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

RetiredUSNChief said:

Sounds like a direct threat to the Second Amendment to me.

You can't *tax* a right and then confiscate their firearms for failure to pay the tax any more than you can charge a poll tax and deny people their right to vote if they don't pay.

This ain't gonna stand.

Click to expand...

Well said !

This is just another chip in the wall of our 2A Rights. That’s all it is. They will pass whatever they can, and then when some court says it’s unconstitutional years later, if ever, they will have gained just that much more of a foothold.

The ironic thing is that the “Jim Crow” term is thrown about a lot today by those that are typically aligned with antis, but strangely, they don’t make that connection when it comes to taking away guns, even though that was one of the very hallmarks of that era. I guess they’re ok with “Jim Crow” type oppression if it’s applied to everyone, as opposed to just a certain race.

It is not law abiding citizens that are causing the problems, but they will pay the penalty.
Interesting how such thinking works.

First I have to ask the question if the guns aren't registered, how do they know who is a firearms owner so they can impose this tax? California the land of fruits & nuts!!!

Riomouse911 said:

I don’t think this one falls under Ca govt code 53071 because it’s not banning or restricting possession or ownership, nor is it imposing a legal burden on people passing through the city, it is only requiring “gun insurance” for a resident who resides in the city itself.

It’s still utter BS. It should be fought as a racist tax on low income people who are exercising their constitutional rights enshrined in the 2nd. “Only the wealthy can afford to use their rights”, etc.

I hope it loses badly in Court ASAP.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

Your second paragraph makes an excellent point and provides a good argument for striking down the law, should it be enacted. Well, actually, it looks like it WAS enacted.

Basura Blanca said:

In 2019, the City of San Diego wrote and passed a "safe" storage ordinance into the municipal code that goes well beyond what the state's own requires. In a nutshell, if you live within the city, firearms have to be kept locked up or disabled unless you are in immediate control of them (i.e. on your body). This local ordinance is still in effect. A lot of stuff that should go nowhere does.

Click to expand...

That ordinance does not impose fines for non compliance. That's why it wasn't thrown out by a Judge. It is nothing more than "feel good" Toro Caca passed by a bunch of brain dead idiots in a pathetic attempt to demonstrate that they are doing something good.

Virtue signaling is a very apt description.

What do you do when egg production is down? Why, you send someone out to squeeze the chickens. It doesn't help egg production, it annoys the chickens, and it wastes the time of the chicken squeezers, but it allows you to say that you are "doing something" about the problem. It's political theater.

We do have a small exise tax on guns and ammunition, but that gets spent on shooting related recreation. Our range has been the beneficiary of those funds. You can have a tax on a fundamental right, so long as the tax is minimal and not prohibitive.

If you think about it, San Jose already levies fines on people who use guns to commit crimes. It happens all the time in the legal system. Now they want to tax the people not committing the crimes. Stinks to high heaven.

GAF said:

It is not law abiding citizens that are causing the problems, but they will pay the penalty.
Interesting how such thinking works.

Click to expand...

Well, they know scofflaws won't pay the tax?

tark said:

That ordinance does not impose fines for non compliance. That's why it wasn't thrown out by a Judge.

Click to expand...

It was originally written as a misdemeanor ($1000 fine), as adopted it was changed to an infraction. But there's a fine. It wasn't thrown out by a judge because it never went before a court.

All that is beside the point though. The city wrote a local ordinance which goes beyond the state's own version of the same thing, in spite of any "state pre-emptive clause when it comes to gun laws". There's no automatic win like that at work here. LA has a ban on subcompact handgun sales within the city. Sunnyvale has it's LCM restriction. San Jose seems poised to throw similar flak in front of gun owners. All of this is done at a local level, enacting stricter ordinances than the state. It happens.

denton said:

Now they want to tax the people not committing the crimes. Stinks to high heaven.

Click to expand...

It's like trying to stop drunk driving by making it harder for sober drivers to get cars.

Aim1 said:

Not only tax but insurance also. Not sure if this is legal or not.





https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifesty...nfiscate-firearms-noncompliance?cmpid=FNC_app




View attachment 1008586

Click to expand...

I'd love to see the stuff that goes down if they try to take law abiding citizens guns away...