RULES COMMITTEE: 2/23/2022
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 22-076
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: February 23, 2022
February 10 – February 17, 2022
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. 65 Public Record Items, dated February 11-17, 2021, regarding: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance/Firearm Policy.
66. Letter from Jeremy Lorberau, dated February 12, 2022, regarding: [No Subject].
67. Letter from Shane Allie, dated February 12, 2022, regarding: [No Subject].
68. Letter from Ricardo Lara/Mary Beth Bykowsky, dated February 14, 2022, regarding:
Insurance Commissioner Lara and state emergency agencies issue “Safer from Wildfires” framework to protect existing homes and communities.
69. Letter from Hua Zhang, dated February 15, 2022, regarding: Regarding the non-citizen ballot proposal.
70. Letter from Zoila Herrera/Rollins, dated February 16, 2022, regarding: Re: Claim against the City.
71. Letter from Kate Steffens, dated February 16, 2022, regarding: Decision regarding electronic billboards at San Jose Airport.
72. Letter from Tanya Burkey, dated February 12, 2022, regarding: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport.
73. Letter from Roseanna Lavia, dated February 16, 2022, regarding: Re: The Rest of the Story: Billboards.
Rules and Open Government Committee
February 23, 2022
Subject: Public Record
74. Letter from Lisa Morse, dated February 16, 2022, regarding: support of nitrous oxide ordinance and legislation.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: 22-045 proposal
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:49:33 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Jim Balzer <
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 7:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 22-045 proposal
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important This attempt to just do something, anything to appease an agenda driven council to punish law abiding citizens of San Jose, is just wrong. Please involve your citizens to come to a proposal that more effectively seek out the causes of violent gun related crime in your city. Most all gun related crime in your city is the result of criminals who are banned from gun ownership or possession, but you already know that. Please do not implement this resolution to your law abiding citizens. This will needlessly cost your city hundred's of thousands of dollars for litigation that could be better spent towards programs to combat violent crime. Thank you for you time.
Public Record: 1
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: Gun measures being considered to take effect Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:42:11 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Robert Klotz <
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:48 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun measures being considered to take effect
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important It's unconstitutional and every single one of you should be lined up against the wall and shot by firing squad if it is passed
Public Record: 2
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: Gun laws
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:49:13 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Teddy Lowe <
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 9:46 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun laws
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important In from Arkansas, and I do have relatives in California, but it sounds to me like you people just do not want any body to live there? They told me their government was pathetic and reading this about those new gun laws, I believe it. If you guys just want a bunch of strawberry milk drinking punks living there, then keep on the path your taking because that's where you're headed. I just can't believe what I read. The law suits coming your way are gonna cost over and over and over .
Teddy
Public Record: 3
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: Gun law
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:48:48 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: bperg <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 2:21 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun law
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Thank you for this law. It will give the courts a chance to deem it unconstitutional accross the entire country. A great way to stop others from trying to pass stupid laws.
Sent from my Galaxy
Public Record: 4
[External Email]
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw:
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:48:06 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Jason Powell <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 2:25 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello
My name is Jason and I'm from Ohio. This morning a read an article discussing the proposed new laws for legal gun owners in your city. Although I am not a citizen of your city I own guns legally in my state, I keep those guns safely in my home (though they are not all locked away which I would like to state I choose to do for both self defense as well as in the event that I need to protect my property and animals from predators) and I legally carry a concealed firearm on a daily basis. I would like to state as an example that while I handle my guns on a daily basis and have constant easy access to them in my home, never once has anyone around me been in any danger because of my firearm. I believe that while your city's proposed new law will not directly effect me as a gun owner in Ohio they will adversely affect my fellow law abiding citizens who live in your city. I also know that if passed and left standing this law will set a precedent on what is considered ok to do to damage the second amendment rights of all Americans. Let me clarify that. Your proposed law hampers one of the God given rights of humanity which our nation has guaranteed for it's citizens. That is wrong. I feel for my fellow law abiding citizens who wish no harm on anyone else and simply want to exercise their rights. I know if I were to live in your city my choice as a gun owner would simply be to move instead of paying your fees and fines or allowing your council members to dictate how I could handle my own property. I would also like to point out that the information I read indicates that thus far these measures have been passed by members of your council in direct opposition of all the constituents of your city who have attended the meetings to argue against these proposed laws. As an American this is why the majority of us do not trust politicians. Your Public Record: 5
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
council members are blatantly disregarding the will of your constituents and choosing to enforce their own ideas of what America should be on others. That is wrong. It goes against what makes our nation great. We are a nation governed by the people. Not a nation of governed people. Please listen to your constituents, do the right thing. Vote these laws down.
In the event that you push them though anyway I look forward to watching the legal battle to protect the rights of your citizens.
Thank you for your time.
Jason from Ohio
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: Gun Ownership Law
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:46:59 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Steve Burt <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 4:10 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Ownership Law
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important It doesn't make any sense to make law abiding citizens responsible for criminal activity, unless your intent is to infringe rights. You will have greater success if you mandate all households to have a firearm and training. Part of being a criminal is disregard for laws. Apply appropriate punishment to law breakers.
Public Record: 6
[External Email]
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: Gun control bill
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:46:35 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Tubbs, Wyatt A SN USN (USA) <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:42 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun control bill
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good morning,
I hope this email is read in great consideration as the San Jose city council is taking even more drastic, unconstitutional measures against its citizens.
Any infringement against any of the 27 amendments is beyond exorbitant and should not even be in consideration, especially one that forces law-abiding citizens to pay for the actions of criminals. When people want to hurt others they will find a way, you attempting to cease the good common public from defending themselves will only cause complete destruction of public safety. When a drunk driver crashes their car you do not blame the car, you blame the driver. Why is it then that the council is blaming and punishing good Samaritans for criminal gun violence?
I can only pray that the council holds out their duties that they were appointed to do and represent the residents of San Jose correctly and constitutionally.
Until they do remember the wise words of Thomas Jefferson “ A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired. “ – 1775
Do not abuse your power, have temperance.
Public Record: 7
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Very respectfully,
Wyatt Tubbs
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: San Jose gun insurance and tax
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:03:36 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Heath Baggett <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 7:09 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: San Jose gun insurance and tax
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important In my humble opinion, this proposed ordinance seems to punish law-abiding citizens for merely exercising one of their inalienable rights This unconstitutional tax on lawful gun owners must be forbidden. There is no reason that citizens who lawfully own guns should be responsible for the actions of criminals who obtain guns through nefarious means Public Record: 8
[External Email]
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: Proposed Gun Ordinance
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:03:03 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Todd Kurzenberger <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 7:29 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Gun Ordinance
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important To Whom it May Concern,
I read an article regarding your proposed ordinance and find it particularly alarming. First, it is our right under the second amendment to lawfully own firearms and it is not our responsibility to police the criminals. The history of continuing to ease penalties on violent criminals and placing infractions like the proposed ordinance is the reason that so many criminals are running the streets and crime is continuing to increase. Many of the criminals are repeat offenders who are set free with no chance to better their lives or the desire to do so. Until your court system holds them accountable, crime will always be increasing. If you punish the lawful gun owners or not.
Second, what is next? Is it the responsibility of the owner of an automobile to cover damages made by a criminal who steals that car? What if that criminal steals a car and intentionally runs over another human being? Is that the owner of the cars fault and responsibility? If my medications are stolen from my house, is it my fault if those are used in an overdose? Stop being so lenient on criminals and punishing those that law abiding citizens who are already worried about their safety knowing that criminals are allowed to run free.
Thank you,
Todd Kurzenberger
Public Record: 9
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw:
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:51:07 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Gloria Schlecht <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:26 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important About the gun insurance wage you're trying to apply to citizens in you state . Please do not start something has deep embedded history. You would not be a free a man if guns had not fought for you and you ancestors . You and your constituents may believe this could control an inevitable death of a child but your wrong . I say tax you until you come up with program to help the mentally ill who do not realize right from wrong with out constant supervision or medicine. Try creating programs with anything that will control mental illness . You are stepping on such liberties and history that has saved countries not hurt them . Where will this money go IF YOU and your constituents get what you want ? Into tunnels for drug dealers ? Into programs to cure cancer ? Into the mouths of starving families ? Find something better to do with your time besides hurting people who put food on your plate . That's an idea . Just a concerned citizen of another state that read this story . God have mercy when we have to lick up our axes and knives and anything that protects us . Good luck hurting those who saved your history so you could walk on it's face . I'm ashamed to have this anger I'll pray for better decisions .
Public Record: 10
2/11/22, 2:19 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw:
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Fri 2/11/2022 10:07 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Cc: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Kedric Williams <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:21 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important The new laws trying to be passed by your city are unconstitutional and evil. If they are passed you will be doing nothing but furthering people getting firearms illegaly and dangerously. “The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional,” the Court ruled in the 2008 decision, D.C. v. Heller.
“In my humble opinion, this proposed ordinance seems to punish law-abiding citizens for merely exercising one of their inalienable rights,” San Jose resident John Mancino said.
And it is extreamly wrong.
As an American citizen, and as a Texan. I believe what you are doing is horribly unconstitutional.
Public Record: 11
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: City Clerk
To: Agendadesk
Subject: Fw: Gun tax? Really?
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:50:19 AM
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: David Fileccia <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:44 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun tax? Really?
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Have you people lost your minds?
Public Record: 12
2/11/22, 2:28 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Gun Control Measures
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Fri 2/11/2022 10:10 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Cc: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: John and Maureen Waite <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:01 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Control Measures
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Requiring:
1. "Liability insurance covering losses or damages related to “negligent or accidental use of the firearm,” including death and injury.
2. ... gun owners to pay a “gun harm reduction fee” to a “designated nonprofit organization.” As no insurance companies currently offer such a policy, it would be impossible for gun owners to comply. A law impossible to obey will not stand. At that point, attempting to enforce that law requires you to violate your citizen's second amendment rights.
Trying to follow the logic that led you to this point is fruitless - will you penalize grocery stores for obesity?
Another question - is the use of city government revenue able to be given to a charity without the citizen's having a say in WHICH charity receives those dollars? Are speeding fines allocated to the Stock Car Racing Museum, as well? If you're serious about your reasoning, you are guilty of discrimination against an entire group of citizens.
If this was a half-baked plan to increase city revenue, you deserve every lawsuit assuredly headed your way.
To govern the people, treat them with enough respect to do so from a platform of common sense and practical logic. Pass laws requiring harsh sentencing guidelines for criminals using or possessing Public Record: 13
2/11/22, 2:28 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. firearms. Don't throw out the milk because the neighbor's milk was sour... 2/11/22, 2:29 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: brilliant idea on guns.
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Fri 2/11/2022 10:10 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Cc: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: John Attwood <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:49 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: brilliant idea on guns.
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Will the criminals have insurance as well ? Since we know that in places like California criminals run wild, I see where this is probably going. Here's my example:
Uninsured armed criminal barges into the house of an innocent family home. Family shoots the criminal, the criminal survives but has permanent damage. Criminal sues the family for damages for wages lost by the injury. Family doesn't have firearm insurance, the family loses the case and their home.
This is the kind of logic that emanates from this mindset, whoever came up with the idea of insurance required for firearms.
The people who come up with this type of thought have their own security guards. They can afford multiple layers of insurance. But the average Joe is getting sucked dry by the communist state run by people like you.
The other thing is that it is likely the insurance companies that came up with the idea. Why, because it benefits them it doesn't benefit society as a whole.
Public Record: 14
2/11/22, 2:29 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw:
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Fri 2/11/2022 1:00 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Cc: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Clayton Hamilton <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 12:39 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello I am a gun owner and I think that all you are doing is no since and it is to control the gun owners that have the right to have them and not even trying to take away from the cremanls that have guns that they still from us and you are trying to make us pay for their dum stuff and take a vantench of everyone that has a gun that is ligule to own and hunt and protect our own lives the police are not going to be able to do that for sure
Public Record: 15
2/11/22, 2:30 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: New gun law
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Fri 2/11/2022 1:35 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Cc: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Timothy Paulson <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 1:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New gun law
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I am new to st joseph but I am concerned this falls under taxation without representation and infringes on our 2nd amendment. People kill people not the gun. Those people are going to keep obtaining firearms with or without this law.
Public Record: 16
2/16/22, 3:17 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: Proposed Firearms Ordinances
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Fri 2/11/2022 3:55 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Cc: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Pickelsimer Matthew <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 3:26 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Firearms Ordinances
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Greetings,
I am writing to voice concern on the subject of the proposed firearm liability insurance and the gun harm reduction fee. Neither of these measures would target gun violence and constitute an illogical attack on San Jose citizen’s Second Amendment rights. Please reconsider this proposal and think about the true intent behind these proposed ordinances. Thank you for your time and consideration. ,Sincerely
Matt Pickelsimer
USMC
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Public Record: 17
2/16/22, 4:55 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MTc0NwAu… 1/1 FW: Gun control
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:34 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Skowronski <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 6:31 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun control
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear Council,
I’ve been informed of the poor decision to approve the new gun control measures against the will of the majority of the people that have contacted you. Please do not pass these proposals.
Thank you,
Curt Skowronski from Michigan
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 18
2/16/22, 3:39 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: New Gun Regulations Unintended Consequences
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:34 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Tyler Welsh <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 7:27 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: New Gun Regulations Unintended Consequences
To Whom It May Concern,
I think we should consider the unintended consequences of taxing law abiding citizens for the crimes of others.
The one that immediately comes to mind law abiding military service members, who's residency remains their home of record, and are exempt from state taxes in California under the SCRA, but legally posess firearms should also be exempt from paying taxes on a federally unconstitutional ordinance imposed by local officials.
Please reconsider your actions in favor of common sense, law abiding citizens rights, military service members rights and freedom those service members provide.
Thank you
Public Record: 19
2/16/22, 3:39 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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 control
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Charlie Cooksey <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 7:33 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun control
Hello,
My name is Charlie Cooksey I do not live in California but I have taken an interest in this. You can not pass this law.
Whether or not it is constitutional, punishing tax paying individuals for crimes not remotely connected to them is morally wrong. How can that be the case? Your own head of one of your firearm labs told you the vast majority of gun related crime are committed by people who should not own them in the first place.
Sincerely,
Charlie Cooksey
P.S.
Get it right
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Public Record: 20
2/16/22, 3:40 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Gun Tax and Liability Insurance Requirement
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Logan Jennings <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:57 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Tax and Liability Insurance Requirement
Hello,
I am not a San Jose resident, but a resident of CA. I am writing to strongly oppose this law. Rather than make an argument against this law based on legal grounds I would like to make an argument for consideration on moral grounds.
The proposed law is “intended” to reduce crime, misuse of firearms and decrease the financial burden of gun crime in San Jose County. This law will NOT be affective in any manner on any of these items; this is fact. Adding taxation to citizens who legally obtain firearms is not the solution for reducing negative activities of people willing to commit crimes with firearms. At the most basic level criminals do not care about the existing laws which is why there is gun violence in the first place. The assumption that a tax and some liability insurance requirement by documented and legal gun owners will fix this is asinine, ignorant and morally unjust.
I completely agree that San Jose should work to reduce firearm violence, gun related crimes and accidents; there is no disagreement on this point and I’m positive 100% of legal gun owners would also agree. The way to solving this is not adding more regulation to legal gun ownership, rather enforcing current gun ownership requirements, legitimate enforcement of existing gun laws through the legal process and actually focusing on the prevention of sale and use of illegally possessed firearms is. There is zero evidence that increased gun control laws are effective at reducing crime in the US or anywhere in the world for that matter. In fact in the US specifically, cities with the most strict gun control regulations not only suffer from higher crime rates, but also from high gun related crime rates.
This proposed law is unjust morally. Anyone supporting this law needs to think long and hard how this will actually affect change on the problem at hand and know that passing this law will only compound the existing problem at the expense of the law abiding citizens both gun owners and non-gun owners. These types of proposals and pitches of intent are irrational and flat wrong.
Please take the time to think about whether your vote would be one of moral virtue to solving a legitimate problem in your community or if you are comfortable looking in the mirror knowing positioning this laws intent to be better for the community is not only dishonest but ineffective.
Respectfully,
Public Record: 21
2/16/22, 3:40 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Logan Jennings
--
All the Best,
Logan Jennings
2/16/22, 3:40 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: Unconstitutional…. Period
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Stuart Hamann <
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 10:30 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Unconstitutional…. Period
This unconstitutional tax on lawful gun owners must be forbidden. There is no reason that citizens who lawfully own guns should be responsible for the actions of criminals who obtain guns through nefarious means. Don’t waste your time proposing a law that diminishes the rights of the people … this is a free country. If you don’t like it … move to Canada!
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
Public Record: 22
2/16/22, 3:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: Your proposed gun control laws
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Tyce Schrecengost <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 5:19 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Your proposed gun control laws
Dear city council,
Please oppose the proposed gun control laws. You are not fixing any crime issues here. You are directly opposing our constitutional 2nd amendment right. For that reason, if the laws are past, you alone, are responsible for treasonous acts under the United States Constitution. California, start using common sense. You are going to lose more tax paying residents. But, that is your priority, to bring in more illegal aliens that will abide by your own laws.
Tyce
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Public Record: 23
2/16/22, 3:48 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: New Gun Ownership Ordinances
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: mike welch <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 5:51 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New Gun Ownership Ordinances
To whom it may concern,
I would like to convey my complete opposition for the proposed gun ownership ordinances to OBTAIN
AND MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF ANNUAL GUN HARM REDUCTION FEE. The mayor and council members have unilaterally proposed and pushed this agenda with overwhelming opposition from the public. The purpose of elected officials is to represent those that have trusted them with their vote. These proposed ordinances are clearly not supported by the public.
However, the Mayor and council members continue to proceed with these unconstitutional ordinances to push their own agenda under the guise of the “we know what’s right for you” mentality.
Additionally, the theory that these ordinances will have an impact on criminals committing violent crimes is laughable and no reasonable person would think otherwise. These ordinances are clearly an effort to hinder legal gun owners from possessing legal firearms that are protected under the constitution and any explanation on the contrary is a complete fabrication of the truth.
In closing, these ordinances should be struck down as an unconstitutional burden on legal gun owners.
The residents of San Jose and and the State of California deserve better.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Welch
Public Record: 24
2/16/22, 3:49 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Firearm Fee and Liability Insurance
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Cavan Howay <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 6:36 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Firearm Fee and Liability Insurance
Hello,
I’m reaching out to state my displeasure with the city councils attempt to enact the unconstitutional firearm fee and liability insurance. This is not right and should not be passed.
As a resident of San Jose this is effect me and my family for the negative. This won’t reduce gun violence in any way. All it will do is stop new gun owners from being able to protect themselves against criminals.
Crime in the city of San Jose continues to climb and police response time continuous to get worse. Please don’t try to take away our right to protect ourselves.
Thank you,
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Public Record: 25
2/16/22, 3:49 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. 2/16/22, 3:57 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: I object to firearm insurance and fees
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:35 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: DrewsFoodz <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 6:54 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: I object to firearm insurance and fees
I am a Bay Area native and strongly object to San Jose City council attempting to require firearm owners to purchase insurance and pay fees. Our constitutional liberties should not be bought and sold. It is an unjust requirement for law abiding citizens to be responsible for criminal activity. Protests sometimes result in violence and property destruction. They lead to lost revenue by businesses. They require expensive monitoring by police.
Why should the silent, non-protesting public be asked to foot the bill for those who wish to have their voices heard?
Please consider alternative measures that do not harm law abiding citizens in order to reduce violent crime.
Andrew Gardner
Public Record: 26
2/16/22, 3:58 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: 2nd amendment violation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Bill J <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 6:59 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 2nd amendment violation
I am not sure if any member of your city council has ever heard of this amendment to our constitution or have even heard of this thing call the US Constitution but at your next meeting the question has to said.
READ MY LIPS:. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Just in case the communist party that has taken over California do not understand the meaning of infringed still here is what Webster says it mean.
infringe
verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj \
infringed; infringing
Definition of infringe
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another Public Record: 27
2/16/22, 3:58 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Pretty simple right. But what can the good constitutional citizens of this once greater Republic expect from the communist state of California.
Btw this law is a joke,. She y'all shamed in court.
2/16/22, 3:58 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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 ownership insurance bill
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Darrell Durham <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 7:13 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun ownership insurance bill
This is the typical response by liberals to pretty much anything harmful - blame the victim. It must be something THEY did! This law is unconstitutional and ineffective. One reason we are being overwhelmed with immigrants is because they can't protect themselves from the drug cartels because they don't have guns! If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will HAVE guns.
Public Record: 28
2/16/22, 3:59 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: San Jose gun tax
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: bobby gardner <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 7:18 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; bobby gardner < Subject: San Jose gun tax
I say recall the city counsel members that are in favor of this tax.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Public Record: 29
2/16/22, 3:59 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: Liability insurance?
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: peter chaban <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 7:31 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Liability insurance?
Infringement of our rights! City council should resign.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Public Record: 30
2/16/22, 4:04 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 FW: Travesty
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Moon <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 7:37 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Travesty
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Your recent “gun control” measures are an absolute travesty of uninformed ideas. You have mistaken a natural RIGHT for a privilege. I understand there are externalities associated with the simple existence of weapons but that does not give you or the government the ability to infringe upon natural freedoms solely because you have failed to support your law enforcement enough to allow them to do their jobs.
Further, to no other natural rights have you applied this logic - nor should you. Can you imagine if someone had to pay a fee to practice their religion or give up their right to a fair trial? The rich would be further privileged and the poor further hurt.
I am DEEPLY embarrassed to call myself a Californian because of your misinformed nonesense.
Additionally, who runs your nonprofits getting funded by law abiding citizens? My guess is it is your friends and business partners a further example of corruption ruining California.
You should be embarrassed.
V/R
Jared Moon
Call me if you actually want to discuss measures that work and don’t infringe upon the right of the people.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 31
2/16/22, 4:04 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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 law proposals
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Patriotic American <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:07 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun law proposals
I am a resident of Wisconsin and am watching your vote on two proposals one being a requirement that lawful gun owners carry liability insurance for their protected and enumerated right in the U.S. Constitution. If allowed, what would stop the council to force other insurance measures on their citizens?. Would would stop you from forcing obese ppl to carry extra insurance to cover gaps in health care costs..what would stop the council from imposing extra fees on convicted drunk drivers to fund more safety programs?. These proposals are blatant violations of the rights of your citizens. The right to own and use firearms without encumbrance have been fully litigated time and time again by state and federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, power hungry politicians such as your council thumb their noses at the courts when their decisions don't align with with your twisted views of freedom and of society. Put your criminals behind bars where they belong,clean up your drug problem. STOP illegal immigrants who in most cases have violent criminal records from walking your streets and LEAVE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ALONE.
Public Record: 32
2/16/22, 4:07 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: Concerns
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Clay Long <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:08 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns
Dear employee of the city of San Jose,
I am emailing in response to proposed gun control laws you are considering enacting. It seems that your city council is deaf to the voices of the people they are there to serve. Despite the very vocal opposition to these proposed laws by your own people, the City council stupidly voted in favor of them. All you are accomplishing here is punishing your citizens that were abiding by gun safety laws in the first place. Do you really think anyone who is committing gun crimes in your city is going to give a fig about your new laws? They aren’t going to pay you or an insurance company for a gun and they sure as hell aren’t going to let you guys take them away. Maybe if you were tougher on actual crime this wouldn’t be as much of an issue for your city. Quit being unreasonable and vote down these laws. I look forward to supporting the incoming lawsuits that will be levied against your city government
--
Sincerely,
Clay Long, BS, CPT
Mobile -
Public Record: 33
2/16/22, 4:08 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 FW: Gun control
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: john W <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 9:22 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun control
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Why is the world would you pass a ordinance/law that those who elected you almost 100% are against.
You were elected to represent those from your district.
Please consider how you would feel in someone else were elected and they were purposing something you and most everyone in your district opposed. Surely you can honestly say you would be upset. It is just common courtesy to respect what the majority wants.
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 34
2/16/22, 4:08 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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 Control Measures
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Diane Cook <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 9:36 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Control Measures
First off, I am not a gun owner. This is a personal choice on my part. I am also a Democrat (although that shouldn’t have any part of this debate). I support the right to own and bear arms. I believe MOST gun owners are responsible. I share the same frustration when innocent individuals pay the price for the few owners that aren’t worthy of possessing guns. However, to use the methods of singling out gun owners to pay for the right to bear arms defeats all logic to deter illegal activity. Those trying to instill these changes are using their own personal opinions of guns to make laws. You are doing nothing but perpetuating the divide that exists in the country on an issue that is actually shared across the aisle with both Democrats and Republicans. Listen to your constituents and make decisions based on those opinions.
The criminal element is always going to exist. Strengthen your laws for the use of a firearm during the act of a crime. If it’s a financial issue then increase court costs for cases involving gun. Increase jail time for criminals using weapons. Put the punishment on those individuals breaking the law not law abiding people. Work with the gun associations to educate new gun owners on the responsibility of possessing a firearm. If an accident happens due to a gun not being secured (child shot etc) then hold that owner responsible and let the court system decide whether to proceed with charges of negligence. Use the methods already in place and fine tune them. Not start a long drawn out court battle that just further divided the country.
Diane Cook,
Bremen, OH
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Public Record: 35
2/16/22, 4:09 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 FW: Gun Control Fallacies and Power Abuse will stain your political careers City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Everett D. Arey <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 9:52 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Control Fallacies and Power Abuse will stain your political careers [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
To those San Jose council-persons who are attempting to institute egregiously unconstitutional, and blatantly misplaced so called “gun control” legislation, I am a lawfully armed citizen of California, who both owns guns and supports SENSIBLE gun laws on storage and training. If you can’t work with me (someone who sits in the center of this debate), then you will never find common ground to build on. I do support safe storage and mandatory training for gun owners. But I also know a Trojan horse when I see one.
Your two recently voted on local gun ordinances do nothing but punish law abiding citizens and attempt to transfer all responsibility and economic impact of criminal activity to those who are in fact the most law abiding and upright citizens in your city.
I am writing to make sure you are crystal clear that your support of these 2 ill advised, illegitimate, and frankly bigoted, ordinances will stain your political career. You are wrong to attempt to basically tax the 2nd Amendment, to rob and place undo burden on people who only wish to protect their families (SJ with over a 7 minute police response time at best, and often worse, meaning the police are there for cleanup not initial protection!) I lived in downtown San Jose for a year. I know how rough it can get abs the lack of safety at night. Your willful ignorance of the REAL problems with criminal activity and violence links in your city, and your outright power abuse in California, will lead to your loss of power, not your gain.
You will lose this fight, one way or another, as the courts will erase this absurd law.
So feel free to be smart, be brave, and pass laws that actually address the REAL cause and effect of gun violence, instead of grandstanding and virtue signaling on the back of legal citizens who help keep the peace and protect our homes and cities when the police simply cannot be everywhere, at every hour.
The majority of your citizens have come to the SJ city council and expressed their outrage and lack of support for these laws, so if you proceed it is out of arrogance, not good faith, and certainly not as legal Public Record: 36
2/16/22, 4:09 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 representatives of your constituents.
Be honest about the real problems of crime and gun violence, and leave law abiding, Constitutionally armed citizens alone. We are the ones who vote and make the State of California a better place. Your entire political future is at stake. Law abiding, consciences citizens are watching what choices you make and actions you take right now.
Sincerely,
E. Daniel Arey
Trained CCW holder and law abiding California resident.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2/16/22, 4:22 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 FW: Unconstitutional and unfair
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:37 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lugo <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:54 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Unconstitutional and unfair
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
To whom it may concern,
This is absurd. Making law abiding citizens pay a fee for the unlawful doings of criminals is absolutely wrong. Stop trying to take our gun rights away from any angle you can and stop trying to make legal gun ownership only for those that can afford the ridiculous fees you are imposing. Making legal gun owners pay fees is not going to fix your crime problem. How about you focus on the problem, which is the actual criminals. Make some laws that affect them. Make them pay fees and serve the actual jail time they were sentenced. This is a “MONEY GRAB” and financial punishment to law abiding citizens. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 37
2/16/22, 4:37 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: New gun law proposals
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:37 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Philip Jennings <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:54 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New gun law proposals
These new laws you are proposing are completely foolish, it proves the old saying "ignorance is bliss". Do you really think that criminals are going to go out and buy insurance for owning a firearm? I think you know they won't, I think you just want to make the gun owners pay and pay each other on the back as if what you are doing is solving all your problems. Keep this fools work going, and when the people vote you out of office don't ask why...
Public Record: 38
2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fwd: Gun Control Ordinance Opposition
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 12:51 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Ethan Robert Fowler-Schwab <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:27:03 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Control Ordinance Opposition
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello City Clerk,
I have heard news of the new gun control laws being voted on by town council. It sounds as though the town council is voting against the publics wishes for these controls. I would voice that I emphatically oppose these new laws and believe they negatively impact the culture of the United States of America.
Do not pass these new laws and ordinances.
Ethan
Public Record: 39
2/16/22, 4:46 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: Firearm Policy
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Wed 2/16/2022 2:27 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 2:11 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Firearm Policy
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:24 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Firearm Policy
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
San Jose City Council,
I appose firearm liability insurance.
I am a low class citizen who hunts and spends all of his free time in the outdoors. I don’t have the ability to pay for firearm insurance and pay for state park passes, hunting trips, state license fees, and provide for my family.
This policy would reduce my time in the outdoors. Less time in the outdoors for anyone is not healthy.
Please explore other options.
Thank you,
Public Record: 40
2/16/22, 4:46 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 Jeremiah Oftedahl
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2/17/22, 11:55 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 FW: New fees on gun owners
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:31 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> -----Original Message-----
From: <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:37 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New fees on gun owners
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Hello
I am no longer a resident of California however I lived in Redwood City for years and spent many days in San Jose as I had close friends that lived there.
The current legislation being voted on by city council regarding fees and taxation on law abiding gun owners is over reach at best. It seems as though the law makes as much sense as looking to punish and enact fees on the orange farmer for the person who shop lifts an orange at a local grocery store. It is nonsensical bureaucratic over reach.
I understand the intentions behind it. They are noble. But directing resources and policy to people who otherwise follow the laws makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever by any stretch of the imagination.
More importantly the councils own constituents have voiced their opposition to it. Only to have the council pass the next step in the legislative process with no consideration of the people the are sworn to serve. That alone shows the lack of care the council members have for their own city. It is disgusting and arrogant.
Listen to your fellow citizens. They’re part of the community.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 41
2/17/22, 11:56 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: Unconstitutional gun control measures
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:31 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: Derek Schenk <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:37 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Unconstitutional gun control measures
Please refrain from attempting to impose unconstitutional firearms ownership upon the residents of San Jose with regard to both an insurance policy standpoint as well as the unconstitutional fine of 25 dollars.
Imposing such laws would be egregious and injust to the law abiding citizens of San Jose California.
Regards,
Derek Schenk
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Public Record: 42
2/17/22, 11:56 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 FW: New gun laws
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:31 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> -----Original Message-----
From: Rian Suihkonen <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:47 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New gun laws
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
City council members,
It is an absolute embarrassment to this nation that the majority of you would vote to tax and add extra burden to law abiding gun owners. As a member of the military I was stationed in the Northern California, Bay Area and have seen just how bad crime in those areas was. I own guns and have my entire life, and never would’ve truly felt safe living in that area without one for self defense in my home. I also enjoy and rely upon use of guns for hunting and contributing to wildlife conservation. We already had to pay an astronomical amount to be able to hunt in California, and really could use a break from all the useless fees and infringements upon our rights as Americans. Furthermore I see these recent new gun laws and fees as nothing more than a political power grab at law abiding citizens. As a military member, who has signed a line to defend the constitution, I see this as a slap in my face, and disregard for the laws with which this country was founded, and a punch in the face to any service member who has served and fought so bravely to defend. Hopefully “common sense” will prevail with your next vote regarding the “gun fee” and gun ownership insurance. I hope you see the danger in these types of gun laws, which I will remind you only hurt LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! There’s a reason I will choose to take my career and retirement wages elsewhere and never return to your state or give a dime to the state of California, and that reason is politicians like yourselves. Think these excessive laws over before you find yourselves alone in a state with nobody but criminals, as everyone else bails ship to gun loving states because of your decisions……your not to far from that already anyways.
Sincerely,
Rian Suihkonen
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 43
2/17/22, 11:56 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Gun liability insurance
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:31 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: Stephen Collins <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:49 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun liability insurance
Hello.
I don’t usually contact my local government officials. I’ve had reasons to in the past and never would get around to it. This topic has finally given me reason to. The easiest way for me to show my disagreement is by stating these key points from a website covering the topic.
The new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.
The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.
If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.
I feel like if you want to make solutions to the gun violence problem. You need to speak with local firearm educators and professionals that understand the topic better than you.
The website I am quoting is listed here
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/8-problems-san-joses-gun-insurance-mandateand-gun-ownership-tax Public Record: 44
2/17/22, 11:56 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Thank you
-Stephen Collins
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
2/17/22, 11:56 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: San Jose Gun Control Measures
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:30 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: Logan Dredske <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 5:06 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: San Jose Gun Control Measures
The gun control measures adopted by the San Jose City Council are an encroachment on the 2nd amendment. It is a disappointment that the Council adopted the measures after such strong public opposition. Financial costs to enforce these measures will be a a gross waste of taxpayer money. Lastly, the City has not provided adequate data to conclude that the measures will reduce gun violence. Has a cost benefit analysis been conducted? In conclusion, I strongly oppose these measures.
Logan Dredske
Public Record: 45
2/17/22, 11:57 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 FW: New Gun Law Proposal
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:30 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> -----Original Message-----
From: Luciano Yanez <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 5:32 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New Gun Law Proposal
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Good evening, I wanted to weigh on the proposed gun tax and insurance law. Though I doubt my humble opinion matters, I would like to be heard non the less. I do not believe the proposed law will do anything more for gun safety or gun violence; it will just merely serve as an alternate form or revenue for the county. As stated in the proposal the new laws will help fund the costs associated with violent gun crimes in San Jose. This creates the obvious problem for law abiding citizens. They will be forced to pay for the crimes of those who choose to live outside the law. This proposal would be as absurd as requesting all citizens to pay an additional tax on all types of medicine to pay for the additional police force needed in types of crime committed by illegal drugs, or for all citizens to pay an additional tax for alcohol to pay for all the DUI stops the police must make. The list of things can go on and on.
Clearly this law is meant to go directly after gun ownership and possession of guns in general. It is a very clever way to circumvent our second amendment right. I do hope this gets stopped in court and the legal gun owners of San Jose get to enjoy their rights without being bothered with additional taxes.
Thank You,
Luciano Yanez
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 46
2/17/22, 11:57 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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 restrictions
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:29 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: Josh Sparks <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 6:40 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun restrictions
Please quit trying to impose these ridiculous rules on your citizens. My Midwest town and region is getting over run by people leaving California and making property unaffordable for people that have lived their entire lives here.
Public Record: 47
2/17/22, 11:24 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: Gun Control Measures
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:21 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Rob Hendricks <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:42 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Control Measures
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear sir/madam,
I encourage you to reconsider the gun control measures that you’re city is considering putting into place. Taxing law abiding gun owners and requiring paying for a separate annual liability insurance policy (that doesn’t exist) for law abiding gun owners is simply unconstitutional, un-American, and irresponsible. You are forcing good people out of your city. I want to encourage you to seek solutions to add extra taxes to those citizens who are abusing local laws not those law abiding citizens who you would thus be taxing. If you choose to pass these new gun control laws it will not have a positive impact on crime in your community as you are basically fining law abiding gun owners and not the criminals. It’s just common sense that this won’t work.
Sincerely,
Rob Hendricks
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 48
2/17/22, 11:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 Fw: Absurd new gun laws
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:21 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Maggie Reed <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:39 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Absurd new gun laws
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Hello,
These new gun laws you are proposing are insane. Why would you tax the LEGAL gun owners. Instead, focus your efforts going after criminals illegally possessing guns who are actually doing the crimes. This is like saying to stop drug overdoses, we are going to tax people who take their prescriptions from the pharmacy. You want to take a stand against gun violence, and I respect that. However, you have no backbone and are just going after people you know will follow laws since you can’t think of anything else to do. Is this meant to appease the public? Put on your thinking caps and figure out a way to go after the criminals murdering people, and leave the ones obeying laws alone. This is an embarrassment.
Maggie Reed
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 49
2/17/22, 11:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: Gun tax/control
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:20 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: chris pulchny <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 1:44 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun tax/control
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I'm not even part of your community, resident of Oklahoma here. However I work in a maximum security prison, and more times than not when inmates re-enter after release they have been caught in possession of an illegally aquired firearm. Do you think they would have bought insurance on Thier illegal firearm, think about that for a second before you try to punish the legal, lawful citizens of your community.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Public Record: 50
2/17/22, 11:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Unconstitutional gun laws
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:19 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: sean krebs <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 3:40 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: sean krebs <
Subject: Unconstitutional gun laws
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear California/Sanjo County. Y’all lost your minds just a little more with this one. The rest of the country is laughing at you. If you think these laws will change the homicide rate, you better pull your head out of your asses. Why tax law abide citizens that bought the firearms legally. Think criminals will follow these guidelines...
Don’t think this will spread to the rest of your liberal trusted states, good luck.
Don’t Tread On Me
Sean Krebs
PA151451
Public Record: 51
2/17/22, 11:25 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. null
This message, including any attachments, is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. If you believe that you have received this message or any attachment in error, please delete both from your system without copying, and notify the sender by reply email so that our address record can be corrected.
2/17/22, 12:37 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: Wrong direction
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 12:27 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 12:10 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Wrong direction
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Dan Ledingham < >
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 3:41 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Wrong direction
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Please pass on our dire concerns of the city council’s mistaken idea to tax law abiding citizens by imposing undue fees and cost to exercise our second amendment rights. I understand the escalating costs of police and medical that the illegal possession of firearms costs all of us. This is not the law abiding citizens responsibility to bear by requiring more insurance and fees. On the contrary look at increasing he costs and jail time as well as conviction rates in the court system for the criminals that use firearms. You obviously have a criminal issue in San Jose and now the rest of the US is watching you turn down the wrong path to correct the issue.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted Public Record: 52
2/17/22, 11:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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 pass these gun ownership laws
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:19 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Ben Callaghan <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 4:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Do not pass these gun ownership laws
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important San Jose City Council,
My name is Ben Callaghan. I live in Connecticut and I am pleading with you to not set a national example with these unconstitutional gun owner laws requiring law abiding citizens to pay for gun violence committed by criminals. I do not understand the nuances of gun related crimes in San Jose, but there are shootings in Hartford nearly every week, almost all of which are related to tangential illicit activity. If I had to pay a tax and get insurance to cover for shootings after a drug deal goes wrong in the city, I would consider moving from Connecticut.
My family has a rich tradition in update New York with hunting and the outdoors. That lifestyle has shaped me into a good person and a quality citizen that cares about our natural environment. I am trying to raise my children to love the outdoors, fishing, hunting and the act of procuring your own food.
Don't make it harder for them to continue this deep-rooted character-building lifestyle.
With respect, do not do this.
-Ben Callaghan
East Haddam, CT
Public Record: 53
2/17/22, 11:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: gun rights
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:19 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Bill Porter <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 5:32 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: gun rights
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important the rights of the United states citizens need to be left alone. You need to focus on the problem in your face. There are humans in your state that do not obey the law. That is where your focus needs to be not on the law abiding, tax paying citizen of your state
William J. Porter, Jr., CST II
Project Surveyor
cell
tel / fx
www.bosseng.com
Engineers / Surveyors / Planners / Landscape Architects Public Record: 54
2/17/22, 11:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
TRANSFER OF CADD/ELECTRONIC FILES:
In accepting and utilizing any drawings, reports and data on any form of electronic media generated and furnished by Boss Engineering, the recipient agrees that all such electronic files are instruments of service of Boss Engineering, who shall be deemed the author, and shall retain all common law, statutory law and other rights, including copyrights. The recipient also agrees not to transfer these electronic files to others without the prior written consent of Boss Engineering. Boss Engineering makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. In the event of a conflict between the signed or sealed hard-copy document prepared by Boss Engineering and electronic files, the signed or sealed hard-copy documents shall govern. In no event shall Boss Engineering be liable for indirect or consequential damages as a result of the recipient's use or reuse of the electronic files. Boss Engineering shall be held harmless against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, arising out of or resulting from use of these electronic files.
2/17/22, 11:26 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: New gun law
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:18 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Patrick Megee <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 5:32 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: New gun law
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good morning, I am a law abiding resident of Colorado and gun owner. I am greatly concerned about your new tax/few on legal gun ownership. I'm all for safer measures around gun ownership, I have small children, but this is just rallying the gun owning crowd against gun control in all the wrong ways.
Please do not pass this measure and come up with something better that works for everyone.
Patrick Megee
Public Record: 55
2/17/22, 11:28 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 Fw: Two Proposed Gun Control Measures are Absurd
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:18 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Joseph Pasqualucci <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 5:37 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Two Proposed Gun Control Measures are Absurd
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
City Council Members,
The two new gun control measures are not in line with reducing gun violence. Citizens that lawfully own firearms are not the dominant source of gun violence. An insurance policy specific to gun liability is not available and if it was, it would not reduce crime or comfort victims of violent crime. A fee to a charity of your choice is a far stretch of your duties to administer levied taxes. It seems like the goal is to raise revenue and not attack illegal gun violence in a meaningful way. If you want to raise violence support funds you are better served by a smaller drivers license or city resident tax; more people, smaller amount per citizen.
Joe Pasqualucci
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 56
2/17/22, 11:28 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: Firearms insurance and fee proposed law
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:18 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Larry Finch <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 5:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Firearms insurance and fee proposed law
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important To the San Jose city council,
I strenuously object to your proposal to attempt for force LEGAL firearms owners to purchase insurance and pay a fine or forfeit their ownership of their legally possessed firearms !!!! This is an atrocious over reach and could even be considered treason against the citizens you claim to serve! This is no way will stop criminals from committing violent crimes and will illegally place a burden on otherwise law abiding citizens. Stop this madness and focus on more severe punishments on those who actually COMMIT the heinous violent acts! If you continue down this road then it is obvious that you're focus is not about crime but a willingness to use political warfare against the citizens and their constitutional rights! and in that case you are guilty of treason against the very people that you claim to serve!!!
Larry Finch
Public Record: 57
2/17/22, 11:28 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: Proposed Gun Law
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:17 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Brian Locascio <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 6:14 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Gun Law
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I strongly oppose the passage of the proposed gun laws that seeks a gun harm reduction fee tax from legal gun owners for simply owning a gun where a sales tax was already paid at purchase. Also I oppose a proposed law that forces legal gun owners to carry additional liability insurance for usage of their gun.
If these proposed laws are to address the increased gun violence in San Jose, in my opinion this is a very poorly attempt at doing this. I would expect better and more creative solutions to the root cause of the problem such as better enforcement of existing gun control laws, and ensuring those who are not allowed to have them don't have them, than penalizing law abiding legal gun owners.
While I am not a resident of California or a citizen of San Jose, I am still concerned about pointless and frivolous gun law proposals because legal precedence can be a slippery slope.
Sincerely,
Brian Locascio
Public Record: 58
2/17/22, 11:29 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 Fw: Gun laws
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:17 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Thomas Schoon <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 6:30 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun laws
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
This not the solution to your violence issues!
If enacted, It will be just another reason to leave your city! I’m over 2000 miles away and I can see that! Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Public Record: 59
2/17/22, 11:30 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Urging your City to Reconsider it’s Gun Laws
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:17 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Michael Mancini <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 6:39 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Urging your City to Reconsider it’s Gun Laws
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good morning to all,
I hope you’re all having a wonderful day!
I want to first say that I greatly appreciate your efforts and concerns toward reducing violent crime and reducing gun violence in your city. I think that is a noble and worthy pursuit. However, I must ask you to reconsider, because of it’s unfair prejudice toward lawful, responsible, and safe gun owners.
I live in WI, and our biggest public safety concern is drunk driving. We lead the Country in drunk driving accidents, deaths, and injuries per incident.
(https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Stats)
The solution is not to tax WI residents more heavily, impose a vehicle ownership fee, or to require separate, stand-alone drunk driver insurance. I’m a State Farm Agent here in WI, and I deal with a fair share of injury-related accidents, some where my client is at-fault and some not, and they are never easy to deal with. However, punishing safe drivers by imposing financial requirements, especially when those drivers have no record of the safety issue in question, doesn’t help.
I would encourage the city of San Jose to instead look into solutions based around mental health help for all its citizens. Perhaps the City could look at requiring some sort of class with every firearm Public Record: 60
2/17/22, 11:30 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. purchase, or an annual required safety course, or requiring all firearms to be purchased with a credit card in order to create an additional paper trail.
I fear that by taking public safety measures too far, and losing in the guaranteed-to-follow litigation, a precedence of striking down gun safety laws will be established. I am a firearm owner, I shoot regularly, and I hunt. And while I agree with the spirit of this legislation, I fear it will ultimately be struck down and found to be ineffectual and unconstitutional.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email.
Sincerely,
Mike Mancini
2/17/22, 11:30 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: vote NO on fire arms bill
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:14 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Gregory H Wehr <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 6:45 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: vote NO on fire arms bill
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Please remind your all the councilmen of their obligation to represent ALL their constituents.
They will never be re-elected if they fail to vote “for the people” Read the statistics – this bill will not decrease violent crimes! The majority of gun related crimes are committed by individuals prohibited from owning guns. Passing a bill infringing on the rights of person legally permitted to arm themselves will end up increasing the amount of violent crimes because the “bad guys” will have no fear of harming anyone.
Protect our rights and our future!
Greg
Public Record: 61
2/17/22, 11:31 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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 Opposition
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:14 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Kenneth Tilney <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 8:01 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance Opposition
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important San Jose City Clerk,
I am writing to express my opposition to the new Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance (attached) the City of San Jose plans to vote into law. It is my believe that this ordinance is unjust for many reasons. Among them, it effectively targets only the citizens that lawfully own firearms; all other citizens, for lack of a better wording, get a "free pass" on San Jose's gun violence issues.
I write to you today as a former citizen of San Jose. My wife and I moved to Utah some years back to act on a job opportunity. While I no longer reside in San Jose, I have most of my family still making a living there and I still consider San Jose my home. With these new laws being pumped through the pipeline, effecting a great many people; not just my family, it would be hard for me to consider moving back to the City of San Jose; a city I still call home.
Respectfully, please consider my opposition to this ordinance and feel free to pass this letter along to whomever it may concern.
Regards,
Kenny Tilney
Public Record: 62
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 1
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE ADDING
PART 6 TO CHAPTER 10.32 OF TITLE 10 OF THE SAN
JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE GUN HARM BY
REQUIRING GUN OWNERS TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN
LIABILITY INSURANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
ANNUAL GUN HARM REDUCTION FEE
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America affords certain protections to the ownership of firearms; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitutional protections related to firearms ownership are not unlimited, and can be subject to certain types of governmental regulations; and
WHEREAS, a city’s police power includes the power to regulate firearms and many courts throughout the nation have upheld local regulations related to the ownership or possession of firearms; and
WHEREAS, firearm injuries have a significant adverse public health and safety impact nationally, in the State of California, and locally; and WHEREAS, each year more than 23,000 United States residents die by firearm suicide, 14,000 die by firearm homicide, and nearly 500 die from unintentional firearm injuries; and
WHEREAS, in California, between 2005 and 2015, nearly 4,000 children and teenagers were killed or injured with firearms, and 533 children and teenagers committed suicide with firearms, according to data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; and
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 2
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Public Health Department issued a report on firearm injuries in April 2018. In 2016, 11% of injury deaths were due to firearms injuries. During the period 2007-2016, there were an average of 46 deaths per year due to self-inflicted/suicide from firearms injuries, and an average of 28 deaths per year due to assault/homicide from firearms injuries. Self-inflicted/suicide accounted for the highest percentage of deaths (59%) from firearms injuries, with assault/homicide accounting for 36% of deaths from firearm injuries; and WHEREAS, the April 2018 Santa Clara County Public Health Department report on firearm injuries reported that during the period from 2010-2014, there were an annual average of 28 emergency department visits and 12 hospitalizations due to unintentional firearms injuries. During 2010-2014, 31% of emergency department visits and 16% of hospitalizations from firearms injuries were due to unintentional shootings; and WHEREAS, research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2004 found that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home; and
WHEREAS, a 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that access to firearms within the home doubles the risk that family members will become a victim of homicide, and triples the risk of suicide; and
WHEREAS, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020 found that handgun ownership is associated with eight times greater likelihood for firearm suicide among men, and 35 times greater likelihood of firearm suicide among women; and NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 3
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
WHEREAS, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, in homes with guns, suicide rates in children and adolescents and the likelihood of accidental death by shooting are each four times higher than in homes without guns; and WHEREAS, in the past decade, 40% of the suicides committed by children and teens involved guns, and 90% of these suicides were with guns that the victims accessed at their own homes or from a relative’s home; and
WHEREAS, 58% of shooting deaths in children and teens are homicides, and the risk of homicide is three times higher when there are guns in the home; and WHEREAS, a June 2014 report published by Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action which analyzed publicly reported gun deaths nation-wide over a oneyear period from December 15, 2012 to December 12, 2013, showed that at least 100 children were killed in unintentional shootings, amounting to nearly two each week; and WHEREAS, according to research published in Social Science and Medicine in 2007 based on data over a three-year study period from 2001 to 2003, states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide but not of non-firearm homicide, and this relationship held across gender, age, income and multiple other variables; and
WHEREAS, a study in the Journal of Urban Health conducted in 2015 estimated there are as many as 4.6 million children in the United States living in homes with loaded unsecured guns; and
WHEREAS, injuries from unintentional shootings, which are generally insurable, comprise more than a third of all gun-related injuries nationally; and NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 4
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
WHEREAS, in some instances, gun owners have been successfully sued for harm resulting from the use of the owner’s firearm by themselves or a third party; and WHEREAS, auto insurers have used risk-adjusted premiums to reward good driving and incentivize use of airbags and other safety features, and by using a comprehensive public health approach to car safety the United States reduced per-mile auto fatalities by nearly 80% from 1967 to 2017; and
WHEREAS, similarly, insurance-based mechanisms can encourage firearm owners to take safety classes, use gun safes, install trigger locks, or utilize chamber-load indicators, and according to 2018 research published in The Actuary there is evidence that some actuaries and insurance companies are recognizing firearm-related risk through their product offerings, pricing and underwriting decisions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines and Title 21 of the San José Municipal Code (collectively, "CEQA"), the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement has determined that the provisions of this Ordinance do not constitute a project, under File No. PP17-008 (General Procedure & Policy Making resulting in no changes to the physical environment); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San José is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed and considered the "not a project" determination under CEQA prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 5
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
SECTION 1. Chapter 10.32 of Title 10 of the San José Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a Part to be numbered, entitled and to read as follows:
Part 6
REDUCTION OF GUN HARM – LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENT AND GUN
HARM REDUCTION FEE
10.32.200 Purpose and Findings
A. This Part is passed and adopted in the exercise of the police power of the City, and for the protection of the welfare, peace and comfort of the residents of the City of San José. Specifically, it is the intent of this Ordinance to reduce gun harm.
B. Findings:
1. Firearm injuries have a significant adverse public health and safety impact nationally, in the State of California, and locally; and
2. Each year more than twenty-three thousand (23,000) United States residents die by firearm suicide, fourteen thousand (14,000) die by firearm homicide, and nearly five hundred (500) die from unintentional firearm injuries; and
3. In California, between 2005 and 2015, nearly four thousand (4,000) children and teenagers were killed or injured with firearms, and five hundred thirty-three (533) children and teenagers committed suicide with NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 6
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
firearms, according to data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; and
4. During 2010-2014 in Santa Clara County, thirty-one percent (31%) of emergency department visits and sixteen percent (16%) of hospitalizations from firearms injuries were due to unintentional shootings; and
5. A 2014 review in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that access to firearms within the home doubles the risk that family members will become a victim of homicide, and triples the risk of suicide; and
6. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2020 found that handgun ownership is associated with eight (8) times greater likelihood for firearm suicide among men, and thirty-five (35) times greater likelihood of firearm suicide among women; and
7. Injuries from unintentional shootings, which are generally insurable, comprise more than a third of all gun-related injuries nationally; and
8. Auto insurers have used risk-adjusted premiums to reward good driving and incentivize use of airbags and other safety features, and by using a comprehensive public health approach to car safety the United States reduced per-mile auto fatalities by nearly eighty percent (80%) from 1967 to 2017; and
9. Liability insurance can reduce the number of gun incidents by encouraging safer behavior and it can also provide coverage for losses and damages related to gun incidents; and
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 7
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
10. Programs and services to gun owners and their households can also encourage safer behavior, and provide education and resources to those residents.
10.32.205 Definitions
As used in this Part, the following terms have the following meaning:
A. “Firearm” means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion. Firearm does not include antique firearms as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a).
B. “Designated Nonprofit Organization” means an entity that qualifies as a nonprofit corporation under the federal internal revenue code and is designated pursuant to the City Manager’s authority under Section 10.32.235. No City official or employee shall sit on the board of directors of the Designated Nonprofit Organization.
10.32.210 Liability Insurance Required
A. Insurance required. A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy from an admitted insurer or insurer as defined by the California Insurance Code, specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the Firearm, including but not limited to death, injury or property damage.
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 8
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B. For purposes of this Section, a person shall be deemed to be the owner of a Firearm if such Firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff which has jurisdiction in which such Firearm owner resides.
C. Any person who owns a Firearm on the effective date of this Section shall obtain the insurance required by this Section within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Ordinance, or by a later date certain established in the regulations promulgated by City Manager pursuant to Section 10.32.235.
10.32.215 Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee
A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year. The date by which payment shall be made annually shall be established in the regulations promulgated by City Manager pursuant to Section 10.32.235. The annual fee will be set forth in the schedule of fees and charges established by resolution of the City Council.
10.32.220 Expenditure of Gun Harm Reduction Fee
A. All monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee shall be expended by the Designated Nonprofit Organization on providing services to residents of the City that own or possess a Firearm in the City or to members of their household.
Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1. Suicide prevention services or programs;
2. Violence reduction or domestic violence services or programs; NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 9
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
3. Mental health services related to gun violence; or
4. Firearms safety education or training.
B. No portion of the monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee shall be used for litigation, political advocacy, or lobbying activities.
C. The City shall not specifically direct how the monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee are expended.
10.32.225 Exceptions
The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any of the following:
A. Those persons designated as peace officers pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Title 3 of Part 2 of the California Penal Code (§830 et seq.), including sworn peace officers, active reserve peace officers and retired peace officers.
B. Those persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155.
C. Those persons eligible to proceed without paying court fees and costs pursuant to California Government Code § 68632 (a) and (b).
10.32.230 Compliance
A. Insurance requirement. Each person required to obtain and maintain insurance under Section 10.32.210 shall demonstrate compliance with the insurance NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 10
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
requirement by completing and executing a City-designated attestation form.
Each such person shall state both the name of the insurance company issuing the policy and the number of the insurance policy on the attestation form, sign the form under penalty of perjury and keep the attestation form with the Firearms where they are being stored or transported. There is no requirement to submit the attestation form to the City. However, each person shall complete and sign a new attestation form under penalty of perjury in the event any of the information on the form changes.
B. Fee provisions. Each person shall affix proof of payment of the annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the attestation form and keep it with the Firearm or Firearms where they are being stored or transported.
10.32.235 Authority of the City Manager
A. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate all regulations necessary to implement the requirements and fulfill the policies of this Part relating to the reduction of gun harm, including, but not limited, to the following subjects:
1. Processes and procedures related to the implementation of the liability insurance requirement, and forms necessary thereto.
2. Designation of the nonprofit organization that will receive the Gun Harm Reduction Fee, any processes and procedures related to the payment of the fee, and any additional guidelines or auditing of the use of the monies from the fee.
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 11
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
3. Designation of any third-party agency and/or organization that will aid in the implementation of the noticing of the requirements of this Part or any other administrative tasks related to the requirements of this Part.
B. Regulations shall be published on the City's website.
C. Regulations promulgated by the City Manager shall have the same force and effect of law. Unless a later date is specified in a regulation, a regulation shall become effective upon date of publication.
10.32.240 Enforcement
A. Any violation of this Part shall be punishable by an administrative citation in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.15 of Title 1 of this Code relating to the issuance of administrative citations, imposing of administrative fines, right to appeal, and the right to an administrative hearing.
B. The amounts of the fines for violations imposed pursuant to this Part shall be set forth in the schedule of fines established by resolution of the City Council.
C. A violation of this Part is also enforceable through all other civil and administrative remedies available to the City.
10.32.245 Impoundment
To the extent allowed by law, the Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 12
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
10.32.250 Fees and Charges
The City Manager is hereby authorized to charge and collect any and all cost recovery fees associated with fulfilling the policies of this Part relating to the reduction of gun harm, including any associated third-party costs. All fees shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees and charges established by resolution of the City Council.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective at the expiration of one hundred eighty (180) days after its adoption.
SECTION 3. Consistent with Section 1.04.160 of the San José Municipal Code, should any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.
NVF:TLC:KML
1/14/2022
T-887.014.004\1888492_2 13
Council Agenda: 1-25-2022
Item Number: 4.1
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408)535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
PASSED FOR PUBLICATION of title this _____ day of ___________, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
SAM LICCARDO
Mayor
ATTEST:
TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk
2/17/22, 11:32 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: Unconstitutional gun taxes
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:13 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Dean Yoder <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 8:06 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Unconstitutional gun taxes
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Dear City of San Jose
Your current attempt to acquire funds and tax lawful gun owners is unconstitutional and biased. Are you aware that there is massive groups of hardworking lawful citizens moving out of California all because of how you do business in your state. Soon you will be left with only people who cannot by themselves support your inflated government.
Please do not impose stricter gun laws then what the constitution already calls for.
Why do good people always get punished by those who don’t follow the laws? Because politics allows and encourages it.
Dean Yoder
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted Public Record: 63
2/17/22, 11:53 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/3 [External Email]
Fw: Proposed Gun Control Measures ...
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:34 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Proposed Gun Control Measures ...
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Barb Norton <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 8:50 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Gun Control Measures ...
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important The San Jose City Council voted by wide margins on January 25 to adopt two gun control measures not found anywhere else in the United States. The first would require gun owners in the city to purchase liability insurance covering losses or damages related to “negligent or accidental use of the firearm,” including death and injury. The second would further require gun owners to pay a “gun harm reduction fee” to a “designated nonprofit organization.” The City Council will set the fee and designate the nonprofit in a separate resolution.
This resolution has not been introduced, but council members at the latest meeting suggested the fee could be $25 per year. Failure to comply with either ordinance could result in fines and firearm confiscation.
Public Record: 64
2/17/22, 11:53 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/3 Dear Council Members,
Just when I thought I'd heard it all, here we go with California leading the way in levels of insanity. Now, I do recognize that these are "politically motivated" proposals, aimed at securing voter support for "politicians" who have no earthly idea how to approach a gun control problem that most assuredly exists in our Country. Unfortunately once again, this political move is aimed directly at gun owners who represent the most responsible segment of our population. It's also the most easily targeted segment, in that gun owners in California must register their weapons ... shouldn't make it too difficult to verify their compliance with these ludicrous ideas ... and confiscate their weapons.
It does beg the question however ... since most violent crimes committed with a weapon involves an unregistered one, how in the heck do you plan to target that segment of the population? Oh sure, it's very easy to point to the overly publicized tragedies in which an individual commits a horrific crime. But on a daily basis, the gun violence that occurs in America is committed by criminals who have a blatant disregard for human life. And, they carry unregistered weapons.
Now, if history can be used as a lesson, here's how this will all play out should your Proposals pass ... after some period of time, the City Council will boastfully take credit for the removal of an untold number of weapons - "taking them off the street" - suggesting that non-compliance was a criminal act in and of itself. So, there's one good looking statistic. And, should the stars align for reasons totally unrelated to these Proposals, and gun violence somehow shows a decline - oh my, what credit the Council will take! Admittedly, this is a pretty savvy move right now for the Council - with the actions taken to eliminate mask mandates, it's hopeful that things will "calm down" and people will be less stressed - which in theory could translate to a decrease in violent crime in America. Great timing Council! You can take credit for the decline, and point to your Proposals as (one of) the reasons. Meanwhile, the criminals in our society will not have been impacted one bit.
Is it any wonder that the common sense majority in America is sick and tired of politicians who are no more concerned about anything else than how they can benefit from any action they take, even if those actions totally are off base? Instead of leading 2/17/22, 11:53 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. the way, funding police, and taking legitimate actions that hit the source of the problem, you're simply hiding behind yet another example of political B.S. aimed at securing votes that enhance your ego and political aspirations.
Shame on you all, every one of you.
Barry Norton
2/17/22, 11:33 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: Gun ownership taxes
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:12 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 11:11 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Gun ownership taxes
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Clint Cooper <
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 8:54 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Gun ownership taxes
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
The council’s recent passage of a requirement to purchase insurance and pay a fee simply to own a gun is discriminatory against responsible gun owners in your area. The resolution punishes legal gun ownership financially. The only reason the council can get away with these resolutions is because gun owners in your part of the country are in the minority. Responsible citizens should not be taxed and punished any more to pay for irresponsible ones. We already do this with the legal system in regards to police, courts, and prisons. Please repeal these resolutions.
Sincerely,
Clint Cooper
Delta Junction, Alaska
Sent from my iPhone
Public Record: 65
2/16/22, 4:09 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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:
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Jeremy Lorberau <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 9:39 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
You should revoke these unconstitutional laws passed recently before y'all spend even more $$ in court defending them (that you don't have), only to lose on legal grounds.
Y'all have to know these laws are bogus, why do you keep trying to shove them down peoples throats that DO NOT want them?
JL
Public Record: 66
2/16/22, 4:13 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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:
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 9:37 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Shane Allie <
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:20 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:
All These CROOKED ASS WANNABE LYING POLITICIANS Are Doing Is Just Trying To STEAL More MONEY 💰 From The HONEST PEOPLE To Help LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS. They Know That What They Are Doing Is Illegal And Unconstitutional. It Will Do NOTHING FOR STOPPING CRIMINALS. It Will However Make CRIMINALS MORE LIKELY TO ROB HOUSES 🏘 AND HONEST TAXPAYING PEOPLE. Then The DEATH RATE WILL SKYROCKET And The CRIME RATE WILL SKYROCKET ALSO. ALL BECAUSE OF THE CROOKED ASS WANNABE POLITICIANS WHO SHOULD BE WORKING FOR FREE.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
Public Record: 67
2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/7 [External Email]
FW: Insurance Commissioner Lara and state emergency agencies issue “Safer from Wildfires” framework to protect existing homes and communities
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/14/2022 4:11 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Bykowsky, Mary Beth <
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 3:56 PM
Cc: Bykowsky, Mary Beth <
Subject: Insurance Commissioner Lara and state emergency agencies issue “Safer from Wildfires” framework to protect existing homes and communities
Good Afternoon,
Insurance Commissioner Lara is pleased to share the “Safer from Wildfires” framework press release.
Regards,
Mary Beth Bykowsky | Outreach Analyst
Community Relations and Outreach Branch
California Department of Insurance
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, February 14, 2022 MEDIA INQUIRIES ONLY:
main
Michael Soller: cell
Gabriel Sanchez: cell
Email inquiries:
Commissioner Lara and state emergency agencies issue “Safer from Wildfires” framework to protect existing homes and communities Public Record: 68
2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/7 SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Drawing on the direct experience of first responders, fire safety experts, and the latest research on wildfires, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and emergency management leaders in Governor Gavin Newsom’s Administration today announced “Safer from Wildfires,” a new insurance framework that incorporates wildfire safety measures to help save lives while making homes and businesses more resilient.
“Safer from Wildfires” provides a list of achievable, effective actions that will help reduce risk for property owners, including community-wide safety recommendations to prevent the spread of wildfire to other properties. This is the first time that state agencies have been brought together to identify mitigation actions that insurance companies should consider for existing homes and businesses.
Commissioner Lara initiated the partnership in February 2021 with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) after hearing about this issue in meetings with thousands of homeowners across California and holding the first ever investigatory hearing about wildfires and insurance in October 2020.
“I am using every tool available to protect Californians while reducing the risk of wildfires,” said Commissioner Lara, who is pursuing a comprehensive strategy to safeguard insurance for consumers through risk reduction, stronger consumer protections, and improvements to the FAIR Plan, California’s insurance safety net. “Making homes and businesses safer from wildfires protects all Californians, saving lives, reducing losses, and making insurance more available and affordable for all.”
“Today’s announcement is an important step forward in providing clear guidance to homeowners and insurance companies alike on the actions they can take to keep their properties safe,” said Mark Ghilarducci, Director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. “The work done by this coalition is an important part of the wider effort underway by the Newsom Administration to build greater community resilience by investing in infrastructure improvements.” “Our wildfire strategy continues to stress the need to ensure communities are prepared for wildfire by building and retrofitting homes with ember resistant materials, while ensuring they have defensible space with a minimum of 100-feet clearance from dry vegetation,” said Chief Mike Richwine, State Fire Marshal and Acting Director of CAL FIRE. “As we prepare for another potentially destructive fire season, it is critical that these wildfire mitigation measures are considered in insurance availability and incentives.”
"The inter-agency collaboration behind the Safer from Wildfires framework offers a positive example of how California can address our shared risks together," said Forest Kaser, the CPUC's Deputy Executive Director of Safety & Enforcement and Safety Policy. "The CPUC looks forward to our ongoing work together to keep Californians safe." With California experiencing devastating, climate change-intensified wildfires, a consistent approach to building more resilient communities is needed. This core set of fire safety actions will 2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/7 help ensure that residents, businesses, communities, and insurance companies can all consistently recognize and adopt the best science-driven mitigation actions so that risks are minimized. Throughout this process, all of the partner agencies have emphasized the need for insurance companies to incentivize homes and businesses that have taken important measures to make their properties more resilient.
A ground-up approach to wildfire safety
The interagency partnership took a “ground up” approach, meeting with first responders, consumers, and researchers to identify a consistent approach with three layers of protection — for the structure, the immediate surroundings, and the community. Safer from Wildfires includes community-wide approaches that can help prevent wildfires from catching and spreading to other homes and businesses in the neighborhood.
2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 4/7 2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 5/7 The list of proposed mitigation actions is available to download from the Department of Insurance website.
While California has existing wildfire building standards for new development as established by CAL FIRE, this partnership established a framework that is consistent, based in fire science, and applies to retrofits for older existing homes in order to help them seek and maintain insurance coverage, thus giving policyholders and insurance companies a shared strategy for reducing wildfire risks.
In conjunction with Safer from Wildfires, Commissioner Lara is working to increase wildfire safety insurance incentives for consumers. Currently, 13 insurance companies representing 40 percent of the insurance marketplace offer discounts for safer homes and communities with more companies interested. The amount of interest from insurance companies to offer mitigation discounts has grown from just 7 percent of the market just three years ago. View the list of insurance companies currently offering discounts at the Department of Insurance website. 2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 6/7 Consistent with recommendations by fire chiefs, consumer groups, and researchers The interagency partnership met with external groups including consumer advocates from United Policyholders and the Consumer Federation of America, local fire chiefs representing the California Fire Chiefs Association, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), and trade associations from the insurance industry, among others. The Safer from Wildfires list of actions is consistent with mitigation actions proposed by United Policyholders’ Wildfire Risk Reduction and Asset Protection (WRAP) working group and wildfire risk reduction research by IBHS, among others.
“The partnership analyzed conditions that help prevent homes from being damaged and destroyed in wildfires and made a realistic assessment of what individuals and communities can do to create and maintain those conditions. They produced a template that can be used by cities and towns throughout the State of California to reduce wildfire risk, adapt to climate change, and improve and restore the availability and affordability of home insurance,” said Amy Bach, United Policyholders’ Executive Director and architect of the WRAP working group. “The partnership’s framework is consistent with our working group’s findings and an important leap forward.” The interagency partnership’s work bolsters Commissioner Lara’s vision of short-term consumer protections and long-term insurance solutions to the threats of wildfire and climate change, and answers Governor Newsom’s call, upon signing SB 872 and AB 3012 in 2020, that “we must do more” and that OPR, CalOES, and CAL FIRE “work with the Insurance Commissioner to evaluate and recommend ways that residents, communities and the insurance industry can work together to better mitigate wildfire risks.” Reducing wildfire risk is a shared focus among the partners and their work strengthens risk reduction and resiliency in California communities. # # #
Media Note:
Safer from Wildfires is a three-layer plan that lists actions to protect the structure, the immediate surroundings, and the entire community. Download the one-pager overview and the full list of actions at the Department of Insurance website.
The California Department of Insurance, established in 1868, is the largest consumer protection agency in California. Insurers collect $371 billion in premiums annually in California. Since 2011 the California Department of Insurance received more than 1,000,000 calls from consumers and helped recover over $469 million in claims and premiums. Please visit the Department of Insurance website at www.insurance.ca.gov. Non-media inquiries should be directed to the Consumer Hotline at . Teletypewriter (TTY), please dial CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable 2/16/22, 4:38 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 7/7 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
2/16/22, 4:45 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: Regarding the non-citizen ballot proposal
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Tue 2/15/2022 4:58 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Hua <
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 12:07 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Regarding the non-citizen ballot proposal
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Hi! Dear Madam/Sir,
I got an email about a non-citizen ballot proposal and I wanted to express my concern about this issue! Regarding the non-citizen ballot proposal, as a U.S. citizen who immigrated 25 years ago, I feel strongly that doing so is a waste of people's tax dollars.
I agree with Mr. Matt Mahan, District 10 Council Member, that voting rights and obligations must be tied to citizenship! Otherwise, people have no responsibility and loyalty to their communities, cities, states, and countries. This is common sense!
As an immigrant, I came to this land as an art student, completed a BFA and MFA in fine arts in the US, and became a US citizen under immigration law. Throughout the process, I followed the rules, studying and working day by day, running my own art studio, and teaching art to local young people for nearly fifteen years.
My suggestion, I hope the city invests time and energy in providing naturalization services to newcomers to comply with legal process, pay taxes, help and educate newcomers to truly serve Americans and serve Public Record: 69
2/16/22, 4:45 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 the San Jose community and city!
Your Sincerely,
Hua Zhang
(Resident in D-10)
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2/16/22, 4:44 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Claim against the City
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Wed 2/16/2022 10:12 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>; Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]>
The individual would be filing a claim but forwarding this to you both as well for public record.
From: Zoila Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:15 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Claim against the City
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I would like a call back from the Mayor of San Jose.
Mask on kids need to be removed ASAP to match the removal of mask for the entire State of California. There is NO Science behind mask work, show us the Science before a mandate is put on We The People! Remember, the Government works for We The People, we pay your salary. This is Crimes Against Humanity, it goes against the Nuremberg Code.
Vaccinated people can still catch the so call deadly COVID-19 virus and they can spread it as well so don't say that kids are not vaccinated, that will not work.
The Nuremberg Code: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment … Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” The Right to Informed Consent is Meaningless Without the Right to Refuse Any Medical Intervention, Including Mandated Vaccination. Government Agents and those Acting Under Color of Law are Forbidden by Long-Standing National and International Law from Coercing Vaccination. Furthermore, this includes mask mandates and PCR testing. Children under the age of eighteen years of age need a parent’s signature on any and all documents that deal with medical testing and this includes PCR testing in school.
Thank you,
Zoila Rollins
Public Record: 70
2/16/22, 4:44 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 04:26:36 PM PST, City Clerk <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Afternoon
We received your intent to sue the City. Please go to the City of San Jose's website, Clerks Office and download, fill out and mail to the address below the Claim and all supporting documents. Our office will log it in and refer it to the City Attorneys Office.
Thank you
Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
2/16/22, 4:47 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 Fw: Decision regarding electronic billboards at San Jose Airport Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Wed 2/16/2022 2:05 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Decision regarding electronic billboards at San Jose Airport Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Kate Steffens
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:30 PM
To: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; Carrasco, Magdalena <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Esparza, Maya <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Peralez, Raul <[email protected]>; Liccardo, Sam <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; Arenas, Sylvia <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;
Subject: Decision regarding electronic billboards at San Jose Airport [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[External Email]
Hello,
Could you explain the City Council’s decision to allow electronic billboards despite overwhelming public opposition? I would also like to know why San Jose citizens should trust the City Council to serve our interests instead of Clear Channel’s? I have zero faith in the City Council now and will be voting to Public Record: 71
2/16/22, 4:47 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 replace the members who agreed to the installation of these anti-environmental, light polluting greed signs. I will also be recommending to my colleagues at SJSU to vote you out.
Kate
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
2/16/22, 4:47 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Wed 2/16/2022 2:29 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 2:09 PM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Tanya Burkey <
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 10:09 AM
To: Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; Carrasco, Magdalena <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Esparza, Maya <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Peralez, Raul <[email protected]>; Liccardo, Sam <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; Arenas, Sylvia <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>;
Subject: I oppose electronic billboards at San Jose Airport You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I am opposed to the installation of new electronic billboards on airport property or anywhere in San Jose. I also support the Airport Commission recommendations to 1) Reject the billboard proposal, 2) Review the City’s Sign Code, 3) Study other ways to generate revenue beyond digital billboards, and 4) enforce the prohibitions of illegal billboards and blighted billboards.
Digital billboards are not what the public wants, and it is not in the best interests of the airport.
Listen to the people, and vote no! Let's not turn our town into another Los Angeles or Las Vegas.
Public Record: 72
2/16/22, 4:47 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
We will never vote for anyone who supports making our night skies brighter, our roads less safe, and the environment impaired which these do. There is no amount of money they might bring in sufficient to mitigate the damage they will do.
Thank you.
Tanya and Steve Burkey
2/17/22, 12:27 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/3 [External Email]
Fw: The Rest of the Story: Billboards
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:20 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Office of the City Clerk | City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Please take our short survey.
From: Roseanna Lavia < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:54 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]> Cc: No Digital Billboards In San Jose < >; City Clerk
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The Rest of the Story: Billboards
Mayor Liccardo,
Sorry, I am not convinced.
You should have voted against the new billboard proposal AND also to remove the twelve existing ones. Kudos to Matt Mahan, the only one among you concerned about the beauty of our city.
As for increasing revenues for the airport, there are other ways. May I suggest a good start, and an inexpensive one, would be to interview folks who work and/or volunteer there.
The San Jose Airport Commission voted 5 to 1 to reject the project. They did so for several reasons. One of the most egregious being the lack of transparency of the project - incredibly no RFP was ever issued !!! Failing to heed their recommendation is incomprehensible. And, in my opinion, a slap in the face. What a message this portends. Anyone serving on a Commission, or considering doing so, would be taken aback. Why bother, when you and your cronies ignore a Commission's majority decision?
By the way, that very important constituency you're concerned about, the thousands of low income residents ... I doubt the removal of billboards is high on their wish list. Nice try! An unhappy resident,
Public Record: 73
2/17/22, 12:27 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/3 The Rest of the Story: Billboards
Nobody likes billboards in their neighborhood. We’d all like to extinguish these blight-causing creatures in every corner of our city—particularly in our residential neighborhoods, where too many residents endure their daily sight. When I came into office in 2015, I inherited a city with many billboards constructed decades ago and quickly learned that the City lacks any legal authority to tear them down. The Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that if the City wants to eliminate legal billboards, it must pay property owners and billboard companies—a lot of money —to do so. That magic pot of money doesn’t exist, so the City merely halted new billboard construction for decades. In the meantime, residents have endured decades of the same (often blighted) billboards.
We have another path, though: the City could tell advertising companies they have to tear down many old billboards for any new one that they erect. Such agreements could finally—for the first time in decades--reduce the aggregate number of billboards in our city, ridding our most blighted neighborhoods of them. Companies want to erect more lucrative LED signage--the kind that is often featured in the downtowns of major cities--which gives them an incentive to make this trade. Best of all, we can rid our residential neighborhoods of old, blighted billboards while we confine any new signs to the Downtown and at the Airport. By doing so on City property, we can also ensure that the public benefits directly from any advertising revenues to improve basic public services. So, that’s exactly what the Council agreed to do when it passed Council Policy 6-4 in a public hearing in 2019.
Tuesday night, the Council voted 9-2 to move forward with a proposal that would require Clear Channel to tear down 12 billboards in predominantly low-income neighborhoods, in exchange for the erection of two larger digital freeway displays at our Airport, along 101. In addition to the teardown requirement, the public gets much more:
According to our Airport Director, the deal will provide 55% of the signs’ advertising revenues directly to our Airport—or an estimated $4.5 million—to pay for critical Airport operations and to reduce fees.
Roseanna Lavia
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 02:16:43 PM PST, The Office of Mayor Liccardo <[email protected]> wrote:
2/17/22, 12:27 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/3 The company will also have to plant 215 new trees in tree-deprived neighborhoods—a 5:1 replacement ratio--and to pay to water and maintain the trees for three years, to compensate for the 43 trees they’ll tear down.
Many other changes were made to address environmental concerns raised by an environmental impact report, including the requirement that the digital displays use 100% GHG-free electricity (by subscribing to a “Total Green” account with San Jose Clean Energy).
While one news account raised concerns about privacy-invading technology that could track drivers, the Council required (and Clear Channel readily committed) that no sensors, cameras, or other devices could be associated with the billboards to track anyone.
In short, the agreement achieves a win-win for the community and our Airport. And yes, there were many objections from community members, most of whom were not aware of the beneficial aspects of this agreement. Critically though, we weren’t able to hear from one very important constituency:
the thousands of predominantly low-income residents who will rid their neighborhoods of a dozen billboards. Governing, after all, is about far more than heeding the loudest voices: it’s about heeding those who often lack a voice.
The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo
Email: [email protected]
Stay Connected: https://linktr.ee/MayorSamLiccardo
Website: www.sjmayor.org
Office Of San José Mayor Sam Liccardo
200 E Santa Clara St
18th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 2/17/22, 12:28 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 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: support of nitrous oxide ordinance and legislation
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 2/17/2022 11:29 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: Lisa Morse < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 6:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: De Anna Mirzadegan < >
Subject: support of nitrous oxide ordinance and legislation Dear City Clerk,
I support regulating the sale of nitrous oxide including prohibiting it being sold in smoke / vape shops and dispensaries and it should be a legislative priority.
Thank you,
Lisa Morse
Public Record: 74