Letters from the Public - 2 of 2 — San Jose City Council, February 8, 2022

2/8/22, 8:02 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Gun insurance mandate
City Clerk <
Mon 2/7/2022 4:56 PM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Jack Wood <
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:31 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun insurance mandate

I am opposed to mandate that every gun owner purchase liability insurance. Since when does the government tell us what to buy? This is unconstitutional and you have overwhelming opposition to this do the right thing and represent the people and not yourselves! Sent from my iPhone

2/8/22, 8:02 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.

But how many hands will my name, address and telephone number pass through? How many people that I have not met and therefore do not trust will know where I live? Will know that I have guns in the house? And that's just the people who see this list in the course of trying to do good.

This says nothing of the cyber security issue. Can the City of San Jose guarantee that a list of all the gun owners in the city will be kept safe from hackers? What about the nonprofit that the city identifies to reach out to these gun owners? What about the third parties that these nonprofits share this information with? Will anyone guard the information about my gun ownership as well as I do?
Despite what many people may think, I am in favor of gun control. I do believe that gun laws can be put into place to make a community safer.

This, however, is not one of those laws. The only thing this law does is make things less safe for myself, my family and the thousands of other families who take the important step of not sharing their gun ownership information with just anyone.

If this law goes into effect, I no longer control who knows about my guns. My information is just a small step away from public information. This law makes me and my family a target for criminals.

I realize that the City of San Jose is hurt and still healing from the VTA tragedy that occurred less than a year ago. As someone who was born and raised in San Jose, I understand. It hurts me too.

However, this will not fix it. It will only make things worse. Please, do not allow this rash and poorly put together ordinance to pass.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen
District 6

2/8/22, 8:01 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Do NOT read into law: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 6:30 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: USFC <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 5:29 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Do NOT read into law: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

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

Dear Mayor Liccardo and Councilmember of San Jo e
The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance will not improve San Jo e Neither the ta component nor the in urance mandate will reduce crime of any kind, much le firearm related violence The ordinance mandate , "a homeowner' , renter' , or gun liability in urance policy pecifically covering lo e or damage re ulting from any negligent or accidental u e of the Firearm, including but not limited to death, injury, or property damage "

"Negligent" i a legal term u ed in CA Penal Code 246 3 " any per on who willfully di charge a firearm in a gro ly negligent manner which could re ult in injury or death to a per on i guilty of a public offen e and hall be puni hed by impri onment in a county jail not e ceeding one year, or by impri onment pur uant to ubdivi ion (h) of Section 1170 " In other word , negligent di charge of a firearm i the willful di charge of a firearm in a manner that could re ult in injury or death No in urance company offer coverage for injury or death re ulting from willful mi u e of a firearm

Particularly di appointing i thi law' creation of a nonprofit with a guaranteed revenue tream from the ta Di appointing becau e the ordinance i mi ing a prohibition again t the nonprofit hiring former city employee One e pect to ee uch behavior in a Loui iana legi lative body, not the city council of a California metropoli

Mi u e of firearm i overwhelmingly committed by criminal , gang , and lunatic , a hown by CDC and FBI data Thi ordinance contain no tep to addre tho e A law that doe n't olve problem i not neutral; it wa te time and re ource San Jo e need to u e el ewhere

2/8/22, 8:01 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The police department of San Jose is understaffed. Compensation packages for most PD positions are below market. PD staffing and compensation should be brought up to appropriate levels. Prosecuting attorneys should be funded to pursue violent criminals. Jails and prisons should be places of incarceration and rehabilitation, not revolving doors, for criminals.

Mental health services are urgently needed throughout the city. Break the cycle of crime by getting at the root causes, mental health problems and organized crime.

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books in America. Passing another useless law is not the answer.

Please vote AGAINST reading the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance into law.

Sonia Chang

2/8/22, 8:01 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Fw: gun insurance
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 6:31 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: GERARDO MOTA <
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:58 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: gun insurance

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

Whats next ????

2/8/22, 8:01 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Public Comment: OPPOSE File 22 045.

City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 6:37 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Carson Dicicco <
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:51 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Public Comment: OPPOSE File 22-045.

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Good evening,
I am emailing you to tell you to oppose proposition 22-045. This hinders the law abiding citizens ability to own firearms which is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment. This does nothing to reduce criminal acts involving firearms. I understand that the tax payers have to pay a substantial amount for gun related incidents every year. A suggestion I have for the council, is to have any person who violates any current firearm related law pay the salaries of the officers involved with the violation in addition too a fine.This approach targets violators more than every law abiding firearm owner. As city council members I wish for you to take more time and come up with a better solutions rather than use simple blanket laws. Thank you for your time.

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

2/8/22, 8:00 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Gun liability insurance
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 6:38 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Thomas McDougall <
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:31 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun liability insurance

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

Dear San Jose City council -
We, in Concord and the rest of California, are watching your plan to approve an unconstitutional measure to require gun owners to have liability insurance.

Please reconsider, by using these points to think:
-no such liability insurance exists.
-requiring the insurance would put an unconstitutional burden on gun owners -this would not stop illegal gun owners from committing crimes. -this is a virtue-signaling action on your part, which will do nothing to stop gun crime. -why burden law-abiding citizens with more expense, which will have no reducing effect on crime? -Rather, why not work on measures that will improve the community, by strengthening families, with incentives for home ownership?
-encouraging small businesses to start and thrive.
-fully funding your police, and supporting them by actions, not just words. -providing gun safety classes for the citizens of your city.

Don't go at the problem by adding more red tape and expense. Legal gun owners are not the problem. Gun ownership has not increased dramatically in the US in the last few years because law- abiding citizens feel safe, but just the opposite. Adding this bureaucratic 'solution' will not help reduce your crime.

2/8/22, 8:00 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources We're watching you, and will fund legal action to challenge this buffoonery.

Regards,
Tom M

2/8/22, 10:33 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: Objection to Gun Liability Insurance and Fee
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 9:05 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Adam Tanner <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:31 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Objecon to Gun Liability Insurance and Fee

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

I am writing in opposition to gun liability insurance and fee ordinance. First, this ordinance directly impacts low income and minorities disproportionately who live in more dangerous areas of the city and are more likely to require access to firearms. Second, this ordinance is passed at a time where raising crime rates are increasing as is the interest in owning firearms which does not seem politically astute. Third, requiring insurance or fees to exercise a constitutionally enumerated right is appalling. Fourth, this ordinance in no way prevents the acquisition of firearms by criminals or other individuals who are restricted from accessing them by law. Finally, this ordinance will immediately be met with lawsuits for which significant tax dollars will be used in litigation and will likely be defeated. Those funds should be more wisely used for the myriad of other issues facing the city. One of which, if the San Jose government is truly concerned with gun safety, could be gun ownership training and safety education to help ensure gun owners are knowledgeable in safe operation, care, and storage of any firearms they may own.

Adam Tanner

Fw: Gun insurance / gun fee ordinance
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 9:07 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:31 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun insurance / gun fee ordinance

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

Please advise my district 8 council woman that I request that she vote NO on this proposal...very unfair to the law abiding citizens of the San Jose community.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT...! Not a privilege. Your responsibility is to protect constitutional rights and not to undermine them....please reconsider your past actions regarding this ordnance...

2/8/22, 10:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 9:15 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Jess B. Guy <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:56 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

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

The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance states that, "All monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee shall be expended by the Designated Nonprofit Organization on providing services to residents of the City who own or possess a firearm in the City,...". 10.32.220
How will the DNO know who has firearms?
Jess B. Guy

2/8/22, 10:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/6 had his ﬁrearm on him. However, the oﬃcer believed he was reaching for his ﬁrearm, despite Philando saying otherwise, and shot him dead in front of Philando's girlfriend Diamond Reynolds and her four year-old daughter. This proposed ordinance has people reaching for towards their ﬁrearm in fact.

Even if we were to give the oﬃcer in the Philando shoong the beneﬁt of doubt (which is another conversaon) say perhaps the oﬃcer killed Philando as a result of poor training or inexperience, that brings up issues about the SJPD. As noted by San Jose Spotlight in October of last year, the SJPD has had mulple issues with retaining oﬃcers since the pension beneﬁts dispute, and further that due to many factors it's hard to recruit new oﬃcers.

For reference hps //sanjosespotlight com/san jose police department struggles to staﬀ up cops sjpd/ In theory, this may mean that more oﬃcers in the SJPD are less experience and less trained, making them more prone to make mistakes in the presence of a person being compelled to reach towards their ﬁrearm as a result of this ordinance Furthermore, according to the 2020 SJPD Use of Force Report, oﬃcers were 11% more likely to encounter Deadly Force Resistance by persons compared to the previous 5 years. See PDF Page 18.
hps://www.sjpd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/686/637661722881030000 This means that oﬃcers are more likely to be extra nervous around persons reaching towards their ﬁrearms than previous years, due to the alleged higher threat of deadly force indicated in SJPD's own report.

For these reasons, this ordinance creates a cocktail of deadly circumstances. At a minimum this language must be changed so as to prevent San Jose from creang more deaths like those of Philando Casle, and also to prevent pung oﬃcers in these dangerous situaons. However, I'd suggest pushing the passage of this ordinance back so that it can be worked on, if not opposed in general In this example I used an oﬃcer pulling someone over in a vehicle, but the situaon can very well apply to anyone transporng a ﬁrearm by public transportaon, foot, bicycle, or other means.

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

First oﬀ, I appreciate that the exempon for the poor has been amended from its previous state, as the previous exempon seemed to only use the poor as a mere token to shield the ordinance from ligaon, given that many of those who were below the requisite Poverty Level in CA GOV 68632(a) & (b) could barely aﬀord to live in San Jose. I sll want to see the details as to who will qualify, and quite frankly that should be further clariﬁed in the ordinance, as those with low incomes should not be priced out of their rights
I want to point out though that Mayor Liccardo has stated that those who are exempt will be required to ﬁll out the aestaon paperwork. This is not stated in the ordinance. Instead, under 10.32.225, all those who are exempt are exempted from the whole Part (that is the whole ordinance), meaning that they do not have to ﬁll out any paperwork. While I have feeling that the oﬃcers will easily ﬁnd that other oﬃcers and CCW holders (as CCW holders are very few and most likely City Oﬃcials, the polically connected, or the rich, or in the case of Santa Clara Sheriﬀ oﬃce: Those who paid for CCW permits with campaign donaons), if the poor do not have said paperwork, then it puts them in a situaon where the Police Oﬃcer has to decide to believe them or think that their lying. This also puts the police oﬃcer in a bad situaon, given that depending on how the stascs lay out they may be accused of proﬁling when deciding who to believe about the exempon and who not to believe.

2/8/22, 10:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/6 For these reasons, the exempon language needs to be changed, so as to defend the poor from harassment, and to not put police oﬃcers in a terrible posion

3.) 10.32.200(B)(7): Findings on annual gunﬁre deaths.

In this case we're referring to the report by PIRE, as presented in the Supplemental Memorandum on 1/19/2022:
hps://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10413284&GUID=89193E7F-B8CF-4BA5-B995- 8D155A223F64
I've actually contacted PIRE regarding that report; Drs. Miller, Swedler and Lawrence were very helpful and willing to answer quesons, and I appreciate that greatly. Further, I'm not an expert in these maers, so I cannot judge the validity of the report, but I assume that it was calculated correctly, and I have no reason to doubt the validity of the calculaons What I do have a concern on is how the Mayor Liccardo has the report used in context. The report shows Table 1 on PDF page 4, which lays out the various deaths and injuries that lead to the 206 annual deaths and injuries by gunﬁre per year Notable in that is the "Assault/Homicide/Legal Intervenon" box Legal intervenons are deaths and injuries caused by Law Enforcement, as conﬁrmed by PIRE. They have assured me that the amount caused by Law Enforcement is a small amount, but could not specify as according to the agreement on access to their data they had to take precauons to not idenfy speciﬁc people I was also assured that the Table 1 numbers were not used for any of the other calculaons in the report. In the proposed amendments of the ordinance, this speciﬁc 206 annual deaths and injuries by gunﬁre is being incorporated into the ordinance.

Given that law enforcement is exempt from the ordinance, that means that this 206 number should be modiﬁed, given the context of the ordinance. I propose one of the following soluons:

A.) Have PIRE recalculate the general 206 number, excluding Legal Intervenons. Only recalculang the general number will not result in idenﬁcaon of persons in the study.

B ) Qualify the ﬁndings by saying that it includes Law Enforcement even they're exempt from the ordinance.

C.) Not exempt Law Enforcement, have city kick in an annual fee for each Law Enforcement Oﬃcer to the non-proﬁt, while also insuring each oﬃcer against accidental gunﬁre harm the same as the rest of the residents and prohibing qualiﬁed immunity in civil cases, so that residents can recover damages when necessary.

4.) Where's the report on Insurance Requirements and Esmated Costs? Council Members have asked Mayor Liccardo before about what kind of insurance is needed and how much it costs, and he's only given vague assurances, along with no speciﬁc numbers. He took the me to have PIRE do a report on the "Incidence and Cost of Firearm Injuries in San Jose, CA", yet why isn't there a report on how much it will cost for people to meet the insurance mandate? How much will it cost Home Owners and Renters Insurance holders to have a compliant "rider"? How many insurance plans won't cover this at all, as there has been confusion on this point brought up in previous City Council discussions. The only defense that Mayor Liccardo has given is that they've done research before and he'd share his notes with the City Council Not shared publicly, mind you, and not a report The people should know how much this ordinance is going to cost them. Furthermore, the esmated costs should be known before it becomes an ordinance. It's quite expected that insurance companies, ﬁnding that San Jose now requires resident gun owners to have insurance meeng the insurance mandate, may unfairly raise insurance prices on San Jose residents. Without a report establishing what

2/8/22, 10:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 4/6 the costs are and what opons existed at the me of the passing of the Ordinance, San Jose negligently leaves the door open for Insurance Companies to ride roughshod on San Jose residents.

A report should be conducted with just as much or more experse as was done on the PIRE report, so that the residents can be assured as to what can be expected. Otherwise, this ordinance is being passed blind, allowing for possible unrestrained price hikes on San Jose residents.

5.) This ordinance is only a Polical Minimum Viable Product at best when it should be a comprehensive plan.

At this point I'm going to talk about whether you should pass this ordinance at all. There are mulple issues with this ordinance.

A.) Prop 26
Constantly throughout the meengs, Mayor Liccardo talks about Prop 26 compliance, and many mes accidentally referred to the fees as taxes; having to correct himself and specify to others that it is not a fee and tax. The ordinance is also structured so that a "fee" goes to fund a "service" that is then returned to those households paying the fee only.

Prop 26 made a number of changes to the California Constuon, and in this case, I'll refer to Arcle XIII C of the California Constuon:
hps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displayText.xhtml? lawCode=CONS&division=&tle=&part=&chapter=&arcle=XIII%20C The reason that Mayor Liccardo structured it this way is that Arcle XIII C Secon 1 deﬁnes a "General Tax", a "Special Tax", and "tax", along with what is not considered a "tax". If this were a tax instead of a fee, it would be a "Special Tax". However, one of the exempons to being a tax is Secon 1(e)(1), stang the following:
(e) As used in this arcle, “tax” means any levy, charge, or exacon of any kind imposed by a local government, except the following:
(1) A charge imposed for a speciﬁc beneﬁt conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the beneﬁt or granng the privilege.

Alright, so by doing that it's not considered a tax. But what if he chose to just make it a tax instead? Well... according to Arcle XIII C Secon 2, Mayor Liccardo and the City Council would instead put the proposed ordinance as a local ballot measure before the local residents. Prop 26 only changes the constuon so that local taxes be voted on by the local residents it aﬀects. By having it put forward to a vote by the people, the city could have this ordinance passed as a tax to fund general services, as opposed to this weird "fee" system that funds services that most gun owning residents are unlikely to use (pung the fee itself in jeopardy).

For whatever reason Mayor Liccardo is riding this exempon and avoiding taking this ordinance as a ballot measure before the people that this ordinance will aﬀect. He'd be beer served by doing that, given the ordinance taxaon and funding would be much less restricted if he and City Council did so. I've never heard Mayor Liccardo been asked or heard him make the case on why it shouldn't be taken as a ballot measure before the people; at a minimum this queson should be asked.

B.) State Preempon and other legal challenges

A lot of the wonkiness of this ordinance exists due to state preempon. The exempon for CCW holders only exists because the state regulates it. The whole spinning oﬀ the fees to be paid to a designated

2/8/22, 10:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 5/6 non-proﬁt, where the city holds no informaon on the gun owners and doesn't handle any of the money, is done due to state preempon on ﬁrearm databases. This is also why this wonky carrying of aestaon papers and proof of fee payment, never to be veriﬁed by the city, exists, as issuing some sort of "card" would amount to a database apparently which state law preempts. The inclusion of an exempon for the poor only seemed to exist as a meant to shield it from ligaon over taxing rights of those who cannot aﬀord such taxes, though I'm glad that council members raised concern over how few San Jose residents ﬁt within that exempon originally. It was then revealed in a later meeng that actually Law Enforcement wouldn't be able to seize ﬁrearms for non-compliance, and only be able to seize them for violang other laws; once again likely due to preempon.

Given all this preempon and how it cuts down on what this ordinance was oriignally pitched as, it leaves me asking what's the point of this ordinance?
In Summary
Maybe a one of these things alone, along with the "fee for service" exempon being pursued, would make some ordinance that at least appears workable. However, combined together, the ordinance is some sort of weird Rube Goldberg Machine of exempons.

In addion to this, City Council is being asked to pass an ordinance that is mostly incomplete. Most of the work isn't done on it, and given how much state preempon there is, especially since the ordinance was originally pitched as being able to take the ﬁrearms out of the hands of those breaking laws, when in fact the ordinance does not do that, only instead holding the ﬁrearms for longer MAYBE due to unpaid fees, we have to ask what is the point of this ordinance? What I see here is a Polical Minimum Viable Product. It merely checks the boxes to barely skate by as something that might funcon as an ordinance, but in reality, it's a lot like homework that's turned at the last minute that's barely complete. And now the City Council is being asked to pass this Minimum Viable Product. The queson that should be asked is twofold: Why does this need to be passed? And more importantly: Why does it need to be passed today?
From what I can tell the only reason that this is being asked to be passed today is Mayor Liccardo is terming out as Mayor. I understand that his polical career has been impacted by COVID, and as such most of the work that should have been done on this ordinance hasn't. However, all of his have dealt with COVID, and there's no reason that I see that this ordinance needs to be passed before the proper work is done except that Mayor Liccardo is terming out. However, there's no good reason it needs to be passed today.

If Mayor Liccardo truly believes in this ordinance, even if the work is not complete before his term ends, he can connue to work on it aerward as a well-connected member of the community, and there's no reason he couldn't take it as a ballot measure before the people, or up with the City Council and Mayor that sits aer his term. San Jose will be here living with this ordinance long aer Sam Liccardo is no longer mayor, and likely pursuing some aempt at Governor in 2026. As such, the passage of such an ordinance should not be made to ﬁt Mayor Licardo's campaign metable.

For these reasons, I ask City Council to, at a minimum, pull this from the consent calendar and bring it up for discussion. I'd also ask that they vote no on this ordinance today. While I oppose it in general on its premise, I believe at a minimum those in City Council can ﬁnd that passing such an incomplete ordinance is folly.

Thank you for your me.

2/8/22, 10:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 6/6 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

2/8/22, 10:32 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

2/8/22, 10:31 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: OPPOSED TO GUN ORDNANCE
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 10:12 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: John Rainwater <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:50 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: OPPOSED TO GUN ORDNANCE

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

Good morning --
I would like to go on the record to formally oppose the proposed gun ordnance measure by the city of San Jose. One reason is that I don't think it would actually reduce gun harm in the city, nor the threat of gun violence. Not to mention by all measures it would be unconstitutional, clearly. I don't like it whenever city officials take matters into their own hands with respect to the law and think they are somehow exempt or above the law and the constitution, and with this gun ordinance that's what they would be doing. Nothing in this ordnance demonstrates to me that it would reduce gun harm across San Jose. Illegal gun owners will still prevail and those who comply and pay the tax to own their guns can still have a heated argument with their neighbor and shoot them through the skull. No amount of taxation will remove that as a potential threat to society.

This gun ordinance is not only NOT the answer to gun control, but also, it's a very bad idea to give non-profits unsupervised funds only introduces the potential for misappropriation of funds, nothing more along the lines of reducing gun harm.

This measure is a ridiculous proposal - can't we come up with good ideas anymore? This isn't one.

Respectfully,
John Rainwater

2/8/22, 10:31 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

West San Jose, CA

2/8/22, 10:31 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Fw: Do not institute gun control on law abiding citizens in San Jose City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 10:12 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Patrick Traynor <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:42 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Do not instute gun control on law abiding cizens in San Jose

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

2/8/22, 12:58 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Oppose liability insurance for gun owners
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 12:06 PM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Eric Kistler <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:18 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose liability insurance for gun owners

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
I wanted to let you know that I'm strongly opposed to the proposal to require gun owners in San Jose to purchase liability insurance and pay fees to some "violence reduction initiative" or program. It may be a well intentioned proposal; however, the people that are the actual problem (violent criminals and the criminally insane) aren't going to follow this proposed ordinance, just as they do not follow other laws.

This is ridiculous. Law abiding gun owners should not shoulder the burden created by violent criminals, and 'taxing' me to exercise my rights is offensive to American principles of freedom and liberty.

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

2/8/22, 12:57 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
[External Email]
Feb. 8, 2022, Agenda Item 2.2 Gun Harm Ordinance Final Adoption (on consent calendar)
Elizabeth Brierly <
Tue 2/8/2022 12:28 PM
To City Clerk <

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

Dear San Jose City Clerk

Please refer to my earlier e mail message with question about the eComments application having been shown as “not available” prior to today’s deadline of 11:45 AM.

As promised, here are my remarks of <500 characters, about the gun ordinance on today’s consent calendar.

------------------------------------
Position: Oppose
First name: Elizabeth C
Last name: Brierly
City: San Jose

Remarks of under 500 characters:

I’m a member of Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County, SCCLP .org, which opposes the gun ordinance on 2nd amend. & illegal tax grounds, etc. Forcing legal gun owners to pay a tax to a nonproit likely violates the 1st amend.’s freedom-of-speech protection. Ignoring your sacred oath to defend the constitution, merely for the Appearance of Safety, is a mistake. For facts about proven methods to stop mass shootings, & evidence debunking myths about gun control, I suggest visiting GunFacts.info.
------------------------------------

As I said in my earlier e-mail message, it’s my fervent hope that you’ll do the right thing and ensure my remarks are logged as part of the official meeting record

Thank you!

Sincerely,
Elizabeth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Elizabeth C. Brierly

2/8/22, 12:57 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

Viru free www avg com

2/8/22, 1:26 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: Intrusive and Useless Gun Bills
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 1:25 PM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Anne Malcolm <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 12:40 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Intrusive and Useless Gun Bills

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

NO on your ridiculous and intrusive bills. Hold schools accountable for EDUCATING their wards in reading, writing, and arithmetic. If you can do that successfully then perhaps we can expand into other subjects such as fluency in a foreign language, advanced maths, history and so on.

Sincerely,
Anne Malcolm

2/8/22, 3:37 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Stop unconstitutional gun insurance
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 2:52 PM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Sco Sa <sco
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 2:43 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Stop unconstuonal gun insurance

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

Hello,
My name is Scott Anthony,
As a native born resident of San Jose I ask you to stop this unlawful activity of asking or requiring gun owners to buy insurance that doesn’t even exist !
This ordinance is unconstitutional in the first place! this is a ridiculous city ordinance and will be challenged in court!
I ask you to stop before you waste much of of taxpayers money and time why are you making law abiding citizens pay for the crimes of others ?? the city needs to deal with other issues first this is ridiculous ordinance and should be removed immediately !!!I stand against this and will pose it any juncture.

This city government makes everything about revenue !!! Making everything about revenue is the problem and not the solution larger government doesn’t fix anything !!!!

2/8/22, 3:37 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 instead of fixing its own problems and how it spend its money it looks for more revenue - whyyyyy!! this is just a travesty of justice and the greedy greedy city that is corrupt doing the same thing all over again,
Stop
Scott Anthony

2/8/22, 3:37 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 Fw: Gun Fees
City Clerk <
Tue 2/8/2022 2:52 PM
To: Agendadesk <
From: jeﬀ cullins <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 2:05 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Gun Fees

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
This is a ridiculous and blatant attack on the Second Amendment. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is hard to understand?
You are demanding lawful gun owners pay a fee (tax) to what is undoubtedly an as-yet undisclosed anti- gun organization.

When rioters burned police cars and buildings, were they charged and prosecuted? No.

When violent felons ran over pedestrians with their vehicles, were the auto manufacturers sued? NO Why should lawful gun owners have to literally PAY for the violent felons' deeds? I presume the council also believes suing a gun manufacturer due to a violent felon's actions is also ok.

There is absolutely no logic to that line of thought.

Your gun fee/liability insurance requirement is not only ridiculous, it likely will be tossed out after the pending lawsuit is heard.

Put some effort into actually prosecuting criminals instead of letting them back out on the streets where they continue to hurt, harass, and maim the good citizens of San Jose.

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

2/9/22, 9:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/3 [External Email]
Fw: Vote NO Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, Public Record City Clerk <
Wed 2/9/2022 6:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Larry Schultz gmail <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 6:04 PM
To: CouncilMeeng <CouncilMee Agendadesk < Jones,
Chappie < Jimenez, Sergio < Peralez, Raul
< Cohen, David < Carrasco, Magdalena
< Davis, Dev < Esparza, Maya
< Arenas, Sylvia < Foley, Pam
< Mahan, Ma <Ma. Liccardo, Sam
< City Clerk < District1 <
District2 < District3 < District4 <
District5 < District 6 < District7 <
District8 < District9 < District 10 <
The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ

Subject: Vote NO Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance, Public Record

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

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

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

2/9/22, 9:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 2/3 Taxing and isolating a group of people purely based on their decision to embrace an enumerated constitutional right is discriminatory.

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

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

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

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

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) established that the government “may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right protected by the federal constitution.”

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

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

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

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

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) the Supreme Court ruled that “since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state [or municipal] authority, the inquiry as to whether the State [or Municipality] has given something for which it can ask for a return is irrelevant.”

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

2/9/22, 9:27 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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
Larry Schultz

2/9/22, 9:26 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: San Jose Gun Liability Tax
City Clerk <
Wed 2/9/2022 6:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Marduk Zaya <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 5:21 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: San Jose Gun Liability Tax

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

What is our constitutional right to bare arms for?
Let me answer that for you.
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Does it make any sense tallow my government to tax a law-abiding American’s guns which are meant to protect him from government over-reach and secure his Free State? This is 100% unconstitutional and will be fought in the court of law.

How will this reduce gun crime? Most of the people who actually shoot somebody outside of their own home obtain their firearms illegally. You think they are going to pay this tax? Definitely not. Once again you are penalizing a law-abiding American for the problems of criminals.

I’m disgusted.
-Marduk Zaya

2/9/22, 9:26 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Comment of Item 22 138, Ordinance No. 30716
City Clerk <
Wed 2/9/2022 6:38 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Steven Wells <
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:31 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Comment of Item 22-138, Ordinance No. 30716

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

This is in comment to Item 22-138 and the nefarious Ordinance No. 30716.

In 2008, as a San Jose resident, I ran for the US House of Representaves. That year, I observed the San Jose City Council knowingly engage in fraud, deceit, the, and abridgement of the California Constuon. The incident then involved adding an illegal administrave fee (a tax on a tax) as an addendum to the standard business tax.

The maer of the fee had been brought to trial in San Diego, who among other jurisdicons, had perpetrated the same scheme. The court ruled that such a fee is in violaon of the Constuon of the State of California. Rather than acng honorably by refunding the ill-goen money to the vicms, the City of San Jose chose to withhold the money and only refund the the to those already-known vicms who ﬁled against the fraud. Even then, the City set up a system by which an aempt to obtain their money involved a check issuance fee that negated most of the payment’s value. Only a year’s delay to pay against the next year’s business tax was available, enabling the City to use the interest and value of the money instead of use by its righul owners.

Now, in 2022, the City Council plans to steal money from law-abiding cizens and inﬂict other impediments, infringing on rights explicitly enumerated in the US Bill of Rights. With a plethora of specious stascs and “whereas” pronouncements, the City oﬀers the pretext of infringing on the rights and lives of free cizens in supplicaon to suicidal fools who so disvalue life that they will sacriﬁce their own lives in the gain of nothing.

That, and some prale about car airbags, is intended to abridge our 2nd Amendment rights. You know that this ordinance is wrong and unconstuonal. Do you intend to apply the Ordinance by using some illegally derived ﬁrearms registry to storm the homes of peaceable cizens? I cauon the City Council to recall that the United States of America was created on the chief defensive goal of sending tax collectors and tyrants to their doom. Many who value their lives and their freedom retain their

2/9/22, 9:26 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.

American heritage
In the spirit of our ancestors and our freedom, I peacefully ask that the Council quash this freedom killing law, which would certainly produce well-deserved Constuonal challenges.

Or do you intend to connue a history of San Jose fraud, deceit, the, and Constuonal abridgement?!

Steven Wells

2008 Candidate for the US House of Representatives, California District 16

2/9/22, 9:26 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Fw: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Wed 2/9/2022 6:59 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Chase <ﬂa
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:28 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

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

Fw: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Wed 2/9/2022 7:00 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Ray froess <
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 6:16 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

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

You want to tax us to pay for your incompetence in enforcing the laws, sanctuary cities, no-ball policies, soft on illegals, and other stupid behavior? Do your job to protect the citizens instead of protecting the criminals or resign.

Ray Froess

2/9/22, 9:25 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAAC… 1/1 Fw: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance
City Clerk <
Wed 2/9/2022 7:00 AM
To: Agendadesk <
From: Tim Stewart <
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:54 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Oppose Public Safety Gun Harm Reducon Ordinance

[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Stop the madness
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

2/9/22, 1:13 PM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
1/1
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Fw: Liability Insurance for Legal Gun Owners
City Clerk
Wed 2/9/2022 1:03 PM
To: Agendadesk
From: KIM KENNEDY
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:30 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Liability Insurance for Legal Gun Owners

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

Why punish legal gun owners? Enforce better back ground checks. This mandate seems unconstitutional.

San Jose City CouncilFebruary 8, 2022

San Jose City Council
February 8, 2022