San Jose votes for guns fee and liability insurance

[WillJ8787]

Not an electoral one in the sense that the left will back out.

One in that polarization and consolidation will continue?? Absolutely.

I want California and New York to go full tilt "progressive".

Hell I think the FEDERAL Bill of Rights should only include the 8th and 10th amendments.

If California wants take all guns, strictly control speech, socialize and just Venezuela itself?? Have drag queens teaching kids in 2nd grade how to bate??? Yea....I think we should let them have it their way and they can show us all just how amazing life with 99% taxation and "free" shit for any and all who ask for it works out in the real world.

The WORST thing that could happen to the left is for them to be called on their shit and made to walk your own walk.

Look at you...living in Florida .... wouldn't DARE move to a blue state.

In other words, Cali is looking to cut all the dead wood and sludge from it's State for productive citizens who understand what Community is and wants to promote a decent way of life...vs outhouse communities of freeloaders. Hence, why they leave for backwater States.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

This way, if the police find a black person with a gun that they haven't been paying taxes on, we can put them in prison for evading the taxes, even if they didn't commit a crime with the gun.

This was actually a big concern among a couple of council members who represent districts with heavy concentrations of minorities. Enforcement will only happen during police encounters. Hispanics, blacks and Asians are 2 to 5 times more likely to be involved in police encounters in San Jose. Despite the concern, they passed the law anyway. Progressives don’t give a shit about racial discrimination against minorities when it comes to harassment involving firearms.

 

[bellisarius]

Just another expensive political stunt doomed to failure.

 

[GothTalk]

In other words, Cali is looking to cut all the dead wood and sludge from it's State for productive citizens who understand what Community is and wants to promote a decent way of life...vs outhouse communities of freeloaders. Hence, why they leave for backwater States.

Yea.....that must be why you progressives are so terrified to actually get progressive in the states you control.

DO IT!!!! "Free shit for all!!!" in California, paid for by California.

 

[CuttingEdge]

Its already been semi-turned down by SCOTUS.

Last week, when it struck down Biden's attempt to force people to wear masks or get vaccinated, SCOTUS stated that the Covid 19 virus was part of American Life and cannot be singled out for specific actions.

This had broad implications for gun control too as the left tries to turn gun-violence into a "public health issue". With the ruling on masks striking that off the table, it will be referenced on any attempts to take the second amendment rights away as well when "public health" is brought up, like it is on this law. In this case it references the public cost of combating a public health issue.

Violent Crime is not exclusive to guns though.

In the United States, we value human life, and thus it is protected at all costs. This is why the US Coast Guard does searches costing millions of dollars for fishermen who may have capsized at sea. We do not charge commercial fishermen a separate fee or tax because they are commercial fishermen and are most likely going to need to be searched for. It is a general cost of society that all taxpayers must bear, even Arizonian's who have no coast!

If we start charging fees or taxes for individual costs of society, there would be no end to it

And that says nothing about the "right to bear arms will not be infringed". That is a whole lot of infringement!

 

[GothTalk]

And that says nothing about the "right to bear arms will not be infringed". That is a whole lot of infringement!

Now everyone knows, especially the good Komradez KNOW the only right that shall not be infringed is abortion... which is clearly TOTALLY untouchable by any government regulation, Roe v Wade explicitly states "The right to abortion shall not be infringed." unlike stupid penis substitute "rights".

 

[Rightguide]

A requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance? Not even in its present formation is the SCOTUS going to rule that unconstitutional.

The law is unconstitutional. Having to buy insurance that doesn't exist to access your constitutional rights is going to be declared unconstitutional. Paying a fee into a fund managed by an unnamed NGO to fight alleged gun crime violates the First Amendment, which is applied to the states by the 14th Amendment, of individuals made to do so because it may fund messages and public statements they don't agree with.

In fact, the ordinance does not identify how the fees will be spent at all. Penalties for non-compliance include the temporary or permanent seizure of one's firearms. The ordinance violates California state law by imposing taxes that have not been approved by the voters. The SCOTUS has ruled,"government “may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1943)

The ordinance violates the CA state constitution:

Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution preempts any local law that
“duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by
legislative implication.” Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco 158 Cal.App.4th 895, 903 (Cal.Ct. App. 2008)

"Thus, firearm regulation is not within the purview of the City of San Jose pursuant to the California Constitution because the Ordinance is preempted by California law." Gun law in California is fully occupied by the State Legislature.

 

[phrodeau]

Its already been semi-turned down by SCOTUS.

Last week, when it struck down Biden's attempt to force people to wear masks or get vaccinated, SCOTUS stated that the Covid 19 virus was part of American Life and cannot be singled out for specific actions.

This had broad implications for gun control too as the left tries to turn gun-violence into a "public health issue". With the ruling on masks striking that off the table, it will be referenced on any attempts to take the second amendment rights away as well when "public health" is brought up, like it is on this law. In this case it references the public cost of combating a public health issue.

Violent Crime is not exclusive to guns though.

In the United States, we value human life, and thus it is protected at all costs. This is why the US Coast Guard does searches costing millions of dollars for fishermen who may have capsized at sea. We do not charge commercial fishermen a separate fee or tax because they are commercial fishermen and are most likely going to need to be searched for. It is a general cost of society that all taxpayers must bear, even Arizonian's who have no coast!

If we start charging fees or taxes for individual costs of society, there would be no end to it

And that says nothing about the "right to bear arms will not be infringed". That is a whole lot of infringement!

Who ends up paying for this litigation?

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/26/texas-colleyville-synagogue-hostages-charges/amp/

Or this one?

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news...scheme-linked-to-truck-park-bar-shooting/?amp

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/0a530905d712050bb5449dfb67d7e7b5/c0d06b4931255a92-2b/s1280x1920/c8848a8adaca53f0a5112f4f25b0f07f765188c2.jpg

 

[JohnnySavage]

Who ends up paying for this litigation?

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/26/texas-colleyville-synagogue-hostages-charges/amp/

Or this one?

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news...scheme-linked-to-truck-park-bar-shooting/?amp

As described in the Constitution of the United States, we have an executive branch of government. That branch is responsible for the execution of federal laws. That includes a Department of Justice, that has prosecutors (trial attorneys) that prosecute those suspected of violating Federal law.

In most cases, the defendant pays for his/her own defense. Sometimes the Federal government picks up the cost, in the interest of fairness.

Those Federal prosecutors are government employees.

Also: The Constitution defines a Judicial branch. The Judicial branch has judges at three levels of court systems: a trial level and two appeal levels. The people that work for the Judicial branch (including the judges) are government employees. The Federal judges conduct the trials bought by the Federal prosecutors.

I hope this helps answer your question.

 

[colddiesel]

Who ends up paying for this litigation?

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/26/texas-colleyville-synagogue-hostages-charges/amp/

Or this one?

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news...scheme-linked-to-truck-park-bar-shooting/?amp

My bolds.

It is not litigation (civil law). It is prosecution (criminal law).

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Who ends up paying for this litigation?

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/26/texas-colleyville-synagogue-hostages-charges/amp/

Or this one?

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news...scheme-linked-to-truck-park-bar-shooting/?amp

A private law firm affiliated with a gun control organization has agreed to represent the city of San Jose pro bono in anticipated lawsuits. If at some point legal costs shift to the city, repealing the ordinance would be an option.

 

[phrodeau]

My bolds.

It is not litigation (civil law). It is prosecution (criminal law).

Lawyers. Tch.

 

[WillJ8787]

Yea.....that must be why you progressives are so terrified to actually get progressive in the states you control.

DO IT!!!! "Free shit for all!!!" in California, paid for by California.

Hey Freedumb and (my) Liberty loving idiot who wants to be left alone ..you moved from Cali so why not let those folks decide what is best for them and leave them alone!

Why are you not able.... authoritarian much?
Hypocrite much?

 

[GothTalk]

Hey Freedumb and (my) Liberty loving idiot who wants to be left alone ..you moved from Cali so why not let those folks decide what is best for them and leave them alone!

Why are you not able.... authoritarian much?
Hypocrite much?

I'm literally encouraging them to do all the "Progress" they want....lol I've even stated numerous times the 8th and 10th amendment should be the only federal "Rights" so that blue states can take all the guns, censor all the speech and socialize all the property/means of production they want.

Were you too stupid to realize that I have literally taken the most liberal position possible with regard to states rights and California running California possible or could you just not read??

 

[HisArpy]

1. It's unconstitutional because it imposes a tax on an enumerated Right.

2. It violates California law because it attempts to regulate in an area which the State has exclusive powers to regulate.

3. It violates California law because it mandates insurance for coverage of criminal acts.

4. It's unenforceable because the City cannot require non residents who are passing through or visiting to carry the insurance. Thus violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.


There are other reasons but chief among them are that this ordinance is stupid and only makes the City Council look authoritarian while scrambling to grab powers they aren't entitled to.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

How it started:

In other words, Cali is looking to cut all the dead wood and sludge from it's State for productive citizens who understand what Community is and wants to promote a decent way of life...vs outhouse communities of freeloaders. Hence, why they leave for backwater States.

How it's going:

https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/1219600_022516-kgo-tent-city-sf-img.jpg?w=1280&r=16:9
http://survivingsacramento.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/homeless-camp.jpg
https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/e0c081f0-07b4-11e8-91a7-c9cefea16f7a-780x481.jpg

Yep, things are right on track in the Golden State.

 

[HisArpy]

Were you too stupid to realize that I have literally taken the most liberal position possible with regard to states rights and California running California possible or could you just not read??

This, without exclusion of either former or latter.

 

[phrodeau]

I demand free guns and a lifetime supply of ammunition because the Second Amendment says so!

 

[The_Trouvere]

I used to favor the repeal of the Second Amendment, and the confiscation of all
privately owned firearms. I knew that it was not going happen, but I wanted it to
happen. After observing the sympathy for "the largely peaceful protests against
racial injustice," that followed the death of George Floyd, and which cost an esti-
mated two billion dollars in damage I have come to the view that if the police are
too defunded and demoralized to control the criminals, law abiding citizens need to
be able to defend themselves.

I would still like for gun ownership to be treated like car ownership. Gun owners
should be registered, they should be required to submit the result of a ballistics test
to the FBI, and they should be required to take a course and be tested on the proper
use of a gun, and the laws pertaining when and how a gun can be legally used.

 

[The_Trouvere]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/0a530905d712050bb5449dfb67d7e7b5/c0d06b4931255a92-2b/s1280x1920/c8848a8adaca53f0a5112f4f25b0f07f765188c2.jpg

The United States has not had to endure ground warfare since the Civil War because
we have Canada to the north of us, Mexico to the south of us, the Atlantic Ocean to
the east of us, and the Pacific Ocean to the west of us.

 

[Goldenfinger]

So what’s this going to do. The people who will do this aren’t the ones you need to worry about.

 

[KeithD]

The United States has not had to endure ground warfare since the Civil War because
we have Canada to the north of us, Mexico to the south of us, the Atlantic Ocean to
the east of us, and the Pacific Ocean to the west of us.

It certainly isn't because people overseas are afraid of U.S. citizens having guns. I've lived much of my life outside the United States, representing the U.S. abroad, and most of those I've met see individual Americans as soft pushovers. The trained army, yes, they see as capable. American citizens and their toys and need for comfort--absolutely not. They think we're all crazy to be so nuts about citizens having guns. I've lived in countries where current citizens know what it is to have fighting in the streets and they and their families under direct threat. Americans in this regard? Don't make me laugh.

 

[bellisarius]

I used to favor the repeal of the Second Amendment, and the confiscation of all
privately owned firearms. I knew that it was not going happen, but I wanted it to
happen. After observing the sympathy for "the largely peaceful protests against
racial injustice," that followed the death of George Floyd, and which cost an esti-
mated two billion dollars in damage I have come to the view that if the police are
too defunded and demoralized to control the criminals, law abiding citizens need to
be able to defend themselves.

I would still like for gun ownership to be treated like car ownership. Gun owners
should be registered, they should be required to submit the result of a ballistics test
to the FBI, and they should be required to take a course and be tested on the proper
use of a gun, and the laws pertaining when and how a gun can be legally used.

Driving on public roads is a privilege, having a firearm is a right.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Driving on public roads is a privilege, having a firearm is a right.

If it was a right it wouldn't be able to be taken away.