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 dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.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?
no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?
Tell us...which mass shooter was a felon who got their gun legally? do you mean the South Carolina church shooter? he was arrested for drugs and could not pass a background check........yet he did...why? Because two people failed to submit his record to NICS.....and he passed the federally mandated background check.
Can you tell us which one you are referring to?
WTF? Gun violence is like automobile accidents? Are you still hung over from Christmas?The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.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?
no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?
Tell us...which mass shooter was a felon who got their gun legally? do you mean the South Carolina church shooter? he was arrested for drugs and could not pass a background check........yet he did...why? Because two people failed to submit his record to NICS.....and he passed the federally mandated background check.
Can you tell us which one you are referring to?
you can start with san bernadino. that was a straw purchase.
it shouldn't be up to "people" to submit records like the loser's in south carolina. these things should be automatic.... like when you get a traffic violation and your insurance goes up. don't you think we should, minimally, concern ourselves with stopping gun violence like we do making sure insurance companies get to charge higher rates?
The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.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?
no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?
Tell us...which mass shooter was a felon who got their gun legally? do you mean the South Carolina church shooter? he was arrested for drugs and could not pass a background check........yet he did...why? Because two people failed to submit his record to NICS.....and he passed the federally mandated background check.
Can you tell us which one you are referring to?
you can start with san bernadino. that was a straw purchase.
it shouldn't be up to "people" to submit records like the loser's in south carolina. these things should be automatic.... like when you get a traffic violation and your insurance goes up. don't you think we should, minimally, concern ourselves with stopping gun violence like we do making sure insurance companies get to charge higher rates?
The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.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?
no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?
Tell us...which mass shooter was a felon who got their gun legally? do you mean the South Carolina church shooter? he was arrested for drugs and could not pass a background check........yet he did...why? Because two people failed to submit his record to NICS.....and he passed the federally mandated background check.
Can you tell us which one you are referring to?
you can start with san bernadino. that was a straw purchase.
it shouldn't be up to "people" to submit records like the loser's in south carolina. these things should be automatic.... like when you get a traffic violation and your insurance goes up. don't you think we should, minimally, concern ourselves with stopping gun violence like we do making sure insurance companies get to charge higher rates?
It's called 'grasping at straws'...The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.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.
So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?
no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?
Tell us...which mass shooter was a felon who got their gun legally? do you mean the South Carolina church shooter? he was arrested for drugs and could not pass a background check........yet he did...why? Because two people failed to submit his record to NICS.....and he passed the federally mandated background check.
Can you tell us which one you are referring to?
you can start with san bernadino. that was a straw purchase.
it shouldn't be up to "people" to submit records like the loser's in south carolina. these things should be automatic.... like when you get a traffic violation and your insurance goes up. don't you think we should, minimally, concern ourselves with stopping gun violence like we do making sure insurance companies get to charge higher rates?
Let's start at the beginning...do you know how a straw purchase works?
WTF? Gun violence is like automobile accidents? Are you still hung over from Christmas?The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.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.
So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?
no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?
Tell us...which mass shooter was a felon who got their gun legally? do you mean the South Carolina church shooter? he was arrested for drugs and could not pass a background check........yet he did...why? Because two people failed to submit his record to NICS.....and he passed the federally mandated background check.
Can you tell us which one you are referring to?
you can start with san bernadino. that was a straw purchase.
it shouldn't be up to "people" to submit records like the loser's in south carolina. these things should be automatic.... like when you get a traffic violation and your insurance goes up. don't you think we should, minimally, concern ourselves with stopping gun violence like we do making sure insurance companies get to charge higher rates?
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.
the gun industry is the only industry shielded from liability for the misuse of its inherently dangerous products if you're a bartender and sell a drink to someone drunk, you're liable if they get into a car accident in many states.
minimally, the discussion should be about holding dealers liable for their negligent sales.
i know you're underdeveloped mentally, but even you should understand that.
'Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?'
Comprehensive mental healthcare treatment for minors – early detection is key, with therapy appropriate to address the mental illness; indeed, many mental disorders begin during childhood.
Mass shootings are committed by those who are mentally ill, not just those with criminal records.
And mass shootings can be addressed by means other than 'gun control.'
The problem, of course, is that we as a Nation refuse to make the commitment necessary to institute a comprehensive mental healthcare treatment program for minors.
We have gun control. From your perspective everything is extreme since you live apart from reality.Even the term "mentally ill" is a problem, it is not definitive and many times subjective. IMO those who are so obsessed with their 2nd A. Right are mentally disturbed, at least when anyone brings up gun control. Simply read the comments on threads dedicated just to the idea of talking about the idea of gun control.
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."
Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.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."
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.
Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.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."
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.
Bullshit. On all counts.Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.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."
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.
You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.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."
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.
Bull. They tax cigarettes to control people, that's all. Remember who really runs this country: Insurance companies.
Speaking of which, a shooter is liable for damages or deaths he or she may have caused. A victim can sue you for compensation via payroll garnishments, property such as an automobiles or house, and if the shooting took place on your property, even the insurance company.
lolThe 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."
The ruling has nothing to do with 'liberals.'
You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.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."
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.
Bull. They tax cigarettes to control people, that's all. Remember who really runs this country: Insurance companies.
Speaking of which, a shooter is liable for damages or deaths he or she may have caused. A victim can sue you for compensation via payroll garnishments, property such as an automobiles or house, and if the shooting took place on your property, even the insurance company.
It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.
Bull. They tax cigarettes to control people, that's all. Remember who really runs this country: Insurance companies.
Speaking of which, a shooter is liable for damages or deaths he or she may have caused. A victim can sue you for compensation via payroll garnishments, property such as an automobiles or house, and if the shooting took place on your property, even the insurance company.
Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.Why do they have more responsibility than you? Why not car dealers, since many criminals move around by car? How about sneaker makers, since they all wear sneakers. How about hoodie manufacturers, since they often wear hoodies? Or handkerchief makers since they are often used for gang signs.
It is yet another attempt to "stick it" to gun owners as a politically unpopular group. And of course it wont do anything.
Bull. They tax cigarettes to control people, that's all. Remember who really runs this country: Insurance companies.
Speaking of which, a shooter is liable for damages or deaths he or she may have caused. A victim can sue you for compensation via payroll garnishments, property such as an automobiles or house, and if the shooting took place on your property, even the insurance company.
Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
