Letters from the Public - 9 of 12 — San Jose City Council, January 25, 2022

1/24/22, 9:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Comment on Agenda Item 4.1 22 045
Anya Bayerle <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:16 AM
To: City Clerk <

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

To whom it may concern,
My name is Anya Bayerle and I m a 17 year resident of San Jose. I m writing to you about Agenda Item 4.1 22 045 . This ordinance is a necessary approach to address the costs of gun violence and incentivize safer practices that could prevent firearm deaths and injuries. We all want a safer community in San Jose, California, and the United States. I believe that this approach will move us closer to that goal.

Thank you,
Anya Bayerle

Anya Bayerle

1/24/22, 9:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

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

Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment
“The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.”
Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

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

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

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent
--
Lynx Zhang

1/24/22, 9:54 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3

1/24/22, 9:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.” San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals.

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

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

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the State [or Municipality] has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.” Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment
“The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.”
Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction.

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

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

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

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

1/24/22, 9:53 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

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

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

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs Sincerely,
Sam Maxwell

1/24/22, 9:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: Oppose new tax
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:58 AM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Terry <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:49 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose new tax
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
The web site for comments seems to currently be down.

Please oppose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.

Thanks.

Ray
San Jose, CA

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

1/24/22, 9:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Comments on revised gun tax / gun insurance proposal from Mayor Liccardo City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:58 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Craig Krstolic <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:09 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Comments on revised gun tax / gun insurance proposal from Mayor Liccardo

Dear City Council Members and Mayor Liccardo,

I am deeply opposed to any aempt to create a tax on a Constuonal Right. While Mayor Liccardo's intenons of reducing violent crime, including those crimes where ﬁrearms are used, is noble and likely well-intenoned, it ﬂies in the face of what the government is allowed to do. The following points are only a few reasons that this will be a poor decision.
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

1/24/22, 9:52 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

8. The proposal implements taxes at the local level, in violation of the California Constitution on special taxes, Article XIII C Section 2(d) I urge the City of San Jose to please refocus the eﬀort on the criminals, the need to further rebuild our SJPD, and enforce the laws we already have. Going aer legal cizens, punishing them for praccing and engaging in exercising their Rights, is counter to everything this naon stands for.

Sincerely,

Craig Krstolic
San Jose, CA

1/24/22, 9:51 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: 2nd admendment insurance infringement
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:58 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Minh Lu <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:20 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: 2nd admendment insurance infringement

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

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

3. The non-proﬁt group set up to manage this ordinance is nothing more than a slush fund. The proposal speciﬁcally states the city 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 acvity. A 2017 PEW research study showed 97% due to suicide and criminal acvity.

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

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

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

City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:58 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Gareth Dolby <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:25 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance.

A well-regulated milia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Gareth Dolby

1/24/22, 9:51 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:58 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Stephan Hipsak <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:38 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

Sent from Mail for Windows
Please reconsider your stance on this ordinance before you vote. Do not harm or inconvenience the honest cizens who leally own ﬁre arms for their own personal safety. Punish the “bad” guys with laws already on the book. Thank you for your consideraon of this maer.

Steve Hipsak

1/24/22, 9:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: How to solve the gun problem
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:59 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Layne Evans <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:40 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: How to solve the gun problem

If you will read the article in the current TIME magazine you may have a better view on what the gun problem is and a viable method for addressing the issue. The idea is to determine what is causing the local problem and then address it as it fits the the local situation. A global solution does not address the issues at hand nor produce a valuable outcome.

1/24/22, 9:50 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: Gun Harm Reduction ordinance 4.1
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:59 AM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: Annette Ladowitz <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:44 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Harm Reduction ordinance 4.1
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Please vote yes tomorrow (Jan 25). Health car, home insurance etc make us more responsible for ourselves and each other.

Kudos to you all for making San José the country’s model to follow.

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

1/24/22, 9:49 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Email Policy and Retention
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:59 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Mendoza, Elena <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:58 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Email Policy and Retenon

Hello,

I doing a benchmarking in regards to the Email and I have a couple of questions. I was wondering if you can help me or direct me to the right person.

How long do you keep the email in the communication system (MS Outlook or other email program)? When email content are considered records, what is the process? If the email content is a record, do you have a records series just for email only or do you file it to the applicable records series?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Elena P . Mendoza
Records Managemen
t Analyst

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This electronic mail message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you received this e mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this message or by telephone Thank you

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Gun harm reduction
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 11:59 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Lawrence Townsend <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:46 AM
To: City Clerk < District1 < District2
< District3 < District4 < District5
< District 6 < District7 < District8
< District9 < District 10 < The
Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <
Subject: Gun harm reducon

A Gun harm reducon fee is nothing less than persecuon of United States Cizens for praccing a Constuonal Civil Right. This acon if enacted would set a precedent that could apply to any of the ten Bill of Rights. An onerous aack on this countries Rule of Law.

Please vote NO.

Kindest regards,
Lawrence (Larry) Townsend
Resident District 10

1/24/22, 9:49 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the insurance coverage type and limits, having up to six months after the vote to define it Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) established that the government “may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right protected by the federal constitution.”

Proposed Change: 10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.” San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals.

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

The City Council is opening the floodgate for corruption, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonprofit to be paid using additional monies from taxpayer dollars in the form of City grants No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without defining the fee and have up to six months after the vote to define it.

State law only allows for the impoundment of firearm for a felony or one of 20 defined violent misdemeanors Infractions do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally confiscate and/or impound property
Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for justification of these changes:

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

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

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

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

1/24/22, 9:49 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

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

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent

1/24/22, 9:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources I Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance; Agenda item #4.1 Art & Carol Pimentel <
Mon 1/24/2022 12:07 PM
To: City Clerk <
Cc: Carol Pimentel <

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

To the City Clerk Office
I am a citizen of San Jose, District 2 and I am writing to e press my great disappointment and opposition to the new proposed ordinance being discussed and voted on tomorrow Jan 25th. I see so much information on the local and national news about law enforcement being stretched to thin to respond to common daily needs of the citizens, yet the city council feels that one more thing to squander law inforcements resources will be a benefit to the citizens of San Jose. It is this type of legislation that will make law abiding gun owners who use their guns for hunting and other recreational sports to technically be criminals once this law is passed. I used to think legislations, of any kind, was meant to improve the community for all citizens. However, in the last year I ve become aware that local legislators are merely a tool for special interest groups. Therefore, I can only be disappointed in many of the partisan regulations that get voted into local laws. My first assumption is this proposed ordinance is a means to raise money because the city of San Jose needs financial assistance to meet the needs of the local citizens, but in truth it is intended to be an effort for further gun control of law abiding citizens. This unfortunately is simply another gun control law that criminals will not give a shit about while they break the laws of the land.

This is one more reason why people are leaving the beautiful state of California.

Please vote No no this new ordinance.

Thank You…..Art Pimentel

1/24/22, 9:48 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2

1/24/22, 9:46 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Oppose, The Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 12:54 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Jeﬀ D. Muth <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose, The Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

Hello,

I am writing you to let you know that I oppose the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance that you are proposing.

It is an unconstitutional attack on lawful gun owners and does not affect criminals.

Thank You,

Jeff Muth

1/24/22, 9:46 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: support of Mayor's Gun Harm Reduction ordiance
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 12:54 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Erik Swanson <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:31 PM
To: District 10 < District 6 < District5
< District8 < District4 < District1
< District2 < District3 < District7
< District9 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
< City Clerk <
Subject: support of Mayor's Gun Harm Reducon ordiance

Hello San Jose City Council,
My name is Rev. Erik Swanson, and I am a resident of San Jose as well as a local pastor I want to encoura e you to please vote FOR the new measures towards ending gun violence at tomorrow night's meeting. All the numbers from all the studies continue to point to guns being a clear and present danger in our society. We know this and yet we do so little to change it. I love the Mayor's proposals as well as the amendment by Councilman Peralez Well done to work together to craft legislation that can help make tangible inroads into making our city more safe from the scourge that is gun violence! We have all seen and known too many folks who have suffered at the hand of this violence. It must end.

Please enact these re ulations! Blessin s, Erik

● Facts: On an annual basis, gunfire kills or injures more than 200 people in San José. Over 40% of gunfire incidents stem from assaults or homicides. Over 40% of un harm incidents in San José are tied to unintentional acts/ accidents that can often be prevented through better behavior. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to own guns, but doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize it. ● Facts:

In 2018, California taxpayers absorbed $1.4 billion in costs for gunshot-related medical treatment, police response, ambulance transport, etc That’s equivalent to the entire General Fund budget of San José. ○ Over the past five years, gun ownership increased 55.3% leading to an estimated 50,000 to 55,000 households in San José that own guns.

Rev. Erik Swanson
May you know the wonder and joy of life in the Holy

1/24/22, 9:46 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 9:45 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Oppose New City Tax Ordinance
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 12:54 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: David Gonzalez <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:32 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose New City Tax Ordinance

I oppose this city ordinance, it's not legal, it's not right to punish law biden gun owner cizens how follow every rule and law in order to pracce their right to legally own a furearm. This unconstuonal and wrong !!!. In that case, apply that city ordinance to everybody who lives in San Jose. Criminals don't obey laws that's why they are Criminals, don't punish us law biden cizens.

Get Outlook for Android

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: The new gun law proposal
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 12:54 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: hamilton ma <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:37 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: The new gun law proposal

Hi, I am a resident of San Jose and I oppose this new gun law. Please announce my view on this maer during the up coming city council meeng.

Thanks very much!

Hamilton Ma, 95124

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android

1/24/22, 9:45 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 FW: Hi
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 12:54 PM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Wiggins <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:46 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Hi
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Have you considered that your gun tax is unconstitutional? I have no idea how some people can’t seem to get it into their heads that criminals don’t register guns.

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

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

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

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

I’m actually an independent btw as I am positive that you were thinking I am a “righty”. I used to be registered Democrat until the Democratic party began looking like socialism and even communism. So now when I vote, I vote for the lesser of two evils. What a damned shame that is.

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

1/24/22, 9:45 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2

1/24/22, 9:44 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Agenda item: 4.1 22 045
aimee rozen <
Mon 1/24/2022 1:10 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

Hello,
At a time when gun violence is at an all time high, I am in support of this ordinance.

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

We must take any measures to help keep San Jose and the surrounding Bay Area safe.

Warmly,
Aimee

1/24/22, 9:43 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

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

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

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent

1/24/22, 9:43 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
Re: Agenda item 4.1 22 045
<
Mon 1/24/2022 1:28 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

Re: Reducing gun harm and the public burdens of gun violence vote, 4.1 22-045

I am in favor of enacng this ordinance. The ordinance would make San Jose the ﬁrst city in the naon to innovate a way to tackle an expensive, dangerous problem for taxpayers and for vicms of gun violence alike, and to incenvize safer pracces that can potenally prevent ﬁrearm deaths and injuries.

Naonally in an average year, gun violence in America kills nearly 40,000 people, injures more than 80,000 people, and costs taxpayers $280 billion ($40 million alone in San Jose). Local governments, taxpayers, and vicms should not be the only ones dealing with the results of gun injuries and deaths in our communies. Gun ownership should include responsibility for helping communies and neighbors deal with these results.

By enacng this ordinance, San Jose would become the ﬁrst U.S. city to require gun owners to pay an annual fee into a fund managed by a non-proﬁt organizaon speciﬁcally created to provide services supporng suicide prevenon, services for vicms of domesc violence, mental health and addicon services, and ﬁrearm safety training.

San Jose would also require that every gun owner have liability insurance coverage for their ﬁrearms. Naonally,

5.4 million children live in a household where a gun is kept unlocked and loaded and nearly 500 Americans die from preventable, unintenonal shoongs every year, and up to 46,000 Americans are injured. Nearly three- quarters of those injuries occur within the home.

Please vote to approve this proposed ordinance which will support vicms, compensate taxpayers, and incenvize gun owners to safely store ﬁrearms. We all want a safer San José, so let’s move closer to that goal.

Sincerely,
Julie Henig

Sent from Mail for Windows

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

Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast anvirus soware. www.avast.com

1/24/22, 9:43 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3

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

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

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

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

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

3. Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws

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

1/24/22, 9:43 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources

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

6. Hire more police officers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
— EDUARD WEICHSELBAUMER

1/24/22, 9:42 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) established that the government “may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right protected by the federal constitution.” Proposed Change: 10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year.”

San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal actions of criminals.

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

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

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

Violation of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infraction.

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

1/24/22, 9:42 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 Focus on Real Solutions to Stopping Gun Violence
Our elected officials need to address the criminals who commit violence in our city and the solution to this problem should not be to punish the innocent law-abiding residents of San José. Please look at taking the following actions to stop gun violence:

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

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

Enforce and prosecute existing gun laws
Support recommendations 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Committee memorandum entitled, "Community Violence Prevention & Response"

Fund attorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county Hire more police officers
Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs Yours Sincerely,
Your Constituent
Tom Clouse

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

1/24/22, 9:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [E ternal Email]
[E ternal Email]
URGE vote NO on Agenda item 4.1 Gun Harm Ordinance
<
Mon 1/24/2022 2:31 PM
To: City Clerk <

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

OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 4.1 gun harm ordinance.

I can not think of a more ill thought proposal than the mayor's gun harm ordinance.

It is flawed beyond imagination.

Liability insurance does not exist. I dont care what the mayor says.... it does not exist. I have called my two carriers and I read them the proposal Both said they would not write a liablity policy that covers intentional acts like suicide or criminal behavior. Intentional acts are expressly excluded in their liability policies. And as for the statement from the mayor that these policies are " free" The mayor is either a liar or on drugs if he said he found carriers that did.

Violation of court rulings against Jim Crow laws. There are literally dozens of cases where the court has ruled that any tax or fee that inhibits the exercize of a constitutional right is illegal Pass this ordinance and you will spend years in court.

The " non profit " is just a slush fund. Staff report specifically prohibits the council from any say over the use of the funds collected So who controls the money taken from the taxpayers? Who controls the non-profit?
Mayor admits criminals and the suicidal will not obey. Just ask the mayor.... he admitted it in a press conference So the ordinance wont impact the people causing the problem Financial justification makes no sense. The mayor says that gun harm costs the city over $ 440 million dollars a year.... and numerous studies show that over 90% of all gun violence is from either criminal activity or suicide But the staff report specifically states that proceeds from any fee / tax will only go to the gun owners it was taken from.

Translation the money wont be used to deal with the people causing the problem And I can think of a dozen more reasons Vote no on this ordinance....

Mark S Towber
President

1/24/22, 9:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1/24/22, 9:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 · This type of insurance does not exist and if it did, would be so cost prohibive that it would place an unconstuonal barrier to the free exercise of the Second Amendment. · Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without deﬁning the insurance coverage type and limits, having up to six months aer the vote to deﬁne it · Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U S 105 (1943) established that the government “may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right protected by the federal constuon.”

Proposed Change: 10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reducon Fee “A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reducon Fee to the Designated Nonproﬁt Organizaon each year.” · San José is taxing gun-owning, law abiding residents and visitors for the illegal acons of criminals.
· The City is creang a law which forces gun owners to ﬁnancially support a business they may not agree with
· The City Council is opening the ﬂoodgate for corrupon, allowing former City employees to sit on the board of this nonproﬁt to be paid using addional monies from taxpayer dollars in the form of City grants No former city employee should ever be allowed to sit on this board.
· What is the fee? Lawmakers are allowed to approve the ordinance without deﬁning the fee and have up to six months aer the vote to deﬁne it. · Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in queson is guaranteed by the Federal Constuon and exists independently of state [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the State [or Municipality] has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant ”

Proposed Change: 10.32.245 Impoundment
“The Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing ”
·
Violaon of the proposed changes will most likely result in an infracon · State law only allows for the impoundment of ﬁrearm for a felony or one of 20 deﬁned violent misdemeanors. Infracons do not reach the state threshold requirement to legally conﬁscate and/or impound property.
· Because the ordinance improperly compares the Second Amendment right to the privilege of owning a car for jusﬁcaon of these changes oCalifornia state law does not grant peace oﬃcers the authority to impound a vehicle on site for lack of insurance and requires a minimum of six months

1/24/22, 9:41 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. registraon expiraon before they can impound a vehicle [CVC 16028(a-c) and CVC22651(o)].

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

Please look at taking the following acons to stop gun violence:
1 Have the city council write and approve an amicus curia resoluon to send to the California Assembly and Senate to repeal Proposions 47, 57, and AB109

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

3. Enforce and prosecute exisng gun laws

4. Support recommendaons 1 through 5 of the 9/16/2021 Rules and Open Government Commiee memorandum entled, "Community Violence Prevenon & Response" 5 Fund aorneys that will prosecute gun crimes in the county

6. Hire more police oﬃcers

7. Build mental health hospitals and fund sobriety programs

Yours Sincerely,
Your Constuent

1/24/22, 9:40 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Gun Tax Ordinance
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 3:14 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: diverdog <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:22 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Tax Ordinance

Dear Mayor and City Council:

Gun violence is a complex issue but will not be addressed by punishing those cizens who are not responsible for the violence. This bill of aainder will surely be defeated in court, result in signiﬁcantly raised taxes in order for the City to pay for the court bales, further alienate the law abiding ( the very people you need with you), and result in actually making the problem worse.

This bill is akin to the person who has problems at work (City), then comes home and abuses those around them (law abiding cizens), and then wonders why nobody likes or helps them - and why the problems aren't being ﬁxed!!!!!! Laws such as this push away the very groups of people who contain knowledge and ideas that may signiﬁcantly help resolve this problem.

Of course, if, as others have suggested, this bill is just another smoke screen for passing a polical adgenda, then no amount of discussion will persuade a change in your course. Does the City wish to curb gun violence, or, pass another ineﬀecve tax bill in one of the highest taxed areas of the highest taxed State in the naon. On January 14th of this year an on-line news service (I apologize for not having the full reference) published an arcle stang that U-Haul ran out of trucks to rent to people moving out of the state!!!

Your vote will show us whether you are serious in curbing gun violence, OR, wish to pass an adgena that will put San Jose on a direct path for the City to become the next LA/San Francisco.

Thank you very much for your aenon to this maer.

Unfortunately, due to the polical climate and the tendency to violence against those of dissenng view points, I with holding my name from this leer.

Thank you once again.

Respecully,

1/24/22, 9:40 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

1/24/22, 9:40 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 FW: San Jose pending gun policy
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 3:15 PM
To: Agendadesk <
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Philipovitch <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:38 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: San Jose pending gun policy
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
San Jose city council
A BIG No on going after lawful gun owners protected by the 2 amendment It is the easy and predictable woke thing to do How about supporting police with increased funding and really going after crime and criminals not law abiding Americans

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

1/24/22, 9:40 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Mon 1/24/2022 3:15 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Tom Chambers <
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:28 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

Dear San Jose City Council Members,

The Gun Harm Reducon ordinance will be ineﬀecve in reducing what you term "Gun Harm". You propose to add another tax to lawful gun owners. this will do nothing to the actual people causing the "harm", yes, the criminal element who gets their guns illegally!
Maybe you all have forgoen the Oath of Oﬃce you proclaimed. To abide by the U.S. Constuon which states "...shall not be infringed." What part of that are you not understanding?

Thank you for your consideraon

Tom Chambers

January 24, 2022
From:

The Board of the Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation To:

The City of San Jose, CA
Subject: 1/25/2022 Item 4.1: Public Record -
Mayor Liccardo is Incorrect Regarding Gun Liability Insurance Availability The Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation has spoken with leading insurance agents in the state, each with over 28 years of experience in the industry. The Mayor’s statement in his 1/24/2022 memo to Councilmember Davis regarding the insurance requirement is true regarding accidental discharge of a firearm, but completely inaccurate regarding negligent discharge of a firearm as referenced in CA Penal Code 246.3.

Background
The City of San Jose, including the Mayor’s Office, has not been transparent or forthcoming with this issue.They have not informed the public of coverage amount requirements, defined the type of insurance needed, responded to requests for public records, and have not disclosed meetings they may have held with insurance companies, and more.

Definitions

1. The ordinance states:
a. “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…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.”
b. The key word is negligent, which is a legal term

2. Negligent use of a firearm resulting in death or injury is most closely included in California Penal Code 246.3 as negligent discharge of a firearm

3. Negligent discharge of a firearm:
a. “any person who willfully discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death to a person”
b. In simple terms, to negligently discharge a firearm it must be willfully used, or in other words, the trigger must be intentionally pulled in a way that could result in someone’s
injury or death.
www.SVPAF.org
The Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation
5669 Snell Ave #104
San Jose, CA 95123

Conclusion
Insurance companies already provide coverage for the accidental discharge of a firearm in most homeowner and rental policies. This generally includes $2,500 for loss/theft of firearm(s) and liability coverage options up to $1,000,000.00 for victims other than family members. If this is all the ordinance is seeking then it will not reduce gun violence costs because it already exists, and instead will place a barrier to the free exercise of a constitutional right for lower income firearm owners who may struggle to afford the insurance but earn above the specified waiver income threshold. Additionally, if this is what the ordinance is seeking it will not cover costs for homicides, mass shootings, or any other criminal use of a firearm.

Insurance companies do not and will not provide any type of coverage for an intentional use of a firearm, such as willfully pulling the trigger to result in someone’s injury or death, including suicide, also known as negligent use of a firearm.

The mayor is correct that accidental insurance already exists, but he is incorrect regarding the existence of gun liability insurance for negligent use of a firearm.

The ordinance is written in a manner which requires both accidental and negligent liability insurance which are unavailable for purchase.

Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Fleming Kirk Vartan Sonia Chang
Executive Director Vice President Treasurer
www.SVPAF.org
The Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation
5669 Snell Ave #104
San Jose, CA 95123

San Jose City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

San Jose City Council
January 25, 2022