San Jose to require liability insurance for gun owners

With all the valid and well placed comments, there are three major issues which no one seems to have touched on. One, and most important not only in Fresno but nation wide, when individuals such as this are up for election and then get re-elected, those living there deserve what they get. They, not the officials, are responsible. Second, if the new law becomes upheld and a reality, do the non-fire arm owners get a reduction in tax paid to fund the law enforcement, EMS, ect as specified in the law? Likewise, do those with firearms continue to pay the same rate rate? Finally, this will do nothing at all for what it's claimed since, like all taxation, it goes into the general fund. Therefore, it will be spent on social programs as always.
 
This is the rare case where the “tax” is not about increasing revenue. It’s about placing impediments in the way of those politically incorrect enough to exercise their 2A rights.
 
KyJim said:
This is the rare case where the “tax” is not about increasing revenue. It’s about placing impediments in the way of those politically incorrect enough to exercise their 2A rights.
Click to expand...
And that is, or should be, the reason the courts will find the law unconstitutional. I wish I had more confidence in the courts.
 
I thought about this today. Did San Jose defund their police?

I looked it up: https://sanjosespotlight.com/hundreds-ask-san-jose-lawmakers-to-defund-police-ahead-of-budget-vote/

Now, if they did vote to defund the police, then they will have a deficit in funds in that budget to manage the needs of the police force, which include salaries, benefits, including health care insurance, ambulance services and police department business administration.

Interestingly, the tax and fees on gun owners have been announced as necessary to fund "police responses (salaries?), ambulances, medical treatments, and other municipal expenses related to shootings, injuries and deaths."

If a crime perpetrator is injured during the course of the arrest, and taken to the hospital by ambulance, I sincerely doubt the miscreant has medical insurance, and so, the municipality may get the bill for the ambulance ride and hospital care. All of this requires police department/municipal business office intervention.

So by defunding the police department, the budget deficit is planned to be compensated by gun owners who have absolutely nothing to do with the crimes committed. A tax and fee mandate that may well violate the Constitution as I am under the impression that taxes have to be imposed on citizens equally. They cannot divert tax funds to other budgeted categories, then seek reimbursement from a selected population.

Cigarette smokers were not taxed to pay for the associated medical costs. The product abused was taxed. In this case, they can't tax the gun because it was not necessarily used by a law-abiding citizen to commit the crime that generated the expense.

Thoughts?
 
s3779m said:
And that is, or should be, the reason the courts will find the law unconstitutional. I wish I had more confidence in the courts.
Click to expand...

I lost faith in the courts years ago although once in a while I am pleasantly surprised like finding buried treasure :)
 
A neighbor who rents his home, has six kids, who ride the bus, eat school lunches, and often actually enter the school building doesn't pay a penny in school taxes under our system in many places.
Click to expand...

In essence wouldn't the home owner be paying the school taxes via the rent collected? So in essence the renter is paying school tax. Here in FLA owners that rent out a home pay higher taxes because of not being able to homestead the property and most are smart enough to make sure the rent is high enough to cover the higher tax
 
In essence wouldn't the home owner be paying the school taxes via the rent collected? So in essence the renter is paying school tax.
Click to expand...

That's the result, but consider this, the owner is going to be paying that tax whether he gets rent, or not. Now he may be using part of that rent money to cover the expense of the tax, but he's still paying that tax out of his income. The renter isn't paying the tax he's paying rent, and that rent is income to the property owner, and he pays the tax out of his income, just as he pays all his other bills and expenses out of his income.

So, as I see it the renter isn't paying the tax, even though the owner is using (Part) of that rent to pay the tax, its coming out of the property owner's income, and could even be paid from some other portion of his income that isn't derived from rent. The owner pays the tax, its their personal choice where the funds they use to do so, originate from.

OF course this is a somewhat simplistic view, I suppose, things in the real world are complex
 
So when a burglar steals a gun, he won't have to pay the fee or get insurance because technically he isn't the owner. Correct?
Click to expand...

Close. Technically he is the owner, it is in his possession, he controls its use, so he "owns" it, in that sense. However its stolen, so he's not the legal owner. And if he's a prohibited person, he can't legally own any gun.

SO, since paying the fee or getting the insurance is admitting he HAS a gun, he's not required to do so, since admitting he has an illegal gun is a violation of his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination.

If he gets caught with the gun, he will be charged with having an illegal gun, BUT he will NOT be charged with failing to register that gun, or not paying the tax or getting insurance because doing so would violate his Constitutional rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top