Ah, but the Constitutionality hasn’t been decided yet, has it? That’s what the courts are for.
Yes it has and no it isn’t.
Really? My apologies then.
What case is it where the SC shot down state mandated gun insurance?
Good Lord, is small thinking the order of the day yet again?
But one has to pay a sales tax to own a gun. This just sounds like an additional tax. Is it right, no. But is it illegal? I don’t know that it is.
Your error is thinking that the issue of infringement has been settled. It hasn’t.
For example, you say that background checks and taxes on guns and ammo are an infringement, yet as I type this, they are still in force.
Why? Because the definition of infringement hasn’t yet been settled.
Of course it is. Name another tax on exercising a right. Poll taxes were struck down for a reason.
My point is that some among us believe that even a sales tax on guns and ammo is an infringement.
But this? A state mandated fee for insurance? Clearly beyond the pale.
It is a city mandate and not a state one. And I agree it is beyond the pale.
“State” as in “the government”
What’s within the pale?
I don’t know. I do think you have an overly broad definition of infringement though. Even Scalia said that no right is absolute.
Scalia was wrong. They are infringements. If you want to restrict a person for acts committed through due process, I’m fine with that. Constitutional.
Prior restraint cause skeered, no.
Well again, I don’t know what is right, but I still think your definition of infringement is overly broad.
Yes you do. It is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. In what ruling has a court determined these “common sense gun laws” are not infringements?
Let me answer your question with a question: if your theory of the case is true, why are there still back ground checks and waiting periods?
The answer of course is that whst an “infringement” is has not been definitively settled.
The answer of course is because the courts have allowed infringements.
Name a case where they made the claim.
They haven’t. What they have done is rationalize the infringements “in the public interest.”
And by the way, the examples Scalia gave involved due process for the most part.
But if the SC allows some limit, it is by definition not an infringement, because the ultimate arbiters have allowed it.
For example if you think the waiting period is an infringement, the court (so far) disagrees with you. So guess what? It is not an infringement.
How can that be Constitutional? The Government is requiring individuals to purchase insurance that lists the Government as the beneficiary. Doesn’t anyone in San Jose or for that matter, the State of California see anything wrong with that?