Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

26
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:23 pm
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:55 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:50 pm
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:21 pm

Well you can't out right kill another person with a six pack least you beat them up against the head with it. Drinking one won't kill ya.
And your point is? I get it, you're a bloomie dem anti second type that thinks only certain people should have a right to own weapons. You're not liberal on that point. Educate and train, don't deny adults the right to decide for themselves. People under 21 are already restricted from attaining handguns by federal law.
Oh right, I'm anti 2nd lol In your dreams. Keep on making false accusations if it makes you feel better about yourself.
You sure seem to imply gun ownership is a privilege. I feel perfectly good about myself. You on the other hand seem to have a need to protect everyone else because you think you know what is best for everyone. That is not how rights work. You do not determine someone else’s need or how they practice a right. Do what you like and let adults decide for themselves how to practice a right.
And you like character attacks with your ad hominem fallacies.

Just because I think ghost guns should be regulated and made sure they are safe does not mean I am against 2A. Just like a home made car needs an inspection before it goes on the street. TO MAKE SURE IT IS SAFE! lol
I Have Seen The Enemy And It Is Us

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

27

tonguengroover wrote:Just like a home made car needs an inspection before it goes on the street. TO MAKE SURE IT IS SAFE! lol
Incorrect analogy for a couple of reasons.
1. A home-built car does not need an inspection to be possessed. Government requires it be inspected prior to being driven on public roads. You can build a car to drive around on your property or to trailer to another location that does not require inspection or registration.
2. There is no right to bear cars written into the constitution.

sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

28
tonguengroover wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:30 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:23 pm
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:55 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:50 pm
And your point is? I get it, you're a bloomie dem anti second type that thinks only certain people should have a right to own weapons. You're not liberal on that point. Educate and train, don't deny adults the right to decide for themselves. People under 21 are already restricted from attaining handguns by federal law.
Oh right, I'm anti 2nd lol In your dreams. Keep on making false accusations if it makes you feel better about yourself.
You sure seem to imply gun ownership is a privilege. I feel perfectly good about myself. You on the other hand seem to have a need to protect everyone else because you think you know what is best for everyone. That is not how rights work. You do not determine someone else’s need or how they practice a right. Do what you like and let adults decide for themselves how to practice a right.
And you like character attacks with your ad hominem fallacies.

Just because I think ghost guns should be regulated and made sure they are safe does not mean I am against 2A. Just like a home made car needs an inspection before it goes on the street. TO MAKE SURE IT IS SAFE! lol
What you don’t seem to get is “ghost guns” is a term addressed to all home made guns. That includes 80 percent lowers and so on. It’s an attack on private manufacturing for individual use. Which has been a tradition since the founding of this country. I agree that manufactures that sell retail need to be held to a higher standard. That standard is not applicable to people making things for themselves with no intent to sell or distribute. That is a huge difference you don’t seem to grasp. As said, if my home made car never leaves my property, it doesn’t need inspecting, it doesn’t need insurance and the government doesn’t need to know about it. And as also noted, there is no right to a car in the bill of rights. Car use is a privilege. Using and possessing a gun is a right. Huge difference which you obviously do not grasp no matter how many times you are reminded of it. Twice in this post.

Also the term “ghost gun” is the new “assault weapon” term. Both made up and based on nothing but emotion and evoking fear. Not worthy of a true liberal.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

32
So the new precedent is to be that taxpayers are subsidizing the possession of firearms and should not be required to do so.

San Jose’s plan to become first US city to make firearm owners pay for gun violence — answers to all your questions
“While the Second Amendment certainly protects the right to own a gun, it does not mandate that taxpayers subsidize the possession of those guns,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said during the City Council’s meeting Tuesday. “And we need a mechanism that will both compensate injured victims and take some of the burden off of taxpayers.”
Details of what passed:
As part of the vote, the council directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance that would require San Jose gun owners to obtain liability insurance and pay an annual fee to the city to subsidize expenses related to shootings, such as police and ambulance responses, medical care and other municipal services.

The city attorney is expected to bring the draft ordinance to the council in September for a vote. It is unclear how quickly the new mandate would take effect if approved then.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

33
“While the Second Amendment certainly protects the right to own a gun, it does not mandate that taxpayers subsidize the possession of those guns,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said during the City Council’s meeting Tuesday.
So we have to start paying for our constitutional rights according to Liccardo? Sam Liccardo has ambitions for higher political office and like Newsom did in 2018 with his state gun control initiatives, Liccardo is probably betting on this one to make him known statewide.

As soon as the SJ Council approves it, I expect CRPA/NRA, GOA, 2A Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition...will file for an injunction in superior court to halt its enforcement.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

34

highdesert wrote:
“While the Second Amendment certainly protects the right to own a gun, it does not mandate that taxpayers subsidize the possession of those guns,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said during the City Council’s meeting Tuesday.
So we have to start paying for our constitutional rights according to Liccardo?
Just one right. The concept of firearm owners being financially responsible for other people's violence is not new, but I suspect it will become a more succinctly-stated Democratic Party talking point as Liccardo reaches hero status for this move.
highdesert wrote:Sam Liccardo has ambitions for higher political office and like Newsom did in 2018 with his state gun control initiatives, Liccardo is probably betting on this one to make him known statewide.
Advisors and a focus group or two must have told Liccardo this was a winning issue.
highdesert wrote:As soon as the SJ Council approves it, I expect CRPA/NRA, GOA, 2A Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition...will file for an injunction in superior court to halt its enforcement.
Ultimately, the legal battles will just get him more PR. California already is foaming at the mouth for more firearm-related prohibitions, and this is just the kind of restriction Democrats would get behind for the entire state. Once in place, such penalties against firearm ownership are going to be permanent in the state, regardless of court rulings.

sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

38
SubRosa wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:16 pm Strange how just a river forms the line between a gun-hating state and a gun-loving one.

SR

Yes, the famous or infamous Colorado River, the dividing line between the two states. Its water was the subject of many lawsuits, the most famous being the series of cases all called Arizona vs California where SCOTUS was the trial court and appellate court for those cases that originated in 1931. That river also created one of the wonders of the world, the Grand Canyon.

CA is anti-gun until a major event happens like the pandemic and people run out and buy guns for protection. AZ has more sensible gun laws, UT too.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

40
SubRosa wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:51 pm Arizona gets a consistent "F" from the Bloomies...

It just breaks my fart, er, I mean heart.

SR
That's a badge of honor, wear it proudly ! I'm sure AZ gets A pluses from all the gun groups. You can wear your badge of honor in more states than the sycophant Bloomers can.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

41
tonguengroover wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:30 pm Just like a home made car needs an inspection before it goes on the street. TO MAKE SURE IT IS SAFE! lol
Just to be precise, it is being inspected to ensure that it is legal. There is a hope that the process of being legal also makes it safe, but there is no certainty. Among other things, the steering geometry could be a total mess.

On the topic of firearms, this is something that the county I had my California concealed pistol permit in that I always wondered about. The Sheriff's depart always had a deputy inspect the pistol before adding it to the permit.

On the surface this makes sense. However, I always wondered about the liability of that. First off, catastrophic firearms failures are rare. We can all agree to that. However, if someone were to have one that caused an injury, I wonder what the counties liability was, having done an inspection, versus not doing an inspection.

That said, knowing several of the people who did the inspections. I was told the main things they rejected were some old break action revolvers (there were some really cheap ones made) and some revolvers with fixed firing pins. Some revolvers with fixed firing pins still had a transfer gar, of sorts. In other cases, the person involved clearly understood what they were licensing. One of the DAs' had his 1860 Army on the permit. . . of course, one could argue that it didn't have a fixed firing pin. That said, he clearly understood the inherent safety issues with the design.
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Matt. 25:40

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

42
Op-Ed: My city’s new gun control laws will help more than waiting on Congress to do something
My proposals take a page from public health approaches that have reduced auto-related deaths, tobacco use and teen pregnancy in the U.S. They incentivize responsibility, draw on multi-disciplinary learning and invest in proven harm-reduction initiatives with the guidance of experts.

Requiring every gun owner in my city to carry liability insurance will better compensate unintentional shooting victims and their families for medical and related expenses. More importantly, insurance can also incentivize safer gun ownership. Risk-adjusted premiums will encourage owners to take gun-safety courses, use gun safes or install child-safe trigger locks to reduce the annual toll of accidental gun harm.

Unintentional shootings — often involving children — annually claim the lives of 500 Americans and injure another 26,000. The new laws coming to San Jose apply lessons from the insurance industry’s impact on auto safety. Reducing premiums on policyholders who drive more safely or buy cars with airbags or anti-lock brakes helped to reduce per-mile auto fatalities by nearly 80% over the last five decades, saving 3.5 million lives. We need a similar approach to address unintentional firearm risk because approximately 4.6 million children live in a household where a gun is kept unlocked and loaded, and shootings have become the second-leading cause of death among U.S. children and adolescents.

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

44
senorgrand wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:58 pm how about abortion insurance for women?
I agree, welcome back SG.

CA allows local preemption for gun control and since it's an election year I expect other states where preemption is legal, will follow Santa Clara County and adopt stronger gun control measures in hopes of getting more votes in November 2022. And Republicans will try to preempt state abortion laws and strengthen them. It's just political theatre, enjoy it !
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

47
The right of the state - or federal government - to regulate arms has been accepted since the Militia Acts. Sure, they were written as minimum standards for what a free adult white male would maintain in service of the militia, but they established the precedent that the government can decide what arms a citizen should possess. I'm fuzzy on the specifics, but I seem to remember the same Founders required sailors to purchase some variety of health insurance.

The founders were obviously reluctant to interpret the 2nd as a right for all persons to defend their own lives or freedom. Slaves, women, and native peoples need not apply for human rights in the America envisioned by a bunch of old white guys in 1783. States routinely regulated concealed carry prior to the Civil War. We still haven't fully incorporated the 2nd via the 14th, despite Heller and McDonald.

I don't buy into original intent as a legal framework. It's stupid. I support equal rights for everyone, including self defense. But I'm also a pragmatist and I see a metric shitload of precedent that says San Jose can do this, and so can everyone else, until the Supreme Court decides they can't. As we see in SJ, no amount of public opinion is enough to persuade some local government officials.

This is not a right vs. wrong issue, this is a "how do we respond" issue. How do we ensure that our members can stay right side of the law until the law is knocked down? What if it isn't? Sure, we might follow the right-wing model of "screw you and your laws" but I don't see it as good policy to encourage violation of local, state, or federal law. Particularly if the reactionaries ever regain control, because selective enforcement is their wheelhouse. How do we support our members?

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

48
94.9% of the US population in 1790 lived in rural areas. Arms were needed not only to protect homesteaders and their families, but also for hunting. Police didn't exist at that time, protection was in numbers like militias.
https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

People now living in our rural areas provide our food, small farmers might have plots in cities for the boutique farmer's markets, but the bulk of our food is grown in rural areas. Same with meat and poultry, cities don't want the smell. Politically though, the power is in the cities and suburbs.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

49
Final adoption of the ordinance is being voted on today for anyone who wants to listen in or comment at around 1PM, link to agenda and zoom meeting below. Just amazing how many people showed up 2 weeks ago to speak out against this ordinance as well as those who provided comments. The anti-civil rights lobby was significantly outnumbered in terms of showing up, not something that I'm used to seeing here in the Bay Area over the past couple of decades around this topic. Really proud of everyone who turned out as well as those offering moral support via bitching behind keyboards, that counts too.

https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDet ... s=&Search=

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], sikacz and 2 guests

cron