Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.

The city council's aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths. According to the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, which studied the issue and sent a representative to testify before the panel, gun-related incidents cost the city roughly $63 million every year in the way of paying for police officers, medics and other expenses, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, seahawk said:

This bullshit will not stand a chance in court.

Smacks of a poll tax, I'm surprised the Leftists didn't recognize it as such.  On the other hand, given the current SCOTUS makeup, who knows?  Maybe they can get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People with means will move their address out. Or just move. Criminals who commit the crimes will ignore the law. 
 

Liberal idiocy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 1:13 PM, DKTanker said:

Smacks of a poll tax, I'm surprised the Leftists didn't recognize it as such.  On the other hand, given the current SCOTUS makeup, who knows?  Maybe they can get away with it.

They aren't against poll taxes, they are against poll taxes that go against their ability to gain and wield power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, nitflegal said:

They aren't against poll taxes, they are against poll taxes that go against their ability to gain and wield power.  

More simply, they are against their enemies, rules don't matter to them.  It's war, it always has been war, it always will be war.  S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, EchoFiveMike said:

More simply, they are against their enemies, rules don't matter to them.  It's war, it always has been war, it always will be war.  S/F....Ken M

So they go to war against those who are the heaviest armed if it turns hot it's not going to be the longest of wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

So they go to war against those who are the heaviest armed if it turns hot it's not going to be the longest of wars.

I tend to think this is overstated; the last year and a half has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of outspoken "Don't tread on me!" types will indeed allow themselves to be tread upon if the overall society calls for it.  Hell, they had to have a conscription act in the Confederacy to get people to fight for them when the Union was actually reconquering the South.  Same in the north when the Confederacy rebelled against the United States and fractured the entire country.  A minority fought in the Revolution.  Every major war in US history since the late 1800's has required forcing men into uniform to fight it.  This hope that the masses will finally be pushed too far and will rush to put their lives on the line against an equivalent or superior enemy has very little evidence in American history to back it up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

So they go to war against those who are the heaviest armed if it turns hot it's not going to be the longest of wars.

Yep. I'm starting to agree with E5M. Go ahead and get the civil war started. They, the left, have convinced me that we need to have it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nitflegal said:

I tend to think this is overstated; the last year and a half has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of outspoken "Don't tread on me!" types will indeed allow themselves to be tread upon if the overall society calls for it.  Hell, they had to have a conscription act in the Confederacy to get people to fight for them when the Union was actually reconquering the South.  Same in the north when the Confederacy rebelled against the United States and fractured the entire country.  A minority fought in the Revolution.  Every major war in US history since the late 1800's has required forcing men into uniform to fight it.  This hope that the masses will finally be pushed too far and will rush to put their lives on the line against an equivalent or superior enemy has very little evidence in American history to back it up.  

And yet simultaneously, a bunch of unarmed folks were able to break into the Capitol building and it was the worst event since the Civil War and the Army of Northern Virginia was stopped east of Groveton on their way to DC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Yep. I'm starting to agree with E5M. Go ahead and get the civil war started. They, the left, have convinced me that we need to have it out. 

As of now, I am reading The Black Book of Communism. The part that covers from 1917 to Lenin's death in 1923 is most revealing of how a small, but ruthless, disciplined, and committed group of men were able, on a short period of time, to impose their will on the whole of the largest country on Earth, once in possession of the levers of the power of the State.

Fortunately for us in Spain, our Reds were not so capable, and not so united, so they lost the Civil War in the 1930s.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

And yet simultaneously, a bunch of unarmed folks were able to break into the Capitol building and it was the worst event since the Civil War and the Army of Northern Virginia was stopped east of Groveton on their way to DC. 

But nobody in power likely believes that.  It is simply an event that, if properly spun, will allow more accumulation of power for one side and a significant hobbling of their enemy.  I find it telling that the left is absolutely going after guns in a small way (that I suspect is s test case for more impactful actions) and they demonstrably don't fear repercussions.  I suspect that at least some are actively hoping that there is resistance so that it can be used to reinforce the white supremacist's terrorist narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

And yet simultaneously, a bunch of unarmed folks were able to break into the Capitol building and it was the worst event since the Civil War and the Army of Northern Virginia was stopped east of Groveton on their way to DC. 

Which is quite interesting as on March 1st, 1954 four Puerto Rican terrorists shot up the HoR chambers wounding five congress critters.  All four were arrested, charged, and convicted of their crimes.  Their sentences were essentially lifetime in nature.  President Jimmy Carter, bless his Leftist heart, commuted their sentences.
In case you're wondering, it was a bipartisan shooting.  Two Rs and three Ds were wounded.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I suspect that if this were to happen today. AOC and the rest of the squad would be making poo-poo noises about it. Oh, wait they did after the Congressional Baseball shooting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...