►
From YouTube: JAN 25, 2022 | City Council Evening Session
Description
City of San José, California
City Council Evening Session of January 25, 2022
Pre-meeting citizen input on Agenda via eComment at https://sanjose.granicusideas.com/meetings.
This public meeting will be accessible via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=916832&GUID=5B3AAED0-EBCC-4839-9950-E5B02ACEC6D7
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
E
F
C
C
H
I'm
sorry,
I'm
spacing
out
a
little
bit.
I
just
want
to
disclose
an
inadvertent
brown
act
violation
in
relation
to
this
item
and
here's
some
background.
There
was
some
confusion
about
which
council
offices
were
involved
in
a
brown
act
group
on
this
item
versus
the
straw
purchase
brown
act
group
that
was
going
on.
At
the
same
time,
my
office
reached
out
to
vice
mayor
jones
office,
asking
whether
we
were
in
a
brown
act
group
with
their
office
and
communicated
our
position
in
support
of
this
item
to
vice
mayor
jones
office.
H
C
G
C
B
B
Who
are
yelling
rhetoric
at
each
other?
There
is
a
middle
ground.
An
example
is
the
be
smart
organization
which
advocates
storing
a
firearm
safely
in
homes
via
the
use
of
a
quick
access,
safe
honorable
counsel,
keeping
two
pieces
of
paper
with
my
firearm
will
not
reduce
gun
harm.
Three
things
that
will
reduce
gun
harm
number
one
and
number
two
are
educating
families
on
the
four
principles
of
gun
ownership
and
how
to
use
gvros
the
gun,
violence
restraining
order
is
a
powerful
tool
immediately
available
to
all
households
in
san
jose.
B
Number
three
is
having
a
trauma
kit.
Wherever
my
firearm
goes,
my
trauma
kit
goes
swap
out.
The
current
proposed
requirements
instead
for
very
strong
community
education
and
a
trauma
kit
requirement
and
I'm
on
board
100
with
a
rewritten
part
6..
I
implore
the
council
to
not
pass
this
as
written
tonight.
B
B
However,
I
do
like
what
the
previous
commenter
made
about
better
education,
my
colleague
and
I
have
studied
the
social
causes
of
mass
shootings
in
the
united
states,
and
one
of
the
things
we've
come
across
is
that
most
mass
shootings
are
committed
with
handguns
they're
committed
with
pistols
they're
committed
with
weapons
that
are
very
easily
accessible
and
most
of
these
weapons,
while
some,
I
should
say,
are
acquired
legally
many
are
not.
We
know
that
there
are
people
who
will
go
to
neighboring
states,
purchase
guns
legally,
there
bring
them
back
and
harm
people
back
home.
B
G
G
E
E
E
Okay,
these
serious
issues
and
people
got
killed
and
you
got
the
audacity
to
come
up
in
here
and
act
like
you
were
going
to
be
the
savior
of
us
all.
Okay,
why
don't
you
start
with
the
people
that
are
in
columbus
park?
Why
don't
you
start
there?
Because
I
suggest
that
they
need
your
attention.
More
than
gun
owners
need
their
attention.
They
can
protect
themselves,
but
my
home
boys,
my
home
girls,
in
the
columbus
park
along
the
guadalupe
over
there
on
the
east
side.
E
B
E
J
J
Saw
about
an
ounce
of
prevention,
it's
worth
a
pound
of
cure,
it's
worth
so
much
more
than
that,
particularly
when
there's
no
cure
we're
talking
about
gun
violence,
the
damage
that
can
be
suffered
is
all
too
often
irreparable.
These
are
very
reasonable
steps
that
are
being
proposed.
I
fully
support
the
legislation.
I
will
work
with
everybody
to
see
that
it
is
affected
in
a
way
that
engages
and
and
uses
our
commitment
to
our
community
for
the
well-being
of
all.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
ordinance
up
for
a
vote.
I
am
a
resident
of
san
jose
and
I
and
my
family
support
this
ordinance.
Charging
a
fee
and
requiring
insurance
does
not
restrain
anyone
from
owning
a
gun,
but
it
does
require
that
gun
owners
show
responsibility
for
owning
a
gun
the
same
as
owning
and
driving
a
car.
The
residents
of
san
jose
deserve
the
right
to
be
safe
without
being
exposed
to
negligent
gun
ownership
states
with
stricter
gun
control
measures
have
far
lower
rates
of
homicides
by
guns.
K
B
G
Thank
you.
As
a
doctor,
I
care
deeply
about
preventing
injuries
and
death
for
30
years.
I
practiced
primary
care
medicine
at
kaiser,
and
most
of
my
patients
were
san
jose
residents,
I
retired
a
few
years
ago,
and
since
then
I
have
devoted
myself
to
learning
about
and
advocating
for
a
public
health
approach
to
reduce
firearm
deaths,
liability
insurance
will
incentivize,
safer
firearm
practices
and
using
fees
to
support
evidence-based
interventions
will
save
lives.
J
J
J
L
No
one
can
purchase
negligent
gun
liability
insurance
because
you
cannot
be
insured
for
intentionally
committing
a
crime.
You
cannot
tax
a
constitutional
right.
This
does
nothing
to
stop
crime,
implement
real
solutions
which
reduce
gun
crime,
enforce
and
prosecute
existing
gun
laws.
Have
the
city
council
right
and
approve
a
resolution
to
send
to
the
state
assembly
and
senate
to
repeal
propositions,
4757
and
ab109
hire
more
police
officers,
build
mental
health
hospitals
and
fund
sobriety
programs?
The
city
auditor
reported
only
three
percent
of
san
jose
believe
the
city
government,
michelle.
B
B
B
B
E
E
B
J
Yes,
hello,
I'm
a
resident
of
san
jose,
registered
gun
owner
and
supporter
of
the
second
amendment.
I'm
telling
you
to
reject
this
proposed
ordinance.
It
is
completely
unconstitutional
the
bill
of
rights
from
which
of
which
this
right
to
keep
and
bear
arms
is
among
them
was
specifically
written
to
ensure
certain
personal
freedoms
and
rights
are
not
infringed
upon
even
by
local
and
state
governments.
J
As
a
citizen
of
the
united
states,
I
have
a
right
to
keep
and
bear
arms,
as
I
see
fit,
to
protect
myself
from
property.
A
law-abiding
citizen
should
not
have
to
pay
for
this
right,
just
like
they
do
not
have
to
pay
or
should
not
pay
for
the
their
first
amendment
rights
to
speak,
assemble
and
worship
freely.
Instead
of
attacking
law-abiding
citizens,
put
your
effort
into
reducing
crime
and
improving
the
quality
of
public
education
to
better
the
community.
So
I
again
ask
that
you
vote
no
for
this
ordinance.
Thank
you.
B
B
E
Thank
you.
Yes,
my
name
is
brian
haverly,
I'm
a
resident
of
san
jose
and
I
strongly
support
the
gun.
Harm
reduction.
Ordinance
pacific
institute
report
showed
that
the
city
spends
about
eight
million
dollars
a
year.
Responding
to
shootings,
mostly
in
police
response
costs,
a
per
capita
per
capita
cost
of
over
four
hundred
dollars
with
rights
come
responsibilities.
E
E
B
E
Yes,
hi
safety
of
life
and
land
is
an
even
more
fundamental
life
than
the
right
to
possess
a
gun.
The
founders
didn't
need
to
put
it
into
an
amendment,
because
it
was
well
understood
in
the
phrase
from
the
declaration
of
independence
about
certain
unalienable
rights,
among
them
life,
liberty
and
pursuit
of
happiness.
E
E
Hello,
mayor
licardo
and
city
council
members,
my
name
is
reverend
eric
swanson
and
I'm
a
resident
of
san
jose
and
a
local
pastor.
Some
of
you
know
me
already,
but
I'm
guessing-
and
we've
already
heard
this-
that
we're
going
to
keep
hearing
all
the
tired,
worn
out
arguments
that
we
always
hear
when
good
firearm
safety
legislation
comes
along.
E
What
about
the
rights
of
those
who
want
to
be
peaceful
and
safe?
What
about
the
rights
of
those
who
want
to
go
to
a
just
go
to
work
or
go
to
a
festival
without
fear?
Is
the
public
health
concern
that
we
need
to
take
on?
So
we
stand
with
you
in
support
of
this
forward-thinking
and
creative,
yet
logical
way
of
keeping
us
safe
and
like
car
registration,
john.
E
We
cut
our
premiums
by
taking
steps
to
reduce
malpractice
claims
such
as
improving
calendaring
and
providing
extensive
attorney
education.
Likewise,
gun
owners
would
be
motivated
to
reduce
their
premiums
by
using
safe
storage,
installing
locks
say
taking
safety
courses
and
pursuing
other
reasonable
risk
reduction
efforts.
The
gun,
harm
reduction,
ordinance.
J
Cindy
paul
district,
nine
league
law,
abiding
holders,
gun
holders
alone
and
vote
no
on
this
gun
control
measure.
This
movement
movement
attacking
our
second
amendment-
arises
when
a
mass
shooting
occurs.
San
jose
has
been
unable
to
protect
the
citizens
from
these
madmen
and
criminals,
and
this
state
is
going
after
middle
class
law
abiding
holders.
California
has
the
strictest
gun
laws
in
the
nation
despite
having
the
seventh
lowest
death
rates
according
to
the
giffords
law
center.
J
The
p-I-r-e
report
indicates
that
38.4
million
of
the
39.7
million
estimated
costs
are
caused
by
criminals
and
people
intentionally
breaking
the
laws.
One
insurance
company
is
willing
to
write
insurance
for
willfully
breaking
the
law.
Holding
55
000
gun
holders
responsible
for
the
city's
failure
to
protect
us
is
shameful,
concentrate
on
criminals
and
those
with
mental
health
issues
and
patrick
g.
E
M
Yes,
excellent,
while
I
might
appreciate
the
calls
from
mr
licardo
and
mom's
demand
track
suits
to
keep
our
city
more
safe
by
taxing
me
more
seems
to
disregard
the
fact
that
this
will
apply
to
people
owning
firearms
on
their
own
property,
which
is
kind
of
a
shock
box.
Given
the
heller
decision,
there's
no
other
right
that
gets
taxed
in
this
way.
We
don't
tax
people
for
speaking,
because
they
might
say
things
we
don't
like.
We
don't
tax
people
for
participating
in
the
religion.
M
M
B
J
Hello
hi.
Thank
you
for
this
time,
mayor
and
city
council
members.
This
ordinance
is
not
only
an
infringement
on
one
second
amendment
right:
it
will
in
turn,
likely
to
result
in
infringement
of
one's
fourth
amendment
right.
It
also
goes
against
your
very
own
equity
agenda
and
further
widens
the
gap
with
this
monetary
factor.
I
didn't
know
it
would
be
a
requirement
to
pay
insurance
and
fees
in
order
to
exercise
any
amendment
rights.
Please
reconsider
this
ordinance,
as
this
is
an
attempt
on
a
federal
overreach
at
a
local
level.
Thank
you.
J
N
B
J
G
Evening
in
the
united
states
there
are
90
guns
for
every
100
citizens.
We
are
the
most
heavily
armed
society
in
the
world.
Every
year,
45
000
people
die
from
firearms
and
of
those
over
twenty
thousand
of
those
are
due
to
firearm.
Homicides
in
the
area
of
domestic
violence,
guns
are
used
and
they
can,
and
they
can
also
exacerbate
harm
and
fatalities
among
bit
not
only
victims,
the
perpetrators,
law
enforcement
co-workers
and
other
third
parties
in
the
u.s,
a
million
women
report
being
shot
and
4.5
million
women.
G
Again
survivors
of
domestic
violence
report
being
threatened
with
a
gun
by
an
intimate
partner.
This
is
a
public
health
approach,
we're
asking
responsible,
gun
owners
to
join
us
in
trying
to
mitigate
the
damage,
the
injury
and
the
cost
that
has
been
borne
by
the
taxpayers
and
for
so
san
jose.
That's
been
millions
of
dollars.
Please
vote!
Yes,.
E
J
We
oppose
this
ordinance
for
several
reasons,
but
most
pertinent
it
would
impose
an
illegal
tax
at
the
local
level
violating
the
state
constitution.
The
tax
foundation
explains
that
a
tax
has
the
main
purpose
of
raising
revenue,
whereas
a
fee
recoups
the
cost
of
providing
a
service
from
its
beneficiary.
J
J
County's
open
space
authority,
we
at
svta
wound
up
defeating
them
at
the
california,
supreme
court,
saving
taxpayers,
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
and
counting,
but
that
agency
squandered
its
time
and
a
lot
of
taxpayers
money
before
then.
Please
don't
make
the
same
mistake.
Please
uphold
your
oath
to
protect
the
second
amendment
and
the
taxpayers
by
voting
against
this
ordinance.
B
L
Council,
members
and
mayor,
I
really
think
this
is
an
important
ordinance.
I
know
tensions
are
pretty
high
right
now.
I
think
in
the
near
future.
It
will
be
very
evident
that
this
was
an
obvious
thing
to
do
and
we'll
wonder
why
we
didn't
do
it
sooner.
Please
pass
this
ordinance.
Thank
you
very
much
I'll
yield.
My
remainder
of
my
time.
E
F
B
J
Yes,
yes
hi,
I
am
a
resident
of
san
jose
who
works
with
the
local
law
enforcement
within
the
criminal
justice
department.
In
my
experience,
a
great
deal
of
the
guns
seized
are
either
those
unregistered
ghost
guns
or
from
individuals
who
are
already
prohibited
to
own
firearms.
This
ordinance
will
do
nothing
to
stop
the
gun.
Violence
as
criminals
will
continue
to
buy
these
incomplete
80
guns
and
complete
them
to
avoid
registering
firearms
or
they
will
get
their
guns
some
other
illegal
way
to
commit
their
crimes
with
in
actuality.
J
This
ordinance
does
nothing
but
punish
law-abiding
gun
owners.
I,
as
a
law-buying
citizen
and
responsible
gun
owner,
should
not
be
required
to
pay
for
crimes
or
damages
committed
by
others.
This
ordinance
will
do
not
will
also
discourage
people
from
the
middle
to
lower
class
from
legally
practicing
their
second
amendment
rights.
I
urge
the
council
to
not
pass
this
ordinance.
Thank
you.
G
G
B
B
After
leaving
my
comment
on
the
ordinance
council's
website,
I
looked
through
the
comments
of
my
fellow
citizens,
hundreds
upon
hundreds,
many
of
whom
clearly
couldn't
make
it
to
this
meeting
today,
spoke
near
unanimous
near
unanimously
against
this
with
me.
Please
vote
no
on
this
ordinance
and
focus
all
your
time
and
all
of
our
resources
together
on
real
solutions.
B
L
Have
several
questions
about
this
proposal?
What
is
the
liability
requirement
and
who
would
get
payment
on
a
claim
who
pays
the
claims
on
incidents
for
those
deemed
exempt
from
the
insurance?
Why
is
the
fee
per
gun
and
yearly?
Is
there
some
kind
of
ongoing
training
requirement
associated
with
each
gun
and
bigger
picture?
How
does
liability
insurance
reduce
gun
harm
without
solid
answers
to
these
basic
questions?
It
seems
that
this
policy
was
created
as
a
reaction
just
to
claim
the
city
has
done
something,
however
misguided
I'm
also
hearing.
L
M
It's
a
money,
grab,
25
fees
and
taxes.
All
these
regulations,
you
guys,
should
be
ashamed
of
yourself.
You
know
gun
control,
you
know
how
it
ends
in
a
pile
of
skulls.
Just
ask
pol
pot
hitler
mao
stalin.
They
all
took
the
guns
away.
Man,
and
you
saw
what
happened.
You
guys
know
what
you're
doing
is
wrong,
but
you're
like
petulant
children.
You
really
think
what
you're
doing
is
right.
M
It's
going
to
be
your
way,
who's
going
to
enforce
this
who's
going
to
regulate
these
slap
jaw
losers
from
san
jose
police
department,
who
can't
solve
any
crimes
they're
going
to
be
knocking
on
doors,
kicking
indoors,
hey
sam.
Are
you
going
to
show
up
in
your
in
your
bike
outfit
and
your
cycling
shoes
and
kick
in
the
door
to
ask
for
people's
guns
and
fees
and
signs,
and
all
that
crap,
you
guys
should
be
ashamed
of
yourselves.
This
is
going
to
get
shot
down
in
flames
in
the
supreme
court.
G
Thank
you.
Here's
city,
council,
council,
members
and
mayor-
I
am
speaking
as
a
volunteer
with
mom's
demand
action
to
urge
you
to
please
vote
in
support
of
the
gun,
harm
reduction
ordinance.
I
am
dismayed
by
the
rising
gun,
violence
and
mass
shootings
across
the
country
as
a
parent
to
a
high
schooler.
It
is
my
responsibility
to
make
our
schools
theaters
and
other
public
gathering
spaces
as
safe
as
possible.
G
While
we
live
just
outside
san
jose,
we
visit
the
city
often
to
visit
its
many
museums,
concert,
venues,
parks
and
restaurants.
This
ordinance
is
an
innovative
approach
to
address
the
costs
of
gun,
violence
and
incentivize
safer
practices
that
can
potentially
prevent
firearm
deaths
and
injuries.
We
all
want
a
safer
san,
jose,
a
safer
california
and
a
safer
nation,
and
with
this
approach
we
can
move
closer
to
that
goal.
I
urge
you
to
pl,
please
vote
in
support
of
the
ordinance.
Thank
you.
E
Hello,
my
name
is
eric.
I've
been
a
resident
of
california,
my
whole
life,
and
I
just
want
to
say
I
strongly
oppose
this
ordinance.
As
some
other
people
have
said,
gun
violence
is
definitely
a
huge
problem
in
this
country,
but
this
ordinance
cannot
and
will
not
stop
it
for
the
simple
fact
that
it
only
targets
legal
gun
owners
when
most
crimes
are
committed
with
illegal
guns,
whether
they're
ghost
guns
or
tamed
illegally,
there's
not
legal
gun
owners
for
causing
a
problem.
E
So
why
are
you
going
to
put
an
insurance
that
we
don't
know
necessarily
the
cost
of
it?
Yet
I
don't
think
anyone
on
the
council
knows
the
specific
cost,
but
why
are
we
going
to
put
an
insurance
on
it?
That's
going
to
restrict
this
right.
That
is
good
to
be
a
right.
I
had
to
call.
I
unfortunately
had
to
call
the
police
a
couple
weeks
ago
and
I
was
put
on
hold
right
now.
Fortunately,
it
wasn't
it.
E
E
Hello,
I've
been
a
citizen
of
sin.
I've
been
a
citizen
of
san
jose
my
whole
life.
I
was
born
in
the
city
and
I've
watched
everything
that
has
happened
in
san
jose.
This
ordinance
is
only
punishing
us,
lawful,
god
owners.
We
have
done
nothing
to
harm
you,
people,
we
are
the
most
peaceful
people
of
them
all.
We
know
the
law.
We
take
extra
care
to
not
do
anything
that
would
get
us
arrested.
E
M
G
G
Gun
violence
costs
our
city
so
much
in
terms
of
lost
lives,
as
well
as
economic
costs,
and
this
ordinance
is
a
very
innovative
approach
to
try
to
address
some
of
those
costs,
as
well
as
to
incentivize,
safer
gun
ownership
and
behavior.
I
want
to
thank
you
again
for
bringing
this
forward
and
I
urge
you
to
vote
for
it.
K
G
I
am
a
17-year
resident
of
san
jose
and
a
volunteer
with
moms
demand
action
for
gun
sense.
I
would
like
to
thank
mayor
ricardo
and
our
city
council
for
drafting
the
city
ordinance.
I
am
very
supportive
of
this
ordinance
because
I
believe
it
has
the
potential
to
really
reduce
gun
violence
and
mitigate
its
ill
effects
in
our
community
gun.
Violence
takes
many
forms,
often
we're
jolted
into
awareness
of
this
public
health
crisis.
G
When
there's
a
mass
shooting
the
tragic
event
captures
public
attention,
then
quickly
fades
with
the
news
cycle.
What
often
goes
under
the
public
radar
is
the
day-to-day
gun,
violence
in
our
communities,
the
unintentional
shootings,
the
suicides,
the
domestic
violence
and
crimes
committed
with
a
gun.
G
J
J
B
B
H
Time
for
us
to
treat
this
as
a
public
health
problem,
please
take
this
important
first
step
as
a
model
for
a
nation
committed
to
the
safety
of
all
its
families
approve
this
thoughtful
ordinance
that
is
widely
supported
by
gun
safety
advocates,
it
incentivizes,
responsible
and
safe
gun
ownership,
while
creating
a
mechanism
to
help
victims.
The
time
for
our
city
to
act
on
this
is
now.
Thank
you.
G
G
G
E
Yes,
my
name
is
chris
bracker,
I'm
the
I
represent
the
fifth
of
six
generations
of
my
family
to
live
in
santa
clara
valley,
and
I'm
here
to
speak
in
opposition
of
this
proposed
ordinance,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
on
july.
6
1980,
my
cousin,
christine
hubback
and
her
three
daughters
were
murdered
in
what
today
would
be
referred
to
as
a
mass
shooting,
no
insurance
and
no
fee
can
undo
a
tragedy
like
that,
and
it's
insulting
that
anyone
thinks
it
will.
E
I
I
it's
it's.
It
angers
me
that
that
half
measures
like
this
and
nonsense
being
spoken
like
this
thinks
people
think
that
this
will
address
an
issue
like
this.
There's
ample
laws
on
the
books
and
there's
ample
efforts
and
ability
to
address
the
actual
problems
related
to
gun
harm
as
you're
describing
it.
G
G
G
L
Good
evening
to
the
honorable
mayor
and
city
council,
my
name
is
ryan
globus
and
I
live
in
san
jose
in
district
six,
and
I
urge
you
to
support
this
ordinance.
Congress
has
completely
dropped
the
ball.
You
know
over
the
past
two
decades
or
a
few
decades
with
gun
violence,
whether
it
be
homicides
or
accidents
or
suicides,
completely
spiraling
out
of
control
and
congress
unable
to
do
anything
about
it.
I'm
really
glad
to
see
the
city
and
other
governments
step
up
to
try
to
address
this.
L
L
Good
evening,
mayor
and
council,
the
second
amendment
guarantees
the
right
to
own
a
gun,
not
be
a
criminal
saying.
The
public
doesn't
have
to
subsidize
gun
ownership
is
virtue,
signaling
and
political
grandstanding.
We
all
pay
for
the
misdeeds
of
criminals.
We
pay
taxes,
we
all
contribute
so
responsible
elected
officials
can
make
safety,
health
and
community
services
available
to
everyone,
not
just
legal
gun
owners.
L
Making,
lawful
gun
owners.
Pay
for
the
misdeeds
of
criminals
is
illogical.
It's
like
holding
moderate
drinkers
responsible
for
drunk
drivers,
crimes
involving
alcohol
and
prescription
drugs,
dwarf
gun
crimes.
Singling
out
gun
owners
without
meaningful
community
engagement
is
an
abuse
of
power.
Thank
you,
mr
mayor
trashing.
Principles
of
public
discourse
and
collaboration
rivals
the
homelessness
crisis
as
the
mayor's
greatest
failure.
B
B
B
B
J
J
Required
by
gun
owners
is
arbitrary
right
now
and
up
to
the
city
manager
in
the
future.
None
of
those
fees
will
go
to
any
victims.
The
ordinance
does
not
provide
for
that.
The
insurance
each
individual
insurance
policy
will
only
cover
gov
guns
that
are
involved
in
accidental
or
negligent
discharge,
and
not
the
the
intentional
violent
acts
that
cause
that
are
that
are
the
result
or
cause
so
much
of
the
gun.
Violence
who
we
all
don't
like
this
is
not
the
right
way
to.
B
B
B
L
L
L
L
Good
evening,
honorable
mayor
and
city
council
members,
I'm
speaking
as
a
city
resident
this
evening
in
opposition
to
the
proposed
ordinance,
this
will
not
reduce
gun
harm
and
would
only
serve
to
increase
the
burden
on
city
residents
who
possess
firearms
for
lawful
purposes.
The
proposed
ordinance
has
constitutional
implications
and,
if
passed,
would
certainly
face
legal.
L
First,
the
annual
fee
to
fund
a
nonprofit
organization
amounts
to
an
annual
tax
on
firearms
owners
within
the
city.
Second,
there
are
unknowns
with
the
requirement
to
obtain
liability
insurance
specifically
covering
losses
or
damages
resulting
from
negligent
or
accidental
use
of
a
firearm.
It
could
be
difficult
or
even
impossible,
for
residents
to
obtain
insurance
that
complies
with
the
ordinance
as
written.
If
you're
looking
to
reduce
the
harm
by
gun
violence,
I
would
ask
that
you
consult
and
enforce
existing
laws
and
regulations.
L
B
Hi,
I
am
opposed
to
this.
I
think
it's
absolutely
absurd
that
you're
going
to
propose
a
tax
to
gun
owners.
I
urge
you
to
vote
no
on
it,
because
you
guys
know
it's
the
right
thing
to
do:
san
jose
used
to
be
one
of
the
biggest
state
cities
in
the
nation.
I've
grown
up
here,
my
entire
life,
and
we
never
had
a
tax
when
this
was
the
safest,
large
city
in
the
nation,
and
now
we
are
not
the
safest,
large
city
in
the
city.
You
remove
that
from
your
in
the
nation.
B
G
Hi,
I
am
a
clinical
psychology,
professor
at
san
jose
state
university
and
the
director
of
the
center
for
community
learning
and
leadership,
where
I
advise
both
students
demand
action
and
veterans
embracing
transition.
This
ordinance
is
a
moderate,
logical
and
research-based
policy
step
that
increases
gun
owners,
accountability
to
reduce
deaths
by
suicide,
domestic
violence
and
gun
accidents.
G
L
Hi,
please,
I
want
to
know
to
this
ordinance.
This
will
not
help
suppose
if
someone
intended
to
commit
a
gun
crime
where
he
stopped
just
because
he
paid
this
attacks-
and
this
is,
I
think
this
is
impossible.
If
he
wanted
just
to
do
a
gun
crime,
he
totally
will
not
consider
this
tax
to
pay
and
second,
this
will
not
help
to
restrict
the
unregistered
gun,
and
this
will
not
stop
those
criminals
from
other
city.
This
is
the
real
problem,
but
it's
not
a
right
solution.
L
L
E
E
E
Anybody
that
votes
yes
to
this
measure
and
it
passes
and
it
subsequently
gets
shot
down
in
the
courts
as
unconstitutional
that
will
violate
validate
your
violation
of
oath
of
office.
If
any
of
the
citizens
of
san
jose
are
concerned
at
all
about
discrimination
rights
violations,
equity,
you
should
all
vote
no.
E
Can
you
hear
me
yes,
okay,
as
a
longtime
resident
of
san
jose
and
also
a
certified
department
of
justice
and
california
instructor,
I
basically
say
that
this
proposal
does
nothing
to
stop
criminals
who
have
illegally
have
possession
of
firearms
or
are
qualified
under
certain
current
laws
to
own
one.
Why
is
it
a
legal
possession
of
a
firearm
simply
a
misdemeanor
that
san
jose
was
better
enforced
and
acted
on
crimes
about
honest
citizens?
We
would
not
need
to
punish
our
honest
citizen
with
this
undue
burden.
E
Man's
answer
to
persecute
lawful
citizens
at
the
same
time
downplaying
the
many
criminal
felons
who
are
caught
day
in
and
day
out
and
are
released
with
illegal
firearms
that
get
no
incarceration
whatsoever.
Taxing
a
god-given
right
does
not
make
up
for
the
fact
that
you
don't
hold
the
criminally
negligent
responsible
and
accountable.
Please
vote
no
on
this
law.
E
Hi
good
evening,
I
would
like
to
start
today
by
saying
that
this
this
will
not
protect
anybody.
People
who
are
going
to
commit
crimes
are
going
to
commit
them,
whether
they
follow
the
law
or
not,
and
also
to
people
who
are
comparing
this
to
owning
a
car.
It
is
completely
different.
Owning
a
car
is
a
privilege,
not
a
right,
so
paying
insurance
for
your
car
is
because
it
is
a
privilege.
E
A
right
should
not
be
taxed.
Most
of
all
the
people
who
who
are
in
gun
violence
are
committing
it
with
guns
that
are
not
registered.
This
is
not
going
to
stop
somebody
who
is
a
criminal,
be
like
oh.
I
should
probably
register
my
gun
that
is
illegal
and
pay
my
tax
on
it.
No
that's
going
to
stop
no
one,
all
of
the
crime
that
is
being
committed.
I
am
a
I
own
guns.
I
have
a
safe.
I
keep
my
weapons
safe
away
from
my
my
siblings
and
everybody
safely,
without
putting
anybody
out
caller.
M
M
N
E
O
O
O
E
And
I
was
scared
because
the
cops
never
came,
we
even
know
when
we
called
them,
and
I
knew
then
right
then,
and
there
no
one's
gonna
protect
us.
So
I
went
out
and
I
bought
a
firearm
and
I
trained
and
I
made
sure
that
my
little
ones
would
not
be
getting
into
it.
But
now
here
we
are
being
demonized
for
protecting
ourselves.
So
not
only
do
I
have
to
fear
the
gang
members
out
on
their
street.
E
Some
say
that
you
know
guns
cause
a
large
proportion
of
deaths.
I
will
have
you
know
that
gun
deaths.
Last
I
checked
in
2019
there
were
45
000
deaths,
of
which
60
60ish
percent
of
those
were
suicides,
give
or
take
about
15
000
of
those
were
homicides.
Compare
that
to
the
almost
393
million
guns
in
america.
E
L
Hi
your
focus
on
adding
a
tax
to
law-abiding
citizens
without
community
input
and
real
data
to
support
your
cause
is
unconstitutional.
In
my
opinion,
please
enforce
the
laws
currently
on
the
books
and
seek
to
remove
criminals
from
society
instead
of
focusing
on
law-abiding
citizens
get
tough
on
criminals,
not
your
constituents,
if
you
want
to
make
a
name
on
the
national
forefront,
then
write
and
approve
a
resolution
to
send
california
to
send
to
the
california
assembly
and
senate
to
repeal
proposition,
47
and
ab-109,
perhaps
enforcing
consequences
for
bad
ones.
L
Bad
actions
can
start
to
restore
law
and
order
and
everyone's
quality
of
life.
The
fact
that
the
city
is
going
to
end
up
using
taxpayers
money
to
fight
this
all
the
way
to
the
supreme
court
is
a
waste
of
our
public
funds
when
we
have
so
much
going
on
bad
in
our
community
in
the
homeless
encampments.
E
E
M
M
My
kids
grew
up.
Just
fine,
respecting
guns,
my
oldest
son,
is
a
deputy
sheriff.
My
youngest
son
is
a
security
at
a
dispensary,
of
course,
but
still
they
respect
guns
because
they
were
brought
up
that
way.
People
that
haven't
been
around
guns
have
no
idea
that
this
doesn't
I'm
in
opposition
to
this,
because
you
guys
are
just
trying
to
tax
your
your
constituents.
J
J
I
want
everyone
to
oppose
this
ordinance
and
really
focus
on
who
the
real
criminals
are
and
go
after
them.
Why
are
you
letting
these
criminals
believe
you
know
the
jail
system
after
they've
been
caught
by
our
police
officers?
We
have
such
a
shortage
in
them.
We
need
to
find
better
ways
and
better
solutions,
and
definitely
please
oppose
this
ordinance.
It
doesn't
make
sense.
J
L
L
Law-Abiding
gun
owners
is
punishing
the
wrong
people,
please
punish
criminals.
This
is
a
thrown
together
piece
of
knee-jerk
legislation.
This
will
be
a
major
waste
of
taxpayer
monies
to
defend
this
flawed
policy,
squeezing
down
on
gun
owners.
Isn't
the
problem
putting
possessors
of
stolen
firearms
in
jail,
solves
gun,
violence,
the
idea
that
the
jails
are
full
over
full
and
we
should
let
criminals
out
is
the
cause
of
crime
and
violence.
L
E
All
right,
blair,
beekman
here
I'll,
try
to
weigh
in
on
this
issue
a
bit
with
my
work,
with
surveillance
and
technology,
ordinance
issues
and
open
public
policies
and
accountability
as
good
community
answers
for
technology
questions.
It's
those.
When
you
ask
those
questions
and
ask
for
openness
and
accountability,
you
start
to
arrive
that
we
don't
really
actually
need
that
much
more
technology
and
that
can
help
actually
still
solve
crime
issues.
E
With
these
sort
of
issues
you
know
the
small
tax
is
asking
to
work
towards.
You
know:
education,
programs,
domestic
violence,
education
programs
that
were
a
part
of
the
whole
process
of
after
the
vta
incidents.
How
to
address
the
future
of
violence
in
a
community
in
san
jose.
So
it
does
involve
the
whole
community
and
the
tax
money
will
be
going
towards
an
educational
effort
for
the
whole
community.
Is
my
feelings
on
this
matter?
Good
luck!
How
we
work
on
it.
J
J
J
E
E
The
people
most
affected
by
this
ordinance
will
inevitably
be
the
poor,
those
who
live
paycheck
to
paycheck.
They
can't
afford
any
more
fees.
Do
these
people
not
deserve
to
have
the
means
to
defend
themselves
and
to
those
comparing
gun
ownership
to
car
ownership?
There
is
no
constitutional
right
to
own
a
car.
There
is
a
constitutional,
individual
right
tone:
firearms,
as
the
supreme
court
decided
in
dc
versus
hello.
B
E
J
Hi,
my
name
is
christy
volka
and
I
am
a
health
care
provider
at
stanford,
and
I'm
calling
in
support
of
this
ordinance,
I'm
frankly
quite
disappointed
that
so
many
of
the
folks
on
here
are
mislabeling
this
as
a
tax
when
it's
actually
a
fee,
san
joseans
are
getting
are
already
paying
for
the
burden
of
gun
crimes.
The
money
generated
from
this
fee
would
go
towards
education
and
domestic
violence
efforts.
We
already
know
that
72
percent
of
gun,
inter
injuries
occur
at
the
home.
Many
of
these
occurrences
are
not
criminal
encounters,
as
claimed
by
previous
speakers.
J
Homeowners
already
pay
increased
premium
fees
when
they
own
things
like
trampolines
and
pools,
and
things
like
that
and
guns
should
be
viewed
no
differently
as
something
that
can
put
lives
at
risk
in
these
homeowners
who
do
have
guns
at
their
homes.
So
I
want
to
say
that
I
support
this
ordinance
and
I
support
this
fee
that
will
uplift
community
organizations.
Thank
you.
G
J
Hi
yes,
fee
or
tax,
I'm
opposed
to
the
ordinance.
This
is
a
non-non-profit
job
creation
ordinance.
It's
not
a
illegal
gun
use
ordinance
until
you
can
hold
pg
e
responsible
and
punish
them
for
mass
carnage
and
pay
that
affected
families
restitution
and
require
them
pg
e
to
carry
liability
insurance
and
provide
victims,
mental
health
and
ptsd
support.
Then
you
should
oppose
this
ordinance.
J
Yes,
thank
you.
There
are
two
items
that
I
would
like
to
mention,
although
I
am
not
a
gun
owner,
this
proposal
law
could
be
racially
inequitable.
Our
residents
of
color
statistically
have
more
interactions
with
police
per
the
san
jose.
I
mean
for
the
santa
clara
county
da's
office.
Therefore,
these
residents
will
be
more
likely
to
interact
with
police
on
this
law
of
past.
J
Is
this?
What
we
desire
is
this
racial
equity.
Second,
as
a
victim
of
identity
theft
caused
by
a
breach
of
the
irs,
which
should
have
good
protection,
I
cannot
believe
that
any
non-profit
could
adequately
protect
the
data
provided
to
it.
If
I
were
a
gun
owner,
I
would
not
feel
comfortable
providing
any
insurance
data
to
a
non-profit.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
E
E
I
urge
the
city
council
to
have
an
open
thing,
bring
all
parties
together
and
we
can
come
up
with
some
real
solutions.
Let's
focus
on
gangs,
illegal
drug
trade
and
giving
people
hope
this
ordinance
is
not
going
to
work.
It's
violating
the
constitution
violates
the
spirit
of
heller,
most
likely
after
the
supreme
court
spanx
new
york
state.
They
will
spank
california
seriously
on
all
other
gun
control
laws.
I
urge
you
to
vote
no.
Instead,
let's
do
something
to
bring
us
together.
Thank
you.
B
C
C
C
E
B
E
I
think
this
ordinance
will
encourage
more
people
to
3d
print
their
firearms
and
to
either
make
ghost
guns,
because
they
would
want
to
get
around
these
ordinance.
Sorry
they
would
want
to
get
around
these
fees.
So
if
you
want
more
3d
printed
firearms,
if
you
want
more
ghost
guns
on
the
street,
please
be
my
guest
vote.
Yes
on
this
law,.
B
B
E
C
B
F
O
O
J
E
Legal
gun
owners-
my
son,
is
14
year
old
and
is
also
a
gun.
Enthusiast
straw
purchases
are
already
illegal.
This
seems
to
be
a
catchy
buzz
word
to
get
this
thing
passed.
My
weapons
are
already
locked
up
and
brought
out
only
to
transport
to
the
range
or
hunting
transporting
locked
and
unloaded.
How
can
I
get
any
more
safe?
It
is
virtually
impossible.
Current
laws
require
if
your
gun
is
stolen
or
lost
to
be
reported
to
law
enforcement.
E
It's
just
that
at
present,
probably
a
secured
firearms
with
a
cord
lock
or
a
safe
absorb
individuals
of
liability.
It's
hard
enough
to
be
a
safe
legal
gun
owner
and
now
it
will
cost
me
money
to
be
handed
over
to
groups
whose
mission
is
to
solely
undermine
the
second
amendment
and
go
ahead
what
entity
and
who
provides
this
insurance.
Thank
you.
B
B
Wait,
could
you
start
my
clock
again
because
it
was
really
bad
whatever
was
going
on
and
thank
you
sweetie.
Basically,
you
know
you
need
to
put
it
on
the
banner.
What
the
item
is
about
just
versus
4.1
and
you
have
a
lot
of
room
there,
so
you
can
do
that
and
that
would
help
us
for
our
democracy
anyway,
my
you
know,
I'm
I'm
all
for
this
law.
I
think
we
have
responsibilities
with
our
rights
and
you
know
just
like
with.
H
B
B
M
I'm
into
joe
eckman,
I'm
I've
lived
in
san
jose
for
the
last
20
years.
One
couple
things
I
wanted
to
mention
in
2020
californians
purchase
a
record
number
of
firearms
or
1.1
million
to
be
exact.
We
also
had
a
record
number
of
first-time
gun
owners.
2020
was
also
a
year
where
we,
where
the
face
of
new
gun
owners,
changed
dramatically,
with
48
of
new
owners
being
women,
34
being
white,
24,
being
hispanic
23
being
black
19
being
asian.
M
I
am
a
lifelong
democrat
and
our
party
is
on
a
collision
course
with
the
second
amendment
among
its
own
party
members,
aside
from
the
rest
of
the
country,
many
of
these
anti-civil
rights
groups
have
done
things
in
the
past,
such
as
oppose
a
one-time
tax
deduction
for
the
purchase
of
gun
safes.
I
they
have
very
little
interest
in
in
having
a
dialogue
with
gun
owners,
let
alone
working
on
problems
or
solutions
to
these
problems.
Thank
you.
J
M
Good
evening
mary
ricardo
council
members
and
attendees,
I
have
been
a
lifelong
democrat
and
lifelong
san
jose
resident.
I
am
calling
this
evening
to
vehemently
oppose
his
ordinance.
I
feel
it
is
misguided,
short-sighted
and
reactionary,
and
this
is
not
how
we
should
be
setting
policies.
The
preservation
of
life
and
reduction
of
crime
is
paramount,
but
this
ordinance
does
nothing
to
stop
criminals
or
preserve
life
whatsoever.
M
Mental
health,
suicide,
gang
violence,
crime
guns
are
not
the
cause;
they
are
a
symptom
of
a
deep
root
problem
that
exists
in
our
communities.
In
a
time
where
we
feel
unsafe
in
san
jose
property
and
violent
crimes
are
on
the
rise,
it
takes
more
than
seven
minutes
for
the
police
to
respond
to
a
9-1-1
call.
This
ordinance
fixes
nothing.
I
implore
you
to
focus
on
improved
efforts
such
as
addressing
socio-economic
conditions,
homelessness,
drug
abuse,
unemployment
and
as
a
person
who
voted
for
mayor
ricardo,
I
am
a
little
bit
ashamed
and
embarrassed.
Thank
you.
Everyone.
B
J
Hello,
I
am
a
registered,
I
I'm
a
resident
and
a
voter
in
san
jose.
I
do
not
own
a
gun,
but
I
am
asking
all
of
you
to
vote
no
because
of
the
criminals
with
the
stolen
guns
and
ghost
guns
will
never
register
and
pay
this
fee.
This
law,
taxes,
law
abiding
citizens
who
are
are
already
locking
up
their
guns
safely
when
not
in
use.
J
J
B
E
Hi,
all
I
wanted
to
say
is
you
know
the
second
amendment
right
to
keep
and
bear
arms.
This
is
obviously
an
extremely
unconstitutional
law,
both
on
a
federal
level
and
a
state
level.
Lawsuits
are
going
to
be
filed.
The
second
this
gets
passed.
All
this
does
is
wind
up,
wasting
taxpayer
money,
taxpayer
resources
and
the
city
will
wind
up
settling
paying
tens
of
thousands
hundreds
of
thousands,
if
not
millions
of
dollars,
and
that's
ultimately
going
to
come
out
of
the
pockets
of
the
taxpaying
citizens
of
san
jose
california.
E
B
M
B
E
Hey
hi:
this
is
ronald,
I'm
in
tremendous
support
of
this
initiative.
I
believe
it's
focus,
which
is
on
trying
to
prevent
accidental
deaths
deaths
by
a
suicide.
It's
not
targeting
criminal
activity
and,
given
that
two-thirds
of
our
deaths
of
teenagers
are
by
accidental
death
using
guns,
it's
targeting
the
specific
areas
that
it
can
change.
You're
right.
It
can't
go
after
criminals
who
ignore
the
law
in
the
first
place,
but
it's
going
to
help
those
people
who
aren't
doing
the
right
thing
with
their
guns
and
there
are
a
lot
of
them.
C
Thank
you
tony
thank
you
to
all
the
many
members
of
our
community
who
have
spoken,
those
who
have
written
in
and
participated
in
various
ways.
I
appreciate
all
the
public
engagement.
Our
democracy
is
indeed
active
and
healthy,
and
I
appreciate
their
very
strong
feelings
on
both
sides
and
their
strong
feelings
appropriate
for
very
obvious
reasons.
C
I
I
want
to
thank
colleagues
who
co-signed
the
memoranda
memorandum
with
me
and
helped
to
make
this
proposal
better.
Vice
mayor
jones,
council,
member
perales,
councilmember
cohen
and
councilman
carrasco,
I
appreciate
very
much
your
engagement
and
support
throughout
all
this
effort,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
many
many
community
partners.
C
I
I
named
many
in
the
memorandum
what
we
did
in
the
memorandum
that
we
filed
I'd
like
to
call
out
particularly
mom's
banned
action,
the
grassroots
efforts
of
rachel,
michaelson
sharon
jenkins
and
many
others,
as
well
as
the
non-profit
leaders
who
have
come
together
with
gun
violence.
Experts
led
by
esther
peralta
stegman,
the
ceo
of
next
door,
solutions
who
will
be.
We
hope
that
this
is
passed
by
the
council,
be
creating
this
non-profit
foundation.
That's
already
under
creation.
C
We've
got
lawyers
working
on
it
and
I
really
want
to
thank
christina
gumera
and
paul
pereira
and
my
team,
especially
for
their
repeated
efforts
to
reach
out
to
many
groups,
represent
gun
owners
to
gather
input
and
engage
them.
We
weren't
very
successful
in
that
effort.
We
certainly
tried
many
many
phone
calls
and
many
emails,
but
we
did
have
some
connection
and
that's
important,
and
I
want
to
call
out
one
person
in
particular,
and
the
community
really
stepped
up.
C
That's
david
trussler,
who
I've
known
for
many
years,
he's
head
of
a
local
nra
chapter,
and
I
assume
he
opposes
this
measure
based
on
on
prior
discussions.
But
he
rolled
up
his
sleeves
with
the
other
non-profit
leaders.
I
recognized
him
may
not
have
endorsed
this
measure,
but
he
wanted
to
find
ways
to
constructively
use
these
dollars
to
do
what
I
think
we
all
want,
which
is
to
reduce
gun
harm
in
our
community.
C
I'd
like
to
believe
that
that
david
trussler's
leadership
can
be
infectious
that,
even
when
we
disagree,
we
can
find
ways
to
work
together
to
do
what
we
all
want
to
accomplish,
which
is
reduce
harm
from
guns.
I
do
want
to
address
one
very
central
argument.
I've
heard
repeatedly,
certainly
today
and
in
the
past,
from
those
who
are
concerned
about
this
measure
and
opposing
it,
and
that
is
that
this
is
about
punishing
law-abiding
gun
owners
because
crooks
aren't
going
to
follow
the
law.
C
This
won't
stop
mass
shootings
or
keep
bad
people
from
committing
violent
crime,
and
so
first
I
want
to
know
with
regard
to
whatever
punishing
this
might
be
doing
to
law-abiding
gun
owners,
and
I
don't
think
it's
punishing
them.
I
would
also
note
that
I'm
venturing
to
guess
that
all
the
gun
owners
who
called
in
today
are
all
law-abiding
and
now
that
we're
going
to
lose
their
guns
as
a
result
of
this
measure,
absolutely
none
of
them.
C
I
think
it's
also
important
to
point
out
that
this
argument
really
ignores
the
nature
of
gun
harm.
The
expansive
nature
of
gun
harm
and
really
too
narrowly
focuses
on
one
form
of
gun
armor.
So
here's
the
reality
in
the
data
and
don't
believe
me,
I'm
a
politician.
So
look
it
up.
Cdc
and
lots
of
other
folks
keep
this
data.
The
majority
of
gun
deaths
are
not
by
homicide
they're
by
suicide,
about
60.
C
In
fact,
one
opponent
actually
said
statistica
earlier
today
and
moreover,
even
if
we
just
look
at
gun
homicides,
many
of
them
could
be
prevented
with
the
intervention
of
mental
health
or
domestic
violence
or
addiction
treatment
services.
For
example.
We
know
if
you've
got
a
gun
in
the
home
that
and
there's
domestic
violence.
That
means
there's
a
five
times
greater
likelihood
that
the
survivor
may
not
survive.
C
It's
about
27
000
a
year
again,
all
of
those
unintentional
shootings
are
preventable
and
that's
the
point
of
swordness,
it's
easy
to
say
this
isn't
going
to
stop
a
crook,
who's,
intent
and
killing
somebody.
Well,
I
challenge
anyone
to
suddenly
magically
craft
that
ordinance
that
will
it
doesn't
exist,
but
we
can
reduce
gun
harm
when
we
see
the
expanse
of
gun
harm
and
how
broad
it
is
knowledge,
different
forms.
C
So,
with
those
facts
in
mind,
let's
talk
about
whether
this
ordinance
punishes
gun
owners
or
not.
First,
the
insurance
is
for
the
benefit
of
everyone,
especially
lawful
gun
owners
and
their
families.
We
know
that
more
than
four
and
a
half
million
children
live
in
a
home
which
a
gun
is
kept,
unlocked
and
loaded.
C
C
Victims
are
compensated
by
the
insurance
company
so
to
the
extent
the
insurance
can
spur
us
to
be
safer
and
spur
safety,
innovation
and
products,
and
services
and
incentivize
the
purchase
of
those
things.
Whether
it's
gun
safes
trigger
locks,
engaging
safety
classes,
whatever
it
might
be,
insurance,
can
make
gun
owners
and
their
families
safer,
and
it
makes
us
all
safe.
C
Secondly,
as
I
mentioned,
the
funds
will
that
are
collected
will
fund
services
exclusively
for
the
benefit
of
gun
owners,
their
families
and
their
intimate
partners,
and
that's
not
simply
for
legal
reasons.
There's
good
policy
reason
for
that,
because
that
is
where
the
greatest
risk
is
is
in
households
where
a
gun
is
owned,
and
I
can
point
to
a
half
dozen
epidemiological
studies
and
several
are
cited
in
the
ordinance
that
shows.
C
If
you
have
a
gun
in
a
home,
you
are
much
more
likely
to
die
as
a
result
of
suicide
or
homicide
and
you're,
certainly
much
more
likely
to
be
harmed
through
an
accidental
shooting,
and
this
is
not
merely
a
paternalistic
concern.
Obviously,
our
taxpayers
are
currently
subsidizing
gun
ownership
in
our
team
and
in
every
community
in
this
country,
the
tune
of
1.4
billion
a
year
in
california
for
the
public
costs,
the
public
costs
responding
to
gun,
harm
and
gun
violence,
not
simply
to
crooks,
because
we
know
that
most
people
commit
suicide
are
not
crooks.
C
C
Okay
and
finally,
then
the
question
is:
how
do
we?
How
do
we
deal
with
those
crooks
who
don't
comply?
Those
who
are
not
law-abiding?
Certainly
there
are
penalties,
fines,
administrative
penalties
and-
and
we
know
that
that's
equivalent
of
a
parking
ticket.
Maybe
it's
a
whole
lot
more.
Maybe
it's
a
thousand
dollar
penalty,
whatever
it
is.
C
A
crook
still
may
not
pay
it.
Well,
then,
the
question
arises
of
temporary
forfeiture
and
fortunately
we
have
state
legislation
drafted
on
both
the
assembly
and
senate
side.
That
would
enable
us
to
do
with
this
ordinance,
as
is
commonly
done
in
domestic
violence
cases.
That
is
when
police
arrive.
There's
been
a
violation
of
some
kind,
and
this
is
context
in
which
there
is
violence
or
severe
significant
threat
of
violence.
An
officer
can
remove
a
gun
from
a
combustible
situation
and
then
return
the
gun
when
the
situation
has
died
down.
C
That's
currently
in
state
law
for
domestic
violence
situations,
and
we
hope
will
be
available
in
this
instance
as
well
with
legislation
that's
currently
proposed
now.
I
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
comments
and
and
concerns
about
what
this
ordinance
may
or
may
not.
Do
I
heard
something
about
the
creation
of
a
list
that
criminals
might
get
access
to
could
find
out
who
has
a
gun?
Who
has
a
gun
in
our
community?
C
So
there
won't
be
any
lists
floating
around
in
city
hall,
a
lot
of
concerns
about
imposing
fees
and
constitutional
rights,
and
I
can
assure
you
there
are
lots
of
taxes.
I
say
taxes.
This
is
not
a
tax,
it's
a
fee,
but
lots
of
taxes
that
are
upheld
on
the
purchase
of
guns
and
on
ammunition.
In
fact,
we've
had
a
tax
on
firearms
in
this
country,
since
1916.
C
We
have
fees
on
the
filing
of
civil
lawsuits,
which
of
course,
are
right
under
the
seventh
amendment.
We
have
taxes
on
newspapers
that
are
publishing
as
they
are
entitled
to
do
under
the
first
amendment.
The
question
isn't
whether
or
not
there's
a
fee
or
an
obligation.
The
question
is
whether
it
is
an
obstacle
to
exercise
the
constitutional
right,
and
I
believe
this
is
not
going
to
be
a
significant
obstacle.
What's
proposed
in
the
memorandum
the
five
of
us
signed,
it
was
a
very
simple
base.
C
Fee
of
25
will
be
some
additional
administrative
costs
we
tacked
on
will
come
up
with
a
roughly
even
number,
I
would
assume,
and
that
would
be
the
payment
I'm
guessing.
It
won't
exceed
30
or
35
a
very
modest
fee,
and
obviously,
if
anyone
cannot
afford
it,
they
can
sign
a
waiver
as
is
permitted
or
as
is
required
under
the
constitution,
we're
going
to
comply
with
the
law.
C
We
don't
get
access
to
to
the
list
of
purchasers
that
the
department
of
justice
has
now
that's
not
allowed
on
a
law
and
we're
not
going
to
do
it.
So,
whether
you
have
a
ghost
gun
or
not,
you
still
got
to
comply
with
the
law
and
if
you
have
a
ghost
done
in
public
and
you
haven't
paid
your
insurance
nope
and
you
encounter
a
police
officer,
you'll
be
asked
whether
that
you
have
insurance,
that's
the
same
requirements
going
to
have.
Obviously
a
ghost
done
is
illegal
under
state
law.
C
There
are
some
holes
in
that
that
we're
trying
to
fill
here
locally,
but
I
expect
the
gun
would
be
seized
anyway.
And
finally,
this
question
about
whether
or
not
we're
criminalizing
law
abiding
gun
owners.
I
can
assure
you,
there's
nothing
in
these
in
this
ordinance
that
says
that
the
penalties
will
be
criminal.
This
is
a
civil
ordinance,
be
civil
fines
and
that's
it.
C
So
I
have
a
author.
I'm
sorry,
I
have
authored
another
memorandum.
In
addition
to
the
one
I
co-authored
with
my
four
colleagues,
and
I
that
in
it
recommends
the
endorsement
of
councilman
peralta's
memorandum,
I
appreciate
his
topical
insights.
Several
recommendations
from
councilmember
davis
appreciate
her
recommendations
and
I
would
also
add
to
that
the
approval
of
the
modification
that's
offered
by
council
member
arenas.
C
I
would
just
ask
that
not
preclude
survivors
of
domestic
violence,
where
the
violence
is
not
gender
based,
for
example,
we
can
imagine
cases
in
which,
for
example,
there
may
be
child
victims
or
survivors
or
survivors
who
are
lgbtq
and
I'm
not
sure
whether
that's
defined
as
gender-based
or
not
so,
just
as
long,
we
have
a
sufficiently
inclusive
definition
that
enables
services
to
get
to
all
those
folks
I'll
be
happy
to
support
it
all
right.
So
we
will.
I
look
forward
to
the
dialogue
of
my
call.
That's
my
problem.
O
Yeah
thank
you
mayor
and
thank
you
to
our
city
staff
for
your
work
on
this
and
to
all
of
our
public
speakers
that
came
out
today
and
that
have
expressed
their
input
to
the
council
over
the
last
week.
Sharing
your
opinions
and
your
stories
on
what
is
a
very
important
topic
for
those
of
you
that
may
not
know
I'm
a
lifetime,
firearm
owner
or
excuse
me
a
long
time,
firearm
owner
and
currently
a
san
jose
police
reserve
officer.
O
O
One
of
the
hobbies
that
michael
and
actually
enjoyed
together
was
going
to
shoot
our
guns,
and
I
can
guarantee
you
that
he
never
expected
that
one
day
he
himself
would
be
the
victim
of
gun
violence,
so
gun
violence
for
me,
is
more
than
just
docking
points
that
we
may
hear
on
on
either
side
of
the
debate,
and
I
think,
as
we
heard
from
from
some
today,
that
actually
to
themselves
of
personal
experiences
on
on
either
side
of
the
aisle.
For
me,
too,
it
is.
O
It
is
something
that
has
touched
my
life
personally
and
something
I
like
many
who've
had
family
and
friends
victimized
by
gun.
Violence
continue
to
to
contend
with.
I
will
say
that
I
do
have
some
reservations
and
did
have
some
reservations
with
the
direction,
but,
as
stated
in
my
memo,
I
am
most
interested
in
ensuring
we
can
actually
reduce
gun
violence
and
I'm
willing
to
support
this
moving
forward.
O
If
we
can
include
a
few
additional
steps-
and
thank
you
mayor
for
your
comments
just
now
in
regards
to
that-
I
do
want
to
say
thank
you
to
dr
ted
miller
and
pyre
for
their
their
report,
in
which
we
learned
that
san
jose
spends
almost
eight
million
dollars
a
year
responding
to
gun
violence.
That
is
a
staggering
data
point.
An
even
a
more
staggering
data
point
is
how
many
people
commit
suicide
by
gun
each
year,
and
specifically,
especially
my
fellow
police
officers.
O
Every
year,
more
police
officers
die
by
suicide,
a
majority
of
them
with
their
own
handgun,
then
officers
who
are
shot
and
killed
in
the
line
of
duty.
Just
for
example,
last
year,
62
officers
were
shot
and
killed
in
the
line
of
duty,
but
a
staggering
152
committed
suicide,
and
you
can
look
up
that
information
online
every
year
at
officer,
fatalities
and
and
also
at
officer
suicides,
and
you
will
see
that
that
is
a
constant
statistic.
O
If
we
knew
we
could
do
more
to
help
prevent
and
lessen
gun
violence,
especially
suicides
by
simply
paying
an
annual
registration
fee
of
25
and
adding
an
inclusion
of
our
firearms
within
our
renters
or
homeowners
policies,
then
why
would
we
not
want
to
do
that
now?
I
understand
that
is
one
of
the
big
concerns
here.
Many
of
those
that
spoke
up
against
this
proposal
simply
stated.
They
don't
believe
it
will
do
anything
to
actually
reduce
gun
violence.
O
I
think
we
can
and
should
be
doing
more
to
bring
to
reality
our
collective
desire
to
end
gun
violence
in
our
city.
This
is
why,
last
year
I
spent
months
after
that
incident
in
may
researching
and
engaging
with
experts
to
craft
a
proposal.
I
brought
forward
called
the
community
violence
prevention
and
response
initiative,
which
our
rules
committee
unanimously
approved
last
september.
O
The
initiative
called
for
us
to
gather
all
of
the
pertinent
data
and
have
public
cross-jurisdictional
dialogue
with
partners
like
at
the
county
to
examine
how
to
address
the
social
and
behavioral
root
causes
that
lead
to
someone
picking
up
a
gun
and
using
it
on
themselves
or
on
others.
This
includes
addressing
mental
health,
intimate
partner
violence,
as
councilmember
arenas
stated
in
in
her
memo,
as
well
as
substance
abuse.
It
includes
looking
internally
to
ensure
there
is
access
to
wellness
programs
and
resource
to
help
cope
with
the
number
of
traumatic
events.
O
We
may
experience
throughout
that
we've
seen
this
throughout
these
last
several
years
and
throughout
our
lifetimes.
It
is
heartening
to
not
only
have
heard
support
for
my
initiative
from
both
sides
of
the
debate,
including
those
who
were
against
today's
action,
as
I
saw
in
several
emails
after
after
all.
I
think
one
thing
that
we
can
all
agree
on
regardless
of
what
position
which
position
is.
O
B
Remember
this
is
lee
wilcox
assistant
city
manager.
We
did
have
a
verbal
conversation,
not
too
long
after
the
rules
committee,
caring
with
the
county
in
which
they
expressed
an
interest
in
having
the
meeting
but
wanted
to
get
through
the
most
immediate
needs
of
the
pandemic,
and
then
we
would
circle
back
around
with
them
late
spring
and
summer
to
plan
something
out.
B
O
Okay,
thank
you.
You
know,
I
think,
the
the
the
time
delay
is
not
going
to
benefit
any
of
us,
and
I
think
regardless,
if,
if
we
don't
necessarily
have
support
of
the
board
of
directors,
I
do
think
we
should
proceed
with
our
own
study
session.
We
could
invite
county
agencies
or
representatives
from
county
agencies
like
behavioral
health,
public
health
to
participate,
and
I
would
like,
as
that
was
suggested,
my
recommendation
last
september,
preferring
to
do
something
sooner
than
later.
E
O
I
I
personally
believe
this
study
session
needs
to
occur
before
this
new
program.
First
of
its
kind
is
going
to
be
implemented
within
100
days
180
days,
so
I
do
think
we
have
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
I
want
to
ensure
that
we
are
setting
ourselves
up
for
success
and
I
think,
having
this
conversation
will
really
help
us
do
that.
I
I
appreciate
the
creative
thinking
of
using
a
designated
non-profit
to
be
able
to
collect
and
expand
these
funds.
O
I
think
if,
if
we
are
to
meaningfully
execute
this
plan,
it
is
imperative
that
over
the
next
few
months,
our
staff
outline
a
comprehensive
work
plan
and
timeline
that
addresses
the
questions
that
I
have
proposed
in
my
memo.
A
dedicated
work
plan
is
not
only
going
to
benefit
the
city,
but
it
also
provides
the
transparency
that
I
think
we've
heard
from
a
lot
of
our
public
today
that
they
would
that
they
would
like
to
see
and
deserve.
O
My
goal
in
the
end,
as
I
believe
all
of
ours
is
and
should
be,
is
to
end
gun
violence,
and,
while
I
am
supportive
of
the
council
action
and
proposed
today
include
inclusion
or
including
my
memo.
I
hope
that
we
will
indeed
take
the
time
and
dedicate
the
resources,
as
I
had
proposed
through
my
memo,
to
be
able
to
thoughtfully
and
collaboratively
work
towards
that
goal.
O
I
want
to
thank
my
staff
for
their
hard
work,
my
chief
of
staff,
christina
ramos,
mindy
wynn,
bridget
brown
and
david
tran
for
my
team,
as
this
was
not
something
on
our
work
planner
agenda
last
year
and
and
they
all
stepped
up,
as
it
became
very
personal
to
me
and
and
have
dove
in
on
this
work
with
me.
So
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
them
as
well.
With
that,
I
will
make
a
motion
now
to
move
the
joint
memo
from
the
the
mayor.
J
C
K
K
C
C
So,
in
the
same
way
with
the
gun,
it
only
covers
unintentional
shootings
and
harm
from
them.
That's
still
an
awful
lot
of
harm.
If
you
consider
it's
about
a
little
more
than
a
third
of
the
emergency
room,
injuries
from
guns
are
from
unintentional
shootings
and,
as
you
can
imagine
disproportionately
there,
that.
C
The
percentage
is
a
little
smaller
in
in
the
county
or
in
the
city,
based
on
what
we
saw
from
the
prior
study,
but
at
least
nationally
it's
more
than
a
third
about
27
000
a
year,
and
we
know
there's
there's,
as
I
mentioned,
there's
lots
of
kids
who
live
in
homes
where
the
basic
safety
requirements
aren't
being
satisfied.
So
that's
where
we're
trying
to
address
with
the
insurance.
K
C
I'm
assuming
that
there
is
a
natural
requirement
if
that
well,
first
of
all,
that
would
be
news
to
me.
We've
reached
out
now
to
more
than
15
insurance
companies,
I'm
guessing
there
may
have
been
statements
made
that
you
can't
get
coverage
for
now.
Let
me
not,
I
better
not
speak,
because
I
have
not
been
the
one
communicating
directly
with
insurance
companies.
We've
had
our
team
doing
on
a
couple
of
occasions,
but
my
understanding
is,
it
covers
unintentional
harm
and
most
policies
are
pretty
comprehensive
and
covering
all
unintentional
harms.
C
C
C
Accidental
coverage
covers
all
accidental
shootings
as
long
as
there's
no
evidence
of
malfeasance,
so
we
don't.
I
appreciate
you
may
have
heard
something
from
one
company,
but
we've
reached
out
to,
I
believe
the
number
of
16
companies
offering
homeowners
rental
insurance.
I
haven't
learned
of
any
such
conclusion.
K
K
C
K
C
C
Yeah,
we
have
been
told
by
several
insurers
as
well
as
what
you'll
see.
I
think
in
the
in
the
ordinance
is
a
specific
recitation
from
an
insurance
or
based
organization.
That
represents
many
insurers,
that
there
are
mechanisms
for
getting
reduced
premiums,
risk
adjusted
premiums
for
things
such
as
purchasing
a
gun,
safe.
K
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
I
had
some
questions
around
the
fees
and
how
some
of
this
would
work
so
and-
and
I
also
say
that
representing
a
district
that
has
a
lot
of
gun,
violence
and-
and
you
know
just
like
every
other
part
of
the
city-
I
have
responsible
gun
owners,
but
I
have
whole
neighborhoods
that
live
in
fear
because
of
other
people
driving
through
their
neighborhoods
and
firing
guns.
Under
this
policy
they
would
not.
K
K
Are
there
any
legal
reasons
why
the
services
provided
by
the
designated
non-profit
only
offers
these
services
to
gun
owners,
members
of
a
household
of
gun
owners
or
those
who
have
close
familial
or
intimate
relationships,
so
in
other
words,
neighborhoods,
like
owsley
and
santee,
would
be
left
out?
Is
that
correct?
Is
there
a
legal
reason
for
that.
C
C
C
Well,
I
imagine
that
the
non-profit
may
undertake
other
criteria
as
well.
You
could
imagine,
for
example,
since
we've
engaged,
for
example,
leading
member
of
the
local
nra,
that
there
could
be
an
active
effort
to
reach
out
to
gun
owners
through
those
organizations
and
offer
these
services,
so
gun
owners
know
that
those
services
are
available.
Also,
communication
could
go
through
the
domestic,
the
department
of
justice
database
to
those
who
purchased
guns
to
indicate
to
them.
Hey
you
have
these
services
available,
so
there's
a
variety
of
different
ways.
K
And
the
original
proposal
there
was
some
discussion
in
the
original
proposal.
It
stressed
that
the
city
would
use
an
airlock
system
to
ensure
the
security
of
data
collected
on
gun
owners.
How
would
the
city
ensure
that
this
information
is
properly
secured
by
the
designated
non-profit
and
then
what's
nora?
What's
the
cities
or
the
non-profits
potential
exposure,
if
the
database
is
for
any
reason
made
public.
G
Council,
member
those
are
some
of
the
questions
that
are
going
to
be
worked
out
through
the
work
over
the
next
six
months
and
what
information
is
going
to
be
provided
to
a
non-profit.
The
mayor
indicated.
The
state
has
that
information
is
something
that
will
will
be
sorted
out
through
the
promulgation
regulations
over
the
next
six
months.
K
D
D
Actually,
I
couldn't
discuss
or
share
some
of
these
thoughts
and
such,
but
let
me
just
first
say
thank
you
to
all
the
folks
that
called
in
appreciate
your
concern
and
obviously,
as
we
all
sit
here
listening,
we
we
realized
that
some
of
the
commentaries
just
misguided
plainly
flat
wrong
as
it
relates
to
what
we're
doing
here
today,
and
you
know,
I
think,
that's
common
as
it
relates
to
the
folks
that
call
in
but
anyhow
appreciate
the
appreciate
them
calling
in.
I
also
want
to
say
that
I
I'm
gonna
about
this.
D
There's
also
this
perception
that
in
our
city,
certainly
as
any
big
city
has
crime
but
to
sort
of
peddle.
This
idea-
and
I
heard
it
from
some
of
the
residents
as
if
folks
are
quite
literally
just
walking
around
with
guns.
Looking
you
know
the
bad
guys
are
walking
around
with
guns
looking
to
shoot
someone
I
just
wanted
to
come.
D
Just
just
a
few
questions
mayor,
I
wanted
to
make
sure
and
I'll
direct
these
to
you,
because
I
know
you've
been
played
an
instrumental
role
in
getting
some
of
this
moving.
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
the
liability
insurance
so
just
want
to
run
a
scenario
right
to
think
through
in
a
practical
sense
how
this
works
right,
so
have
liability
insurance,
I'm
a
legal
on
a
gun
owner,
something
an
accidental
shooting
happens
in
my
home.
Someone
is
injured.
D
Let's
just
say
it
was
a
friend
of
mine,
right
whatever
it
may
be,
a
a
claim
is
filed.
I
assume,
with
the
insurance
company,
that's
covering
this
liability
insurance.
Assuming
it
was
determined
to
be
an
accident,
then
the
insurance
would
then
pony
up
some
cash
or
whatever
it
may
be.
To
make
that
person
whole.
Whoever
got
hurt
is
that
the.
D
C
D
And
then
that's
where
that,
so
I
appreciate
that.
That's
that's
what
my
thinking
was
and
so
assuming
everything's
above
board.
We
were
just
fiddling
around
with
a
gun
in
the
backyard
shot,
my
friend's
foot,
whatever
it
may
be,
he
gets
paid
he's
having
insurance,
they,
you
know,
there's
a
claim
filed,
and
so
you
know
the
the
the
what
is
it
the
pacific
institute,
the
report
that
was
cited
in
one
of
the
memos.
D
I
think
that
provided
some
of
the
baseline
information
as
it
relates
to
the
the
dollars
that
are
being
spent
on
some
of
this,
and
so
in
that
instance
say
the
police
arrive,
say,
there's
an
ambulance
called
say:
there's
a
fire
depart.
The
fire
department
shows
up
the
insurance
company
isn't
going
to
cover
that.
I
presume
right.
D
C
You
know
I'm
not
an
expert
in
this
area,
but
my
understanding
is
the
insurance
company
would
cover
whatever
the
policyholder
would
be
liable
to
pay
right.
So
to
the
extent
there
would
be
any
recovery
from
the
policy
holder
for
public
costs.
Then
yes,
the
insurance
company
paid
that,
but
I
frankly
don't
pretend
to
know
what
yeah.
D
D
I
know
some
of
the
numbers
were
thrown
out
that
were
supplied
are
related
to
sort
of
the
amount
of
dollars
it
costs,
for
example,
for
police
services
and
such
as
it
relates
to
some
of
these
gun
incidents,
and
so
I
guess
my
point
is,
and
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
I
it
doesn't
seem
to
me,
then
that
the
liability
insurance
is
necessarily
going
to
have
a
decline
in
in
the
amount
of
money
that
are,
the
taxpayers,
need
to
pony
up
right.
No.
C
D
C
The
proposal
was
that
the
dollars
would
come
back
to
the
city
and
offset
some
of
our
costs
that
that
has
since
been
modified,
so
the
dollars
instead
will
entirely
be
directed
toward
violence,
prevention
and
violence
reduction,
and
that,
of
course,
goes
through
the
non-profit
agencies,
and
so
when
this
report
was
created
by
pyre,
it
was
really
addressing
what
was
originally
a
proposal
that
would
have
money
come
back
to
the
city.
We've
all
talked
extensively
attorneys
and
everybody
else
about
what's
the
best
approach,
and
this
is
the
approach
that's
being
proposed.
C
D
So
so
the
the
the
insertion
or
the
include
inclusion
of
the
light,
the
requirement
for
liability
insurance
that,
in
your
view
it
it
will
have
a
positive
effect
as
it
relates
to
the
the
the
resources
that
the
city
spends.
I
mean.
Is
it
gonna
in
your
mind,
help
in
some
roundabout
way
maybe
address
some
of
those
expenses
that
maybe
go
on.
You
know
unchecked
and
unresolved
well,.
C
When
you
say
the
city-
I
I
guess
I
I
was
referring
to
nearly
40
million,
that
city
taxpayers
pay
and
we
pay
taxes
not
just
support
the
city
but
also,
for
example,
the
county
to
pay
for
emergency
room
treatment
right
and
so
to
the
extent
that
there
is
an
insurance
company
in
place.
That's
going
to
pay
for
that
cost,
for
example,
and
it
would
not
have
been
if
we
didn't
have
a
mandate
that
would
be.
That
would
be
a
benefit
to
the
taxpayer.
D
D
D
D
C
Interrupt
you
there,
I'm
sorry,
okay,
please!
That's!
Just
a
non-profit
foundation!
It's
going
to
distribute
dollars
to
community
organizations
that
do
this
work,
so
they're
not
going
to
suddenly
develop
this
expertise,
they're
going
to
go
to
who
the
experts
are
so,
whether
it's
next-door
solutions
for
domestic
violence
or
or
whatever
other
community-based
organizations
out
there
gardner
health
center
providing
mental
health
services
whatever
it
might
be.
N
D
D
We
don't
really
know
you
know
we
haven't
taken
a
polish
survey
to
see
how
the
majority
of
gonam
were
sort
of
how
they
feel
about
this.
I
suspect
a
lot
of
them
probably
share
some
of
the
perspective
that
was
shared
during
the
course
of
this
meeting.
As
you
can
imagine
sure,
I
think
we
could
all
agree
with
that.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
some
of
them,
I
don't
know
the
percentage.
D
I
have
no
idea,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
at
least
some
of
them
are
probably
going
to
be
are
not
going
to
be
very
much
inclined
to
take
on
some
of
these
services
because
they
may
frankly
think
they're
doing
enough
already
right,
and
so
one
of
the
questions
I
have
is
what,
if
the
money
that
the
pot
of
money
that's
flowing
into
this
organization,
that's
then
sending
it
out
to
nonprofits
just
sits
idle.
If
you
will
right,
because
the
families
that
own
guns
aren't
utilized
what
happens
to
that
money.
C
Yeah,
I
I
think
if
we
were
to
think
about
the
entire
breadth
of
services
that
might
be
provided
and
the
incredible
need.
We
have,
for
example,
for
basic
mental
health
care
yeah
in
our
in
our
community
domestic
violence
prevention.
How
how
we
could,
I
think,
both
come
up
with
a
pretty
lengthy
list
of
severely
underfunded
services.
I
don't
think
there's
going
to
be
any
problem,
ensuring
that
we
have
enough
spending
to
do
with
these
dollars.
C
C
D
C
D
D
The
the
point:
it's
a
lot
more
than
the
55
000
households
right
I
mean
yes
and
it's
much
broader.
The
impact
is,
and
so
you
know
some
of
what
we
talk
about.
Oftentimes
in
these
meetings
are
with
what
we're
going
to
do
to
figure
out
whether
some
of
these
policies,
these
ordinances,
we're
passing,
are
actually
working,
and
so,
as.
C
D
And
then,
and
then
to
that
point,
there's
no
explicit
direction.
You
know
there
was
a
lot
of
memos
out,
there's
a
lot
of
information
and
a
lot
of
what
your
team
has
done,
and
I
appreciate
it.
It
was
difficult
to
dig
through
and
remember
everything
that
was
out
there,
but
there
there's
no
there's
nothing.
D
Well,
I
guess
in
council
member
paralysis
memo
he
talks
about
bringing
some
of
this
to
pis
before
the
implementation
to
sort
of
shake
out
some
stuff.
But
what
I'm
curious
about?
There's
no
explicit
direction
to
bring
this
back
a
year
later
or
anything
like
that
to
see
what
what
the
impacts
have
been
right
or
whether
there
has
in
fact
been
gun
harm
reduction.
There's
nothing
within
any
of
the
memos
to
your
knowledge.
C
D
M
C
A
Yes,
thank
you,
and
I
want
to
thank
all
the
members
of
the
public
who
showed
up
here
today
and
gave
their
feedback
and
have
been
giving
their
feedback
for
a
long
time.
The
advocates
who
have
been
so
interested
in
this
topic
that
have
helped
craft
this
policy.
I
want
to
thank
colleagues
on
the
council
who
have
worked
with
on
this
policy,
particularly
the
mayor
who's
been
leading
on
this
issue
and
working
on
with
nora
and
her
office
on
the
legal
issues.
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
that.
A
A
Any
reduction
in
gun
violence
at
home
that
reduces
response
from
our
city
results
in
our
crossings,
because
we
won't
be.
Our
police
won't
have
to
respond
to
an
extra
few
incidents
that
are
prevented.
At
least
our
hospitals
won't
have
to
treat
people
who
are
victims
because
of
safer
behavior
in
the
home,
and
this
reduction
in
incidents
in
the
home
is
a
result
of
of
two
things.
A
I
think
it's
pretty
easy
for
us
for
programs
to
be
offered
and
to
spend
the
hunt
one
and
a
half
million
dollars
a
year.
In
fact,
I
don't
think
it'll
go
far
enough
in
providing
programs.
I
think
we're
going
to
have
the
opposite
problem,
but
we're
not
going
to
have
one
money
left
over,
but
we're
going
to
wish.
We
had
more
available
for
these
kinds
of
services.
A
A
We
we
know
that
suicides
are
impulsive
acts
and
people
who
commit
suicides
are
actually
likely
to
be
unsuccessful
if
they
attempt
it
in
ways
other
than
with
a
gun.
So
having
readily
readily
available
guns
in
the
home
is
really
what
causes
suicides
to
be
a
big
problem
in
our
community,
and
also
this
proposal
would
help
would
have
money
available
to
ride
mental
health
services
that
might
help
people
who
are
susceptible
to
suicide.
A
According
to
research
conducted
by
every
town-
and
I
talked
about
this
yesterday-
gun
violence
is
responsible
for
40
000
deaths
and
twice
that
many
injuries
period.
That's
120
000
affected
people
per
year
across
the
united
states
and
the
economic
impact
of
that
gun.
Violence
is
34.8
million
dollars
per
day.
A
A
I
do
think
it's
important
to
keep
the
work.
The
language
of
domestic
violence
in
the
motion,
domestic
violence
is
doesn't
isn't
necessarily
gender-based.
I
think
mayor
pointed
that
out
can
affect
children
in
the
family,
but
it
also
can
be
man-on-man
domestic
violence
right.
It
can
be
through
different
kinds
of
arrangements
and
in
homes,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
get
language
in
there.
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
One
thing
I
must
make
clear
owning
a
gun
doesn't
make
you
a
criminal,
I'm
not
someone
who
has
a
particular
interest
in
firearms.
I
don't
own
one.
I
abhor
violence
and
even
aggressive
or
uncivil
language
kind
of
makes
me
cringe.
I
avoid
violent
movies
and
television.
Even
animated,
shows,
ask
my
family
they'll,
tell
you
if
it's
got
any
sort
of
guns
or
weapons
in
it,
I'm
not
going
to
be
interested
in
it.
So
I
don't
consider
myself
a
huge
gun
rights
advocate.
H
H
H
H
H
Okay,
so
I'm
having
real
trouble
trying
to
understand
this
non-profit
and
the
funds
that
are
being
collected
and
how
they're
being
distributed.
It
looks
to
me
by
my
calculation,
if
you
use
25
dollars
by
55
000,
that's
1.37
5
million
annually.
It
goes
up
if
we
increase
the
number
to
35
dollars,
so
I'm
wondering
and
mayor,
maybe
you
have
this
answer
and
I'm
learning
a
little
bit
more.
I
didn't
get
it
out
of
the
ordinance
that
this
is
how
it's
going
to
function
are.
H
C
Yeah,
a
good
question
councilmember
and
I
appreciate
it's
not
all
laid
out
in
the
ordinance.
There
is
a
nonprofit
foundation,
that's
under
formation
and
several
nonprofit
leaders-
and
I've
mentioned
referred
to
several
of
those
in
my
memorandum.
Those
individuals
led
by
esther
peralta,
stiekman
who's.
C
The
ceo
of
next
word
for
solutions
for
domestic
violence,
they're
convening
and
will
also
have
other
individuals
involved,
for
example,
the
person's
expressed
strong
interest
as
epidemiologists
from
stanford
who
specializes
in
or
has
a
great
extent
of
background
julie,
parsnip
and
and
and
gun
harm.
So
the
idea
is
that
they
will
form
a
board.
That
board
will
rely
on
evidence-based
approaches
to
identify
those
programs
initiatives
that
will
be
most
effective
in
reducing
gun
violence
that
can
be
funded
that
primarily
serve
gun-owning
households.
C
So
so
those
dollars
will
be
distributed
from
that
foundation
to
existing
non-profits
likely.
I
would
assume
maybe
some
government
agencies,
such
as
the
county
may
receive
some
dollars.
I
don't
know
it's
up
to
them
and
there
will
be
obviously
undergone
some
remember
process.
Suggestion
a
constant
review
by
this
council
and
the
city
managers
ultimately
has
the
authority
to
designate
that
nonprofit
or
designate
a
different
one
if,
for
whatever
reason,
they're
not
performing
as
expected,
that
is
if
the
dollars
are
for
whatever
reason,
improperly
being
used.
H
C
C
C
Obviously,
through
these
gun
fees
that
be
paid
from
this
foundation,
I
would
pay
for
the
cost
of
generating
correspondence
from
doj
to
gun
owners
in
their
registry
that
live
in
the
city
of
san
jose.
So
nobody
gets
to
see
that
data,
except
for
department
of
justice.
That's
how
the
letters
get
generated
is
from
their
office.
C
H
C
Yes,
and
hopefully
it
would
contain
more
information
like
hey
here's,
where
you
can
get
mental
health
services
right
and
other
services,
so
this
could
be
a
very
helpful
thing.
We
think
other
than
just
being
a
means
of
collecting
fees,
but
also
a
way
of
communicating
hey
by
the
way.
Here's
gun,
storage
laws
that
you
know
about
things
like
that.
H
Okay,
so
then
I'm
a
gun
owner
and
I
pay
into
this
fee.
How
do
I
know
or
how
does
the
agency
that
I'm
going
to
know
that
I
they
have
to
provide
me
services
because
of
the
fee,
I've
pla
I've
paid
into
I'm
just
trying
to
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
old
and
I
know
I've
heard
we
have
180
days
or
whatever
to
implement,
but
I
have
always
struggled
with
us
not
knowing
the
details
when
we're
voting
on
something
I
prefer.
J
C
C
H
C
C
C
The
oversight,
I
think,
is
to
the
extent
that
is
describing
council
member
police's
memorandum
that
we
would
be
able
to
check
in
understand
how
things
are
going
and
the
city
manager
at
the
end
of
the
day,
has
the
ability
to
designate
which
non-profit
is
the
non-profit
foundation
that
shall
receive
the
money,
and
so
presumably
the
council
could
always
say:
hey
city
manager.
We
don't
like
how
the
dollars
are
being
distributed
so
pick
a
different
non-private
foundation.
H
Okay,
I
think
a
lot
of
my
other
questions
were
answered.
My
my
main
concerns
were
about
the
non-profit
and
actually
still
exist
around
the
non-profit
and
the
fees.
Oh.
Regarding
the
insurance,
I
did
have
a
question
regarding
the
insurance
a
little
bit.
I've
read
my
policy
and,
and
it's
really
what
you're
looking
at
is
basically
an
accidental
injury
or
death
caused
in
your
home,
yes
by
your
weapon.
H
C
H
Great,
I
do
have
one
final
question.
I
realized
it
has
been
asked
yet
and
it's
come
up
regarding
a
legal
challenge.
I'm
concerned
about
the
cost
of
a
legal
challenge
and
defending
ourselves
and
any
fees
or
estimates
based
on
that.
Can
you
address
that
a
little
bit
nora,
because
I
expect
since
we're
talking
about
second
amendment
or
those
calling
in
called
about
called
about
the
second
amendment,
that
that
will
be
a
challenge.
Can
you
tell
me
about
defending
ourselves
and
then,
if
we
lose,
what
the
ramifications
might
be.
G
G
H
K
K
C
Yeah,
so
the
fees
won't
be
collected
by
the
city
they'll
be
collected
by
the
nonprofit
and
we
won't
be
engaged
in
any
proactive
enforcement.
This
is
not
having
officers,
you
know,
knocking
on
doors.
Looking
for
for
insurance
forms,
the
ensure
the
enforcement
is
entirely
gonna
be
react.
That
is,
if
someone
has
contact
with
an
officer
officer
has
reason
to
believe
they
have
a
gun.
Then
the
question
is
asked:
you
have
insurance
for
them
same
way.
C
C
Yeah
there
would
be
a
receipt
that
would
come,
presumably
from
the
nonprofit
organization
foundation.
That
would
say
thank
you
for
your
payment.
This
is
your
record
of
payment
and
on
the
bottom
of
this
form
is
your
self-attestation
for
insurance,
so
that
whole
document
can
be
kept
with
the
gun.
That
shows,
if
he's
been
paid
and
here's
my
insurance.
K
C
K
Yeah,
no,
I'm
I'm
I'm
definitely
aware
with
ghost
guns,
that's
and
definitely
in
district
seven,
but
I
was
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
would
know
that
payments
are
made
and
how
the
nonprofit
would
then
communicate
with
us.
Since
our
ordinance
would
enable
this
system
to
be
in
place,
then
how
would
we
know
what
would
be
collected
on
an
annual
basis,
how
many
gun
owners
paid
the
fees
and
then
I'm
assuming
that
the
gun
openers
would
provide
the
waivers
to
the
designated
non-profit
as
well?
Is
that
correct.
C
Yeah,
I
believe
the
waivers
could
be
provided
by
the
non-profit
or
by
the
city.
Presumably,
but
you
know
someone
could
download
them
off
the
city
website,
for
example,
or
from
the
nonprofit
website.
I'm
not
sure
all
that's
been
worked
out.
I
think
that
could
be
pretty
quickly
worked
out
through
regulations
from
jennifer.
C
Yeah,
to
my
knowledge,
this
is
a
determination
from
the
city
manager.
If
noah
or
jennifer
want
to
speak
further
about
that
feel,
free
understanding
is
we
have
a
very
clear
delineation
of
what
organization
can
possibly
qualify.
So
it's
not
as
though
there's
a
there's
10
organizations
out
there
that
are
going
to
compete
or
bid.
L
Yeah,
I
would
imagine
that
we
would
just
just
when
we
engage
with
other
non-profits,
that
we
would
treat
them
the
same,
and
there
would
be
some
sort
of
you
know
a
bid
for
for
that,
and
the
services
we'd,
you
know,
hold
them
to
be
accountable
to
the
services
that
we
asked
for
in
the
in
a
contract
and
nora.
Let
me
know
if
I'm
incorrect
on
any
of
this,
but
and
we
would
hold
them
to
a
report
on
performance
like
we
do
other
services
that
we
contract
with.
K
So
this
would
be
part
of
the
report
that
would
come
back
to
us.
I
think
councilmember
jimenez
was
talking
about
an
annual
report
or
that
it
would
come
to
us
so
that
we
could
review
how
this
is
moving
forward,
as
well
as
review
the
services
and
ensure
that
those
services
were
timely
and
to
a
certain
standard.
Is
that
correct,
yeah.
K
Okay,
thank
you
and
so
the
the
the
latest-
and
I
think
this
was
addressed.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
so
the
latest
memo
on
friday
states,
the
city's
administrative
costs
would
could
be
covered
by
the
fee,
but
then
states
the
city
wouldn't
collect
the
fees.
So
how
exactly
would
our
costs
be
recovered?.
C
So
the
fee
would
be
paid.
Obviously
one
fee
would
be
paid
that
would
incorporate
whatever
cost
state
incurs
the
attorney
general's
office,
the
city
incurs
and
the
nonprofit
incurs,
and
then
of
course,
there's
the
base
fee.
So
let's
say
it's
35
total
that
all
gets
paid
to
the
to
the
501c3,
the
foundation.
Then
the
foundation
then
remits
payment
to
the
city
for
its
cost,
the
state,
etc.
C
K
C
Well,
to
whatever
extent
there
are
costs,
I
just
don't
know
that
the
city
is
going
to
have
significant
costs,
but
obviously
we
can
learn
more
through
this
hearing
we'll
have
when
the
city
manager
comes
back
with
the
regulations,
but
I'd
be
surprised
to
hear
that
there
is
a
significant
amount
of
city
staff
time
spent
on
this.
After
these
regulations
are
created.
K
C
K
C
C
There's
this
foundation,
the
designated
nonprofit
that
will
be
in
a
contractual
relationship
with
the
city,
because
they're
distributing
the
money
and
if
they're
not
distributing
the
money
to
the
satisfaction
that
of
the
public
and
the
city,
then
obviously
the
city
manager
can
select
a
new
non-profit
foundation.
Then
the
non-profits
are
actually
doing
the
heavy
lifting
and
providing
services.
They
have
a
contractual
relationship
with
the
foundation,
not
with
the
city,
because.
K
K
We
expect
a
certain
level
of
service.
If
it's
not
there,
then
the
city
steps
in
to
address
that,
because
ultimately
our
ordinance
would
be,
would
allow
this
system
to
take
place.
So
we
we
have
to
be
held
accountable
to
the
public
on
the
efficacy
of
of
the
system,
and
so
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is
to
understand
that
relationship
a
bit
more
and
so
would
that
come
back
to
us
as
part
of
the
review
before
this
is
an
act
before
the
second
hearing.
G
Council
member,
are
you
asking
if
the
regulations
that
are
going
to
be
promulgated
by
the
city
manager's
office
would
come
back
before
the
second
hearing,
I
think,
to
respond
to
your
question.
It's
it
may
be
that
the
the
designated
non-profit
would
and
could
be
reporting
to
the
council,
either
through
committee
or
through
the
council
as
a
whole.
However,
that
gets
set
up,
but
that
that
would
be
the
the
reporting
is,
as
I
think
right
now.
It's
it's
understood.
K
M
K
P
P
And
you
know
the
the
the
more
questions
that
I
heard
from
councilmember
sparza
and
I
think
councilmember
jimenez.
I
was
concerned
about.
Maybe
the
steps
that
we're
taking
and
the
order
of
the
steps
that
we're
taking,
and
so
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
did,
did
we
did
anybody
connect
or
anybody
from
the
brown
up
from
from
your
brown
act
or
any
of
the
the
memos
connect
with
the
women's
policy
office,
the
office
of
women's
policy
or
the
office
of
gender-based
violence?
Prevention
in
the
county.
C
P
The
accountability
within
that
funding
that
we
would
expect
the
office
of
gender-based
violence
prevention,
already
funds
community
grants,
it
funds,
innovative
initiatives,
training
data
and
research
policy
and
legislative
agendas,
and-
and
I
and
one
of
the
things
that
they
just
produced
through
some
of
their
grants,
is
a
victim
rights
advocacy
project.
It's
a
summary
of
findings
and
recommendations.
P
One
of
those
recommendations
is
for
us
to
have
a
shared
meaning
and
shared
terms,
one
of
which
is
gender-based
violence,
and
so
I
want
to
correct
my
council
colleagues.
Here.
Gender-Based
violence
includes
intimate
partner
violence.
It
includes
sexual
assault
and
sexual
assault
includes
child
abuse,
sexual
child
abuse
molestation,
and
then
it
also
includes
human
trafficking.
And
so
it's
it's.
P
A
gender-based
violence
has
a
lot
of
intersection,
as
we
have
been
talking
and
as
our
san
jose
police
department
has
recognized,
and
that's
why
they
have
these
intersectionality
tools
that
help
us
like
further
identify
survivors
when
they're
on
responding
to
calls,
and
so
I'd
like
for
us
to
prevail
with
that
language,
which
is
gender-based
violence,
and
so
I'd
like
to
ask
for
a
friendly
amendment
from
councilman
perales.
I
know
that
you
wanted
to
include
domestic
violence,
so
I
want
to
correct
the
term.
The
correct
term
is
gender-based
violence.
It
is
all-inclusive.
M
I
will
trust
your
knowledge
of
that.
I
think.
Obviously
our
intent
was
to
be
as
fully
con
inclusive
as
possible,
and
I
think
that
was
the
concern
from
maybe
the
mayor,
councilmember
cohen,
and
I
agreed
with
that.
But
I
will.
I
will
concur
with
you
that
if
that's
all
inclusive
and
gender-based
violence,
then
we
can
leave
it
at
that
time.
P
We
have
the
the
joint
study
session
before
the
second
hearing,
so
that
we
can
help
shape
what
that
board
looks
like
and
and
potentially
have
a
true
partnership
with
our
county
counterparts
and
the
office
of
gender-based
violence
prevention
and
join
efforts
there
councilmember
perales,
would
you
be
open
to
first
having
a
study
session
prior
to
the
reading?
Councilmember
could.
L
M
M
P
You
I
was
not
doing
the
math,
you
are
a
math
major
councilmember
perales.
Thank
you
for
that.
Okay.
Well,
that
that's
important.
I
think
that
I'm
I'm
a
little
hesitant
about
adopting
a
a
structure
of
a
board
that
will
then
fund
non-profits
that
we're
not
sure
how
they
will
gather
all
the
funding,
and
you
know
we
won't
be
sure
about
the
accountability
there
and
it'll.
P
Of
course,
you
know
we
trust
our
city
manager
to
ensure
that
that
the
agencies
are
doing
what
they
are
supposed
to
be
doing,
and
I
have
no
doubt
that
nextdoor
solutions
is
a
is
a
wonderful
agency.
I
think
it's
definitely
underfunded
and
I
would
love
to
have
them
be
one
of
those
primary
sources
of
funding
for
this
city
for
our
city
as
they
respond
to
all
of
all
of
these
crimes
that
are
within
gender-based
violence,
which
is
human
trafficking,
sexual
assault
and
intimate
partner
violence.
P
I
just
I'm
not
sure
that
I'm
ready
to
go
all
in
for
to
establish
a
board
before
we
really
figure
out
all
the
details,
and
then
we
are
stuck
with
this
kind
of
trying
to
make
things
work
versus
trying
to
see
what
kinds
of
systems
are
out
there
that
are
already
working,
that
we
can
join
forces
with,
and
so
those
are
my
comments.
Thank
you.
M
Yeah,
thank
you
mayor.
I
just
wanted
to
to
make
one
addition
myself
as
well
that
I
neglected
to
consider
beforehand.
I
know
you
said
mayor
that
you
had
brought
in
dave
trustlow
a
gun
rights
advocate.
I
had
had
some
conversations.
I
actually
dave,
as
a
constituent
might
have
I've
actually
conversed
with
him
before
as
well,
but
I
had
a
sit-down
conversation
with
kirk
bartan
and
sonia
chang
mark
tobar,
a
couple
others
that
have
also
chimed
in
today.
M
M
That's
obviously
the
intent
for
the
the
study
session
was
to
be
inclusive
as
well
to
continue
to
hear
back,
but
I
think
specifically
when
it
comes
to
this
non-profit,
that's
something
we're
hearing,
or
we
heard
today
and
we've
heard
over
the
past
week
on
the
concern
of
of
this
money
actually
being
effective,
and
and
so
that
would
be
my
my
my
interest.
I
know
that
currently
there
are
some
conversations
going
on,
so
I
would
just
like
to
include
that.
D
Yeah
thanks
mayor,
I
just
had
a
question
for
for
the
chief
for
mr
joseph,
I
know
he's
on
the
call
but
get
curious.
You
know
some
of
the
discussions
have
been
had
around
the
police
interaction
with
some
of
these
folks
that
maybe
especially
some
of
the
state,
some
of
the
stuff
happening,
the
supreme
court
and
some
of
the
potential
potential
potentialities,
as
it
relates
to
folks
carrying
concealed
weapons
or
carrying
guns
generally.
D
B
Well,
I
I
mean,
I
think
it's
like
the
mayor
mentioned.
It's
not
a,
I
don't
think
we'd
be
doing
proactive
work
to
try
to
track
down
people
that
hadn't
paid
their
insurance,
but
if
we
had
an
interaction
with
somebody
that
had
a
gun,
it
would
be
a
an
additional
part
of
the
investigation.
We
could
ask
to
see
the
documentation
for
the
insurance
and
then
take
whatever
action
was
appropriate
based
on
how
they,
you
know
whether
they
could
produce
the
insurance
proof
and
things
of
that
nature.
D
Yeah,
I
I
totally
understand
that
I
just
I,
I
guess,
I'm
concerned
that
you
know,
let's
just
say,
you're,
not
that
you're
going
out
seeking
it
but
you're
you
go
visit
her
home
and
you
okay,
they
have
a
gun,
you
ask
for
insurance
and
they
say
no,
I
don't
got
it.
I
mean
at
that
point.
I
think
it's
a
judgment
call
right
on
this,
based
on
totally
the
circumstances
to
figure
out.
Do
you
then
ask
for
the
gun,
or
do
you
say
all
right,
dude
you
should
get
insurance.
B
You
know
rolling
through
a
stop
sign.
We
could
stop
them
and
issue
them
a
warning
as
opposed
to
issuing
them
a
a
ticket,
and
that
would
be
the
case
here
and
you're
right.
I
think
it
would
probably
depend
on
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
and
also
our
ability
to
prove
one
way
or
another
that
they
did
in
fact
have
a
gun
and
that
they
did
not.
D
D
You
and
then
just
one
other
quick
question
this
one's
for
nora.
I'm
trying
to
think
about
how
to
best
ask
this.
There
seems
to
obviously
be
some
some
separation
between
you
know
related
to
prop
26.
I
believe
some
there
needs
to
be
some
separation
between
the
city
and
the
non-profit
because
it
starts
going
into
the
blurs
the
lines.
D
It's
a
tax,
a
fee
and
things
of
that
nature
right
and
so
or
maybe
this
question
isn't
for
you
nora
actually,
but
I'll
just
use
that
to
premise
the
question:
maybe
it's
for
jennifer
mcguire,
because
I'm
thinking
is
we're
essentially
casting
off
this
non-profit
to
the
middle
of
the
pond.
If
you
will
so
it
can
be
semi-autonomous
right
because
we
don't
want
to
be
sort
of,
you
know,
have
our
hands
in
the
mix.
If
you
will,
how
do
we
draw
that
back
in?
D
C
C
D
And
like
and
likewise
if
she
doesn't
think
this
is
you
know
if
we
determine
this
isn't
maybe
working
in
a
few
years
whatever
it
may
be,
I'm
just
trying
to
think
out
loud
here.
You
have
the
same
discretion.
Jennifer
to
then
say:
okay,
bring
a
report
back
and
report
back
to
the
city
to
the
full
council
and
say
you
know
we
recommend
changes
or
I.
L
Would
imagine,
I
would
imagine
just
like
any
program
or
any
ordinance
that
if
we
see
issues
with
it
and
we
want
to
make
some
changes
to
it,
we
would
bring
that
back
to
council
for
their
consideration,
with
our
recommendations
to
to
maybe
perhaps
strengthen
it
and
in
our
relationship,
as
the
mayor
said,
with
the
with
this
non-profit,
that
would
be
collecting
the
fees
that
would
be
dealing
with
the
the
programs.
You
know
we.
L
D
L
A
You
know,
there's
a
you
know.
I
wish
we
had
the
opportunity
to
do
some
things
that
were
more
direct,
but
we
we
have
to
do
things.
We
have
to
follow
a
lot
of
specific
rules
in
what
we
do.
That's
the
reason
we're
designated
and
out
designating
an
outside
non-profit,
for
example,
we're
not
collecting
the
fees
ourselves,
because
there
are
way
there
are
issues
with
collecting
a
fee
directly
and
so
we're
designated
a
non-profit,
and
I
heard
questions
about
you
know,
judging
the
the
efficacy
and
quality
of
services.
A
Just
the
mayor
did
answer
this,
but
the
designated
non-profit
here
isn't
the
one
providing
service.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
again,
but
they
are
providing
the
resources
to
those
who
provide
the
service.
They
would
be
selecting
those
the
recipients,
but
they
are
responsible,
at
least
at
the
first
level,
for
judging
the
efficacy,
but
they'd
be
doing
that
in
partnership
with
the
city.
A
As
we
review
the
efficacy
of
those
services,
we
would
work
with
that
nonprofit
to
make
sure
that
in
future
years,
other
nonprofits
have
a
chance
of
using
those
resources,
if
they're
not
feeling
like
the
ones
that
they're
giving
the
money
to
are
doing
it.
Well,
so
that's
that's
the
approach
here,
necessarily
because
we're
not
managing
the
fees
ourselves.
The
other
question
that
was
asked
is
how
we
know
how
many
people
are
paying
the
fee.
Well,
we'll
certainly
know
how
much
annual
revenue
the
nonprofit
is
receiving.
A
A
The
real
point
is
to
put
in
place
a
mechanism
that
will
encourage
responsible
gun
ownership
through
the
through
the
liability,
insurance
and
the
payment
of
fees,
and,
unfortunately,
due
to
inaction
and
obstruction,
particularly
at
the
federal
level
on
gun
violence.
It
is
incumbent
upon
us
locally
to
do
things
that
are
bold
and
take
these
actions.
I
imagine
everything
we
do
tonight
and
everything
we
do
on
this
issue
will
be
adjudicated
by
the
courts.
A
A
K
Thank
you
mayor.
So
a
couple
of
things:
one
is
I'm
not
brown
acted
with
the
mayor
and
neither
is
the
public,
and
so
I
think,
that's
part
of
our
job
is
to
ask
these
questions
and
to
to
have
public
conversations
and
not
be
afraid
to
to
have
this
out
in
the
open.
And
so
I
I
think
we're
all
happy
to
in
include
the
public,
and
I
certainly
need
to
understand
it
and
and
then
explain
it
to
others
as
far
as
the
fees
we.
K
G
Council
member
from
my
end,
I
want
to
point
out
that
it
says
to
the
extent
allowed
by
law
and
right
now,
that's
fairly
limited
in
terms
of
a
a
civil
violation
like
this.
Their
penalties
would
be
available
in
some
other
things,
but
as
the
mayor
referenced,
apparently
there
are
there's
some
legislation
that
might
potentially
allow
that
and
then
oftentimes
this.
G
The
insurance
information
would
be
requested
as
part
of
a
domestic
violence
call
potentially
a
gun,
violence,
restraining
order
and
some
unrelated
impoundment
an
impoundment
unrelated
to
this
ordinance.
But
for
right
now
it
it
is
written
to
the
extent
allowed
by
law
and
for
a
violation
of
of
this
ordinance.
Only
that's
undoubtedly
extremely
limited.
C
And
if
I,
if
I
could
just
add,
there's
currently
a
penal
code
provision
that
allows
us,
in
the
case
of
domestic
violence,
response
right,
and
so
we
have
members
of
the
senate
assembly
that
are
very
interested
and
have
drafted
legislation
to
allow
encourage
other
municipalities
to
do
things
like
this.
That
would
make
a
violation
of
a
local
municipal
ordinance
a
basis
for
doing
so
when
there's
evidence
of
violence
or
surgeons,
violence.
K
Good
okay,
thank
you
because
that
was
left
over
from
last
time
and
it
wasn't
clear-
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
it
clear.
So
I
had
a
question
on
the
low-income
exception.
I
do
have
low-income
residents
that
are
very
law-abiding,
responsible
gun
owners.
In
fact,
many
of
them
are
seniors
and
so
they're
on
fixed
incomes
and,
like
I
said,
they're
law,
abiding
gun
owners
and
and
this
was
a
question
I
had
asked
last
time
about
the
low
income
waiver.
K
C
Can
I
make
a
suggestion,
yeah
yeah,
I
I
think
what
I
hear,
what
you're
saying,
which
is
hey
that
may
be
too
narrow,
and
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
topic
for
us
to
discuss
when
we
have
the
hearing
to
discuss
the
regulations
and
the
formation
of
this
non-profit.
Clearly
that
is
an
important
question,
but
I
think
we
both
admit
it's
it's
a
bit
in
the
weeds
about
how
exactly
you've
defined.
K
It's
not
in
the
weeds,
because
it's
part
of
the
it's
part
of
the
communication
for
a
lot
of
people,
so
the
what's
in
that
in
that
code
is
medi-cal.
It's
cal
fresh
for
a
family
of
three.
It's
who
can
say
what
the
125
of
the
federal
poverty
level
is
for
a
family
of
three
those
have
all
very
different
requirements
and
and
and
they're
much
lower
than,
for
example,
the
area
median
income,
which
is
a
lot
of
what
we
use
for
certain
things.
K
So
if
that
can
be
clarified
and
brought
back
to
us
as
part
of
that,
I'm
okay
with
that.
But
it
is
not
in
the
weeds
mayor,
because
what
we
could
be
doing
is
creating
another
system
of
haves
and
have-nots
where
this
becomes
such
a
complicated
system
to
explain
to
a
low-income
senior
gun
owner
and
and
and
they
could
not
fill
it
out.
Because
it's
confusing
I
mean
it
was
confusing.
K
M
K
Thank
you
and
then
so
so
I
know
that
this
proposal
has
a
lot
of
tools
and
it's
taken
a
lot
to
get
us
to
this
point.
A
lot
of
work
has
gone
into
getting
to
this
point.
I
I
did
want
to
see,
see
more
of
a
community
engagement
process
and
a
plan
for
educating
gun
owners
as
part
of
it,
because
we
don't
want
to
do
this
whole
gotcha
thing
right.
K
L
K
K
F
Thanks
mayor,
I,
you
know
really
want
to
express
my
gratitude
to
everyone
who
called
in
this
evening.
I
felt
like
public
comment
was
very
for
the
most
part,
very
respectful
and
substantive,
despite
how
divisive
this
issue
can
be
in
our
country.
I
also
really
appreciate
my
colleagues
thoughtful
questions
and
comments
this
evening.
F
We
can
all
agree
that
injury
and
death
and
other
harm
involving
guns,
whether
intentional
or
unintentional,
is
a
serious
issue
in
our
country
and
something
that
deserves
serious
policy
responses
and,
as
a
parent
I'll
say
that
particular
statistic
about
the
firearm
related
fatalities.
As
now,
I
think
the
second
leading
cause
of
child
and
adolescent
death
is
is
something
that
is
especially
concerning.
F
I
I
think
it's
limited
there
as
we
as
the
some
of
my
colleagues
questions,
helped
elucidate,
but
but
really
as
a
mechanism
for
incentivizing
good
practices,
best
practices
and
we've
already
talked.
I
won't.
I
won't
belabor
this
point
too
much
because
we've
talked
about
risk
risk,
adjusted
premiums
and,
and
while
the
car
analogy
may
not
be
perfect,
I
think
it's
a
pretty
appropriate
one.
Just
from
the
perspective
of
incentives,
incentivizing
certain
behaviors,
the
adoption
of
certain
technologies-
and
I
actually
you
know,
appreciated
that.
F
One
of
our
speakers
pointed
out
that
your
your
home
insurance
premium
can
adjust
for
owning
a
pool
or
a
trampoline
as
well,
and
I
think
there
is
a
logic
to
that
and
I
think
the
good
news
for
the
many
gun
owners
in
district
in
my
district
and
across
the
city
who
have
reached
out
with
real
concern,
is
that
you
likely.
This
is
not
true
for
everyone,
but
you
likely
have
general
liability
through
an
existing
insurance
policy
which
really
reduces
how
onerous
this
is
for
most
people.
F
You
know
when
we
first
discussed
this.
I
had
written
in
in
collaboration
with
councilmember
davis,
a
proposal
for
a
responsible
gun
owner
exemption.
The
hope
was
that
we
could
waive
the
insurance
and
or
the
fee
of
certain
a
certain
standard
of
safety
was
met,
and,
while
the
city
attorney
ultimately
didn't
choose
to
recommend
that
kind
of
exemption
wasn't
able
to
find
enough
consistent
standards
to
make
that
recommendation.
F
I
actually
think
that
the
insurance
component
of
this,
given
that
most
people
already
have
general
liability
coverage
starts.
It
gets
us
close
to
that
in
the
sense
that
most
most
gun
owners
will
have
the
insurance
and
will
be
able
to
avoid
an
escalation
of
their
premiums
if
they
continue
to
demonstrate
that
they're,
adhering
to
best
practices
from
safes
and
trainings
and
child
safety
locks
to
other
technology
that
may
emerge.
So
I
think,
as
a
tool
for
for
shifting
incentives.
F
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
logic
there.
I
also
want
to
note
that
I
really
you
know
I.
I
appreciated
the
thoughtful
direction
and
questions
laid
out
in
council
member
perales's
memo
understood
and
appreciated
council
member
arenas's
commentary.
I
thought
that
was
elucidating
and
the
mayor's
proposed
modifications
to
councilmember
davis
memo
also
made
sense
to
me
and
I
think
the
interest
in
expanding
the
loot,
the
the
use
of
gun,
violence,
restraining
orders.
F
F
The
ability
to
collect
it,
the
legal
challenges
to
it,
the
role
of
the
nonprofit
and
especially
its
likely
impact
and
and
the
role
of
oversight,
other
funders
and
nonprofits
in
the
space
and
how
they
interact,
and
maybe
just
the
more
philosophic
challenge
that
you
know
these
kinds
of
fees
are
typically
paid
by
a
customer.
Who's
asking
for,
or
at
least
wants
the
service
provided,
and,
at
least
in
my
interaction
with
many
many
constituents
in
district
10.
F
That's
just
not
been
the
sentiment
that
I
have
been
hearing,
and
I
and
I
say
all
that
also
in
the
context
of
feeling
really
strongly
as
I'm
out
listening
to
residents
that
our
city
government's
taking
on
a
lot
of
issues.
I
think
many
would
say
too
many
issues
and
struggling
to
move
the
needle
on
some
of
the
most
important
ones
that
our
residents
really
want
to
see
us
focus
in
on.
F
I
just
I
just
feel
that
this
fee
and
the
operation
of
the
nonprofits
that
are
funded
by
it,
is
going
to
become
another
source
of
status,
reports
and
study
sessions
and
discussion
and
debate
and
a
lot
of
mind
share
on
the
council.
Alongside
everything
else
that
we're
trying
to
get
done
and
then,
of
course,
the
litigation
piece
and
well,
we
have
a
pro
bono
firm.
We
know
there's
still
potential
costs
on
staff,
time
and
and
potential
legal
costs
in
the
long
run,
and
so
what
I'd
like
to
do?
F
I'm
not
going
to
belabor
this
with
a
lot
of
additional
questions.
I
think
we've
had
a
really
robust
debate,
I'd
like
to
try
to
allow
us
to
move
forward
in
in
basically
two
parts
or
two
steps
and
I'll
allow
for
a
substitute
motion
that
moves
forward.
Everything
I've
just
outlined
above
that
I
think,
makes
sense
here,
which
is
essentially
everything
but
the
gun
harm
reduction
fee,
and
I
want
to
leave
that
and
the
associated
provisions
and
recommendations
for
anyone
else
on
the
council
to
move
in
a
subsequent
motion.
I'm
not
you
know,
there's!
No.
F
This
is
not
a
you
know,
fancy
procedural
move
or
any
you
know,
there's
there's
no
there's
no
trick
here.
I
just.
I
think
that
these
are
substantively
very
different
mechanisms.
I
find
one
much
more
compelling
than
the
other
and
I
I
think
I
would
personally
like
the
opportunity
to
vote
on
them
separately.
So
I
will
offer
a
substitute
motion
that
again
and
I
can
clarify
specifically
if
it's
necessary
everything
that
was
outlined.
F
Everything
on
the
table,
with
the
exception
of
the
provisions
of
the
ordinance,
including
the
gum
gun,
harm
reduction
fee
and
the
associated
provisions,
and
then
again
that
my
understanding
is
that
will
still
be.
However,
that
vote
goes
that
will
still
be
on
the
table
for
others
to
decide
if
they
want
to
move
forward.
Is
that
mayor?
Maybe
I
can
ask
you
if
that's
sufficiently
clear.
H
F
O
O
Okay,
thank
you
so
actually,
in
regards
to
what
councilmember
esparza
was
saying
my
I
wanted
to
ensure
that
that
it
was
the
case
that
we
did
have.
We
did
have
that
that
look
at
the
hardship
exemption
language
and
actually
I
have
an
example
of
it
in
regards
to
the
payment
maintenance,
where
we
looked
at
doubling
the
federal
poverty
limits,
because
we
recognized
that
the
federal
you
know
the
federal
statistics
are
not
a
good
match
for
us
here
in
san
jose
in
the
bay
area.
C
N
Thank
you
mayor.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
thank
you
mayor
for
for
your
leadership
on
this,
and
I
want
to
thank
staff,
of
course,
nora
for
all
of
your
work
and
and
and
all
the
folks
that
have
come
out
to
speak
on
this
issue.
It's
not
an
easy
issue
to
tackle,
as
as
we're
seeing
as
we're
fast
approaching
the
midnight
hour,
I'm
hoping
that
we're
gonna
be
wrapping
this
up
relatively
soon.
I
have
to
go
pick
up
my
son
from
a
late
night
date.
No.
C
N
Don't
think
he's
listening
to
his
mother
right
now,
but
but
but
you
know,
in
fact
I
I
I
bring
this
up
because
you
know,
as
my
son
is
starting
to
venture
away
from
his
mother.
I
worry
about
him.
I
worry
about
her
safety
and
I
worry
about
the
young
lady
that
he's
out
with-
and
I
worry
about
my
young
girls
at
home,
just
just
as
as
many
of
you
who
are
raising
steal.
N
Your
children
are
very
concerned-
and
this
is
just
one
of
many
things
that
that
keep
me
up
at
night
and
I
I've
spoken
very
publicly
during
these
last
seven
years,
but
there's
been
at
least
two
different
occasions
where
I've
had
to
shout
down
the
hallway
to
my
own
children
to
hit
the
floor
because
there's
been
drive-by
shootings
and
you
know
it's,
it's
not
a
a
pity.
Potty
story.
N
That
they're
not
the
first
time
that
I
hear
them,
and
I
know
that
sometimes
we
say
things
out
of
out
of
it
out
of
emotion
and
out
of
frustration,
but
but
I
I
feel
compelled
to
to
just
address
them.
Somebody
said
you
know
this
is
unconstitutional.
Well,
it's
not
a
tax.
It's
it's
a
fee
and
someone
said
you
know
you
can
go
ahead
and
and
and
charge
an
insurance
for
what
was
it
for
a
car
insurance
because
driving
is
a
privilege
but
owning
a
gun.
N
N
I
think
it's
my
children's
god-given
right
to
feel
safe
and
to
walk
down
the
street
and
not
feel
threatened
that
something
might
happen
to
them
or
to
their
mother.
I
think
that's
our
god-given
right,
somebody.
You
know
there
was
a
few
folks
that
complained
about
insurance
and
I
understand
it.
It
can
be
a
burden.
It's
25.
N
N
We
have
to
pay
insurance
for
a
lot
of
different
products
that
we
own
and
we
we
we
pay
it
willfully
and
with
a
smile
on
our
face
knowing
that
we're
protected
or
that
our
products
or
those
things
that
we
purchase,
that
we
want
to
protect
will
be
will
be
taken
care
of.
Why
wouldn't
we
want
to
pay
for
something
that
could
potentially
main
someone
or
kill
someone?
N
When
someone
is
stolen
from
you
in
such
a
violent
way,
very
different
than
when
you
lose
someone
to
disease
illness
old
age,
when
you
see
them,
when
you
see
a
loved
one,
lose
a
battle
to
cancer,
heart
disease,
etc,
etc,
when
someone
loses
their
life
so
senselessly
to
violence,
it's
a
very
difficult
experience
to
heal
from
and
one
that
you
hope
families
don't
have
to
heal
from
and
when
the
gilroy
shooting
took
place.
Those
two
children
lived
in
my
district.
N
We
didn't
know
those
individuals,
yet
it
tore
our
city
apart.
Those
of
us
who
served
on
the
on
the
board
at
vta.
We
were
left
speechless.
We
we
didn't
know
how
to
comfort
those
families
we're
still
dealing
with
it.
We
didn't
know
how
to
comfort
our
our
employees
we're
still
dealing
with
it.
The
ramifications
run
wide
and
deep
and
they're
long,
lasting
it'll
be
a
very,
very
long
time
before
vta
recovers,
it'll
be
a
very
long
time
before
the
city
recovers
from
something
like
so
tragic.
I
Thank
you
mayor.
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
the
discussion
tonight.
All
the
members
of
the
public
who
came
out
as
well
as
my
colleagues,
it's
been
a
very,
very
good
discussion.
I
also
want
to
thank
the
mayor,
the
city
manager's
office
and
the
city
attorney's
office
for
all
the
work
that
they've
put
in
on
this
proposal.
I
I
do
have
one
thing
before
I
get
into
my
comments
mayor.
I
think
you
mentioned
dave
trislow
and
said
that
he
was
a
local
leader
of
the
nra
and
he
I
met
with
him.
He
specifically
told
me
that
he
is
not
a
local
nra
leader
and
that
he
has
tried
to
make
that
clear
to
you
and
your
staff.
So
I
just
I
want
to
he's
a
range
safety
officer
and
in
fact
he
was
my
firearms
instructor
many
years
ago,
when
I
took
a
basic
pistol
safety
course.
I
My
memo
listed
recommendations
that
that
do
address
the
problem
of
gun
harm
and-
and
I
want
to
thank
the
mayor
for
including
some
of
those
recommendations,
even
though
he
wrote
four
pages
of
rebuttal
to
my
ideas
first
and
then
turned
around
and
included
them.
I
I
do
want
to
mention
that
I
agree
with
one
point
of
your
rebuttal
mayor.
I
I
I
I
G
Thank
you,
councilmember
davis,
it
liability
insurance
is
typically
for
acts
that
would
be
considered
negligent
if,
if
you
as
a
gun
owner,
were
sued
for
some
incident
that
occurred,
and
so
that's
why
that
word
is
in
there
it.
It
wasn't
necessarily
to
take
the
exact
language
out
of
an
insurance
policy,
but
to
cover
that
type
of
claim.
I
C
I
I
The
second
insurance
agent
that
I
talked
to
actually
went
to
their
legal
team
and
confirmed
that.
So
that's
fine,
that's
an
outstanding
question
that
is
apparently
not
going
to
be
answered.
My
second
question
is
about
impoundment
and
I
think
we've
already
discussed
this,
but
I
think
this
is
to
the
city
attorney.
What
is
the
current
extent
allowed
by
law
for
a
firearm
of
a
person
that
is
not
in
compliance
with
this
ordinance
to
be
impounded
by
the
police
department.
G
I
L
They
were
not
involved
in
creating
the
ordinance
to
my
knowledge,
and
you
know
we
really
will
think
about
this
outreach
strategy
and,
of
course,
you
know,
equity
issues
will
be
at
the
forefront.
You
know
how
much
the
city
does
does
versus
this
non-profit
that
we're
talking
about.
We
will
sort
that
out,
but,
yes,
equity
needs
to
be
part
of
the
process.
The
outreach
process.
I
C
Thank
you
just
to
be
clear
about
the
record.
David
trussell
represented
christina
gumara
of
my
office.
He
was
a
chapter
president
of
the
nra.
I
don't
know
where
that's
true,
I
didn't
talk
to
david,
but
that's
a
good
representation
and
the
interagency
committee
meetings
are
in
fact
happening
monthly
and
we're
having
the
policy
meeting
in
just
a
couple
of
days
as
it
is
on
schedule.
C
I'm
continuing
to
meet
in
the
leadership
prevention
task
force
and
appreciate
the
characterization,
but
the
rebuttal
I
wrote
was
not
to
comes
from
davis's
ideas.
In
fact,
many
of
the
ideas
and
proposals
were
already
adopted
by
this
council
back
in
june
of
last
year,
so
adopting
a
substitute
wouldn't
exactly
be
moving
the
ball
forward.
The
council
had
already
adopted
many
of
those
ideas.
My
rebuttal
was
to
the
factual
inaccuracies
which
I've
just
described,
or
at
least
a
couple
of
which
I
just
mentioned.
Councilmember
aranas.
P
O
J
C
F
F
And
then
the
exceptions
and
comply?
Those
are
the
two
because
the
rest
here,
at
least
those
are
the
two
primary
sections
of
the
ordinance,
because
the
rest
can
apply
equally
to
insurance
or
a
fee,
and
since
the
insurance
and
the
fee
are
essentially
separate
requirements,
that's
proposing
that
we
vote
on
them
separately.
P
When
we
have
joint
meetings
with
the
county,
we
hear
about
the
type
of
services
and
the
type
of
training
that
our
advocates
and
our
police
department
and
folks
who
participate
in
the
process
of
referrals
and
the,
and
that
it
makes
a
huge
difference.
And
and
that's
what
our
police
department
has
been
working
towards
and
making
lots
of
strides.
P
Working
on
on
solutions
that
our
advocates
and
our
stakeholders
have
already
identified
so
for
me
this
this
this
mark
a
little
bit.
Oh-
and
I
don't
know
why-
that
I
think
there's
an
echo,
so
I
apologize
that
it.
I
don't
know
what
that
is.
So
I'm
having
a
hard
time
together.
I
I
I
can.
I
can
support
it.
It
seems
like
once
we
start
separating
it.
I
have
a
hard
time
swallowing
the
whole
pill
here,
but
that
is
just
my
my
quandary
here
this
my
my
difficult
position
to
be
in.
P
I
already
said
this
before
I'd
like
to
see
direct
alignment
with
what
agencies
and
stakeholders
are
already
doing
versus,
duplicating
a
whole
system
that
will
be
difficult
to
to
to
hold
accountability,
not
because
those
agencies
are
hard
to
that
are
not
accountable,
but
simply
because
of
the
bureaucracy,
and
so
I'm
gonna
end
my
comments
here
and
allow
my
colleagues
to
continue.
I'm
just
struggling
with
this
with
this
vote.
C
C
C
Certainly
the
poverty
thresholds,
for
example
all
those
discussions
to
ensure
that
esther
herself,
and
perhaps
some
other
leaders
that
you
may
well
help
us
identify,
could
come
to
ensure
that
there
is
none
of
that
duplication.
I'm
pretty
confident
the
reason
why
they
support
this
is
because
it
is
a
pretty
lean
model.
This
is
a
foundation
that
is
simply
going
to
distribute
dollars
directly
to
nonprofits
that
are
delivering
the
services.
I
don't
expect
there's
going
to
be
new
providers.
I
expect
it's
probably
going
to
be
an
existing
constellation.
P
I
agree
with
you
and
that's
why
it
was
really
important
for
me
to
have
that
joint
study
session
with
the
county
board
of
supervisors.
You
know
we,
I
would
love
to
say
that
we
are
providers
of
of
many
human
services,
but
we're
not.
I
know
I
I
think
we've
made
some
great
shifts
in
in
focusing
on
children
and
families
as
of
late
and
really
putting
our
budget
aligning
our
budget.
P
That
way,
and
I'm
really
proud
of
what
we've
done,
but
there's
systems
already
in
place
that
have
that
are
working
towards
they're
working
towards
these
solutions,
and
so
I
for
me
it
would
be
useful
if
we
could
have
this
joint
study
session
have,
of
course,
esther,
because
I
absolutely
highly
respect
her.
I
I
think
she
she's
been
in
this
field
for
a
really
long
time
and
I
would
rely
on
on
on
her
guidance.
P
I
I
think,
there's
also
value
in
in
seeing
what
is
being
done
strategically,
and
I
think
that
the
gen
the
office
of
gender-based
violence
prevention
is
has
been
doing
quite
a
bit
of
that
in
their
grants,
and
so
they're
well
established
in
in
research
they're.
Trying
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
same
framework
that
we're
all
working
together,
so
I'd
encourage
you
and
I
I
will
send
this
to
all
of
you.
This
is
the
the
oh
gosh.
P
C
Yeah,
you
know
you
mentioned.
The
county
certainly
makes
sense
to
have
the
folks
in
the
county
who
are
responsible
for
that
work
at
the
county,
join
us
as
well,
and
certainly
we
can
invite
them.
I
think
you
know
we
have
challenges
having
these
joint
meetings,
but
there's
no
a
official
there's,
no
reason
why
a
county
official
could
not
come
I'm
guessing,
they
would
they've
been
cooperative
with
us
on
this.
C
We've
been
talking
to
james
williams
and
others
at
the
county,
about
this
effort,
and
so
they're
certainly
aware,
and
to
my
knowledge,
they've
been
generally
supportive
of
what
we're
trying
to
do,
because
I
think
they
recognize
certainly
the
services
that
they
put
out.
There
are
all
important,
but
what
we
know
about
all
these
services
is
they're,
underfunded
and
opportunity
to
be
able
to
invest
more.
I
think
most
advocates
would
say
yes.
P
Yeah,
absolutely
I've
just
seen
so
our
joint
meetings
so
fruitful
and
our
efforts
aligned
and
strategic
and
we've
done
that
with
our
digital
inclusion
efforts.
We've
done
that
with
our
child
care.
We've
done
that
with
gender-based
violence,
and
so
I
I
think
we
just
need
to
continue
to
have
that
level
of
partnership
because
they
have
bigger
funds
than
than
we
do
and
they
can
continue
to
to
uphold
some
of
these
programs.
K
Mayor
just
two
quick
things,
one
is:
I
did
wanted
to
follow
up
on
the
conversation
around
insurance
and
accidental
versus
negligent.
We
ran
into
that
same
thing
too,
when
we
called
insurance
companies
that
they
would
not
cover
a
lot
of
things,
and
the
way
it
was
described
to
us
is
having
like
an
open
fire
pit
in
your
backyard
and
if
that
sparked
something
that
burned
your
house
down,
they
wouldn't
pay.
K
So
so
this
is,
I
mean
a
rabbit
hole
that
we
could
go
down,
but
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
that,
and
I
know
that
you've
had
many
conversations
around
that,
but
it's
actually
not
that
cut
and
dry,
but
that'll
be
dealt
with
later.
The
second
thing
I
I
wanted
to
bring
up
was
actually
one
of
the
points
that
I
had
raised
earlier,
and
I
wanted
to
thank
council
members,
man
and
perales
for
bifurcating
the
motion,
because
I
think
we
all
have
had
a
lot
of
questions
today.
K
But
but
my
concern
about
the
fee
and
providing
services
is
that
we
would
be
restricted
to
providing
services
to
gun
owners
and-
and
a
lot
of
you
know-
hence
the
the
questions
and
the
back
and
forth
councilmember
davis's
questions
about
accidental
and
negligent
all
that
they
may
not
pay
right.
They
may
not
pay
in
a
lot
of
situations
and
I'll
tell
you.
I
don't
think
this
would
do
very
much
for
gun
violence
in
district
seven.
K
I
think
communities
that
live
that
have
lived
with
violence
for
a
very
long
time
would
be
left
out
of
a
lot
of
the
programs
and
services
that
were
being
offered,
and
you
know
I
do
want
to
thank
my
colleagues
for
and
the
mayor
for,
adding
money
to
the
best
management
and
oversight
so
that
we
could
build
a
more
robust
program
to
serve
neighborhoods
that
have
been
hit
really
hard
by
gangs.
Where
I
live,
I
hear
gunfire
too.
I
hear
it,
I
get
it.
K
How
can
we
similarly
invest
in
neighborhoods
that
live
with
gun
violence
that
are
not
covered
by
necessarily
by
ideas
such
as
the
mayor's
innovative
ideas?
Today,
it's
still
our
overall
goal.
I
think
the
ghost
guns
really
I'm
I'm
hoping
that
we
as
a
country
can
make
some
headway
into
that.
But
how
can
we,
as
a
city,
be
intentional
about
the
violence
prevention
services
and
the
support
services
in
in
neighborhoods?
That
would
not
benefit
from
the
harm
reduction
from
an
insurance
policy.
L
Yeah,
that's
a
a
very
good
question.
I
don't
have
the
exact
answer
for
you,
a
council
member,
but
I
think
if
we
do
take
more
of
an
equity
approach
in
how
we're
delivering
our
services
to
those
programs
you're
just
describing
the
project
hope
the
best
and
the
gang.
You
know,
prevention
task
force
and
what
have
you?
L
That
would
be
a
huge
start,
and
I
might
you
know
I
I
can't
I'm
not
into
the
details
of
those
programs
right
now,
but
I
know
we
have
tried
to
put
project
hope
in
the
areas
where
you
know.
Obviously
the
zip
codes,
where
we're
having
more
violence
in
certain
areas
and
we're
trying
to
empower
our
communities,
but
I
think
a
big
start
would
be
really
putting
an
equity
lens
on
that.
How
are
we
dividing
those
resources?
L
K
K
Doesn't
your
zip
code
doesn't
indicate
your
lifespan
that
it
doesn't
indicate
your
quality
of
life
that
we
have
to
get
to
that
point
as
a
city,
and
so
anyway,
I'll
be
pushing
on
that
more,
and
I
look
to
the
city
for
coming
with
some
more
ideas
on
how
to
similarly
invest
in
neighborhoods
that
are
hit
really
hard.
That's
it
for
me.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
C
C
So,
if
you're
trying
to
address
gun
harm
and
gun
harm
risk,
the
idea
is
to
deliver
those
services
to
those
who
have
access
to
the
gun
and
we
think
about
even
the
worst
most
heinous
criminal
acts
we
think
about
the
horrible
shooting
of
each
and
so
forth.
I
don't
pretend
to
know
that
we
could
have
stopped
it
or
not,
but
if,
in
fact
we
could
have
delivered
some
mental
health
services,
there
may
have
been
a
chance.
C
I
don't
know
we
can't
know,
we
can't
possibly
know,
but
the
point
is:
is
the
harm
is
overwhelmingly
and
the
risk
of
harm
is
overwhelmingly
originating
where
the
gun
is
owned
and
that's
where
the
services
should
go,
and
that
is
also
obviously,
as
was
described
earlier,
important
for
us
in
sure,
to
ensure
we'd
be
legally
complying
on
prop
26,
but
there's
an
awful
lot
of
evidence
basis
for
ensuring
that
services
get
delivered
in
that
way.
And
so
that's
why
this
is
the
direction
we
propose.
Councilman
pros.
O
O
O
Again,
a
lot
of
question
marks
still
there,
but
if
successful,
I
think
there's
a
lot
more
higher
likelihood
that
we
can
help
reduce
gun
violence
there
versus
with
just
the
insurance
policy
as
a
standalone.
I
think,
if
we're
truly
going
to
make
any
significant
difference
in
reducing
gun,
violence,
we're
going
to
need
more
resources
and
the
insurance
policy
alone
doesn't
doesn't
do
that
and
whether
it's
investing
in
pre-existing
organizations
or
programs
or
new
ones.
I
will
add.
O
So
I
would
agree
with
council
member
adenas,
and
I
would
hope
that
my
colleagues
are
willing
to
support
the
entirety
of
the
direction
I
think
merely
was
was
attempting
to
find
a
path
to
move
forward
without
a
a
substitute
motion.
But
if,
if
that
would
help
council
member
adenos,
I
think
happy
to
hear
your
input
on
that.
And
we
can
go
back
to
council
member
man's
original
intent
of
a
separate
motion.
O
And
then
lastly,
I'll
just
say
that
I
agree
with
councilmember
sparta
in
regards
to
ensuring
that
we
are
equitable,
because
there
there
may
be
a
number
of
neighborhoods
or
families
that
are
not
going
to
pay
into
this
fee
and
and
then
may
not
be
able
to
directly
benefit
from
the
services
potentially
indirectly.
As
the
mayor
pointed
out,
but
not
directly,
if
they're
they're
not
an
association,
a
direct
association
somehow
to
be
able
to
qualify
for
for
the
services.
O
And
so
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
be
cognizant
of
that.
And
if
we
need
to
invest
into
those
neighborhoods
or
those
families
through
other
means
like
whether
it's
through
the
mayor's
game,
french
and
task
force,
and
how
we
already
have
identified
a
lot
of
these
hot
spot
areas
and
and
a
number
of
them
existing
in
district.
Seven
as
councilmember.
As
far
as
pointed
out
and
in
my
district
as
well,
and
then
we
need
to
do
that.
O
O
P
I
I
would
like
to
have
it
complete,
but
I
understand
that
I
I
want
this
to
be
successful,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
this
is
going
to
look
in
terms
of
votes.
I
don't
want
to
compromise
the
entirety
of
it.
I
I
I'm
not
getting
a
sense
of
where
this
is
going
in
terms
of
my
colleagues,
because
we've
all
had
some
different
questions
and
and
directions.
C
Yeah,
I
don't
know
exactly
how
it'll
end
up
either,
but
I'm
confident
that,
whichever
way
we
go,
I
think
we
end
up
in
the
same
place,
because
I
think
we'll
have
the
same
opportunities
to
vote
for
or
against
each
of
these
provisions.
So
why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
vote
is
bifurcated.
We'll
take
the
insurance
item.
First
noah.
B
O
Yes,
I
mean
nora,
brought
it
up
and
look.
I
I
think
to
make
it
easier
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
do
in
the
initial
bifurcation,
because
there
are
other
sections
that
are
in
relation
to
the
non-profit
or
the
fee
right
right
below
the
one
you
just
mentioned.
Nora
is
10.3
2.235
day
two.
You
know
you
can
look
up
at
the
top
at
the
title.
A
F
C
C
A
F
C
B
B
B
E
B
L
B
E
K
E
E
That's
the
same
thing
as
you
guys
talking
about
rape,
but
I'm
a
victim
of
rape
and
you
never
acknowledged
it.
I
it's
making
me
like,
like
I
don't
even
know
what
kind
of
a
city
that
I
live
in,
but
I
live
in
it
and
I
will
continue
to
defend
it
four
bullets
by
a
councilman
adminares
when
she
was
on
the
phone
she
heard
them.
So
nobody
has
anything
to
teach
me
about
gun
violence
and
I
will
never
put
my
hand.
I
will
never
put
my
hand
on
a
gun.
E
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
That's
really
meant
to
invite
all
parts
of
the
community
to
ask
questions
about
our
better
practices
for
our
future,
and
I
wish
I
was
able
to
say
that
more
clearly
tonight,
I
I
I
just
have
a
lot
of
vibrancy
in
life
and
what
that
can
work
towards
and
accomplish,
as
a
community
and
as
a
country,
basically
and
as
a
world.
So
good
luck,
how
we
can
work
on
these
issues
and
thank
you.
M
M
No
economic
vibrancy,
no
economic
activity.
What
are
you
people
going
to
do
about
the
downtown?
You
want
to
build
a
village,
please.
I
can't
imagine
what
these
are
going
to
look
like
yeah,
I
mean
you
know
you
can't
get
the
fountain
at
the
rose
garden
to
work.
You
can't
plant
grass
properly.
What
can
this
city
do
nothing?
You
know
you
guys
know
what
you
guys
know
how
to
do
give
out
fines,
citations
fees,
fees
are
taxes
by
the
way
carrasco
a
tax
is
a
fee.
A
fee
is
a
tax.
A
license
is
a
tax.
L
I
know
it's
the
structure
of
the
council
meeting
and
the
feedback
has
been
set
up
this
way
for
a
long
time,
but
it
seems
counterproductive
to
the
public
to
notice
a
memorandum
on
an
item
the
day
before
read
that
try
to
gather
your
thoughts
speak
your
thoughts
within
one
minute,
typically
now
and
then
it's
rebutted,
but
you
don't
get
to
speak
again,
so
there
needs
to
be
some
way
that
the
city
can
have
more
of
an
open
dialogue
with
its
residents
rather
than
a
one-sided
dialogue.
Thank
you.
L
B
L
Yes,
thank
you
thank
you,
mayor
and
council
and
boy
what
a
great
lead
up
todd.
That
was
a
great
comment
that
just
preceded
this.
I
fully
agree
the
zoo
meetings
like
we're.
Having
now
allow
people
to
participate
where
they
are
without
spending
hours
in
traffic
or
hours
sitting
on
a
chair
to
make
your
one
minute
comment,
which
is
an
incredible
waste
of
time
for
the
public.
L
Think
of
you,
talk
about
lost
productivity,
think
about
the
cost
of
all
the
people
in
the
audience,
sit
there
to
make
just
a
60-second
comment,
because
that's
all
they're
allowed
and,
like
he
said,
there's
no
dialogue.
What
I
would
like
to
see
is
whenever
there's
something
that
affects
the
entire
city,
whether
it's
an
ordinance
or
a
law
that
there
be
a
number
of
public
outreach
discussions
before
those
laws
go
into
effect
or
before
they're
heard
or
before
they're
finalized,
and
that
way
allows
for
the
most
community
engagement
possible
and
with
zoom.
L
L
Hi,
this
is
jonathan
fleming
speaking
as
the
executive
director
for
the
silicon
valley,
public
accountability
foundation,
and
I
wanted
to
bring
to
the
attention
to
the
council.
Our
organization
has
submitted
multiple
public
records,
act,
requests
to
the
city
and,
as
of
yesterday
morning,
all
of
them
were
incomplete
or
unanswered.
L
It
actually
took
four
months
to
get
one
of
these
pras
finished
that
dated
back
to
september
17th
of
2021,
the
rest
of
them,
and
there
are
multiple
others
that
have
not
been
even
looked
at
december,
4th
in
pra.
Just
regarding
our
organization
december
14th,
we
put
out
public
records,
requests
for
all
of
the
insurance
companies
that
mayor
licardo
contacted
well.
That
would
have
been
nice
information
to
have
had
today,
but
we
couldn't
have
it
december.
17Th,
multiple
requests
again,
so
that
needs
to
be
fixed.
You
need
to
be
compliant
with
the
law.
B
E
Yes,
I
spoke
with
the
city
clerk's
office.
I
think
it
was
friday
and
talked
to
them
concerning
the
public
input
and
how
council
members
are
to
use
public
input
in
weighing
their
decisions
and,
at
least
in
the
previous
agenda
item.
It
fully
appears
that
very
few
of
the
council
members
really
used
public
input
and
the
desires
of
the
community
to
really
make
their
decisions.