I believe it was San Jose that passed a law requiering owners of guns to pay a fee for each gun! Fines are said to be high! No word on how each type of firearm will be 'taxed'. Another reason to move out of goofy land.
California has new firearms fee
- Thread starter jake1945
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Yes, it was San Jose. The ordinance, if it holds up (it won't), would require that all gun owners pay a yearly fee to the city for the privilege of owning a gun in their city. It also requires that gun owners maintain liability insurance not only for their use of their guns but for possible criminal misuse of their guns by someone who steals them. It was approved unanimously by the city council. They want to raise $400 million per year to reimburse the city for medical and investigative costs relating to "gun crime" in the city. It is unclear how they will collect the fees and taxes and force insurance on illegal gun owners.
Having to pay to exercise your rights is absurd.
But we do have a problem: the XXIV amendment. It prohibits a poll tax to vote. It would seem no such amendment would be needed to do the obvious. But since they did, there is precedent to deny gun owners' rights.
But we do have a problem: the XXIV amendment. It prohibits a poll tax to vote. It would seem no such amendment would be needed to do the obvious. But since they did, there is precedent to deny gun owners' rights.
What is the tax base of gun owners in San Jose that could even cover their $400M deficit? That would be one heck of a tax bill on a small base. 
Jon651
Member
You beat me to the comparison with the Poll Tax.
Let me add one further red flag - with the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Arizona's more restrictive voting requirements, that is also another precedent to deny gun owner's their rights. When they chip away at one, they chip away at them all.
jag312
Member
San Jose's so-called "gun problem" is actually a criminal gang problem. Most of these members of the criminal gangs are convicted felons, drug dealers, illegal aliens, etc. They are prohibited from possessing firearms. Now, if they choose to pay a tax on their illegally possessed firearms, could that be considered self incrimination by identifying themselves as possessing firearms? If so, could they be exempt from self incrimination? Not that any sane person would assume these criminals would even think of paying a tax or getting insurance.
San Jose's law affects people like you and me. We are not the gun problem. We aren't the people who shoot other people because we don't like the color of their shirt. We don't shoot people to protect our drug territory. We aren't doing armed robberies. We aren't committing crimes with our guns. I left San Jose five years ago, and I ain't going back.
San Jose's law affects people like you and me. We are not the gun problem. We aren't the people who shoot other people because we don't like the color of their shirt. We don't shoot people to protect our drug territory. We aren't doing armed robberies. We aren't committing crimes with our guns. I left San Jose five years ago, and I ain't going back.
SAFireman
Member
I guess that they should tax the criminals then! Maybe we should bring back the chain gang and hire them out to pay their taxes???
riverrat38
US Veteran
"privilege of owning a gun in their city"
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges!
There is no Sunset clause in the US Constitution.
Maybe we could tax all religions to cover the damages caused by religious terrorists.
Our Constitution is our rudder. If we allow it to be interpreted away, we will fetch up on rocks and shoals!
73,
Rick
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges!
There is no Sunset clause in the US Constitution.
Maybe we could tax all religions to cover the damages caused by religious terrorists.
Our Constitution is our rudder. If we allow it to be interpreted away, we will fetch up on rocks and shoals!
73,
Rick
Last edited:
What really gets me is that this is their knee jerk reaction to the VTA shooting that took place.
The prep was a clear candidate for a "red flag" firearms confiscation action, but no one initiated that, even though his behavior was well known by VTA management, co-workers and family.
California passed that "red flag" law the after the last mass shooting... as means of preventing something like that from happening again
The prep was a clear candidate for a "red flag" firearms confiscation action, but no one initiated that, even though his behavior was well known by VTA management, co-workers and family.
California passed that "red flag" law the after the last mass shooting... as means of preventing something like that from happening again
OK, so I agree this is wrongheaded and I'm regrettably close to ground zero on this one. On the other hand, the firearms owning community isn't exactly stepping up to help with some of these issues.
I've seen a lot of careless storage in my time and the criminals are stealing those guns from somebody! I'd propose a stiff enough fine on any weapon stolen and subsequently used in a crime that it would encourage people to do a better job of securing their weapons.
You can't fine anybody having a weapon stolen or it won't get reported. You sold it you say, cool, where's your release of liability form?
I've seen a lot of careless storage in my time and the criminals are stealing those guns from somebody! I'd propose a stiff enough fine on any weapon stolen and subsequently used in a crime that it would encourage people to do a better job of securing their weapons.
You can't fine anybody having a weapon stolen or it won't get reported. You sold it you say, cool, where's your release of liability form?
A little lesson in law is needed:
There is no right to vote specified in the Constitution. There are qualifications and then amendments removing certain restrictions that existed but nowhere does the Constitution "grant" or "guarantee" a right to vote. The right to vote was presumed and never specified - and it should have been in the Bill of Rights.
In descending order, we have these items:
26th Amendment:
24th Amendment:
19th Amendment:
15th Amendment:
14th Amendment, Section 2:
Article I/Section 2
Does anyone see language granting or guaranteeing a right to vote? Exactly. You do not. So the 24th Amendment is not a precedent to deny the Second Amendment's guarantees.
And you're welcome.
There is no right to vote specified in the Constitution. There are qualifications and then amendments removing certain restrictions that existed but nowhere does the Constitution "grant" or "guarantee" a right to vote. The right to vote was presumed and never specified - and it should have been in the Bill of Rights.
In descending order, we have these items:
26th Amendment:
24th Amendment:
19th Amendment:
15th Amendment:
14th Amendment, Section 2:
Article I/Section 2
Does anyone see language granting or guaranteeing a right to vote? Exactly. You do not. So the 24th Amendment is not a precedent to deny the Second Amendment's guarantees.
And you're welcome.
That's not 100% correct. There are certain rights that needed to be specified. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights, it doesn't grant them, but there are many other constitutional provisions that are grants even in the BoR.
Trial by jury - how is that a natural right held by every natural person?
Double jeopardy and self incrimination - where does the concept of not being tried twice for the same offense or not being forced to admit certain things exist in "natural law"? Especially prohibiting double jeopardy. It's unheard of in "nature".
We take these rights as self evident because we're used to them being in existence but those are grants, don't let anyone tell you differently. They don't exist in the Bible or in the Code of Hammurabi if you're looking for ancient references for support.
But we shall wax philosophical here and it's not our purpose.
"It also requires that gun owners maintain liability insurance not only for their use of their guns but for possible criminal misuse of their guns by someone who steals them"
Then why not require auto owners to get liability insurance for car thefts? Same exact premise.
Then why not require auto owners to get liability insurance for car thefts? Same exact premise.
What scares me for the long haul is that Democrat-run Cities and States wind up doing things like this rather than going after the real problem---the criminals. Then you have some people move to other more conservative states but they bring their politics with them which will hurt the new residence they go to.
So true. I live in a very rural "Red" county in the northeast of FL. We found out a couple of weeks ago that a new 7000 home housing development is planned just some ten miles away. There are also two more developments of 2000+ each within 15 miles. That's over 10K new homes/families moving here from somewhere. We maybe Red now, but chances are not for long…..
Miami_JBT
US Veteran
Numerous jurisdictions charge people a fee to exercise their inalienable rights.
Illinois charges people with a fee for a FOID. New Jersey does similar as does Massachusetts and New York.
Miami_JBT
US Veteran
So true. I live in a very rural "Red" county in the northeast of FL. We found out a couple of weeks ago that a new 7000 home housing development is planned just some ten miles away. There are also two more developments of 2000+ each within 15 miles. That's over 10K new homes/families moving here from somewhere. We maybe Red now, but chances are not for long…..
Your Republican Leadership loves that property tax revenue and of course the licensing and permit fees they collect from construction.
They'll sell you out for short term gains. Happened to Virginia with GWB and his expansion of the government after 9/11.
Similar threads
- Locked
Sold/Withdrawn
M&P40 2.0 Compact: NIB, $450 Shipped CONUS
