San Jose passes Gun violence compensation ordinance

[zantax]

@SixFoot

Another government mandated product to purchase?

No, no slippery slope there. lol

Only a matter of time, mandatory car extension warranties.

[PurpnGold]

@GrandWazoo

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.

Hmm interesting angle. Never thought about the sales tax on guns and ammo.

Why is that allowed? I don’t pay sales tax on my ballot

[RayStark]

@Samm

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?

Well I DID create this thread.

[EternalVigilance]

@Samm

Doesn’t anyone in San Jose or for that matter, the State of California see anything wrong with that?

They’re Democrats.

[Smyrna]

I thought the answer in California was simply not prosecute criminals and those that are in jails, due to the danger of COVID…turn them loose too? Didn’t that already fix all the gun and violence problems?

[Mountain_Soldier]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

Diminished right.

Thomas

Dude, this law is gonna be shot down like Snoopy on his dog house. Count on it.

Betcha it won’t. 9th circuit.

[Mountain_Soldier]

Liberals are loving this… or should be. Who cares if it’s a few thousands dollars a year just to own a firearm? The price of exercising rights!

[WuWei]

Confiscation for non-compliance

San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

[Mountain_Soldier]

They’re getting their much-desired confiscation. I applaud the backhanded way of getting to that point.

[WuWei]

I wonder how they’re going to know who owns one?

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

“Crooks aren’t going to follow this law,” Liccardo told reporters. “When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun.”

Amazing. Just the “crooks” though.

[Mountain_Soldier]

Yeah, they wouldn’t possibly just surprise random citizens asking if they have any firearms and demand to see their papers.

[SixFoot]

@zantax

@SixFoot

Another government mandated product to purchase?

No, no slippery slope there. lol

Only a matter of time, mandatory car extension warranties.

And they WILL find you to talk about it.

[WuWei]

Anybody who supports this is too stupid to vote.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Mountain_Soldier

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

Diminished right.

Thomas

Dude, this law is gonna be shot down like Snoopy on his dog house. Count on it.

Betcha it won’t. 9th circuit.

I have no doubt it will go all the way to the SC, who will shoot it down

[zantax]

@WuWei

I wonder how they’re going to know who owns one?

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

“Crooks aren’t going to follow this law,” Liccardo told reporters. “When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun.”

Amazing. Just the “crooks” though.

Crooks being defined as anyone who doesn’t comply with this.

[biggestal99]

@WuWei

In the meantime rights are being violated by government

If your rights are being violated. File a lawsuit.

It’s done all the time.

And then wait while it’s adjudicated.

Simple.

Allan

[Samm]

@RayStark

@Samm

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?

Well I DID create this thread.

Yes you did, but you did not voice any judgement about it.

[Samm]

@EternalVigilance

@Samm

Doesn’t anyone in San Jose or for that matter, the State of California see anything wrong with that?

They’re Democrats.

Worse than that … they are “Progressive” Democrats.

[EternalVigilance]

@Mountain_Soldier

They’re getting their much-desired confiscation. I applaud the backhanded way of getting to that point.

I was told that Democrats weren’t coming for our guns?

[RayStark]

@Samm

@RayStark

@Samm

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?

Well I DID create this thread.

Yes you did, but you did not voice any judgement about it.

It’s like you haven’t read any of my posts here for the past 18 years