San Jose to tax gun owners force them to carry insurance, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

Why not? They tax your house and will seize it if you don't pay.

The city council's aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths.

Click to expand...

Someone has to pay for the overhead of the revolving door for criminals, might as well be law abiding citizens that have political views that oppose yours…

This will likely become a “tack-on” charge if the police deem it necessary. Much like a window tint law, rarely actively enforced unless the suspect stands out. My greater fear is the “informing” that will ensue by disgruntled neighbors, angry ex-wives, and irate in-laws.

Ordinary people become common criminals through lazy apathetic non-action, any action to comply requires time, effort, and money none of which they agree with on principle alone.

I cannot see any angle where this bodes well for gun-owners, police, or general public welfare. The government benefits from more tax revenue and liberals rejoice at the great societal “progress” they have achieved through the suppression of individual freedom.

A former next door neighbor had flown F-18s at NAS Lemoore, then moved here for his NMPC job (billet) in Millington TN..

He told me that he could relate to strangers here, the many pro-Sec. Amendment and pro-Constitution people here much better than his relatives out near San Jose.

Who is filing a lawsuit about those wingnuts on the San Jose City Politburo?

It won’t hold up in court, they can tax future sales, but not even the 9th circuit will let this stand.

This will be in fact the start of a local registry. If you don't have papers then you don't have a firearm any more! Trying to take another nibble or two from the 2A again.

About the same as taxing everyone that owns a smartphone. It is dangerous and could hurt the politicians. Might as well have a use tax and regulate the 1A as well. Show your papers or they will be confiscated!

You cannot comply your way out of tyranny.

The sheeple will comply. They always do. Cause it's kali, don't ya know.

Bill

I would want to see more details before reacting to an alarmist headline. On its face it sounds like a gross overreach.

What other guaranteed rights do they intend to tax?

I can’t see this passing judicial scrutiny.

Why not tax and require insurance for cameras, recorders, and players in the name of preventing crimes with them, from invasion of privacy, to black mail, to child porn?

Last US DoJ NIJ survey of a nationwide sample of prisoners who used or carried a gun in the crime for which they were serving time, reported acquiring their guns mostly (91%) from gray or black market sources, only 9% reported using legal retail sources including gun shops, pawn shops, or gun shows.

I don't think you can tax a right granted by the second amendment of the constitution. If that is the case, then tax and require liability insurance for politicians and clergy. Words and religion have killed more people over the years than guns. To go further, why not tax people who have kids in school. Why should seniors and people who chose not to have kids have to pay for education?

If this stands then it is time for a poll tax.

It will go nowhere. California has a pre-emptive clause when it comes to gun laws. Cities cannot make their own laws which are more restrictive or conflict with state laws. I was living in the Bay Area when Feinstein was Mayor of SFO. She tried to outlaw pistols in the SFO city limits. The first judge to see the new law slapped it down.

Almost sounds like they are baiting Benitez.

Taxing the innocent for the costs accrued by the guilty is so obviously wrong.

It's kindergarten thinking at best--one person jaywalks, so, let's ticket every pedestrian.

Fyrstyk said:

I don't think you can tax a right granted by the second amendment of the constitution.

Click to expand...

Well, there's already the precedent of the NFA. Therefore, certain kinds of guns, that according to the judges fall outside the 2nd Amendment, might be taxed. It's pretty clear that a blanket tax on all guns would not pass scrutiny. Also, it matters what jurisdiction is doing the taxing. That's why I said I'd like to see more details regarding this proposal.

It seems that the San Jose authorities are just tossing ideas around. Too early to become alarmed.

Coming soon! To Californorado! Preemption just removed from state law here!

Can't wait to see the results.

Fyrstyk said:

I don't think you can tax a right granted by the second amendment of the constitution.

Click to expand...

It’s not granted, it’s recognized. That’s not a minor distinction.

Not the first idiot jurisdiction perfectly willing to pass law(s) that will never pass judicial review in my opinion… We’ve even seen a bit of that here in Florida - but it’s been defeated if memory serves.

In the short term though they can make it hard on the folks that elected them. Hooray for California… making every other state look reasonable by comparison.

daverich4 said:

It’s not granted, it’s recognized. That’s not a minor distinction.

Click to expand...

The right that is "recognized" is the innate right to self-defense, under the common law. What particular weapons fall under that, is an open question. Furthermore, the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment is not a matter of "natural law," but of a civic defense framework of the early republic, because the Founders were too cheap (and too leery of central authority) to provide for a standing army.

When the word tax is struck down it normally becomes changed to fee. Can a city like San Jose impose a fee on gun owners? Geeze I am glad I don't live in a cesspool of idiots. The problem is when it comes to gun violence most gun control fans simply do not want to face the truth. Growing up prior to the GCA of 1968 I could walk into a hardware store and buy a gun as easily as a hammer. Yet, we had no gun problems, I wonder why that was?

Ron

AlexanderA said:

The right that is "recognized" is the innate right to self-defense, under the common law. What particular weapons fall under that, is an open question. Furthermore, the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment is not a matter of "natural law," but of a civic defense framework of the early republic, because the Founders were too cheap (and too leery of central authority) to provide for a standing army.

Click to expand...

To be honest, it’s not clear to me if you’re disagreeing with me and, if so, which part? Because if a right is “granted” by the government, it can be taken away.

Jim Watson said:

Why not? They tax your house and will seize it if you don't pay.

Click to expand...

What you fail to totally misunderstand is somewhere after the ratification of our ( ????? ) Constitution someone's (demon rats ???) Changed it so BIG BROTHER ( uncle Sam ) would have Immenit domain over just about everything in the USA, EXCEPT firearms were EXCLUDED because enough people in Congress knew the right to TAX, was the right to DESTROY. If you know and watch the I.R.S. tactics ( under Obama especially) how true it is!!!!!!!

Firearms were excluded from what?
Tax?
Ever heard of the $200 transfer tax on Naughty Guns and Things ever since 1934?
Ever hear of Federal Excise Tax on all guns and ammo? Allegedly supposed to go to hunting and shooting support, but I bet that gets "borrowed" from like other allegedly earmarked tax money.