# Taxation without Representation?



## Hugo Furst (Jun 30, 2021)

Will this make it to the Supreme Court?









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

Reuters/Peter DaSilvaJust five weeks after last month’s massacre at a San Jose light-rail yard that left nine people dead, the city has taken unprecedented gun-control action.In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, San Jose’s city council approved a national first that will see gun owners being...




					www.yahoo.com
				




San Jose Will Force Gun Owners to Cover Costs of Gun Violence After Mass Shooting​
"
Jamie Ross
Wed, June 30, 2021, 10:35 AM·2 min read







Reuters/Peter DaSilva
Just five weeks after last month’s massacre at a San Jose light-rail yard that left nine people dead, the city has taken unprecedented gun-control action.
In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, San Jose’s city council approved a national first that will see gun owners being forced to compensate taxpayers for the spiraling costs of gun violence. According to the _San Francisco Chronicle_, gun owners in California’s third-largest city will be required to take out liability insurance for their firearms, and *pay an annual tax that will help fund emergency responses to gun-related calls.*"


----------



## mdk (Jun 30, 2021)

No, it should rightfully be laughed out of court at the lowers level and they likely won't bother to hear it if it does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> San Jose’s city council approved a national first that will see gun owners being forced to compensate taxpayers for the spiraling costs of gun violence.



That is awesome!!!!

How will they be collecting from the criminal gun owners with unregistered weapons?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > San Jose’s city council approved a national first that will see gun owners being forced to compensate taxpayers for the spiraling costs of gun violence.
> ...


Sales tax increase.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 30, 2021)

mdk said:


> No, it should rightfully be laughed out of court at the lowers level and they likely won't bother to hear it if it does.


Clearly an infringement on a person's right to keep and bear arms.  SCOTUS will overrule it.


----------



## Votto (Jun 30, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Will this make it to the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Left won't be happy until all guns are unregistered and illegal.


----------



## task0778 (Jun 30, 2021)

I think The San Jose decision will assuredly face a court challenge in the near future, and the losing side will appeal the case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Whether they will hear the case is another story, if they agree with the lower court ruling than they may let it slide.  But I can't believe this is constitutional, even in California.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 30, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Will this make it to the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Unconstitutional.....

Murdock v Pennsylvania....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

*Held:*
*- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.*

*- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.*

*- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
..**.It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....*


*... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...*
*Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)*


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jun 30, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Will this make it to the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seems to me, people pay for home insurance, rental insurance, umbrella insurance, car insurance and some UE Insurance, and many never see a dime from any claim.  Why not gun insurance?  Oh yeah, these fatal four words:  "shall not be infringed".


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 30, 2021)

Think those owning illegal firearms are going to take out an insurance policy?

Crips, Bloods, etc?


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jun 30, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Think those owning illegal firearms are going to take out an insurance policy?
> 
> Crips, Bloods, etc?


"Crips, Bloods" and etc.?  You biases are noted. 

That said it's likely that every demographic has persons who own, possess and have in their custody firearms.  Most are sane, sober and law abiding citizens.  Many are not, and the only way to provide a little more safety within the United States and its territories is to build a national data base wherein every law enforcement agency*** reports to this data base any contact of those who are arrested for any crime of violence (felony or misdemeanor), any evidence of being detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others, and any evidence that they are addicted to alcohol or illicit drugs.

***this includes all Federal, State LE Agencies; local police and sheriff agencies; all prosecutors who have indicted for crimes noted above; all psychologists, psychiatrists or social worker, probation or parole agent, who believe a person is a danger as noted above, and any clerk of the court when a defendant is placed on Probation and the terms and conditions of said release prohibits the ownership, possession or custody and control a firearm or any deadly weapon; and any person who has been identified as a member of a criminal gang.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 30, 2021)

100% unconstitutional


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jun 30, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> 100% unconstitutional


Huh?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 30, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Will this make it to the Supreme Court?
> ...


You clearly don't understand the constitution do you?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 30, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Will this make it to the Supreme Court?
> ...


And NONE of those policies are intended to cover the INTENTIONAL actions of a third party.

NEXT


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 30, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


...nor insurance.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jun 30, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


You missed the point entirely.  Civil Actions are settled everyday when _mens rea_ is not proved.   Consider the sale of a firearm, does the seller have a duty to make sure the buyer will not murder someone, or leave a gun on a table for a child to kill themselves or others accidently?   A seller has a duty to use due diligence before selling a gun or giving a gun to another, IMO.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 30, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Consider the sale of a firearm, does the seller have a duty to make sure the buyer will not murder someone, or leave a gun on a table for a child to kill themselves or others accidently?




Uh...

no


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 1, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


You need to go back to law school.  Learn about subsequent intervening or superseding causes.  

Then, go to insurance school and learn about the insurability for the criminal actions of others.  When your ignorant ass is done with that, go fuck yourself and lick a dog's balls.


----------



## DBA (Jul 1, 2021)

And so it begins. Nothing prevents them from simply making the tax unaffordable, thus removing guns from law-abiding citizens. Obviously, this won't affect criminals with guns.

San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 1, 2021)

DBA said:


> And so it begins. Nothing prevents them from simply making the tax unaffordable, thus removing guns from law-abiding citizens. Obviously, this won't affect criminals with guns.
> 
> San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance


It will fail in a court challenge.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 1, 2021)

Poll Tax
Media License Fee
The JW tax

It will go the way of those laws in short order.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 1, 2021)

California's state constitution doesn't provide for the individual right to own a gun ... and this state is being used as a "test-bed" for gun regulation ... a laboratory in democracy ... this is different from Chicago's ban on handguns, as the Illinois state constitution does explicitly state the individual has a right to gun ownership ... Chicago can't regulate guns under _Illinois_ Law ...

What are we afraid of? ... will this measure actually work to reduce cold-blooded murder on the streets? ... I doubt it but we won't know for sure until some city steps forward and tries ... San Jose is just a small agricultural community with a couple of traffic lights last time I pasted through ... who are we to tell artichoke farmers how to run their lives? ... looking at 320 acres of Brussels sprouts is enough to drive anyone on a homicidal rampage ... they have "special" problems there, breathing all of San Francisco's farts ...

If Them the People of San Jose don't like it, they can vote in different city council members ... or move to Merced ... [giggle] ... or Turlock ... [collapses in hysterical laughter] ...


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 1, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> California's state constitution doesn't provide for the individual right to own a gun ... and this state is being used as a "test-bed" for gun regulation ... a laboratory in democracy ... this is different from Chicago's ban on handguns, as the Illinois state constitution does explicitly state the individual has a right to gun ownership ... Chicago can't regulate guns under _Illinois_ Law ...
> 
> What are we afraid of? ... will this measure actually work to reduce cold-blooded murder on the streets? ... I doubt it but we won't know for sure until some city steps forward and tries ... San Jose is just a small agricultural community with a couple of traffic lights last time I pasted through ... who are we to tell artichoke farmers how to run their lives? ... looking at 320 acres of Brussels sprouts is enough to drive anyone on a homicidal rampage ... they have "special" problems there, breathing all of San Francisco's farts ...
> 
> If Them the People of San Jose don't like it, they can vote in different city council members ... or move to Merced ... [giggle] ... or Turlock ... [collapses in hysterical laughter] ...


San Jose is the third largest city in CA. and the 10th largest in the United States.  In 2019 San Jose's population was 1.021,795; only LA and San Diego are larger.  San Francisco'd population is 874,961.

When was the last time you visited San Jose?  In 1960 it was only 204,196.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 1, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > California's state constitution doesn't provide for the individual right to own a gun ... and this state is being used as a "test-bed" for gun regulation ... a laboratory in democracy ... this is different from Chicago's ban on handguns, as the Illinois state constitution does explicitly state the individual has a right to gun ownership ... Chicago can't regulate guns under _Illinois_ Law ...
> ...



*When was the last time you visited San Jose?  In 1960 it was only 204,196.*

I guess it has been a little while ... traffic on the Bayshore was light ... Intel was manufacturing bi-magnetic cores ... and the Big-E fit underneath the Golden Gate Bridge ... so, before TV had color, whenever that was ... I was born and raised in San Francisco, that's why I use the 395 ...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jul 1, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


This isn't a sales tax.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jul 7, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Will this make it to the Supreme Court?
> ...


Weh-heh-hell ... you got one right.  Congratulations.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 28, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Sales tax increase.



That will not effect illegal guns that are stolen, smuggled in from China, etc.
Criminals are not likely to be paying any sales tax.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 28, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> You missed the point entirely.  Civil Actions are settled everyday when _mens rea_ is not proved.   Consider the sale of a firearm, does the seller have a duty to make sure the buyer will not murder someone, or leave a gun on a table for a child to kill themselves or others accidently?   A seller has a duty to use due diligence before selling a gun or giving a gun to another, IMO.



Due diligence does not include illegally discriminate against some due to race, gender, age, religion, etc.
There likely was no visible indication Mrs. Lanza was going to be killed by her son and he was going to steal her rifle.


----------

