Letters from the Public - 5 of 12 — San Jose City Council, January 25, 2022

1/24/22, 9:16 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.

GS2AC EMERGENCY City San Jose Gun Tax Council meeting Jan 25th Agenda item 22- 045 1 4.1
John Major <
Sun 1/23/2022 7:50 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

Dear City Council
I am against a San Jose Gun Tax and Insurance mandate for the following reasons.

1.) They are overwhelmingly unconstuonal and mandate that lawful gun owners bear the f ﬁnancial responsibility for the misdeeds of criminals.

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

3.) The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violaon of the California Constuon on special taxes, Arcle XIII C Secon 2(d)
I believe this tax and insurance policy you are trying to implement will only hurt law abiding gun owners.

Sincerely
John Major

1/2
By Fred Hoot January 20, 2022
GS2AC EMERGENCY City San Jose Gun Tax Council
meeting Jan 25th
gs2ac.com/blogs/2022/01/gs2ac-emergency-city-san-jose-gun-tax-council-meeting-jan-25th/

GS2AC EMERGENCY City San Jose Gun Tax Council meeting Jan 25th Agenda item 22-045 1 4.1

GUN ORDINANCE RETURNED
After months of dawdling the City of San Jose is now going to hear the revised gun tax / gun insurance proposal from Mayor Liccardo.

If you own a gun in San Jose you WILL be required to PAY A TAX and BUY a LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY.

And the program will be run by a non profit slush fund … the city council will have no say on how the fees will be used by the non profit.

EVERYONE MUST make your complaint about this ordinance if we are to have any chance of stopping it.

You can log on to the council meeting via zoom to make your comments known. Or you can submit them via email to the City Clerk. ( if you submit it to the clerk it must be read to council )
Attached is a copy of the revised ordinance.

Here are some bullet points:

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

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

3. The non-profit group set up to manage this ordinance is nothing more than a slush fund.

The proposal specifically states the city can not direct how funds are used by the slush fund.

4. Gun owners cant comply with the ordinance. There are no insurance policies in existence that are available for gun owners to buy.

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

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

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

8. The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution on special taxes, Article XIII C Section 2(d) 2/2
The San José City Council meets Tuesday Jan 25th at 1:30 p.m.

REF: Agenda item
22-045 1 4.1 Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.

If you can not attend the meeting PLEASE SUBMIT an email to the city clerk BEFORE 10AM 1/25:
1) Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the ilegislate application used by City Council and staff. 2) By email to
by 10:00 a.m. the day of the meeting

How to submit written Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
1) Email during the meeting to
identifying the Agenda
Item Number in the email subject line. Comments received will be included as a part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the meeting.

How to provide spoken Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
1) By Phone: (888) 475 4499. Webinar ID is 993 4684 3938. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called.

Alternative phone numbers are: US: +1 (213) 338-8477 or +1 (408) 638-0968 or (877) 853- 5257 (Toll Free)
2) Online at:
https://sanjoseca.zoom.us/j/99346843938
a. Use a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Mute all other audio before speaking. Using multiple devices can cause an audio feedback. b. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
c. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.” Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. d. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.

1/24/22, 9:16 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
T-887.014\1888492_2 Council item 4.1 for 1/25/22
<
Sun 1/23/2022 10:19 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

To: San Jose City Council
Re: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
T-887.014\1888492_2
Council Agenda 1-25-2022
Item # 4.1
Dear Council,
I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed referenced ordinance (copy attached to this e mail) for a verity of reasons. The obvious of which are as follows:

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)
There are approximately 42% of households in California with at least one firearm in them. San Jose has a population of 1,009,340. Assuming an average of 3 individuals per household, that works out to approximately 366,446. 42% of that number is 141,307 homes in San Jose with at least one firearm.

Per the numbers in your Ordinance there is a total of 74 gun related deaths on average per year in Santa Clara Valley (not just San Jose). 28 of which are criminal in nature. (assault/ homicides).

Criminals don't buy insurance or pay fees (tax).

So, you are proposing that 141,307 legal gun owners foot the bill for the 28 criminal activities that could be prevented by either keeping these "news worthy" people in jail instead of cutting them plea deals or early releases or addressing the real issue. Mental Health and crime.

Granted, you can twist any numbers to reverse engineer most any argument into a favorable light.

Most of the data you use in your arguments are published by Anti Gun groups or just state increased risk (not acts). With the tremendous growth in gun ownership in California in the last two years there is

1/24/22, 9:16 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. not a corresponding increase is gun related incidents per your numbers. Sort of "blows" a hole in your argument.

I am a registered Democrat, Vietnam veteran who is a pro 2A supporter. The Second Amendment shall not be infringed. What you propose, in my opinion is nothing but a money grab. There is nothing in this proposal that will reduce violence, it is not the tool one used to commit a criminal offence, it's the person.

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get my drift. Please consider funding Mental Health programs to prevent the suicides and improve your legal system to address the issues at hand instead of "taxing" law abiding citizens.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerly.

Gary M. Foydl

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 1
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE ADDING
PART 6 TO CHAPTER 10.32 OF TITLE 10 OF THE SAN

JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE GUN HARM BY

REQUIRING GUN OWNERS TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN

LIABILITY INSURANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF

ANNUAL GUN HARM REDUCTION FEE

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America affords certain protections to the ownership of firearms; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitutional protections related to firearms ownership are not unlimited, and can be subject to certain types of governmental regulations; and

WHEREAS, a city’s police power includes the power to regulate firearms and many courts throughout the nation have upheld local regulations related to the ownership or possession of firearms; and

WHEREAS, firearm injuries have a significant adverse public health and safety impact nationally, in the State of California, and locally; and

WHEREAS, each year more than 23,000 United States residents die by firearm suicide, 14,000 die by firearm homicide, and nearly 500 die from unintentional firearm injuries; and

WHEREAS, in California, between 2005 and 2015, nearly 4,000 children and teenagers were killed or injured with firearms, and 533 children and teenagers committed suicide with firearms, according to data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; and

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 2
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Public Health Department issued a report on firearm injuries in April 2018. In 2016, 11% of injury deaths were due to firearms injuries. During the period 2007-2016, there were an average of 46 deaths per year due to self-inflicted/suicide from firearms injuries, and an average of 28 deaths per year due to assault/homicide from firearms injuries. Self-inflicted/suicide accounted for the highest percentage of deaths (59%) from firearms injuries, with assault/homicide accounting for 36% of deaths from firearm injuries; and

WHEREAS, the April 2018 Santa Clara County Public Health Department report on firearm injuries reported that during the period from 2010-2014, there were an annual average of 28 emergency department visits and 12 hospitalizations due to unintentional firearms injuries. During 2010-2014, 31% of emergency department visits and 16% of hospitalizations from firearms injuries were due to unintentional shootings; and

WHEREAS, research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2004 found that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home; and

WHEREAS, a 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that access to firearms within the home doubles the risk that family members will become a victim of homicide, and triples the risk of suicide; and

WHEREAS, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020 found that handgun ownership is associated with eight times greater likelihood for firearm suicide among men, and 35 times greater likelihood of firearm suicide among women; and

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 3
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

WHEREAS, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, in homes with guns, suicide rates in children and adolescents and the likelihood of accidental death by shooting are each four times higher than in homes without guns; and

WHEREAS, in the past decade, 40% of the suicides committed by children and teens involved guns, and 90% of these suicides were with guns that the victims accessed at their own homes or from a relative’s home; and

WHEREAS, 58% of shooting deaths in children and teens are homicides, and the risk of homicide is three times higher when there are guns in the home; and

WHEREAS, a June 2014 report published by Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action which analyzed publicly reported gun deaths nation-wide over a one- year period from December 15, 2012 to December 12, 2013, showed that at least 100 children were killed in unintentional shootings, amounting to nearly two each week; and

WHEREAS, according to research published in Social Science and Medicine in 2007 based on data over a three-year study period from 2001 to 2003, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide but not of non-firearm homicide, and this relationship held across gender, age, income and multiple other variables; and

WHEREAS, a study in the Journal of Urban Health conducted in 2015 estimated there are as many as 4.6 million children in the United States living in homes with loaded unsecured guns; and

WHEREAS, injuries from unintentional shootings, which are generally insurable, comprise more than a third of all gun-related injuries nationally; and

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 4
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

WHEREAS, in some instances, gun owners have been successfully sued for harm resulting from the use of the owner’s firearm by themselves or a third party; and

WHEREAS, auto insurers have used risk-adjusted premiums to reward good driving and incentivize use of airbags and other safety features, and by using a comprehensive public health approach to car safety the United States reduced per-mile auto fatalities by nearly 80% from 1967 to 2017; and

WHEREAS, similarly, insurance-based mechanisms can encourage firearm owners to take safety classes, use gun safes, install trigger locks, or utilize chamber-load indicators, and according to 2018 research published in The Actuary there is evidence that some actuaries and insurance companies are recognizing firearm-related risk through their product offerings, pricing and underwriting decisions; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines and Title 21 of the San José Municipal Code (collectively, "CEQA"), the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement has determined that the provisions of this Ordinance do not constitute a project, under File No. PP17-008 (General Procedure & Policy Making resulting in no changes to the physical environment); and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San José is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed and considered the "not a project" determination under CEQA prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 5
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

SECTION 1. Chapter 10.32 of Title 10 of the San José Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a Part to be numbered, entitled and to read as follows:

Part 6
REDUCTION OF GUN HARM – LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENT AND GUN

HARM REDUCTION FEE

10.32.200 Purpose and Findings

A. This Part is passed and adopted in the exercise of the police power of the C ity, and for the protection of the welfare, peace and comfort of the residents of the City of San José . Specifically, it is the intent of this Ordinance to reduce gun harm.

B. Findings:

1. Firearm injuries have a significant adverse public health and safety impact nationally, in the State of California, and locally ; and

2. E ach year more than twenty-three thousand (23,000) United States residents die by firearm suicide, fourteen thousand (14,000) die by firearm homicide, and nearly five hundred (500) die from unintentional firearm injuries; and

3. In California, between 2005 and 2015, nearly four thousand ( 4,000) children and teenagers were killed or injured with firearms, and five hundred thirty-three (533) children and teenagers committed suicide with

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 6
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.
firearms, according to data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; and

4. During 2010-2014 in Santa Clara County , thirty-one percent (31%) of emergency department visits and sixteen percent (16%) of hospitalizations from firearms injuries were due to unintentional shootings; and

5. A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that access to firearms within the home doubles the risk that family members will become a victim of homicide, and triples the risk of suicide ; and

6. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020 found that handgun ownership is associated with eight (8) times greater likelihood for firearm suicide among men, and thirty -five (35) times greater likelihood of firearm suicide among women; and

7. Injuries from unintentional shootings, which are generally insurable, comprise more than a third of all gun -related injuries nationally; and

8. Auto insurers have used risk-adjusted premiums to reward good driving and incentivize use of airbags and other safety features, and by using a comprehensive public health approach to car safety the United States reduced per-mile auto fatalities by nearly eighty percent (80% ) from 1967 to 2017; and

9. Liability insurance can reduce the number of gun incidents by encouraging safer behavior and it can also provide coverage for losses and damages related to gun incidents ; and

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 7
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

10. Programs and services to gun owners and their households can also encourage safer behavior, and provide education and resources to those residents.

10.32.205 Definitions

As used in this Part, the following terms have the following meaning:

A. “Firearm” means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion. Firearm does not include antique firearms as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a).

B. “Designated Nonprofit Organization” means an entity that qualifies as a nonprofit corporation under the federal internal revenue code and is designated pursuant to the City Manager’s authority under Section 10.32.235. No City official or employee shall sit on the board of directors of the Designated Nonprofit Organization.

10.32.210 Liability Insurance Required

A. Insurance required. A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy from an admitted insurer or insurer as defined by the California Insurance Code, 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.

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 8
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

B. For purposes of this Section, a person shall be deemed to be the owner of a Firearm if such Firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff which has jurisdiction in which such Firearm owner resides.

C. Any person who owns a Firearm on the effective date of this Section shall obtain the insurance required by this Section within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Ordinance, or by a later date certain established in the regulations promulgated by City Manager pursuant to Section 10.32.235.

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 F ee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year. The date by which payment shall be made annually shall be established in the regulations promulgated by City Manager pursuant to Section 10.32.235. The annual fee will be set forth in the schedule of fees and charges established by resolution of the City Council.

10.32.220 Expenditure of Gun Harm Reduction Fee

A. All monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee shall be expended by the Designated Nonprofit Organization on providing services to residents of the C ity that own or possess a Firearm in the C ity or to members of their household .

Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the fo llowing:

1. Suicide prevention services or programs;

2. Violence reduction or domestic violence services or programs;

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 9
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

3. Mental health services related to gun violence; or

4. Firearms safety education or training.

B. No portion of the monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee shall be used for litigation, political advocacy, or lobbying activities.

C. The City shall not specifically direct how the monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee are expended.

10.32.225 Exceptions

The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any of the following:

A. Those persons designated as peace officers pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Title 3 of Part 2 of the California Penal Code (§830 et seq.), including sworn peace officers, active reserve peace officers and retired peace officers.

B. Those persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155.

C. Those persons eligible to proceed without paying court fees and costs pursu ant to California Government Code § 68632 (a) and (b).

10.32.230 Compliance

A. Insurance requirement. Each person required to obtain and maintain insurance under Section 10.32.210 shall demonstrate compliance with the insurance

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 10
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.
requirement by completing and executing a City-designated attestation form.

Each such person shall state both the name of the insurance company issuing the policy and the number of the insurance policy on the attestation form, sign the form under penalty of perjury and keep the attestation form with the Firearms where they are being stored or transported. There is no requirement to submit the attestation form to the City. However, each person shall complete and sign a new attestation form under penalty of perjury in the event any of the information on the form changes.

B. Fee provisions. Each person shall affix proof of payment of the annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the attestation form and keep it with the Firearm or Firearms where they are being stored or transported.

10.32.235 Authority of the City Manager

A. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate all regulations necessary to implement the requirements and fulfill the policies of this Part relating to the reduction of gun harm, including, but not limited, to the following subjects:

1. Processes and procedures related to the implementation of the liability insurance requirement, and forms necessary thereto.

2. Designation of the nonprofit organization that will receive the Gun Harm Reduction Fee, any processes and procedures related to the payment of the fee, and any additional guidelines or auditing of the use of the monies from the fee.

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 11
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

3. Designation of any third-party agency and/or organization that will aid in the implementation of the noticing of the requirements of this Part or any other administrative tasks related to the requirements of this Part.

B. Regulations shall be published on the City's website.

C. Regulations promulgated by the City Manager shall have the same force and effect of law. Unless a later date is specified in a regulation, a regulation shall become effective upon date of publication.

10.32.240 Enforcement

A. Any violation of this Part shall be punishable by an administrative citation in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.15 of Title 1 of this Code relating to the issuance of administrative citations, imposing of administrative fines, right to appeal, and the right to an administrative hearing.

B. The amounts of the fines for violations imposed pursuant to this Part shall be set forth in the schedule of fines established by resolution of the C ity Council.

C. A violation of this Part is also enforceable thro ugh all other civil and administrative remedies available to the City.

10.32.245 Impoundment

To the extent allowed by law, the Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 12
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

10.32.250 Fees and Charges

The City Manager is hereby authorized to charge and collect any and all cost recovery fees associated with fulfilling the policies of this Part relating to the reduction of gun harm, including any associated third-party costs. All fees shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees and charges established by resolution of the City Council.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective at the expiration of one hundred eighty (180) days after its adoption.

SECTION 3. Consistent with Section 1.04.160 of the San José Municipal Code, should any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.

NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022

T-887.014.004\1888492_2 13
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or for final document.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION of title this _____ day of ___________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

SAM LICCARDO
Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk

1/24/22, 9:15 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
For the Public Record - VOTE NO - Item 4.1, File # 22-045, 1/25/2022: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
Board of the Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation < Mon 1/24/2022 12:43 AM
To: Agendadesk < 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 <
Cc: Kirk Vartan < < Sonia Chang <
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

City Clerk,
Please include the attached PDF (32 pages) in the public record for the 1/25/2022 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 4.1.

Councilmembers,
We are writing to inform you of our 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. We urge you to VOTE NO on this item.

Please review page 16 for programs proven to be effective against firearms violence.

Thank you,
The Board of the Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation www.SVPAF.org
NOTICE: This email is confidential and is legally privileged to the original recipients only. If you have received it in error or are not the original recipient, you are on notice of its status, please notify the Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation immediately via e-mail ( and then delete this message from your system. Do not copy, print, share, screenshot, forward, fax, discuss, or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person as this could be a violation of local, state, and/or Federal laws. Thank you.

1/24/22, 9:15 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.

FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
January 23, 2022
From:

The Board of the Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation Jonathan Fleming, Executive Director
Kirk Vartan, Vice President
Sonia Chang, Treasurer
5669 Snell Ave #104, San Jose, CA 95123
To:

The City of San Jose, CA

SUBJECT: VOTE NO - Item 4.1, File # 22-045, 1/25/2022: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance Dear San Jose City Council Member,
We are writing to inform you of our 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. We 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 who will be impacted by these proposals. Taxing and isolating a group of people purely based on their decision to embrace an enumerated constitutional right is discriminatory.

Using the comparison of CA car insurance requirements for the privilege of driving a car to justify taxing a constitutional right shows a misunderstanding of the law and is non-applicable. A privilege is something which may be given and taken away at any time and is only available to certain individuals.

Rights are inherent and they belong to every one of us equally by virtue of the fact that we are all human. Our Constitution does not grant us our rights, it protects them because we were born with them. Only by a judgment of the court, after due process of the law can a right be taken from someone.

January 23, 2022 Page 1 of 32

Legal gun owners are not criminals and should not be treated as such. Mitigating gun violence in ourcommunity only works if its underlying causes are addressed. Unfortunately, even the mayor has agreedcriminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates. 1 We want the entire contents of this PDF to be added to the Public Record for 1/25/2022 Item 4.1,including:1. This letter2. Executive Summary3. 12/14/2021 Record of Constructive Notice Public Record Act Request (which went unansweredby the City) San Jose Has Not Honored the Public Records Act and has Unreasonably Delayed Document ViewingThe Office of the California Attorney General states:“When a copy of a record is requested, the agency shall determinewithin ten dayswhether tocomply with the request, and shall promptly inform the requester of its decision and the reasonstherefor. Where necessary, because either the records or the personnel that need to be consultedregarding the records are not readily available,theinitial ten-day period to make adetermination may be extended for up to fourteen days.32If possible, records deemed subjectto disclosure should be provided at the time the determination is made. If immediate disclosure isnot possible, the agency must provide the recordswithin a reasonable period of time, alongwith an estimate of the date that the records will be available.The Public Records Act does notpermit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. Finally, whena written request is denied, it must be denied in writing. ”https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf SVPAF has submitted multiple PRA requests to the City of San Jose and all are incomplete orunanswered. We believe this is to delay and obstruct the inspection of these important records and thatthis is a direct violation of the law as written.1. 9/17/2021 (Incomplete) – all records related to or pertaining to the "Reducing Gun Harm, andthe Public Burdens of Gun Violence" memorandums and proposals(https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4988550&GUID=F74CF741-B937-451C-864C-85A0A98E77B2)2. 12/4/2021 (incomplete) – search for records regarding our organization3. 12/14/2021 Record of Constructive Notice and PRA (Unanswered) – This item was emailed andsubmitted via certified mail to the City of San Jose. It has not been answered, and we have notreceived any written notification via mail as required by law.4. 12/17/2021 (unanswered) – multiple requests were made for the persons and organizationslisted by Mayor Liccardo’s Office as outreach participants in this ordinance.

Creation of a Nonprofit Company with the Power to Collect Revenue from TaxpayersOn January 3, 2022, the Mayor’s Office held a meeting for the incorporation and formation of a newnonprofit that would be setup to receive taxes from firearm owners, be able to receive taxpayer grants,and not have to pay taxes. The meeting was called, “Gun Harm Reduction in San Jose - Nonprofits &Partners Convening Agenda” and started at 11am. 1 https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-19/op-ed-new-gun-control-laws-help-congress January 23, 2022 Page2of32

The proposal stated that current city employees may not sit on the board, but it allows formeremployees that benefit, such as anyone terming out of office, or working for someone terming out ofoffice at the end of the year.

How nice is it to be in a position of power, where you can form a new business and legislate an annualrevenue stream to fund it? This ordinance does just that. If approved, the city council would berequiring a select minority group of people to pay for the Mayor’s special interest corporation, and ifthey do not comply would charge them with a crime. This accounts for an estimated $1.25 – 1.375Million annually, not including additional fees and insurance costs.

This is discriminatory and corrupt. It appears the city council only cares about minority rights, but only ifit serves their special interests.

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 dischargesa 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 thetrigger of a firearm to harm life and/or property, which is already defined as a serious violentcrime.● This type of insurance does not exist and if it did, would be so cost prohibitive that it wouldplace an unconstitutional barrier to the free exercise of the Second Amendment.● Lawmakers are allowed to approve this ordinance without defining the insurance coverage typeand 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 notimpose 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 GunHarm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.”● San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions ofcriminals.● The City is creating a law which forces gun owners to financially support a non-profit corporationwith a mission they may oppose.● The City Council is opening the floodgate for corruption, allowing former City employees to siton the board of this nonprofit to be paid using additional monies from taxpayer dollars in theform of City grants. No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board.● The fee appears to have the ability to increase over time.● Murdockv. Pennsylvania, 319U.S. 105(1943)theSupremeCourtruledthat“sincetheprivilegein question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state [ormunicipal] authority, theinquiryas towhether theState[or Municipality] has givensomethingfor 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 subjectto a due process hearing.”● Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction.

January 23, 2022 Page3of32

● State law only allows for the impoundment of a firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violentmisdemeanors. Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscateand/or impound property.● The ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning acar for justification of these changes:o California state law does not grant peace officers the authority to impound a vehicle onsite for lack of insurance and requires a minimum of six months registration expirationbefore they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)].

SVPAF Meeting with Council Offices and City AttorneyOur organization met with the city attorney, mayor and nine out of ten councilmember’s offices. Theonly councilmember to not hold a meeting with us after multiple requests was Sylvia Arenas’s office(District 8).

Our meeting with the mayor’s office left us with more questions than answers, which we documented inour12/03/2021 emailto Paul Pereira and ChristinaGuimera. Some of the highlights of this meetingincluded:1. The mayor’s office stated the $442 million number was not correct, but then backtracked in alater email.2. The mayor’s office confirmed their research only focused on gun harm and did not focus on gunbenefits.3. We asked the mayor’s office to separate legal law enforcement shootings from the criminalactivities of homicide and assault; their report combined them.a. Placing SJPD, SCCSO, and other law enforcement in that category wrongly insinuatestheir actions as illegal and is unacceptable.4. Keeping SVPAF and all community members informed of related public meeting dates and times,changes to the proposals, and actively engaging all transparently.5. The meeting ended with a promise to share their draft document we reviewed and to meetagain to work together to develop solutions to keep residents of San Jose safer by reducingviolence in the city. (This did not happen) Please Focus on Real Solutions to Stopping Gun ViolenceOur elected officials need to address the criminals who commit violence in our city and the solution tothis problem should not be to punish the innocent law-abiding residents of San José.

According to the California Department of Justice, there are almost 24,000 people on the Armed andProhibited Persons Systems list statewide. Statistically, that includes at least 800 people in the City of SanJose on that list. These are people known to have violent tendencies, yet the city council has donenothing to remove firearms from these people.

There are programs developed by the federal government that have proven successful at reducing gunviolence which the City of San Jose has not implemented. For example, the National Institute of Justicehas researched strategies designed to contain gun violence. These include focused deterrence andtargeting of drug dealers. There is no indication the City of San Jose currently utilizes these strategieseven though they have been used successfully in several cities nationwide.

The city has failed to take advantage of free programs designed to enhance firearm safety. For example,Project Child Safe provides several free services, including gun safety locks.

January 23, 2022 Page4of32

Please look into adopting the following policies to stop gun violence:1. Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the CaliforniaAssembly and Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB1092. Establish the Gun Harm Reduction Commission (GHRC) pilot program with balanced communityrepresentation3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open GovernmentCommittee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"5. Fund attorneys who will prosecute gun crimes in the county6. Hire more police officers7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Fleming Kirk Vartan Sonia ChangExecutive Director Vice President Treasurer January 23, 2022 Page5of32

Executive Summary
January 23, 2022 Page6of32

KEY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES REGARDING1/25/2022ITEM 4.1, FILE # 22-045:“GUN HARM REDUCTION ORDINANCE” SVPAF.org
January 23, 2022 Page7of32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation (SVPAF) recommends the SanJoseCity Council reject Item4.1File#22-045(referredtoas“THEORDINANCE”), scheduledto be presented to the mayor and city council for vote on January 25, 2022. Thisordinance proposal states:
“ANORDINANCE OF THE CITYOFSANJOSEADDINGPART6TOCHAPTER10.32OFTITLE10OFTHESANJOSEMUNICIPALCODE TOREDUCEGUNHARMBYREQUIRINGGUNOWNERSTO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE ANDESTABLISHMENT OF ANNUAL GUN HARM REDUCTION FEE” Alternatively, the Council should refer this SVPAF document proposal to a newcommittee, with balanced community representation, for research, review, andamendment.

Item 4.1 is ill-conceived, irresponsible, and ineﬀective. It ignores empirical evidence,invites years of legal challenges, and further threatenstheﬁnancial stabilityof our city.The residents of San Jose deserve eﬀective programs to reduce ﬁrearms-relatedviolence. Theyexpecttheirelectedoﬃcialstouseempirical data,notemotions,tocreatelegislation. Thisisespeciallycritical asthecityfacesseverebudgetshortfallsandrisingcrime.

KEY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES REGARDING THE ORDINANCE

1. Creates a tax at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution.

2. Unconstitutional to tax a constitutional right (echoes Jim Crow laws).

3. The mayor expects numerous legal challenges which will take years to address.Furthermore, a pending Supreme Court ruling will likely render THE ORDINANCE moot.

4. Gun liability insurance for intentionally causing harm to life or property does not exist andwould be cost prohibitive if it did, blocking the free exercise of a right.

5. The mayor admits criminals will not obey THE ORDINANCE. It will not reduce gun violence, asit aﬀects only law-abiding residents.

6. Does not reduce or prevent suicides or homicides.

7. Based on questionable factoring of costs to the City of San Jose.

8. Omits programs proven to be eﬀective against ﬁrearms violence.

9. Failure to inform and include input from a broad base of the public.

January 23, 2022 Page8of32

1. THE ORDINANCE is in direct violation of the California Constitution regarding taxesimplemented at the local level. The courts have consistently ruled that fees are taxesin this context. 2 Article XIII C Section 2(d) of the California Constitution speciﬁcally prohibits cities fromimplementing special taxes like those mandated in THE ORDINANCE.

It reads, “(d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless anduntil that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by two thirds vote.” THE ORDINANCE proposes the city impose a special tax based only on the vote of the citycouncil.

THE ORDINANCE would create a nonproﬁt to control money collected from law-abiding gunowners. If city council members vote for this ordinance, they will open the ﬂoodgates forcorruption. Former city employees sitting on the board of this nonproﬁt would be paid withmoney collected from taxpayers. No former city employee should ever be allowed to proﬁtthus.

THE ORDINANCE does not deﬁne the Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee and, incredibly, giveslawmakers up to six months after the vote to deﬁne it. 2 M. Harlan. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections(1966) January 23, 2022 Page9of32

2. THE ORDINANCE mimics Jim Crow-type laws in taxing a Constitutional right and runsthe risk of violating recent rulings regarding warrantless searches.

The 24th Amendment to the Constitution states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary orother election for President or Vice President, for electors forPresident or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative inCongress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States orany State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, explained: “[A] state violates the EqualProtection Clause…whenever it makes the aﬄuence of the voter or payment of any fee anelectoral standard. Voter qualiﬁcations have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not payingthis or any other tax.” 3 Since then, the courts have ruled that governmental agencies may not assign a fee or tax toany right guaranteed by the Constitution.

THE ORDINANCE places a ﬁnancial burden on any person who wishes to exercise theconstitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. THE ORDINANCE makes theaﬄuence of the gun owner an issue when exercising the right to keep and bear arms in the cityof San Jose. 4 The Supreme Court struck down a local ordinance that required solicitors to obtain a licenseand pay a fee, ﬁnding it infringed on the First Amendment right of free speech. 5 In Caniglia v Strom, the Supreme Court ruled strongly against warrantless searches andseizures in someone’s home by the police. 4 It remainsto be seen how the city will try to
6 enforce compliance with this law without resorting to such searches and seizures.

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment so as to protect this rightfrom municipal infringement. 6 Caniglia v Strom SCOTUS 953F3D.112
5 Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
4 NY State Riﬂe and Pistol Assn v Bruel. Amicus briefby the National African American Gun Owners Assn. Inc. 3 M. Harlan. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections(1966).

January 23, 2022 Page10of32

3. The mayor expects numerous legal challenges which will take years to address.Furthermore, a pending Supreme Court ruling will likely render THE ORDINANCEmoot.

The city has already received notice from civil rights organizations of their intention to challengethe ordinance if it is passed. This includes GunOwners of California, Firearms Policy Council, 7 8
Second Amendment Foundation, California Riﬂe and Pistol Association, and NRA, to name afew. The last time the City of San Jose was embroiled in this kind of legal scandal, it wasbogged down for more than ﬁve years in court. The city will be forced to use resources thatcould be applied to other needs such as Covid-19 vaccinations, housing for the homeless, andemergency services.

On Nov. 3, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the case NewYork State Riﬂe & Pistol Association v. Keith Corlett, No. 20-843. NYPPA v Corlett hinges onwhether laws regarding the Second Amendment are subject to strict scrutiny.

According to The New York Times, “The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against a NewYork law that imposes strict limits on who can carry guns in public, which could radicallyreshape the nation’s relationship with guns." The New York Times went on to note this wouldlikely undo most California gun restrictions. 9 9
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/supreme-court-gun-case-california.html 8 https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/san-jose-mayor-proposes-constitutionally-questionable-gun-control-eﬀort 7 https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/National-Gun-Rights-Group-Threatens-To-Sue-City-16315602.php January 23, 2022 Page11of32

4. Gun liability insurance for intentionally causing harm to life or property does not existand would be cost prohibitive if it did, blocking the free exercise of a right.

The mayor asserts this program is viable because ﬁrearm owners will only have to purchase aliability insurance policy, however he has yet to identify even one insurance carrier that oﬀersﬁrearms liability policies against suicides or homicides. Our independent research withnumerous major carriers has yet to reveal even one that will oﬀer the type of liability coverageTHE ORDINANCE has proposed.

Lockton Aﬃnity is the industry leader in insurance policies for gun owners; even they do notoﬀer such a policy. Our research indicates merely asking about the availability of suchcoverage could jeopardize the insured’s existing property and casualty coverage.

The challenge with ﬁnding such coverage revolves around two issues. First is the problem of"moral hazard." Liability insurance exists. It is oﬀered to protect the policy holder from acts of negligence orerror. These policies do not protect against illegal or intentional acts, nor do they protect athird party.

The kind of policy being proposed is intended to protect a third party based on an intentional oreven criminal act. This creates the problem of moral hazard. Moral hazard is the lack ofincentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences. In sum, theexistence of this kind of insurance subsidizes the person's ability to engage in the hazardousactivity. Coverage for a moral hazard creates an incentive to engage in hazardous behavior.Insurance carriers will not oﬀer the kind of policy proposed for this reason. 10 The second problem is that of regulation. Each state regulates what kind of policies are legal inthat jurisdiction. Even if a carrier could be found that would be willing to oﬀer liability coverageof this type payable to a third party, that policy would ﬁrst have to be reviewed and approvedby the California Department of Insurance.

Lastly, if the type of liability insurance required was to be found, it would likely be prohibitivelyexpensive. This blocks the ability of the individual to freely exercise their constitutional right. 10 Kochenburger, Peter, "Liability Insurance and GunViolence" (2014).Faculty Articles and Papers. 226.hpps://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/226 January 23, 2022 Page12of32

5. The mayor admits criminals will not obey THE ORDINANCE. It will not reduce gunviolence, as it aﬀects only law-abiding residents. “Critics say that criminals won’t obey insurance orfeemandates — and they are right.” 11 - Mayor Sam Liccardo
“I get what they are trying to do, but it really getsback to the factthat if the city, county, and state would actually enforce existinggun laws-there would be a drastic reduction in gun violence andinjury.” 12 - Dave Tindall, former San Jose ActingChief of Police and Deputy Chief of Police The report “Gun Violence Prevention Strategy: Focused Deterrence” from the National Instituteof Justice states:
…concentrating enforcement on persons who repeatedly commit violent oﬀenses inhot spots of violent crime can be highly eﬀective in reducing gun violence.Researchers call this practice “focused deterrence” ...focusing on drug dealing alsoreduces gun violence, based on data that appear to show that the two are closelyintertwined. 13 Clearly, the mayor understands the proposed insurance and tax will not stop someone fromintentionally engaging in ﬁrearms-related violence. THE ORDINANCE is an emotional responseto horriﬁc tragedies. It ignores empirical data pointing to the true causes of ﬁrearms misuse:criminals breaking the law, mental illness and the criminal drug trade. Remember, the case ofthe Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter who bought his riﬂe in Arizona and brought it into Californiaillegally . 14 In spite of these facts, the proponents of THE ORDINANCE are choosing to place the burden ofﬁrearms misuse on an innocent third-party, law-abiding gun owners. 14 https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/us/gilroy-california-food-festival-shooting-monday/index.html 13 https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-prevention-strategy-focused-deterrence 12 EMAIL: from David Tindall to Steve Donohue, PaulJoseph and Anthony Mata dated 6/3/21. SUBJ: RE: Gun HarmReduction Memo and Workload Assessment. 11 https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-19/op-ed-new-gun-control-laws-help-congress January 23, 2022 Page13of32

6. Even if insurance such as that mandated in this ordinance existed, it would confer nopublic safety beneﬁt. The Pew Research Center reported that 97% of ﬁrearms relateddeaths are suicides or homicides. 15 Liability insurance for ﬁrearms owners covers the value of the ﬁrearm in case of theft. It doesnot cover costs associated with the intentional misuse of a ﬁrearm, whether in a homicide orsuicide.

THE ORDINANCE does not require the taxes collected to be spent on services for theprevention and/or reduction of suicide. Instead it states the nonproﬁt may use tax dollars incertain categories, but are not limited to them.

THE ORDINANCE does not make any reference of any kind to homicide prevention orreduction.

SVPAF recommends the city address root causes of homicides and suicides and implementthe items found in Section 8 of this document. 15 John Gramlich, "What the data says about gun deathsin the U.S." PEW Research Center Aug 16 2019https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ January 23, 2022 Page14of32

7. The Paciﬁc for Institute Research and Evaluation (PIRE) includes questionablefactoring of costs to San Jose.

PIRE claims the cost of ﬁrearms-related violence to the city is over $442 million. This is anexaggeration. The number is based on a draft study attributing 74% of this supposed cost to"loss of quality of life." The study deﬁnes "quality of life" as lost wages or lost earnings. Suchnumbers appear speculative and open to misrepresentation.

The study does not balance "quality of life" against the beneﬁts from the defensive use ofﬁrearms. Even based on the lowest estimates of ﬁrearms used defensively, the Centers forDisease Control (CDC) determined these numbers balance out. The CDC completed a study in2013 regarding the defensive use of ﬁrearms which was not published after being completed.That study included the following data:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are atleast as common as oﬀensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses rangingfrom about 500,000 to more than 3 million...

Studies that directly assessed the eﬀect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e.,incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking orthreatening an oﬀender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-usingcrime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. 16 PIRE lumps justiﬁable homicides, such as those involving police oﬃcers, in with all otherﬁrearms-related deaths. This is misleading. This is an insult to the San Jose Police Department,which has been understaﬀed and undercompensated for years.

The mayor engaged an academic known for gun control advocacy that resulted in ﬂawed andbiased statistics which became the basis for THE ORDINANCE. The mayor and proposingcouncil members did not put the research contract out for bid for a balanced look at the realnumbers. 16 Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-RelatedViolence pg. 15-16http://nap.edu/download/18319 January 23, 2022 Page15of32

8. Omits programs proven to be eﬀective against ﬁrearms violence.

If the council is truly interested in reducing the prospect of gun violence there are several thingsthey can do right now that are eﬀective and would not encumber law abiding citizens.

For example, the state of California maintains a list of people who are prohibited from owningﬁrearms. That list includes people known to be in possession of ﬁrearms, in violation of the law.This needs to be addressed immediately.

The CA Armed and Prohibited Persons Systems (APPS) database cross-references ﬁrearmspurchasers against other records for individuals who are prohibited from possessing ﬁrearms.According to the California Department of Justice, there are almost 24,000 people on the APPSlist statewide. Statistically, that includes at least 800 people in the City of San Jose on that list.These are people known to have violent tendencies, yet the city council has done nothing toremove ﬁrearms from these people. 17 There are programs developed by the federal government that have proven successful atreducing gun violence which the City of San Jose has not implemented. For example, theNational Institute of Justice has researched strategies designed to contain gun violence. Theseinclude focused deterrence and targeting of drug dealers. There is no indication the City of SanJose currently utilizes these strategies even though they have been used successfully in severalcities nationwide. 18 The city has failed to take advantage of free programs designed to enhance ﬁrearm safety. Forexample, Project Child Safe provides several free services, including gun safety locks. 19 Additionally, the city council should:

1. Write and approve an amicus curia resolution to send to the California Assemblyand Senate to repeal Propositions 47, 57, and AB109

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

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

4. Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and OpenGovernment 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 19 https://projectchildsafe.org/parents-and-gun-owners
18 https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-prevention-strategy-focused-deterrence 17 https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-department-justice-releases-2020-armed-and-prohibited-persons-system January 23, 2022 Page16of32

9. Failure to include input from a broad range of the public outside of council meetings.This violates the principle of robust open government.

The City of San Jose has not sought broad public input to THE ORDINANCE outside of citycouncil meetings.

At the June 29, 2021, city council meeting, Council Member Dev Davis commented she wasconcerned THE ORDINANCE lacked input from any Second Amendment advocacy groups.She named several, including the Second Amendment Foundation, California Riﬂe and PistolAssociation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Gun Owners of California. Mayor Liccardoasked her to repeat the organization names to ensure the city could be sure to reach out tothem.

On August 26, 2021, San Jose Spotlight hosted an expert panel on gun policy. The intended 20 members of the panel were Mayor Sam Liccardo, a representative from Moms Demand Action,a family member of a victim of the VTA shooting, and local community activist and SecondAmendment supporter Kirk Vartan. While this event was supposed to take place in July 2021, itwas delayed in good faith to accommodate the mayor’s schedule. A month later, both themayor and Moms Demand Action declined to participate. Since 2016, Vartan has asked foropen and collaborative discussions on gun issues, even directly asking Mayor Liccardo, writingOpEds, and speaking to the entire city council. It was disappointing the mayor didn’t want toopenly discuss his ideas. 21 22 23
Chapter 12.21 of the San Jose Municipal Code deals speciﬁcally with Open Government.Section 12.21.010 – A states, “The City is committed to open and honest government andstrives to meet the community’s expectations consistently by providing excellent services, in apositive and timely manner, and in the full view of the public.” 24 Despite numerous attempts by SVPAF to meet with the mayor's oﬃce, it took over 5 months toestablish contact and schedule a meeting.

The city’s untimely and incomplete responses to SVPAF’s Public Records Act requests areunacceptable. We had to independently verify that neither the mayor’s oﬃce nor city staﬀcontacted all of the organizations Council Member Davis listed on June 29, 2021. Apparently,they also failed to reach out to local gun stores, shooting ranges, or any clubs andorganizations in Santa Clara County, such as the Golden State Second Amendment Council(GS2AC).

The proponents of THE ORDINANCE have only solicited input from those lobbying forrestrictive gun legislation. They have not made good-faith eﬀorts to consider a broad range ofviewpoints in full transparency. An ordinance that would aﬀect residents in all ten San Josedistricts should be preceded by extensive community engagement long before it is presentedto city council for vote. 24 Open Government Ordinance in San Jose Municipal Codehttps://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12117/636666010443800000 23 https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-leaders-approve-safe-gun-storage-law/ 22 https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-mayor-renews-push-for-gun-control-after-mass-shooting/ 21 https://sanjosespotlight.com/vartan-silicon-valley-needs-a-public-discussion-on-guns/ 20 https://sanjosespotlight.com/event/common-ground-gun-policy-in-silicon-valley/ January 23, 2022 Page17of32

Recommendation
THE ORDINANCE isfatallyﬂawed. Itsﬁnancial justiﬁcationsarequestionable. It wouldtriggernumerous lawsuits. It will not reduce criminal behavior that drives almost all costsrelatedtogun violence. It does not address the drug trade, mental healthproblems, or drugaddiction.THE ORDINANCE assumes the availability of liability insurance that has yet tobefoundandplaces restrictions on the free exercise of our rights.

There are steps the city can and should take to tackle problematicbehavior aroundﬁrearmsandviolenceinSanJose. Weencouragethemayor andcouncil memberstopursuestrategiesthat havealreadyprovensuccessful inother jurisdictions, includingthoselistedinSection8ofthis document. Data-driven solutions produce results, withtheleast amount of moneyandinthe shortest amount of time.

The San Jose City Council should reject Item4.1File#22-045at the1/25/2022councilmeeting. Failing that, they should refer Item4.1 to a newgroup composed of thebroadest possible range of stakeholders. A Gun HarmReduction Commission, formed withbalancedcommunityrepresentation,couldhelpthecitycouncil toaddressweaknessesofTHEORDINANCE and arrive at solutions that address the problems it is purported to solve.

January 23, 2022 Page18of32

12/14/2021Record ofConstructive Notice
January 23, 2022 Page19of32

December 14, 2021
From: The Board of the Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation To: San Jose City Attorney Nora FrimannCC: Jennifer Maguire, Toni Taber, Jessica Lowry Via email and USPS Certified Mail
Re: Record of Constructive Notice: Gun Harm Reduction Proposals San Jose City Attorney Frimann,
This document serves as a record of constructive notice. It is in response to the June 16, 2021memorandumentitled, “Reducing Gun Harm, and the Public Burdens of GunViolence” andall effortsrelated to it. Community outreach has been almost nonexistent for lawproposals of this magnitude,therehavebeennopublic communitymeetingsontheseproposalstoourknowledge,andcollaborationefforts have been one-sided thus far.

Wehaverequestedmultiplepublic records andmet withtheMayor’s staff onDecember 3, 2021. Thismeetingshedlight onmultiplepieces of newinformationwhichwerewithheldfromthepublicrecordsrequest.

Weareconcernedthat theseproposals openthedoortofundamentallychangingoursocietyfromataxfundedcommunitydemocracytoapay-as-you-usesystemof government that is inequitableandtreatsresidents unequally.

There are many unanswered questions pertaining to the proposals, andoneof thepurposes of thisnotice is torequest theCityAttorney’s Officetoseekthoseanswers, weightheconstitutionalityandlegality of each one of these proposals, andrespondtous andtothepublic withanswers toall thequestionsinthisdocumentbecausetheyarenecessaryandrequiredforthepublictounderstandwhatis being voted upon and how these proposals will impact all of us.

Our initial email to the Mayor’s Office went unansweredfor almost threemonths, allegedlywent intospam even though the same email was received and responded to by other councilmember offices.

TheMayor’s Officehas performedoutreachto30ormoreorganizationsonthistopic,yetonlyahandfulwere included in the public records.

We contacted some of the groups listed by the Mayor’s Office and they said they had zerocommunication with them.

January 23, 2022 Page20of32

We want tomakeour citysafer byreducingviolence. Wewant tocreateaninclusiveandcollaborativeenvironment which allows for all stakeholders in the community to hear the issues, understand theapproach, andbepart of thesolution.Webelieveinevidenced-basedsolutionsthattelltheentirestory,not just a single point of view.

TheTedMiller PhDdatais one-sidedandwasdonesointentionallyastheyweredirectedtoonlylookatgun harmstatistics. It is the consensus of our diverse board that this current course of actionis nottrying to solve the problems of violence and illegal firearmusage in our city and is instead trying tojustify a predetermined political agenda.

The belowquestions are taken froma letter we submitted to the Mayor’s Office on December 12,2021. This letter was submittedtoallmembersoftheCityCouncilonDecember13,2021. Theyweredirectedat theMayor’s Office, butforthepurposeofthisletterpleaseanswerthemfromthepointofview of the City of San Jose.

Questions for the Record of Public Notice: Reducing Gun Harm/Violence in San JoseThrough the public records request we made, the proposals themselves, thememorandums fromtheMayor, and the meeting weattended, thepublic shouldhaveenoughdatatounderstandexactlywhatyou are proposing; however, we do not. There are many unanswered questions and legal points ofexplanation which need to be addressed. These categories include, but are not limited to:

1. General2. The Proposed Ordinances3. Ted Miller PhD Data4. City Staff Involvement5. Community Outreach and Involvement6. Third Party Non-Neighborhood Association Organizations and Involvement7. Expectation of Legal Costs General1. Christina and Paul informed us that only gun harm was looked at and not gun benefits.a. Howcanabalancedproposalbebroughtbeforecouncilifbothsidesarenotequallyevaluated?b. Why has the city not looked at the benefits of gun ownership in San Jose?c. When will the city be researching the benefits of gun ownership in San Jose? The Proposed Ordinances1. By enacting these ordinances, what are you tryingtoachieve?Youhavestatedtheselawswill not reduce mass shootings, especially considering the fact that violations of theseproposals (if they become law) would result in infractions, or in the most severe cases,non-violent misdemeanors?a. Please include specific outcomes you are hoping to achieve.b. How much money will these ordinances cost per year?c. What is the total offset through gun owner fees you expect to collect?d. How is success measured by these proposals? January 23, 2022 Page21of32

2. If the proposed ordinances do not evince an improvement in gun violence and gunharmreduction, is there a sunset requirement for each one individually or collectively?a. If so, what are the requirements for sunset?b. When would the laws sunset?3. The Ordinance Proposals:a. REDUCING GUN HARM, AND THE PUBLIC BURDENS OF GUN VIOLENCEi. GUN OWNERS MUST PAY AN ANNUAL FEE (TAX)1. When someone pays a fee they are purchasing something. Anexamplemayincludetheabilitytocross abridge. Whatexactlyaregun owners purchasing when they pay the fee?2. What is the amount of the fee?3. You reference Seattle, WA in your Washington Post article, wheretheyhaveimplementedaguntax/feesimilar toyour proposal. Itisdone at the point of sale (POS), as a one-time fee.a. Is the proposed SJ fee a POS one-time fee, or a yearlyrecurring fee?b. Is the SJ fee per firearm or per transaction?c. Is this a permit-type systemthat has to be done with theSJPD directly, or via the gun store?4. Is the fee locked in or will it increase yearly?5. Is the fee per firearm or per firearm owner?6. Will all persons in the household, including but not limited tochildren, parents, roommates, and housemates of the firearmowner, be required to pay the fee?7. Will visitors of firearmowners berequiredtopayafee/taxtovisitahome where a firearm is present?8. Will renters of firearm owners who do not own a firearm berequired to pay a fee to rent aroomwhereafirearmis present inthe home?9. Will owners of homes, landlords and/orpropertymanagersthatarerenting rooms need to inquire and validate if a renter owns afirearm, and if they do, verify their tenant has paid their fee?a. Additionally will the owners of homes, landlords and/orpropertymanagers, berequiredtopayafeeforthemselvessince they have access to the home?b. If afirearmis present andtheydonotknow,aretheynowacriminal or required to pay a penalty fee?c. Will thebusiness berequiredtosharefeeinformationwiththe City?i. If so, howdotheyprotect thesensitiveinformationfrom becoming a gun registry with a governmentorganization?d. Please answer the same above questions for tenants whosublease.10. Will businesses who employ persons with firearms be required topay a fee?a. If so, is the fee per employee with a firearm?b. Will thebusiness berequiredtosharefeeinformationwiththe City? January 23, 2022 Page22of32

i. If so, howdotheyprotect thesensitiveinformationfrom becoming a gun registry with a governmentorganization?11. Some legal firearms do not have serial numbers such as smoothbore black powder rifles, muskets, andantiques. Aretheyexemptfrom this requirement?12. What types of firearms must pay a fee?a. What about pellet and BB guns?13. If aresident does not renewtheir permit, will thecitysendSJPDtotheperson’s residencetoconfiscatetheirfirearms,arrestthem(andpossiblyfamilymembers),andchargethemwithmisdemeanorsandfines?14. Where will the fee revenue be stored?a. If revenues are held inaninterimsegregatedaccount untillegal challenges are complete, where will the funds beplaced after?b. Whatoversightwillexistinmonitoringtheaccount,howitisspent, and publishing that to the public?i. Who will be providing this oversight?15. Will the fees be eligible for transfer into the general fund?16. Will vendors at firearm events at private or county facilities berequired to pay a fee to do business?a. How will this be accomplished?17. Will privateor countyfacilities wherefirearms aresoldberequiredto pay a fee to do business?a. How will this be accomplished?ii. GUNOWNERS MUST PURCHASE GUNINSURANCEFORCRIMESTHEYHAVENOT AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL COMMIT1. What type of insurance will be required and what will be theminimum policy coverage amount?a. Mayor Liccardo stated, “insurance coverage forunintentional firearm-related death, injury, or propertydamage.”b. Toour knowledge, noinsurancecompanyoffersthistypeofcoverage.c. What yearly total policy price limit would be deemedacceptable for the firearm owner?d. If thecost of thepolicyisprohibitivelyorillegallyexpensive,will the city subsidize these insurance costs or waive therequirement altogether?2. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319U.S. 105(1943) establishedthat thegovernment may not imposeachargefor theenjoyment of arightprotected by the federal constitution. The fact that the ordinancewas imposed indiscriminately does not save it from beingunconstitutional. Additionally, since the privilege in question isguaranteedbytheFederal Constitution,andexistsindependentlyofstate [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the Statehas given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.a. How is this ordinance proposal constitutional? January 23, 2022 Page23of32

3. Mayor Liccardo wrote in the Washington Post, “Of course, “thecrooks” won’t pay a fee or buy insurance; only law-abiding gunowners would.”a. If theMayor knows criminals will not followthis ordinance,then he is intentionally targeting law abiding residents.Why?4. Insurancecompaniesdemandallpropertyisregisteredwiththemtoqualifyfor protection. MayorLiccardolikensthisrequirementtocarinsurance, althoughcomparingaright toaprivilegeis incorrect,forthe sake of this discussion, we will also incorrectly use a carinsurance example: One driver owns three cars and the insurancecompanyrequires theVINnumber for all threecarsonthepolicytoprovide coverage.a. Is it constitutional and/or lawful to require gun owners toregister and declare every firearm they own with theinsurance company, especially when that data is to beshared with the city?b. Will declaring every firearm owned by a resident be arequirement the city is enforcing?i. If so, how is this different from firearm registration?5. Will all persons in the household, including but not limited tochildren, parents, roommates, and housemates of the firearmowner, be required to purchase insurance or be named on theinsurance policy (policies)?6. Will visitors of firearm owners be required to purchase insuranceand/or be listed on an insurance policy to visit a home where afirearm is present?7. Will renters of firearm owners who do not own a firearm berequired to purchase insurance and/or be listed on an insurancepolicy to rent a room where a firearm is present in the home?8. Will owners of homes, landlords and/orpropertymanagersthatarerenting rooms need to inquire and validate if a renter owns afirearm, and if they do, verify their tenant has insurance?a. Additionally will the owners of homes, landlords and/orproperty managers, be required to pay for insurance forthemselves since they have access to the home?b. If afirearmis present andtheydonotknow,aretheynowacriminal or required to pay a penalty fee?c. Willthebusinessberequiredtoshareinsuranceinformationwith the City?i. If so, howdotheyprotect thesensitiveinformationfrom becoming a gun registry with a governmentorganization?d. Please answer the same above questions for tenants whosublease.9. Will businesses who employ persons with firearms be required topurchase firearm insurance?a. If so, is the insurance policy per employee with a firearm?b. Will the business be required to share this policyinformation with the City? January 23, 2022 Page24of32

i. If so, howdotheyprotect thesensitiveinformationfrom becoming a gun registry with a governmentorganization?10. Will persons lawfully transporting firearms through San Jose berequired to purchase insurance and/or pay the fee?11. Will vendors at firearm events at private or county facilities berequired to obtain this new insurance and/or pay a fee?12. Will privateor countyfacilities wherefirearms aresoldberequiredto pay a fee to do business?a. How will this be accomplished?13. There are too many scenarios to ask about where the insurancemoney will go and how it will be administered. Maybe that is aseparate discussion. Having the government involved in insurancepayouts andmoneymanagementopensthedoorforcorruptionandabuse.14. What types of firearms must be covered?15. Do other deadly weapons need to have insurance as well?a. Examples include but are not limited to knives, bows,slingshots, potato launchers, cars, etc.16. Some legal firearms do not have serial numbers such as smoothbore black powder rifles, muskets, andantiques. Aretheyexemptfrom this requirement?17. If a resident does not renewthis specific insurancepolicy, will thecitysendSJPDtotheperson’sresidencetoconfiscatetheirfirearms,arrest them(and possibly family members), andchargethemwithmisdemeanors and fines?iii. GUN SEIZURE FOR NON COMPLIANCE WITH FEE TAX AND INSURANCEMANDATE (1.1 & 1.2)1. This is unconstitutional, illegal under California law, andunenforceable because noncompliance is a municipal infractionand/or at worst a non-violent misdemeanor.2. A gun cannot be taken away from a legal CA gun owner unless:a. They have been convicted of a felonyb. There is a court order by a judge or court commissionerc. Theyhavebeenconvictedof, or haveacurrent warrantfor,one of 40 very specific misdemeanors inviolationof PenalCode 29805 PC.3. How is this ordinance proposal legal?iv. GHOST GUN DEFINITION CHANGE1. Ghost guns are already illegal in the state of California.2. The proposed ordinance reads, “ensure that the definition of“firearm” under the ordinance includes unfinished frames andreceivers commonly sold as do-it-yourself guns and/or assembledafter downloading and 3D printing.”a. An unfinished frame and/or receiver is a pieceof metal orplastic. It could be a piece of aluminum billet, or thefilament spool of a 3D printer.b. What constitutes anunfinishedframeinthisnewmunicipallegal definition? January 23, 2022 Page25of32

c. What constitutes an unfinished receiver in this newmunicipal legal definition?d. The state and federal government already provide legaldefinitions for frames and receivers.i. What is the city’s new definition of frame?ii. What is the city’s new definition of receiver?iii. Howis the city qualified tofurther alter theabovedefinitions?b. GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER ON-SITE GUN CONFISCATIONi. We agree with improving communication about GVRO’s with victims ofdomestic violence, better outreach about GVRO’s inmultiplelanguages oncity properties, enhancing the sanction for violating a GVRO from amisdemeanor to afelony, andupdatingpolicetrainingprotocols pertainingto new changes to state law pertaining to DVRO’s.ii. Wedonot believeit is inthebestinterestofpublicsafetyforpoliceofficersto file this paperworkonbehalf of thevictim. Theapplicationtakes aboutan hour to fill out and our city cannot afford to take police officers orcommunityserviceofficersoffthestreetforthisamountoftimewhileothercrimes are occurring. SJPD can already issue a restraining order on sitewhichpreventscontactwiththevictim,givingthevictimtimetofillouttheirGVRO and submit it to the court.iii. The District Attorney’s Office should not havethepower tofileGVRO’s onbehalf of anyone but themselves.c. “ASSAULT” WEAPONS BANi. OnJune4,2021,theU.S.DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofCaliforniaruled the California assault weapons ban (Roberti–Roos Assault WeaponsControl Act of 1989[AWCA]) tobeunconstitutionalandissuedapermanentinjunction against enforcing provisions of the law with a 30 day stat.1. This is ongoinglitigationandis currentlybeingappealedinMillerv.Bonta.a. If the appeal by Bonta fails, how is passing this law legal?b. Is it inthebest interest of theCity, includingstaff timeandtaxpayer money, to wait until the appeal is heard andfinalized before proceeding?i. Duringthestayandaboveappeal,Californiaalreadyhas an assault weapons registration system.Creating more laws may interfere with and/orcreate problems for law enforcement and thepublic.ii. Howmuch money is thecitywillingtospendtofight thelegal battles thatwill ensue?d. GHOST GUNS1. Ghost guns are already illegal in the state of California.2. CA allows residents who can legally own a gun to build their ownfirearms as long as theypass abackgroundcheck, buildtheguntotherequiredsafetyspecifications, applyfor aserialnumberpriortomanufacture, and permanently place (engrave/stamp) the serialnumber on their home built gun.a. You can read the requirements here3. Does this ordinance proposal change the above CA law? January 23, 2022 Page26of32

4. If it does change the above CA law, it turns a constitutionallyprotected right into something that is illegal. How do you justifythis?5. Will all parts for firearms be banned fromSan Jose if they donotcontain traceable serial numbers?a. Example: afirearmspringbreaks andneeds tobereplaced.Is the firearm owner allowed to purchase the spring andhave it shipped to their home to maintain their property?b. Example 2: a firearmbarrel is wornout duetonormal useand needs tobereplaced. Is thefirearmowner allowedtopurchase the barrel and have it shipped to their home tomaintain their property?c. Example 3: a firearm owner wishes to upgrade theirproperty with new sights, barrel, grips, slide, trigger, boltcarrier group, magazine release, and other parts incompliance with existing CA state laws. Is the firearmowner allowed to purchasetheseupgrades andhavethemshipped to their home to upgrade their property?6. Trying to create new laws where there are already laws in placecreates confusion and problems. Unregistered “ghost guns” arealready illegal.e. VIDEOTAPING TRANSACTIONS TO PREVENT STRAW PURCHASES AND SUICIDEPREVENTIONi. An illegal firearmstrawpurchaseis alreadyafederal crimeandcanbringafelony conviction withasentenceof tenyears inprisonandafineof upto$250,000.ii. If strawpurchases are already illegal, why are we duplicating this lawandlevying excessive and expensive requirements and fees on firearmbusinesses in the city?1. Causing additional costs for thegunshops makes purchasingagunmore expensive, discriminating against the residents in ourcommunity that are financially strained.2. Does the city believe the crime problems in our city stem fromindividuals that are legally purchasing firearms at stores at retailpricing?a. If so, please provide proof of this data that shows this viaserial number tracing and/or all other methods.f. AMMUNITION RESTRICTIONS: PERMITS, FINGERPRINTING, AND MOREi. OnApril 22,2021U.S.DistrictJudgeRogerBenitezruled,“California’s[2016]new ammunition background check law misfires and the SecondAmendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured.” Thelaw’s regulations andstatedatabaseerrors madeitimpossibleforhundredsof thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition.ii. If thelawisdeemedunconstitutionalbyJudgeBenitez,whyisthecitytryingto pass an illegal law?iii. How does the city justify this proposal being legal?iv. California already has significant restrictions for ammunition purchases.1. Does the city believe the crime problems in our city stem fromindividuals that arelegallypurchasingammunitionatstoresatretailpricing? January 23, 2022 Page27of32

2. This will open up legal challenges and unnecessary costs, with noreal benefit or return on a law like this.3. Does the city have evidence that shows ammunition purchasedatstores is responsible for crimes in our city?a. If so, please provide proof of this data and how it wasobtained.v. What is the purpose of fingerprinting a buyer for ammunition purchase?1. Where is the fingerprint stored and for how long?2. With identitytheft prevalent, whois responsiblefor thesecurityofthis fingerprint?3. Will thecitycompensatevictims if/whentheir fingerprintisusedtosteal their identity?a. If not, who is the responsible party?g. “LOOKING OUT FOR ONE ANOTHER”i. A public campaign to encourage the appropriate notification to mentalhealth or law enforcement authorities of threats of violence, planning orpreparatory steps to commit violence, or apparent fascination with prioracts of violence, is astepwebelieveall communitymembers cansupport.We strongly encourage caution withtheimplementationof this topreventneighbors from informing on each other in retaliation for minor civildisputes.ii. What steps will be taken to avoid Gestapo-like “informing?”h. MORE FREQUENT GUN "BUY-BACK" PROGRAMSi. Several studies over theyears haveexaminedtheweaponsretrievedduringgun “buy-backs” and the level of gun violence in the months after theevents. Most reached the same conclusion: The guns collected usuallyaren't thetypeusedincrimes,andtheimpactofthebuybacksoncrimewas"not statisticallysignificant." Afewresearchers believebuybacks mayevendosomeharm: A1999articleintheLawandOrderjournalfoundthatsomepeoplesoldguns topoliceduringbuybacksandthenusedthemoneytobuynew guns.ii. Why waste staff time and money on an effort that does not work?iii. This is another examplewherethe“and” approachis problematic. Thecityhas limited capacity and resources that need to be prioritized.1. Please explain how adding solutions with limited to no return isgood for this city.2. If there is data to show the high value of this approach, pleaseprovide it.i. LEVERAGING FEDERAL INFORMATION FOR EARLY INTERVENTIONi. Enhancing communication between SJPD and other local lawenforcementagencies with key Federal agencies, including the Special Agents inCharge(SAC) for local FBI Investigations, Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco, andFirearms,DEA, DHS, and U.S. Customs and Border Control to improve protocols isdesirable. Any actions that will improve local law enforcement access tocritical information about high-risk individuals in San José will give firstresponders the tools they need to dotheir jobsafelyfor boththemselves,the public, and the suspect.

Ted Miller PhD Data
January 23, 2022 Page28of32

We have the following questions regarding the data you presented us:1. Thedataispresentedinawaytosuggestlegalgunownerswhousetheirfirearmsinalawfulmanner areresponsiblefor payingcriminalswhousetheirfirearmstobreakthelaw. Howisthis justified? Criminals are responsible for the emergency response, victim assistance,incident investigation, perpetrator adjudicationandsanctioning, as well as taxrevenuelostfor all incidents of gun violence in San Jose.a. Why are law abiding gun owners being singled out and required to pay for cityservices everyone uses?b. Why are law abiding gun owners being forced to pay for the crimes of violentcriminals?c. Isn’t this doubledippingwithtaxes alreadypaidfor public safetyandother relatedservices?d. Is it the intent of these proposals to have legal gun owners pay double taxes tosubsidize the budget for police services in San Jose, with that same amount offunding to be relocated to the general (or any other) fund?2. The data presents thepremisethat peoplelawfullyowningandusingguns areresponsibleforpayingforthecostsofpeopleusinggunsillegallyandinunlawfuloraccidentalways. Thisis a very dangerous precedent.a. If theintent is torecover costs of thebadactors andaccidents,thenthecitywoulddobetter lookingat wherethelargest andegregious expenses areinour city: druguse and alcohol. Based on this logic, thecitywouldassess atax/feeandinsurancecoverage mandate for anyone:i. Purchasing or using any legal prescription drug prescribed to cover all theillegal uses of these drugs, and/orii. Purchasing or drinking alcohol to cover the damages fromDUI accidents,accidents, kidney/liver failure, hospital expenses, insurance costs for lifesaving measures, etc., and/oriii. Who lives indoors to cover the cost of unhoused issues.b. The data is sayingthecityshouldrevokeall taxes andmakeresidents payfor whatthey use, which is a fatally flawed approach.3. What are all costs related to the lawful use of a firearm vs. the unlawful use of a firearm?4. Does the data take into account costs if a firearm was not used in the incident?a. Such as lack of de-escalation of a crimeb. Home invasion and inability to defend lifec. Etc.5. The data is misleadingly titled, “Annually Firearm Injuries in San Jose Cost $442 Million”a. There are no definitions included for the terms used, such as direct, lost work,quality of life, total cost, cost to federal state & local government, and more.i. Will you provide definitions and backup data for every category?b. What is the true annual cost to residents in San Jose?c. What is the true annual cost to taxpayers in San Jose?d. In all cases, this title should be abandoned as biased and misleading.6. What methodologywas usedtoevaluategroups or data, anddeterminewhat wasrelevantor not?7. Do the total costs take into account taxes and fees paid to the county on firearm purchases?8. Why weren’t gun benefits included in the data?a. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every majorstudy on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearmsdefensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.b. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15 January 23, 2022 Page29of32

i. When you look at costs to society, this is a major factor in violenceprevention, injury prevention, and avoidance of death.ii. Not includingthis factor inthecalculationislikelookingatthevalueofacarby only measuring the accidents they are involved in, and passing lawsbased solely on that data. It is not intellectually honest or relevant.9. Were the impacts of decriminalizationandcriminal recidivismstudiedandreflectedinthisstudy, especially with respect to Proposition 47, 57, and AB109?10. Future costs were estimated in the creation of the data. Did the data take into accountAB1509 which removes penalties for using a firearm in the commission of certain crimes?11. Werequesthereand/orthroughthePublicRecordActalldataprovidedbyPIREand/orDr.TedMiller. Additionallywerequestallaccompanyingbackupdataand/orsourcesusedforsaid computations.

City Staff Involvement1. What has beentheMayor’s roleintheGunHarmReductionproposalsandwhatwillhisrolebe going forward?a. Howmuch of his staff’s timeandbudget has beendevotedtothis effort andwhatwill future allocations be?2. What other citystaff(includingothercouncilmembersandtheirstaff)havebeeninvolvedinthese proposals?a. What is their specific involvementb. How much time has each council office allocated to these proposals?3. Did the city reviewwho spokeduringpublic comment intheRules Committeeand/or CityCouncil meeting on this subject?a. Were these speakersi. Included in any follow-up?ii. Contacted by city staff?iii. Seen as interested parties? Community Outreach and Involvement1. As mentionedonourcall,developmentprojectsofanysizefollowpolicy6-30forcommunityengagement, including public noticing, public community meetings, and discussion. Lawsthat wouldapplytotheentirepopulationshouldhaveoutreachinall districts.Itseemsthecity wants to rush this forward, as highlighted by Paul in the meeting, when he said youwould “move forward without all the data, if necessary.”2. How did you prioritize the outreach?3. What methods were used for outreach?4. Is there any email list or group assigned to keep the public informed of current andnextsteps for these ordinances?5. Whyhaven’t youplannedfororhostedcommunitymeetingsandsocializationofthesegoalswith the public?a. Many members of the public are not aware of these ordinance proposals.6. How have you reached out to local gun owners?7. How have you reached out to local gun clubs and organizations?8. How have you reached out to local gun stores?9. We request here and/or throughthePublic RecordAct all outreachdates, emails, phonelogs; meeting dates, times, correspondences, emails, phone logs, key contact persons,results, outcomes; all related emails, phone logs, and/or more.

January 23, 2022 Page30of32

Third Party Non-Neighborhood Association Organizations and Involvement1. We know this data is available through a public records request.2. How did you prioritize third party, non-neighborhood association outreach?3. What methods were used for outreach?4. What insurance companies were contacted (Christina stated, “A dozen different InsuranceAgencies), and for each:a. How did you reach out to them?b. Who initiated contact?c. Did they have insurance that met the requirements of the proposals?d. If they had insurance that met the proposal requirements,i. What is the average cost to the firearm owner?ii. Is it a rider or a separate policy?iii. Is there any risk of denial?iv. Will purchasing this type of coverage impact any other policy and/orcoverage?v. Will purchasing this insurance impact current policy prices?e. What were the dates and times of these meetings?5. Other groupsa. Christina gave us a list of each group that she remembered outreach with including:i. 2nd amendment foundationii. CA rifle and pistol associationiii. CA gun rights foundationiv. Gun Owners of CAv. Dave Truslowvi. Project Hopevii. Hope and Heal Fundviii. Local NRA Chapterix. National Rifle Associationx. Pink Pistolsxi. District Attorney's Officexii. Santa Clara County Department of Public Healthxiii. Nextdoor Solutionsxiv. Gardner Health Groupxv. Bradyxvi. Giffordsxvii. Everytownxviii. Moms Demand Actionb. Please provide all materials pertaining to the meetings, discussions,communications, conversations, and/or outreach with these organizations.i. Werequest hereand/or throughthePublic RecordAct alloutreachdates,emails, phonelogs; meetingdates,times,correspondences,emails,phonelogs, keycontactpersons,results,outcomes;allrelatedemails,phonelogs,and/or more.

Expectation of Legal CostsThe referenced June memorandum anticipates legal costs and challenges to the law proposals.1. What challenges do you expect? January 23, 2022 Page31of32

2. How long do you expect the challenges to take in court?

3. What is the projected estimate for legal costs the city will incur if these proposals are passed?

4. How much money has the city already spent related to these proposals?

5. “The City Attorney shall evaluate the legal feasibility of applying these requirements upon all persons possessing a firearm in the City of San Jose, whether they reside here or not.” a. Does the City Attorney believe these ordinances are legal at this time? b. Please consider this a Public Records Act request for all records on and/or relating to this effort.

6. “The City Attorney shall evaluate the constitutionality of permanent seizure of the firearm as a consequence of noncompliance.”
a. How is the city attorney going to justify firearm seizure for an infraction or nonviolent misdemeanor?
b. Please consider this a Public Records Act request for all records on and/or relating to this effort.

Conclusion
We want a serious reduction in gun violence in our city and we want to ensure the civil and constitutional rights of our residents are upheld and protected.

The proposals are incomplete, have many unanswered important questions, open the city up to expensive and time consuming litigation, and most importantly do nothing to stop illegal gun violence in our city.

We cannot make fundamental changes to our democracy by treating people unequally and making some pay to exercise their natural rights to fulfill a predetermined political agenda.

These questions and more must be answered thoroughly and completely prior to the next public, City Council, and/or Commission meeting where this issue is presented. The public has a right to know how laws will impact them and these 12 pages demonstrate the beginning of that process.

Respectfully,
The Board of the Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation January 23, 2022 Page 32 of 32

San Jose City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

San Jose City Council
January 25, 2022