CA city wants to make legal gun owners pay for crime

[bushmaster1313]

Admin Edit-
Stick to the topic, and do it without CA bashing.



/////////////////////////
original post:


$25 dollar annual fee
plus required insurance

San Jose, California, is poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements - CNN

Vote in San Jose city Council is due Tuesday

A law firm has already offered to represent the City without charge

Let's find out who are bringing challenges and support those groups with money earmarked for this case

[Laketime]

Lets instead charge every court defendant this fee.

[StakeOut]

How about charging the politicians that voted in favor of weak on crime laws each time some was arrested and released only to do it again.

[Old_Cop]

We already pay for shrinkage and theft at every store where we shop.

[fordson]

Fees and insurance do not stop bad behavior. They create more government bureaucracy and grow insurance business. Claiming that auto fees and auto insurance makes for safer drives is ludicrous. They do not prevent speeding, running a red light or even use of your vehicle in the commission of a crime. People’s behavior is the issue. And btw, driving is a privilege not a RIGHT. This is nothing less then a Poll Tax on a Constitutional Right.

Rand not over, and I don’t feel any better for it………

[WCCPHD]

Sounds like a poll tax to me. Must pay a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right.

[dsf]

The mayor of San Jose has no problem with government provided benefits to illegal aliens but has no issue taxing citizens for the lawful exercise of an individual right. Another one of the "I support the 2nd Amendment but ..." crowd.

Actually, living close by I don't think he bothers with that cover.

[quikdraw67]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Sounds like a poll tax to me. Must pay a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right.

Yes, that would be a good arguement to challenge the constitutionality of such laws.

Let's see how it plays out.

[jag312]

I lived in San Jose. I worked in San Jose. About 85% of my casework were homicides and attempted homicides that were criminal gang related. If there is anyone here that thinks taxing gun owners like us and requiring insurance will stop the criminal street gangs, then I have a few bridges to sell you. This is just an attack on our constitutional rights. The leftist loonies just have to have total power over us.

[reddog81]

No insurance company is going to write a policy that will cover damages from someone stealing a gun and then going out and murdering someone with it. If someone steals your car and then goes out and intentionally runs someone over, you are not liable, and your car insurance isn’t going to pay that persons hospital bills.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by reddog81

No insurance company is going to write a policy that will cover damages from someone stealing a gun and then going out and murdering someone with it. If someone steals your car and then goes out and intentionally runs someone over, you are not liable, and your car insurance isn’t going to pay that persons hospital bills.

That's the idea. No insurance, no guns.

[robertrwalsh]

Insurance requirement passed by vote of 10-1. Fee passed by 8-3. If it passes again in second reading next month it will become law in August, unless halted by legal action.

[LDM]

Need to remember San Jose is infested with far-left tech elitists who are totally out of touch with the real world.

[stansdds]

Probably won't pass constitutional muster, but someone has to file a suit and be willing to see it all the way to the SCOTUS if need be.

[Valmet]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Sounds like a poll tax to me. Must pay a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right.

My thoughts exactly as soon as I read the article about it.

[biku324]

I'd be interested to see what their proposed liability insurance requirements are, and if any insurer on earth carries it.

[Jinglebob]

San Jose has passed the first-of-its-kind gun law that will require gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons.

California city passes first gun law requiring annual fees, liability insurance | Fox News

[quikdraw67]

If you want a true view into the minds of the anti's, look at the Washington Post article about this and its comments.
I subscribe to the Post for 2 reasons. 1) they have a really good selection of online comics, and 2) as a COINTEL view into the "other" side. It's an eye opener.
At best, all guns should be registered, taxed, and have a very limited magazine capacity. Sound familiar?
At worst, all guns should go into smelters and we should be sent to re-education camps.
Myself, I think it will not hold, as it's close to a poll tax.
But that's what we're dealing with.

[Nevada Ed]

and the $$$ goes where and to who ??

Very interresting.

Is it a offer, that you can't refuse ?

[Mistered]

This is the part I don't understand:
"While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms," Liccardo said, via the report, the "2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns."

No, it doesn't require the taxpayers to subsidize folks TO own guns - and they are not - OR is he inferring taxpayers ARE subsidising the ownership due to the liabilities ? Gun violence costs San Jose taxpayers over total $40 million annually, Liccardo said

Again - maybe I am missing something.

[Rustyt1953]

What is "gun violence"?

[quikdraw67]

Originally Posted by Rustyt1953

What is "gun violence"?

IF I gave the correct answer to this, I'd be in violation of forum rules, and I'm down to my last ding.

Short version, that term only applies to a certain group of people who typically inhabit rural areas.

It does not apply to a certain group of people who live in heavily urbanized area, typically the largest cities.

That's called business as usual. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

[Old Arkansawyer]

This is one of the reasons I am opposed to a modern day constitutional
convention. The opposition has the numbers to do away with the 2nd
and that will be one of the first changes proposed.

[quikdraw67]

Originally Posted by Old Arkansawyer

This is one of the reasons I am opposed to a modern day constitutional
convention. The opposition has the numbers to do away with the 2nd
and that will be one of the first changes proposed.

I can't "like" your post, but I do agree with it,

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by Old Arkansawyer

This is one of the reasons I am opposed to a modern day constitutional
convention. The opposition has the numbers to do away with the 2nd
and that will be one of the first changes proposed.

To repeal an Amendment? I doubt they have the votes right now.

Tell me how they get there.

[smithman]

Heaven forbid the liberal criminal- coddling politicians actually punish the criminals instead of the law -abiding.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by Old Arkansawyer

This is one of the reasons I am opposed to a modern day constitutional
convention. The opposition has the numbers to do away with the 2nd
and that will be one of the first changes proposed.

I'm leary too.

[ladder13]

How do they get to repeal the 2nd? Again.

[StakeOut]

29 states have Republican governors.
20 states have Democrat governors
1 state has Progressive governor.
Would it be political suicide to vote for abolishing the 2nd Am?

[ladder13]

The numbers aren’t there…now. Think 18 of the 30 Rep controlled state legislatures are going to join the opposition and vote to repeal the 2nd? That’s laughable.

Probably why only one Amendment was ever repealed. You have to propose a new Amendment to repeal an existing one.

Good luck with that.

[Beemer-mark]

Originally Posted by reddog81

No insurance company is going to write a policy that will cover damages from someone stealing a gun and then going out and murdering someone with it. If someone steals your car and then goes out and intentionally runs someone over, you are not liable, and your car insurance isn’t going to pay that persons hospital bills.

Hate to burst your bubble, but yes your liability insurance does pay for damages done by your vehicle, whether it's you driving, a friend, or a thief.

This bill scares me because it's a lot like no fault vehicle insurance. You must buy insurance to cover the dead beat that doesn't have insurance and causes property or physical damage.

[jag312]

Originally Posted by Rustyt1953

What is "gun violence"?

In San Jose and other cities, it is violence perpetrated by various criminal street gangs. It is not us that are shooting each other over drug territory or sometimes simply because of the color of a shirt.

[Rustyt1953]

Originally Posted by jag312

In San Jose and other cities, it is violence perpetrated by various criminal street gangs. It is not us that are shooting each other over drug territory or sometimes simply because of the color of a shirt.

By this I take it that you aren't fluent in sarcasm.

[steelslaver]

To repeal the 2nd, first they would need tp pass an amendment to abolish it by 2/3 vote in both houses, then it would need to get ratified by 3/4 of the states. That is currently 38 states. In other words if just 13 states refused to ratify it wouldn't become law. More apt to die from a meteor strike. 21 states currently have permitless concealed carry. I highly doubt 13 of them will turn their back on the 2nd. No way Montana, Wyoming, N Dakota, S Dakota, Idaho, Alaska. would. That is 6 SOLID NOs and 7 more would be easy to find.

They could not get the women's equal rights amendment into law. 15 states would not ratify it and 1/2 the population is female

[ladder13]

And then you have blue states like ME and NH, where those state legislatures are not apt to vote to repeal.

I really think folks don’t know what it takes to repeal an Amendment. I asked twice, with crickets.

[steelslaver]

There is another route. Under Article V, if 2/3 of the states called for a constitutional convention to do it with out the 2/3 votes from the houses. I have heard this called for to pass term limits, a balanced budget etc.

SERIOUS MISTAKE.

It is the opinion of even conservative Supreme Court Justices, that once convened, for whatever reason, such a convention would have UNLIMITED POWER to rewrite the Constitution. Some say "Anything such a convention passes must be ratified by 3/4 the states". ONLY if that part is not rewritten during the convention to. The convention could a simple majority was enough to make it law or even do away with states. If anyone thinks they can somehow keep the current politicians, big money meddlers and influences from outside forces, that we can not keep from perverting things now. they need to set the crack pipe down and walk away.

That is like calling for the current President to step down or be impeached. There is long line of people who would follow and NONE of them are ex Presidents, nor members of the opposition party. There is also absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that can be construed so that an electoral vote, once accepted by the Senate, can be made null and void. Nothing

The CONSTITUTION READ IT UNDERSTAND IT

[ladder13]

It’s a high bar, started in 2014.

I read the Constitution, I know what it says. I sleep very well, especially with a @6-3 backup.


Edit to add.

If as a country we actually were in accordance with the Constitution we’d be much better off. Many care not to know or just wish to ignore.

10th A was put in to give the states the power not allocated to the Feds. It wasn’t written to expand central govt.

I’m dreaming but only if…..

[Old Arkansawyer]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

There is another route. Under Article V, if 2/3 of the states called for a constitutional convention to do it with out the 2/3 votes from the houses. I have heard this called for to pass term limits, a balanced budget etc.

SERIOUS MISTAKE.

It is the opinion of even conservative Supreme Court Justices, that once convened, for whatever reason, such a convention would have UNLIMITED POWER to rewrite the Constitution. Some say "Anything such a convention passes must be ratified by 3/4 the states". ONLY if that part is not rewritten during the convention to. The convention could a simple majority was enough to make it law or even do away with states. If anyone thinks they can somehow keep the current politicians, big money meddlers and influences from outside forces, that we can not keep from perverting things now. they need to set the crack pipe down and walk away.

That is like calling for the current President to step down or be impeached. There is long line of people who would follow and NONE of them are ex Presidents, nor members of the opposition party. There is also absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that can be construed so that an electoral vote, once accepted by the Senate, can be made null and void. Nothing

The CONSTITUTION READ IT UNDERSTAND IT

That's why I'm opposed to a new convention, just today read
where Nebraska has voted for one. Once the door is thrown
open anything can run in.

[delcrossv]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

There is another route. Under Article V, if 2/3 of the states called for a constitutional convention to do it with out the 2/3 votes from the houses. I have heard this called for to pass term limits, a balanced budget etc.

SERIOUS MISTAKE.

It is the opinion of even conservative Supreme Court Justices, that once convened, for whatever reason, such a convention would have UNLIMITED POWER to rewrite the Constitution. Some say "Anything such a convention passes must be ratified by 3/4 the states". ONLY if that part is not rewritten during the convention to. The convention could a simple majority was enough to make it law or even do away with states. If anyone thinks they can somehow keep the current politicians, big money meddlers and influences from outside forces, that we can not keep from perverting things now. they need to set the crack pipe down and walk away.

....

True, but to quote Mao: "power comes from the barrel of a gun". So, despite the very real possibility that the whole thing could be thrown up in the air, I think that possibility would be fairly remote. No delegate would want to walk out of the convention into a firing squad.

Further to same, the States antedate the Constitution and are (supposedly) the sovereigns in the Union. So any proposals would have to be ratified- including a proposal to do away with States or some other such nonsense- just like in 1789.

[steelslaver]

Even if the right to bear arms survived do you think big money and politics would stay out of it? If you do your being foolish. Lobbyist have been running this country for years ad they would run a convention too. Just how do you think the people going to the convention would get chosen anyway? It would be about the same way the current crop of representatives get in and a dollar to a hole in a donut they would look after themselves more than this country.

[delcrossv]

I don't think politics and lobbying stayed out of the first convention either. People being people.

Since the States would be calling the convention, it would be State reps as delegates. They tend to have more local concerns than Federal legislators.

Proof against tomfoolery? No, but something of a deterrent.

[bushmaster1313]

From a lawyer’s perspective I see several issues:

1) Is the $25 per year or the insurance requirement being done to chill exercise of 2A rights, and even if that is not the purpose, will it nonetheless have a chilling effect.

2) Can you force someone to buy insurance directed only to those who are exercising a Constitutional right.

3) Can you force someone exercising a Constotutional right to pay money earmarked to a non-profit organization

4) What if you cannot get the insurance mandated by law

[delcrossv]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

From a lawyer’s perspective I see several issues:

1) Is the $25 per year or the insurance requirement being done to chill exercise of 2A rights, and even if that is not the purpose, will it nonetheless have a chilling effect.

2) Can you force someone to buy insurance directed only to those who are exercising a Constitutional right.

3) Can you force someone exercising a Constotutional right to pay money earmarked to a non-profit organization

4) What if you cannot get the insurance mandated by law

Sort of sounds like a Poll tax to me. That would be a good analogy for the suit.