Letters from the Public - 4 of 12 — San Jose City Council, January 25, 2022

1/21/22, 11:19 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Ken Michael
Thu 1/20/2022 9:07 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

Don't do it. This ordinance is unconstitutional and will go to the supreme court if you impse it on the citizens of San Jose. DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kenneth Michael

If the elevator to success is crowded, take the stairs.

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" in the subject line. raymond negron
Thu 1/20/2022 9:38 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

Please Do not pass this item.

Raymond Negron
Live to serve. Serve to Live! Amen

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"
Tracie Morris
Thu 1/20/2022 9:46 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

I hope you realize that thi i again t my Con titutional right , and we will fight you to the end of time for the illegal things you do.

Please feel free to read the Constitution and get to know it inside out like I have. Tracie

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

RICHARD L PINEGAR
Thu 1/20/2022 12:45 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

The idea that you would attempt to tax the legal exercise of a constitutional right is clearly illegal and poorly conceived Please abandon this foolish notion

1/21/22, 11:18 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Fr. Fred Ayers
Thu 1/20/2022 2:39 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

I am very trongly oppo ed to the Gun Owner hip Ta that i being propo ed for our city Gun owned by law abiding citizens are not the problem or the source of crime in San Jose. Guns owned by criminals, most of them stolen, are the problem. And a criminal who is in possession of a gun is not likely to identify himself or pay a tax on it. So this proposed ordinance does nothing to combat crime and only makes life more difficult and expensive for ordinary citizen
Fr. Fred Ayers

1/21/22, 11:18 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources FW: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 1/20/2022 2:56 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Ted Cahoon
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 8:24 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

If the city of San Jose wants to decrease crime with guns it should prosecute the offenders, not tax lawful citizens.

1/21/22, 11:17 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

FW: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 1/20/2022 2:56 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: Ian Lockwood
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:37 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

Hello,

The proposed Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance sounds like a very bad idea and I am opposed to it. Please do not move forward with this ordinance.

Thank you,
Ian Lockwood

1/21/22, 11:17 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Beth Adams
Thu 1/20/2022 8:03 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

To whom it may concern:

Taxing a gun is an under-handed and unconstitutional act. First of all, the fact that this is a way to try to regi ter gun that have already been legally purcha ed given and/or inherited i fundamentally wrong. We have the right to bear arms. Our forefathers knew and understood the rights, the privilege, and the responsibilities that came with gun ownership. These rights have always been. and should continue to be, for our use in legal hunting provision and personal protection It i not the place of the government to re trict the e right Secondly, to think that of government registry and restriction of firearms as lawful is as ridiculous as asking for registry and restriction of every kitchen knife or fork, every rope or wire every pillow or hand every rock that lie on the ground around you and the very ice that freezes on the ground and trees every year. I say this with all conviction because any one of these items and thousands more can be, and are regularly and easily used to bring bodily and potentially fatal injury to any individual at any given time of availability.

What is trying to be achieved by this ordinance? If it is for a backdoor registry, then be upfront and say that you are purposefully being unconstitutional and want to have your own way, anyhow. If this ordinance is for "the reduction of gun harm", as the Agenda Item 4.1 22-045 is named then begin cracking down and enforcing ILLEGAL u e of the e firearm in tead of removing them from law-abiding citizens that can actually aid reducing motivation for firearm misuse and engagement in crime and injury, just by knowledgeably and responsibly carrying these same firearms you are attempting to remove. We continue to ask much of our Police forces while reducing their effectivene through petty rule ordinance and lack of proper authority to enforce order and law. Removing tools from law-abiding citizens only exacerbates lawlessness.

I urge you to reexamine the fact and your con cience before pu hing thi agenda on your citizens.

1/21/22, 11:17 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/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.

Sincerely,
Be Adm

1/21/22, 11:16 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/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 Vote NO on agenda item 4.1 22 045
Hector Pimienta < >
Fri 1/21/2022 11:05 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>

Good Afternoon,
I, as a California resident, am asking you to vote NO on this unconstitutional ta that is agenda 4.1 22 045. This will make it hard for working class people, such as families, to be able to protect themselves during these uncertain times. In addition, most criminals buy their weapons from the black market.

Vote no on this new ta proposal. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

1/21/22, 4:42 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Gregory, Barbara <
Fri 1/21/2022 6:59 AM
To: Agendadesk <
Thank You

How is our service? Please take our short survey.

From: Joe H <
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:39 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

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

The City, like most urban areas in California, is grappling with an increase in violent crime. But rather than dealing with the criminals who commit those crimes, the City Council instead will seek to impose a tax on registered gun owners that the City knows will be challenged in the courts. Even worse, those ill- gotten taxes will fund a legal defense the City KNOWS it will lose! Yes, they will tax their own residents to pay legal bills associated with taking away the rights of those very same residents.

1/21/22, 4:42 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.

1/21/22, 4:42 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Jan 25 gun tax
City Clerk <
Fri 1/21/2022 1:14 PM
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: tracy ross <
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:56 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Jan 25 gun tax

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
To the Mayor and all City Council members.

These proposed laws are unconstitutional and place financial responsibilities on legal and innocent gun owners. This does nothing to stop criminals.

These local laws violate California Constitution Article 8 and the City will be sued. It’s not your money, so who cares. Not anyone that votes for this.

Lastly no insurance company offers what you are requiring.

Laws like this are the reason why Tesla, HP, Oracle have moved away. You represent all the people. A moral, just, and conscientious Representative of the people would work to protect all their rights.

Taxation without representation mean something to people that know history and little or nothing to people who have not learned from those lessons and are condemned to repeat them.

Sincerely,
Tracy Ross
citizen of San Jose
Voter, worker, tax payer and after seeing proposed laws like this will be more active in my civic duties.

1/21/22, 4:42 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/21/22, 4:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Fri 1/21/2022 1:14 PM
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: <
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:41 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

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

Dear San Jose City Counsel,
Please vote against the upcoming “Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance” which would require a tax on gun owners in the City of San Jose and would require gun owners to carry liability insurance for the following rea on

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

2.) The ordinance is a violation of existing court rulings against laws that tax constitutional rights. 3 ) In urance companie do not i ue policie for firearm liability which mean gun owner would not be able to comply with the law.

4.) The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution on special taxes, Article XIII C Section 2(d)
5 ) If pa ed, legal action will be taken again t the City, and San Jo e re ident will bear the fi cal brunt of a protracted legal battle.

Thank you.

1/21/22, 4:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Fw: Gun tax and Insurance mandate
City Clerk <
Fri 1/21/2022 1:15 PM
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: frank mandarino <
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:14 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun tax and Insurance mandate

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
I am not in favor of you voting yes on these issues. I am law abiding and feel it is wrong to have me support the actions of criminals.

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

1/21/22, 4:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. agree with.
- The City Council is opening the floodgate for corruption, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonprofit to be paid using additional monies from taxpayer dollars in the form of City grants. No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board.

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

- 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

- 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

1/21/22, 4:40 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 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

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

1/21/22, 4:40 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ deeplink?Print 1/2
[External Email]
FW: Mayor's gun ordinance
City Clerk <
Fri 1/21/2022 4:29 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Wallace Gardner
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:53 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Mayor's gun ordinance

I am opposed to the mayor's proposed tax on law abiding gun owners. Private insurance isn't available for such a thing. I am covered for an accidental injury of someone. I am not covered for a criminal act. If any charges are pressed the coverage goes away.

The mayor believes it's just like car insurance. If my car is stolen and someone gets hurt the insurance covers repairs to or replacement of the vehicle. Injuries to innocent third parties aren't covered.

If the insurance proves to be unavailable the mayor wants a tax on law abiding gun owners. All this measure will do is drive the price of legal gun ownership up. That will deprive the middle and lower economic classes of their constitutional right to bear arms. Only the wealthy, their armed body guards, the police and the criminals will have firearms.

The criminal element will resort to importing firearms along with the tons of illegal drugs and other contraband they bring into the country.

The real question is who is responsible for the violence and what is society doing to deal with the motivation for the violence.

We need and education system that prepares people for jobs that allow them to live here. We need discipline in the schools that prevents bullying and isolating children. We need enough police to deal with the ongoing criminal activity and judges who will put the bad guys away. Counseling and education can be dealt with in jails and prisons.

If the root causes of violence aren't dealt with the violence will continue. If firearms aren't available knives, hammers, piano wire & wooden doweling, etc. are available.

The 2013 UN Global report on homicides said most homicides are the result of criminal activity. If you don't want to be a victim don't buy cheap merchandise off the street, don't buy drugs, don't buy sex, don't be involved in anyway with criminal activity. Google homicides. UNODC Global Study On Homicides. North of the Mexican border you are more likely to be killed by other than by a firearm.

Suicides are documented in The National Institute of Mental Health report on 2016. In 2016 there were 44,965 suicides and there were 19,362 homicides. Of the 44,965 suicides 22,963 were committed with a firearm. If you do the math that leaves 22002 done with other. 51% with a firearm and 48.9% done with other.

Once again, if you don't deal with the motivation you won't fix the problem. It is cruel to tell John Doe you're going to save his life by taking away all the firearms because he's not smart enough to figure out how the other 50% did it.

1/21/22, 4:40 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ deeplink?Print 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Respectfully,
Wallace S. Gardner

1/21/22, 8:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 **Proposed Change: 10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee** “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.” - San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals. - The City is creating a law which forces gun owners to financially support a business they may not agree with.

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

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

**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

1/21/22, 8:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 - please pardon the brevity | e-mailing on-the-go -

RVC, RDN
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.

1/21/22, 8:47 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Agenda item 22 045 1 4.1
Christopher Lee <
Fri 1/21/2022 5:00 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

I'm asking all city counsel reps to vote down these unlawful taxes on a constitutional right for the following reasons
1 ) They are overwhelmingly unconstitutional and mandate that lawful gunowners bear the financial responsibility for the misdeeds of criminals.
2 ) The ordinance is a violation of existing court rulings against Jim Crow laws that tax constitutional rights.
3 ) Insurance companies do not issue policies for firearm liability which means gun owners would not be able to comply with the law.
4 ) The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution on special taxes, Article XIII C Section 2(d)
In an effort to uphold the rights laid out in the constitution, these proposals must not be allowed to pass. In a city where crime is on the rise, and the police force is already stretched thin, to place an undue burden on those wishing to protect their homes is atrocious, and would put an undue financial burden on those already dealing with the high cost of living in the county.

I believe of this were to pass, there would be a red wave of conservate backlash at the next election.

The city cannot continue to infringe on rights and tax people to death with no repercussions.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

1/21/22, 8:47 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2

1/21/22, 8:47 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ deeplink?Print 2/2
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.

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

San Jose City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

San Jose City Council
January 25, 2022