Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on January 26, 2022, 09:35:38 AM
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html
If passed, this will require San Jose residents to pay a fee and get liability insurance in order to own a firearm.
-
I was reading about that when it was first introduced. I still can't figure out how they're going to enforce it. Not that there are many gun owners in that area.
-
I'm sure all the local criminals are shaking in their boots at the thought of paying higher taxes and having to get insurance
Guns & Gadgets has been keeping a close eye on this since it was first proposed https://www.youtube.com/c/GunsGadgets
-
Meanwhile, there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings, a study released Thursday by Everytown for Gun Safety found.
The fact they are using a Everytown study as their basis for this just show that they really have no concept of unbiased studies.
As to enforcement, police officers crossing paths with gun owners would ask for proof of insurance, much like they do with car insurance during traffic stops, Liccardo explained.
This kind of concerns me as there are probably many more gun owners than there are CCW holders. Does this mean CA has and has been doing a de facto registration off of gun sales in the state? It would not surprise me.
"Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right," Liccardo said Monday at a news conference.
Under San Jose's measure, gun owners would be charged an annual $25 fee directed to a nonprofit set up to distribute funds to gun crime prevention and to victims of gun violence.
"Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right," Liccardo said Monday at a news conference.
Charging a fee to exercise a Constitutional right, that has about zero chance of being allowed to stand once the courts get involved. It will take time and money but it will eventually be struck down IMO.
bob
-
Charging a fee to exercise a Constitutional right, that has about zero chance of being allowed to stand once the courts get involved. It will take time and money but it will eventually be struck down IMO.
There are several areas in the USA that charge fees to buy a gun. NYC being one of the worst. All of these have been upheld by courts. The large majority of judges in the USA believe the RKBA is a pathetic joke.
-
There have been gun and ammo taxes in Seattle for almost six years now. It has been upheld by the courts and is the primary reason why there are no longer any gun stores within the Seattle city limits.
https://www.seattle.gov/license-and-tax-administration/business-license-tax/other-seattle-taxes/firearms-and-ammunition-tax
-
And poll taxes were legal until 1966. They survived decades of court challenges.
-
Well hell, I guess because I have lived in states where the thought of a fee to buy a gun was never a concern I figured all of America was like that.
bob
-
I'm sure all the local criminals are shaking in their boots at the thought of paying higher taxes and having to get insurance
You realize the crooks aren't going to abide by those rules, either, right? (Or did I really not get the joke?)
It's really disgusting that people who are obviously not criminals would be forced to literally pay the price for crimes they obviously are not committing.
-
Passed
10-1 for the insurance
8-3 for the tax
Some fire arms groups are suing
VERY BAD! San Jose Now Requires Gun Tax & Liability Insurance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAPIorIsAFE
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html
If passed, this will require San Jose residents to pay a fee and get liability insurance in order to own a firearm.
Sounds like a 2A violation to me. But ... it's California, and the 9th Circus.
-
You realize the crooks aren't going to abide by those rules, either, right? (Or did I really not get the joke?)
It's really disgusting that people who are obviously not criminals would be forced to literally pay the price for crimes they obviously are not committing.
Would the rules even apply to known crooks?
If a prohibited person was required to buy insurance or pay an annual gun fee, wouldn't that be considered a requirement that he incriminate himself, violating his Fifth Amendment protections?
-
Passed
10-1 for the insurance
8-3 for the tax
Some fire arms groups are suing
VERY BAD! San Jose Now Requires Gun Tax & Liability Insurance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAPIorIsAFE
Another political raid kicking off.
-
Would the rules even apply to known crooks?
If a prohibited person was required to buy insurance or pay an annual gun fee, wouldn't that be considered a requirement that he incriminate himself, violating his Fifth Amendment protections?
It's not about crooks. This is to punish gun owners who are *not* crooks nor police nor politically-connected. (I know that's redundant) It's also the equivalent of a poll tax and should just be ignored.
-
What is the liability insurance supposed to cover? Accidental discharges? Lawsuits from genuine self-defense? Intentional murder? The article doesn't seem to address that.
-
What is the liability insurance supposed to cover? Accidental discharges? Lawsuits from genuine self-defense? Intentional murder? The article doesn't seem to address that.
It doesn't cover anything. You can't possibly be in compliance; that's the point.
-
It doesn't cover anything. You can't possibly be in compliance; that's the point.
Yeah, seems to be just a fee (fine) you pay for owning a gun that they call "insurance" that goes in the special gov account for them to use for whatever.
-
It does sound like the way the government works, but then why did they vote on the tax and the insurance separately? The way they describe it as requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance seems to imply that it's not provided by the government itself.
I may be giving them too much credit for describing their intentions honestly.
-
Can they find an insurance company that offers such a policy? Or is that the point?