City of San Jose to Tax Constitutional Right

[Samm]

@Guilds

@WuWei

No it doesn’t.

Sure it does.

In the alternate universe cons have created…I am sure you believe it to be true.

You are obviously reading something there that is not written in the Amendment. By what stretch of the imagination does “shall not be infringed” mean “may be regulated”?

[TheRedComet]

@Guilds

@Mountain_Soldier

If they don’t drive them, no. What about owning them? Do you have insurance on cars you don’t drive?

I do not have any cars, that i do not drive. Nor do I collect them.

Unless the cars are classified as non-operational, they need insurance.

No they don’t. If you never drive them on public roads you don’t have to have insurance.

[TheRedComet]

I would love to see this special article of the United States constitution that details how the state can legally regulate firearms.

[e7alr]

The tax is actually a registration fee and a work around to establish a fire arms registry. Since without a registry how would the city know who needed to pay the tax.

[Samm]

@e7alr

The tax is actually a registration fee and a work around to establish a fire arms registry. Since without a registry how would the city know who needed to pay the tax.

And insurance even more so.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@e7alr

The tax is actually a registration fee and a work around to establish a fire arms registry. Since without a registry how would the city know who needed to pay the tax.

Exactly. I want to know how much this insurance is going to cost in addition to the $25 fees for firearms to the city. The costs to firearm owners will be astronomical and make it impractical to own a firearm.

Just what the left wanted.

They should make the cops pay it as well.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@Guilds

@Mountain_Soldier

If they don’t drive them, no. What about owning them? Do you have insurance on cars you don’t drive?

I do not have any cars, that i do not drive. Nor do I collect them.

Unless the cars are classified as non-operational, they need insurance.

I can’t wait for someone to get arrested and firearms seized for not having insurance or paying the fees.

You’d love that, wouldn’t you?

[PAmoderate37]

@Mountain_Soldier

I can’t wait for someone to get arrested and firearms seized for not having insurance or paying the fees.

You’d love that, wouldn’t you?

This gets tossed out by the courts so it will never happen.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@PAmoderate37

@Mountain_Soldier

I can’t wait for someone to get arrested and firearms seized for not having insurance or paying the fees.

You’d love that, wouldn’t you?

This gets tossed out by the courts so it will never happen.

Yeah, well I never thought the government would force me to buy a private product a la Obamacare, so I’m not holding my breath.

[TheRedComet]

@WuWei

This law is racist.

It’s also classist.

For a group that claims to fight for the proletariat, they seem to love laws that specifically hurt them.

[Samm]

@Mountain_Soldier

@Guilds

@Mountain_Soldier

If they don’t drive them, no. What about owning them? Do you have insurance on cars you don’t drive?

I do not have any cars, that i do not drive. Nor do I collect them.

Unless the cars are classified as non-operational, they need insurance.

I can’t wait for someone to get arrested and firearms seized for not having insurance or paying the fees.

You’d love that, wouldn’t you?

Seems like a perfect opportunity for the Ninth Circuit Court to prove that they have read the Constitution.

[Samm]

@PAmoderate37

@Mountain_Soldier

I can’t wait for someone to get arrested and firearms seized for not having insurance or paying the fees.

You’d love that, wouldn’t you?

This gets tossed out by the courts so it will never happen.

It can’t get tossed out by the Court until it is brought before the court by someone with standing … someone being charged for violation of the law.

[Oldandtired]

No they don’t. As long as they are only driven on private property no insurance is required.

[Oldandtired]

The 2nd amendment does not allow regulation of arms. That we have many unconstitutional laws on the books does not mean they are constitutional.

[PAmoderate37]

@Samm

It can’t get tossed out by the Court until it is brought before the court by someone with standing … someone being charged for violation of the law.

You would have standing to challenge the law that requires you to get insurance before you get busted for not having it if you so choose. You could sue San Jose claiming their law is unconstitutional.

[Toll_Collector]

@tzu

As a thought exercise, you have a right to free movement and liberty, but that isn’t a bar to being obligated to insure your car - or your jobsite.

You don’t have a right to drive. A right and a privilege are not the same.

[DougBH]

@Axxowiz

Always going after the ones abiding the law and 99% of the time doing nothing wrong. They should tax the gangs we could all get behind that.

The gangs will not pay the tax. Rich people will not be bothered by the tax. The poor who are living in the same areas as the gangs may have a problem.

[RTchoke]

@Guilds

@Mountain_Soldier

If they don’t drive them, no. What about owning them? Do you have insurance on cars you don’t drive?

I do not have any cars, that i do not drive. Nor do I collect them.

Unless the cars are classified as non-operational, they need insurance.

■■■■■■■■■ They do not.

[FlameHeart]

No. They want laws for them, the Vanguard Party.

[Guilds]

@Mountain_Soldier

I can’t wait for someone to get arrested and firearms seized for not having insurance or paying the fees.

You’d love that, wouldn’t you?

Is that going to be the penalty?

And no, I would not love to see that.