoongs like the one that ended Philando Casle's life. I'm not sure why Mayor Liccardo thought that requiring the storing of the paperwork with the ﬁrearm during transport was the right idea or having it rely on some sort of folded up paperwork at all. Why isn't there some sort of card? Perhaps Mayor Liccardo thought such a system that would have a database of all the gun owners in San Jose would bring up more opposion from gun owners, or perhaps Mayor Liccardo thought that such a system might be costly and complex for San Jose to implement, and further make the city liable for data breaches if they accidentally leaked gun owner informaon much like California DoJ has in the past.

Mayor Liccardo menoned something about checking paperwork aer bar ﬁghts, which I'm not sure how common that is in San Jose, but that's not speciﬁed in the proposed ordinance; the proposed ordinance applies to praccally any police interacon
No maer the reason, to avoid more police interacons that lead to shoongs similar to Philando Casle, the paperwork requirement as proposed must be changed, or the proposed ordinance must be opposed This is not something can be ﬁxed in regulaons; this secon is core to the proposed ordinance and must be changed aer proper consideraon of a diﬀerent method of compliance that work in real life; if the ordinance is to be approved at all.

2.) Secon 10.32.225 (C): The "poor exempon".

The proposed ordinance makes mulple exempons; two of which are Law Enforcements Oﬃcers and for Conceal Carry Weapon License holders. I'll only menon these brieﬂy but Mayor Liccardo, as far as I know, has not explained why Law Enforcement Oﬃcers or Conceal Carry Weapon License holders (which there are very few carry license holder, unless you meet very narrow requirements by SJPD or perhaps you're polically connected, or if you make campaign donaons to Santa Clara County Sheriﬀ Laurie Smith, but that's another topic!): Why is it that they're exempt? I'd really like to hear Mayor Liccardo's reasoning on this, because I don't think that I've read any jusﬁcaon for this exempon.

But no maer, we get to the third exempon: The Poor. These are people that, according to CA GOV 68632(a) & (b) as referenced in the proposed ordinance, make 125% or less than the current federal poverty level, or they receive one of the listed government assistance beneﬁts. Again, I'd like to try and look at this exempon in real life Let's assume that an oﬃcer stops a person who ﬁts this third exempon, and let's also assume that this interacon doesn't result in a shoong like the one that killed Philando Casle. Perhaps the person in queson is on foot, legally transporng their ﬁrearm in a sealed container between two legal locaons. The Oﬃcer stops the person and asks them if they have a ﬁrearm, seeing what they believe to be a ﬁrearm in some sort of container, and the person responds that they do. They then ask for their paperwork as required by the proposed ordinance, and the person responds responds to the oﬃcer, telling them they're exempt because they make less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. Seng aside that this kind of thing is not something that the person might want to share within earshot of anyone else the oﬃcer then must make a decision To accept the word of the person, or to ask for proof. The ordinance makes no requirement that this person carry proof, yet by

1/25/22, 10:11 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/4 default because the exempon exists the oﬃcer is le to determine if the person is actually exempt (and furthermore, how will the oﬃcers choose who they enforce these invesgaons against day to day? Which is a whole diﬀerent can of worms).

If the oﬃcer decides they want to invesgate the person, how is this person supposed to prove how poor they are? The example I gave was that they make less than 125% of the federal poverty limit Are they to carry their proof of income with them? Must they prove how many are in their household? How long will the oﬃcer detain them unl they're sasﬁed? Even if the person in the example were to be on one of the other programs, not all of them come with proof that nicely ﬁts in a wallet.

To me it seems that the inclusion of low income gun owners and how they'll navigate this proposed ordinance in day to day life wasn't given much thought. In fact, when I read the discussion secon of the memorandum from Mayor Licardo, Vice Mayor Jones, Councilmember Cohen, and Councilmember Carrasco from 1/21, the only discussion of gun owners who are poor being exempt, is in the discussion about how it fulﬁlls some US constuonal criteria about whether "a modest fee substanally burdens the exercise" of a right, and how they provide "an explicit exempon for those unable to pay", thus "it imposes no such burden". I'm sorry, but you can't just tokenize those with low incomes that happen to own or desire to own a ﬁrearm, just so that you can meet some legal burden They're real people, and they're going to have to navigate this ordinance, and the police interacons that result from it. This secon is, by the reasoning of the memorandum, core to the ordinance. This must be changed so that it doesn't lead to interacons where those who have low incomes, who choose to own a ﬁrearm, aren't harassed, and police oﬃcers shouldn't be put in a crappy situaon like that Either this secon must be changed, aer given much consideraon, or the proposed ordinance must be opposed.

In Summary:

To avoid police interacons that may lead to deaths like that of Philando Casle, and to avoid police interacons that result in potenal harassment of low income gun owners and pung police in a situaon that they'd rather not be in, this proposed ordinance must be opposed. If if you believe in the ordinance, at least for today the ordinance must be voted down so that proper changes can be made, because clearly this ordinance is not ready, and it should not be passed to be "ﬁxed later". I believe Council Member Dev Davis was right when she likened passing the current barebones ordinance now to "shoong ﬁrst and aiming later".

We have to ask why this ordinance is even here in city council, and why it's a fee and not a tax. The answer to the fee queson, I believe, seems to be found in Arcle XIII C of the California Constuon. If you read the secons of that arcle, generally speaking, it requires that a local special tax, which this would be considered a special tax in that context, must be put forth to a vote before the residents of the local government, and it must pass a two-thirds vote. However, an excepon exists if a charge (read: fee) is conferring or granng a beneﬁt or privilege for those who pay the charge.

This excepon allows Mayor Liccardo to put this before the council for a vote, which means he must believe that he can't convince 2/3rds of the residents of San Jose, who must live under this ordinance everyday, that his proposed ordinance has merit. For this reason too I believe this ordinance must be opposed.

Thank you council members for your me, and I hope my leer has been found helpful. If you want to hear my other concerns with the ordinance, feel free to contact me.

Beau Radoicich

1/25/22, 10:11 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 4/4 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, 10:10 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Agenda item 22 045 1 4.1 is unconstitutional
Nguyen Thi Binh <
Tue 1/25/2022 10:07 AM
To: City Clerk <
[External Email]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
STOP this ordinance NOW !!! This is a total joke to all of our San Jose residents Sent from my iPhone
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, 9:28 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:

City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 8:37 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: Gary Stalter <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:05 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject:

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

Do not pass the gun bill.

1/25/22, 9:28 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. 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

1/25/22, 9:25 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
[50.]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: San Jose Gun Tax
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:05 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: JeﬀK <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:49 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: San Jose Gun Tax

I am opposed to the proposed gun tax because under California law we have a right to defend life and property, and the proposed gun tax is a tax on that right. Per US law you cannot tax a right. Therefore the proposed ordinance is unconstuonal on its face. Do not pass it.

CIVIL CODE - CIV
DIVISION 1. PERSONS [38 - 86]
( Heading of Division 1 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 12. )

PART 2. PERSONAL RIGHTS [43 53.7]
( Part 2 enacted 1872. )

Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a spouse, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one’s family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 50, Sec. 4. (SB 1005) Effective January 1, 2017.)

hps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySecon.xhtml?seconNum=50&lawCode=CIV

1/25/22, 9:24 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Agenda item 22 045 1 4.1
Jason H <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:09 AM
To: City Clerk <
[External Email]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Please don’t impose this unethical restrictions, I’m a fully law abiding citizen, I follow the laws like all law abiding citizens. We shouldn’t have to pay for the work of criminal. Criminals are completely separate from us. We should not be treated as one. This tax does nothing for crime. Criminals aren’t going to pay this tax and law abiding citizens don’t cause liability issues Criminals do. We shouldn’t have to pay there way. Cost of living is already extreme please don’t add any more undo stress or costs to be a responsible human.

Thank you for your time
Sent from my iPhone
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, 9:24 AM 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.

Remove Agenda item 22 045 1 4.1
Cha Yz <
Tue 1/25/2022 9:19 AM
To: City Clerk <

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

Please remove Agenda item 22-045 1 4.1.

I don't see any benefits of this ordinance at all except it will cost taxpayers funding for future letigations. It won't put even a scratch on fighting crimes and prevent murders. Basically, all I can see the intent of this ordinance i to puni h innocent gunowner , di arming the citizen right to defend them elve and gave criminals more chance to become rampant. It's like you want to chop the fish, but the fish ain't thereso then you just chop the chopping block instead.

STOP Thi ridiculou ordiance. It' childi h and totall cannnot be enforced.

Cha YZ

1/25/22, 1:34 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 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance Item 4.122 045
RANDALL BEAMER <
Tue 1/25/2022 10:35 AM
To: City Clerk <

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

To the City Clerk Agenda # 4.122 045 do not Pass Proposed Ordinance

1/25/22, 1:33 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.

- 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
Kelly Clark

1/25/22, 1:33 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

1/25/22, 1:33 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 5/6 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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. 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
--
--
Victor Mojica, President
Statement of Email Confidentiality:The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to he intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not he intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you.

1/25/22, 1:33 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 6/6 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/25/22, 1:32 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Proposed Ordinance Requiring Ownership Insurance
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 12:14 PM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:21 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Requiring Ownership Insurance

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
As a Forensic Chemist in the County Crime Lab [1557 Berger Drive], shortly after Lowell Bradford had retired from it, I worked on cases involving head-on collisions which caused multiple fatalities in the non- causal vehicle and where no demonstrable factor such as drugs, alcohol, fatigue, or mechanical problems could be shown to have been the cause. One couldn't prove, but outside evidence sometimes strongly suggested the "accident" was purposely caused, i.e. an intended suicide.

Subjects can have a number of reasons for choosing auto accidents to end their lives, but one clear reason is the difficulty of using other once-common means. Modern exhaust has very low levels of CO so doesn't cause loss of consciousness quickly or easily, and asphyxiation by CO2, trace amounts of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides is both painful and thus difficult to endure. The unavailability of firearms, together with this Law of Unintended Consequences therefore can lead to more rather than less deaths, including those of innocent persons, when ill-thought laws said to reduce suicide just change the method chosen. Moreover, nobody has proposed any mechanism whereby requiring insurance to own firearms is even supposed to lessen firearm involvement in suicide.

Besides these theoretical unwanted consequences of this proposed law, any person of average intelligence should understand that Constitutional rights such as the ownership of firearms can legally not be taxed, regulated or impeded in this manner; the practice has long ago been fully examined and found to violate ones individual rights regarding voting, and the ownership of firearms is no different.

Moreover, the courts are increasingly allowing prosecution of officials who, under the color of authority, violate the rights of others. Passing laws that an ordinary, reasonable person would understand to be

1/25/22, 1:32 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 Unconstitutional and doing so for purely personal or political reasons can reasonably be considered outside the duties of those officials, thus not protected by the Immunity clauses, and thus actionable by either the harmed individuals or the general public whose funds paid to pass and attempt defense of the defective law.

Lastly, such wrong laws also have an effect on those in the law enforcement community, both by being adversely affected themselves, and sometimes even worse, their having to either help enforce the knowingly bad laws; quit the service; or by trying to walk an impossible "thin line", violate one's principles. None of those choices lead to a good result.

The old adage "decay leads to more decay" has been proven to also apply to criminal behavior. San Jose's reaction to the BLM riots demonstrated that when, for political reasons, the city wouldn't use all its resources to protect the lives and properties of its residents, they were on their own. Some justified allowing property damage by saying it could be replaced. Not true; property represents the time and energy spent to produce those items, assets that once gone, can never be recovered or relieved. And that ignores the mental aspect entirely. I will add that, as recent testimony has shown, the less-well- connected (particularly wrt the Sheriff), that meaning the good, hard working minorities like the Vietnamese and the old, legal citizens of Black and Mexican heritage, will be the ones most hurt by this useless law. It won't affect the members of gangs, the homeless drug-dependent bums living along the creeks or on freeway right-of-way properties, who somehow have gained the ability, by proclamation of some high politicians and a few irrational court rulings, to do so with impunity. Such laws will just hurt the decent citizens who have real need for the right to defend themselves: the innocent victims who often became the "folder [coroner] cases" I used to work on.

Sincerely,
[redacted]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/25/22, 1:31 PM 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: 22 045 1 4.1 Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance. TO BE HEARD AT 6:00 P .M.

City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 12:15 PM
To Agendade k <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:08 AM
To: CouncilMeeng <CouncilMee City Clerk <
Subject: 22-045 1 4.1 Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance. - TO BE HEARD AT 6:00 P .M.

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

I support two measures that no other city nor state in the United States has ever attempted gun liability insurance to support victims, and annual fees to fund violence reduction initiatives

Trudy Ellerbeck ~ she/ella
This message is proprietary, confidential and is intended for the recipient. It is not to be forwarded without the express consent of the sender. Please do not print this message unnecessarily.

1/25/22, 1:30 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 Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance; Agenda Item #4.1 USFC <
Tue 1/25/2022 12:38 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

The proposed Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance will not reduce crime in San Jose. It is not aimed at criminals, the ones who misuse firearms. We have gangs and other career criminals blighting the city, especially in socioeconomically disadvantaged east San Jose. Fighting criminal activity starts with enforcing laws already on the books.

The San Jose city government should:

1. Raise SJPD staffing to levels appropriate for the tenth biggest city in America

2. Make SJPD compensation competitive with those of police departments in other Bay Area cities

3. Support SJPD efforts to improve response times, which are double their stated target response times

4. Work work SJPD to maximize the city's crime-fighting effectiveness Sonia Chang

1/25/22, 1:30 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2

1/25/22, 3:57 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.

- 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 Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent
Gregg D Mahurin

1/25/22, 3:57 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 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, 3:56 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.

1/25/22, 3:56 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: Gun control tax
City Clerk <
Tue 1/25/2022 1:54 PM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Holmstrom <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:48 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun control tax
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Gentlemen
97,436 children were killed in the US last year, due to abortions. That’s a lot.

Will you tax the Mothers too? Medical staff too?
RHolmstrom
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/25/22, 3:55 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Jo Wiggins <
Tue 1/25/2022 2:06 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]
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.

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, 3:55 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.

1/25/22, 3:55 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Agenda item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Manny Rios <
Tue 1/25/2022 2:12 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]
As a long time citizen of the city of S.J please do not vote in favor of this Ordinance.

Imposing a tax on legal responsible gun owners to carry the expenses created by the irresponsible, is in no way shape or form….FAIR.

City politicians have no right to create such an unfair burden on again……the responsible citizens of San Jose,CA.

To think that this ordinance will go uncontested is irresponsible and will create in itself a financial burden to the City of San Jose,CA.

Does this City really need what ALL this will create?
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.

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

1/26/22, 10:01 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.

I do NOT want me nor anyone else to be further harmed by criminals nor laws that hinder our ability to protect ourselves from them.

Regards,
~Keith Huie

1/26/22, 10:00 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. you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

1/26/22, 10:00 AM 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 Fwd: "Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance" aaa aaa <
Tue 1/25/2022 7:38 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

Forwarded message
From: aaa aaa
Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 7:55 PM
Subject: "Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance" To:

Ta ing people who legally own guns does nothing to remove guns from criminals. Criminals will still have guns and use them, as criminals do.

Broken window policing works and gets illegal guns off the streets, and gets the criminals off the street and in jail where they belong. I am against any municipality trying to circumvent the second amendment in any way trying to ta or remove guns from any legal gum owner.

Mr & Mrs Cronin

1/26/22, 10:00 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 Be well, and stay safe
Sincerely,
The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo
Email
tay engaaged https //linktr ee/MayorSamLiccardo
coordinate early mental health interventions for individuals in gun owning households showing signs of distress
Based on a recent study by the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation (PIRE), San José taxpayers subsidize gun ownership by $151 annually per firearm-owning household, or nearly $40 million per year, to pay for gun violence response with publicly funded services such as emergency police and medical response, vic im assistance, incident investigation, health care, and perpetrator adjudication, and judicial sanctioning.

When private financial costs to individuals and families are included, San José residents incur an annual burden of $442 million per year
Read more about my proposals in my LA Times opinion piece To read the full proposal, visit here.

Send your comments on the ordinance to your Councilmember, by filling out this form Or you can contact your Councilmember through social media or via email

Councilmember Twitter Handles / Councilmember Emails
@chappiejones
@D2 ergioJimenez
@RaulPeralez
@D4 anJose
@CM Magdalena
@DevDavisCA
@MayaEsparza J
@ ylviaArenas
@PamFoleyD9
@MattMahan J
@sliccardo

Fa
ce
bo
ok
Twi
tter
I
nst
agr
am
We
bsit
e
Office Of San José Mayor Sam Liccardo
200 E Santa Clara St
18th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Watch today's press conference!

1/26/22, 10:00 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.

1/26/22, 9:59 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Oppose Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Gregory, Barbara <
Wed 1/26/2022 6:52 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Thank You

How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Todd Harris <
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:57 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

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

This proposed Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance is a false promise. Taxing law abiding citizens will do nothing to reduce gun harm. Why do you attempt to blame an entire group, in this case gun owners, for the acts of a very very very small subgroup. All gun owners are not alike yet you want to straddle them with a tax and treat them as if they are the problem. This is the exact type of thought process that perpetuates racism. This notion that a group can be tainted by a small minority within that group. I thought we were beyond this. What group do you intend to discriminate against next, archers, produce pickers, truck drivers. Gun ownership is a constitutional right and a municipality has not legal or moral authority to usurp those rights by pretending a tax is going to fix everything. If you truly cared about the million people that live in san jose you would focus on creating more jobs, addressing the scourge of drug addiction that kills more people and ravages more families than any other calamity, and oh year hire some more police officers. You do those three things you won’t need to worry about crime in you million person city.

Tom Harris, and I oppose the so called Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.

1/26/22, 9:59 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.

PS why do you keep turning off the website comment section? I hope it is IT issues but sadly it seems like something more devious.

As long as we’re taxing guns, (guns being protected by the 2nd amendment) why not find other sources of income? Tax the other amendments, and pay for the damage they cause. Amendment taxes:

1st: Tax free speech. If you want to say something publicly, you must pay a tax. Think of all the damage caused by, for instance, bad covid info, or the Big Lie

4th Pay up or the police can raid your home and do full body cavity searches whenever they feel like it

5th Relying on the 5th amendment to not be forced to testify against yourself? Pay a tax or lose the right.

6th : Tax the right to counsel. If you hire a lawyer, you must pay a tax. Think of the tremendous cost to society of lawyers

7th You want a jury trial? Pay a tax

8th You don’t want to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Pay a tax or it’s the “rack” for you

13th You don’t want to be a slave? Pay up

14th Pay a tax if you want to be a citizen

15th If you’re black and want to vote, pay a tax

19th If you’re a woman and want to vote, pay up

-Jim

1/26/22, 9:58 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.

1/26/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2

1/26/22, 9:57 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Proposed Firearm Law
City Clerk <
Wed 1/26/2022 9:32 AM
To: Agendadesk <
How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Casey Tharp <
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7:51 AM
To: Jones, Chappie < Jimenez, Sergio < Peralez,
Raul < Cohen, David < Carrasco, Magdalena
< Davis, Dev < Esparza, Maya
< < Foley, Pam
< Mahan, Ma <Ma. Liccardo, Sam
< City Clerk < District1 <
District2 < District3 < District4 <
District5 < District 6 < District7 <
District8 < District9 < District 10 <
The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ
Subject: Proposed Firearm Law

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

Dear City Leaders,
I understand you are considering requiring lawful gun orders in the city to pay a fee every year and carry insurance.

Thi i incredibly di re pectful to all military veteran and tho e that gave their live in defen e of our country fighting for constitutional rights including the second amendment. Many military veterans have lifelong injuries from their service in defense of your freedom. Those of us who were fortunate enough to complete our military service without coming home in a flag draped coffin now are not allowed to have firearms in our own home (which we hope we would never have to u e) for elf defen e if nece ary? Our country e pect u to engage in combat u ing firearm but bureaucrats in San Jose who more than likely never served anyone other than themselves say we can't keep a firearm in our own home for self defense without paying a fee? I also notice you make an exemption to these fees for retired police officers but not military veterans. Military veterans put our lives on the line for all constitutional rights including the econd amendment Now you are telling military veteran (and all lawful gun owner ) who live in San Jose they have to pay a fee for their second amendment rights that are guaranteed in the constitution.

I am strongly in opposition to this proposal. In addition, crime goes down when there are more lawful gun owners. If you make it a burden to own gun in San Jo e, criminal will be aware of thi It i proven that there i le crime in

1/26/22, 9:57 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. cities where there are more lawful gun owners because it is a deterrent to criminals. If any of you would like to talk to me about this to obtain more information from a military veteran's perspective feel free to contact me, I am available to meet with you at any time.

Sincerely,
Casey Tharp

San Jose City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

San Jose City Council
January 25, 2022