It was approved.

https://americanmilitarynews.c...ance-pay-annual-fee/

CA city forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance, pay annual fee of $25.00

But 35% of the people don’t have car insurance and are much more likely to cause damage. Just another feel good money grab that will do absolutely nothing to stop gun violence.

The governments solution to everything they don’t know how to fix.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Oh my, how things have changed since the 80's. It seems like only last week that I entered Reed's Sporting Goods on Alum Rock Blvd in San Jose and purchased my first gun ever. a S&W L-Frame.

Now the Reed's building burnt to the ground and they are taxing guns.

The city has always had a bit of an anti-gun element. Anyone recall Chief McNamara and his battles with pro 2A cop LeRoy Pyle? We're talking late 80's here.

McNamara was a clown. didn’t he want to have the force armed with .22’s ?
My folks went to high school with the Reeds as well as the Sheldon’s who owned the hobby shop on alum rock. My grandparents lived off Alum Rock for 70 years. I bought several guns as well as scouts, fishing, and bike gear at Reeds. Their annual ammo sale was legendary

Not to drift the thread too much, but did you know that Mr Reed of Reed's Sporting Goods is the great grandson of James Reed of the Donner Party?

Well Documented in several places, So it's not just a wives tale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Reed

End of drift... I just had to toss that in ---- I bought my very first gun from the great grandson of a member of the Donner Party.

Yeah the Donner James Reed story is known to old timers. The various streets in downtown SJ by the university are named after them as well. Reed, Virginia, Margaret

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
It’s a tax on a constitutional right, no different than a poll tax.

What is the National Firearms Act of 1934?

Step 1: Injunctions will be filed to prevent enforcement until it has been through the courts.
Step 2: Those laws will be struck down as unconstitutional.

flashguy

It is nothing like a poll tax, except that it is unconstitutional.

I suspect that this law won't last long.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
It’s a tax on a constitutional right, no different than a poll tax.

What is the National Firearms Act of 1934?

Although I believe it is unconstitutional, it was passed as a tax on transferring a particular class of firearms, not one covering all of them. Congress knew that a general ban (or tax) would not pass muster, so they crafted NFA 1934 in the hopes it would be effective. So far, it remains in power. The class of firearms affected (full auto and a few others) is not one most people are interested in, so the outcry to get rid of it has not been strong.

flashguy

quote:

Slapping lawsuits that fail to prevent the insanity may as well be nothing.

The thing is though, it will be considered a civil rights violation in which case the city of San Jose will be required to pay the legal fees of those representing the 2nd Amendment. That happened in Chicago a few years back to the tune of something like 6-8 million dollars. That kind of cost can prevent a lot of insanity.

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Slapping lawsuits that fail to prevent the insanity may as well be nothing.

The thing is though, it will be considered a civil rights violation in which case the city of San Jose will be required to pay the legal fees of those representing the 2nd Amendment. That happened in Chicago a few years back to the tune of something like 6-8 million dollars. That kind of cost can prevent a lot of insanity.

Until they start making those passing the laws accountable this will never stop. They could care less about lawsuits. Who pays the millions.. the tax payer of course!

So how do they know how many/what guns you have - bought/sold/traded? How will this fee be administered??

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sgalczyn,

Another attempt by politicians to show they "care" enough to do something about gun violence.
Just a box they have to check off before re-election time so they don't get outflanked from the left in the land of fruits and nuts.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
It is nothing like a poll tax, except that it is unconstitutional.

I suspect that this law won't last long.

The Ninth Circuit (which California is part of) has ultimately upheld every single gun law that has come before it, so the odds are pretty good that it will uphold this one too. The SCOTUS is the only court that can overrule the Ninth, and that is years into the future and contingent on them taking the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Slapping lawsuits that fail to prevent the insanity may as well be nothing.

The thing is though, it will be considered a civil rights violation in which case the city of San Jose will be required to pay the legal fees of those representing the 2nd Amendment. That happened in Chicago a few years back to the tune of something like 6-8 million dollars. That kind of cost can prevent a lot of insanity.

Until they start making those passing the laws accountable this will never stop. They could care less about lawsuits. Who pays the millions.. the tax payer of course!

Exactly.

We're going to be forced to do something about califonia soon. Because californians lack the spine to do it themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
We're going to be forced to do something about califonia soon. Because Californians lack the spine to do it themselves.

I don't think it's a lack of spine--more like a lack of care. The citizens of California who care about gun rights and freedom are greatly outnumbered by those who do not. It doesn't matter how stiff one's spine is if one has the wrong ideas.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
We're going to be forced to do something about califonia soon. Because Californians lack the spine to do it themselves.

I don't think it's a lack of spine--more like a lack of care. The citizens of California who care about gun rights and freedom are greatly outnumbered by those who do not. It doesn't matter how stiff one's spine is if one has the wrong ideas.

flashguy

Those who really cared...would have left by now. Those who are still there have proven that they have different priorities, and other things are more important to them.

The insurance idea is clever, but misguided - and probably unconstitutional since its clear intent is to limit the right to have a gun. (And poor people, who often live in rough parts of town where a gun is a good thing to have to protect your family, will be most affected by the ordinance).

I can't think of many "gun control" ideas that are good. I agree we should secure our guns so thieves and kids and mentally unstable people can't get their hands on them.

I chuckle when I hear about "gun violence," not because violence is funny, but because it is not the gun that is responsible for the violence. It is invariably people who do the violence, and one suspects it is the same relatively small population that is doing most of it - repeatedly. Talking about "gun violence" is funny because that term is usually a precursor to making the case that the right to keep and bear arms should be limited - as in San Jose.

quote:

Originally posted by RoverSig:
I chuckle when I hear about "gun violence," not because violence is funny, but because it is not the gun that is responsible for the violence... Talking about "gun violence" is funny because that term is usually a precursor to making the case that the right to keep and bear arms should be limited - as in San Jose.

I when I hear discussions about gun violence, b/c they imply that homicides & assaults by other means are somehow less tragic or worthy of attention.

On the flip side, I'm not a fan of the term gun rights for the same reason you dislike gun violence. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't have rights. It's their owners who have rights. It's the same idea we talk about voter rights and not ballot, poll, or election rights.

It's not that they don't care. The care, and actively support this kind of bullshit. If someone put this on a statewide ballot as an initiative, it would probably pass by a wide margin.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
We're going to be forced to do something about califonia soon. Because Californians lack the spine to do it themselves.

I don't think it's a lack of spine--more like a lack of care. The citizens of California who care about gun rights and freedom are greatly outnumbered by those who do not. It doesn't matter how stiff one's spine is if one has the wrong ideas.

flashguy