San Jose Will Force Gun Owners to Cover Costs of Gun Violence After Mass Shooting

That will be found unConstitutional. But, leave it up to stupid Californian Democrats.

 

On what grounds would a registration be found unconstitutional?
Or an insurance?

A tax might be depending on the arguments but the others have precedent.

 

It depends. They can't force me to have liability insurance on my car unless I license it to use on private roads. And there is no Constitutional right to have a car.

I carry a $1,000,000 umbrella liability policy to protect me for any lawsuit claiming my liability, that I caused someone else harm. Can the government force EVERYONE to carry such a liability policy because they might cause harm to someone else?

And who would be the liabled person under this? The person committed a crime in shooting another person so any insurance they carry I am SURE would be null and void if the harm happened during the committing of a crime. Use your car to run someone down and see if the insurance company will pay to repair it or cover the other persons injuries.

And are they going to FORCE insurance companies to underwrite this liability. How are they going to do that?

 

if every legal gun owner tossed theirs into the ocean, there would still be deaths by guns, so this doesn't make any sense. but it makes sense that cali would rather f*** over legal adults with a tax than actually do something about crime. they'd just find something else to tax/ban.

 

It could be underwritten by the state / fed like flood insurance

 

All you have to do is obey the law... Changing the law to make people law breakers is bullshit tactics and circumvents the second amendment.

 

Nothing is being bypassed
What are the second and third words in the second amendment?

 

Generally people will follow the law until it becomes tyrannical and/or unjust. Just because something is law, does not mean that it is a just law. And when people talk about law abiding in the context of guns they are not just talking about following the law. They are also talking about not using those guns to commit violent acts like robbery or murder. Simply owning a gun should NEVER be a crime in and of itself. And people that own guns should not be treated as if they were criminals simply for owning a gun. That includes taxing them or making it harder to own a gun just because of the actions of a relatively few people.

 

The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is not contingent upon the 2nd and 3rd words of the 2nd Amendment.

 

Do you understand what a comma does in a sentence?

I disagree that the founders just randomly placed a string of irrelevant words to start the amendment.

 

Nope, gun ownership should be subsidized for honest people instead. What is really behind the call for liability insurance is the urge to make it harder for law-abiding people to own guns. Will dishonest and violent people be less likely to own guns? No.

 

Especially the poor and minorities that the left thinks are inferior and do not trust.

 

It’s called two clauses.

 

Yep, do you?

This was already decided in case law. You don't have to take my word for it. DC v Heller.

 

I don’t see how this is constitutional at all. Making someone pay to use their rights? That’s why religion is tax free because it’s not constitutional to lay taxes on a right, right? <Mod Edit>


https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance

 

The perfect analogy....

 

except people riding the bus, uber, planes, boats don't pay "irresponsible motorists" insurance. terrible analogy.

 

An irrational policy that will accomplish nothing? That’s the dem way.

 

Excellent point lol

 

Do you think that's because the people RIDING those systems wouldn't be responsible for accidents like the transport OWNERS could??

OMFG, that's gold my friend

 

How about massive traffic accidents, like 18-car pileups on the freeway? How much do they cost a government for first responders, police, fire department, etc, So why shouldn't San Jose pass a tax on every car owner so that in this case a totally uninvolved and innocent party can share some of the burden of the cost caused by some distant third party? Cars are taxed today but with an eye on a use tax; this would be similar but based on a non-use tax!

There seems to be no bounds on the absurdity of governments with an agenda.

 

Kind of like a poll tax. That's headed to court. Registration is one thing. Penalizing someone monetarily is another.

 

Actually a double tax since more than likely taxpayers own guns.

 

are you actually trying to tell us a passenger has never caused an accident on a bus, plane, boat car or train?
The smileys are perfect for that. Thanks!

 

Yeah, I figured you'd backtrack in that direction...

Best you could do after the hole you dug....