Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.
Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.
Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.
The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.
Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.
None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.
Only in America.
------------------------------------------
Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell
Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell
By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM
Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.
On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.
In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.
Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."
This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."
You need to learn the whole situation.
That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.
All that expense isn't free. The taxpayers of the city have to pay for it.
Why should the taxpayers of the state and city pay for the damage done by guns? Why shouldn't those who buy & sell guns & ammunition pay for it?
That tax isn't meant to prevent any crime. It's meant to pay for the results of crime which I believe is a great idea. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. The gun crazy people should. If you want a gun then pay for the damage the guns cause.
I also believe that people who own guns should have insurance to pay for the damage they do with that gun. If you put someone in the hospital or kill them, the insurance will pay for what you have done instead of the taxpayers of the state or city.
By the way, I was born and raised in Seattle. I've lived in the Seattle area all my life. I'm among the majority here who supports this tax.
I also believe that people who own guns should have insurance to pay for the damage they do with that gun. If you put someone in the hospital or kill them, the insurance will pay for what you have done instead of the taxpayers of the state or city.
Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.
Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.
And that would make some sense since the industry sells cars that do twice the speed limit and have internet access to distract you. The industry builds in features that encourage ppl to drive crazy. Car crashes mean car sales.
Just throw parents of criminals in jail and call it a day.
Even normal lawyers dont think that way. There is no other area where legal responsibility is imposed like that.It has everything to do with them. Normal people don't think that way.The ruling has nothing to do with 'liberals.'
Even normal lawyers dont think that way. There is no other area where legal responsibility is imposed like that.It has everything to do with them. Normal people don't think that way.The ruling has nothing to do with 'liberals.'
Not only that but federal law exempts gun manufactures and dealers from such liability.
The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.
I wondered who would be dumb enough to excuse this away.The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.
Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.
Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.
The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.
Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.
None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.
Only in America.
------------------------------------------
Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell
Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell
By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM
Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.
On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.
In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.
Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."
This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."
You need to learn the whole situation.
That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.
All that expense isn't free. The taxpayers of the city have to pay for it.
Why should the taxpayers of the state and city pay for the damage done by guns? Why shouldn't those who buy & sell guns & ammunition pay for it?
That tax isn't meant to prevent any crime. It's meant to pay for the results of crime which I believe is a great idea. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. The gun crazy people should. If you want a gun then pay for the damage the guns cause.
I also believe that people who own guns should have insurance to pay for the damage they do with that gun. If you put someone in the hospital or kill them, the insurance will pay for what you have done instead of the taxpayers of the state or city.
By the way, I was born and raised in Seattle. I've lived in the Seattle area all my life. I'm among the majority here who supports this tax.
the ruling has nothing to do with 'liberals.'
And GM should pay for every crime committed by their cars. And Apple for every phone call made by a terrorist with an iPhone, Microsoft for every Internet scam or computer used in a crime, etc etc.The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.
Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.
Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.
The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.
Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.
None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.
Only in America.
------------------------------------------
Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell
Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell
By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM
Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.
On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.
In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.
Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."
This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."
You need to learn how to use your head. If someone is killed with a baseball bat we don't call it baseball bat violence or tax them for the damage they cause. They don't cause the damage, the people misusing them do. What you believe doesn't amount to much since you don't have the power to strip people from their rights. I think liberals should pay a stupid tax because of all the harm they do if you want to play that game.You need to learn the whole situation.
That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.
All that expense isn't free. The taxpayers of the city have to pay for it.
Why should the taxpayers of the state and city pay for the damage done by guns? Why shouldn't those who buy & sell guns & ammunition pay for it?
That tax isn't meant to prevent any crime. It's meant to pay for the results of crime which I believe is a great idea. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. The gun crazy people should. If you want a gun then pay for the damage the guns cause.
I also believe that people who own guns should have insurance to pay for the damage they do with that gun. If you put someone in the hospital or kill them, the insurance will pay for what you have done instead of the taxpayers of the state or city.
By the way, I was born and raised in Seattle. I've lived in the Seattle area all my life. I'm among the majority here who supports this tax.
OK, someone explain it to me.
It appears to be a tax on guns at 25 dollars/gun. And a few cents per round. While I don't like taxes it is what government does to raise revenue. Since guns sales are sky rocketing it seems like the natural target for a tax increase. So the judge, in my opinion, ruled properly, although I don't like putting anymore taxes on the people.
He's a lawyer and a judge. Not God. There's a difference, trust me.OK, someone explain it to me.
It appears to be a tax on guns at 25 dollars/gun. And a few cents per round. While I don't like taxes it is what government does to raise revenue. Since guns sales are sky rocketing it seems like the natural target for a tax increase. So the judge, in my opinion, ruled properly, although I don't like putting anymore taxes on the people.
Every time a dealer sells a firearm to a guy, they must first call the Fed Govt who does a background check (NICS check). The govt issues a "Yes" or "No" on whether the guy is allowed to buy a gun.I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.
So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?
