advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: hal
Date: June 30, 2021 03:19PM
[www.sfchronicle.com]

Those gun-grabbing californians are at it again...

Officials have not decided how much gun owners will be required to pay in fees, which would be used to defray the direct costs of gun violence to city taxpayers for services that include police response, ambulance transport and gunshot-related medical treatment for victims.

The fees would be determined upon completion of a gun harm study from the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation, whose results are expected in the fall. In a preliminary report released ahead of the vote, the institute estimated that gun-related homicides, suicides and other shootings cost San Jose around $63 million annually.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: June 30, 2021 03:49PM
This won't stand for very long, if it even survives the initial stages.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 30, 2021 05:56PM
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: June 30, 2021 06:17PM
It won't hold up constitutionally.

You are going to tax ALL gun owners - citizens who are exercising their constitutional right to own guns - to pay for costs incurred by the actions of a few bad eggs who happen to also own guns? Not a chance. This may initially pass, but in the end it will be found unconstitutional.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 30, 2021 06:22PM
If we can tax people who don’t buy health insurance, how can a tax on guns be un-constitutional?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Ted King
Date: June 30, 2021 06:45PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
It won't hold up constitutionally.

You are going to tax ALL gun owners - citizens who are exercising their constitutional right to own guns - to pay for costs incurred by the actions of a few bad eggs who happen to also own guns? Not a chance. This may initially pass, but in the end it will be found unconstitutional.

Don't we already allow sales taxes on guns (in places that have sales taxes) when a gun is purchased?



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: June 30, 2021 06:53PM
There are excise taxes on all sorts of things. There are fees. It cost me a huge amount to renew a passport. The price of an airline ticket includes all sorts of add ons.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: June 30, 2021 07:00PM
Quote
Ca Bob
There are excise taxes on all sorts of things. There are fees. It cost me a huge amount to renew a passport. The price of an airline ticket includes all sorts of add ons.

Not even close to being the same thing.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: June 30, 2021 07:01PM
Quote
Ted King
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
It won't hold up constitutionally.

You are going to tax ALL gun owners - citizens who are exercising their constitutional right to own guns - to pay for costs incurred by the actions of a few bad eggs who happen to also own guns? Not a chance. This may initially pass, but in the end it will be found unconstitutional.

Don't we already allow sales taxes on guns (in places that have sales taxes) when a gun is purchased?

A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: S. Pupp
Date: June 30, 2021 07:16PM
Call it gun insurance.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Ted King
Date: June 30, 2021 07:21PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Ted King
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
It won't hold up constitutionally.

You are going to tax ALL gun owners - citizens who are exercising their constitutional right to own guns - to pay for costs incurred by the actions of a few bad eggs who happen to also own guns? Not a chance. This may initially pass, but in the end it will be found unconstitutional.

Don't we already allow sales taxes on guns (in places that have sales taxes) when a gun is purchased?

A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

But if a sales tax doesn't invoke Constitutional protection for gun owners, why would the Constitution prevent a "ownership liability tax"? What's the legal reasoning for the distinction that would hold up in court? Do you know of legal precedent of invoking Constitutional protection for a "ownership liability tax for gun owners" or is this based on your personal perspective?



e pluribus unum



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2021 07:25PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: June 30, 2021 07:36PM
Quote
Ted King
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Ted King
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
It won't hold up constitutionally.

You are going to tax ALL gun owners - citizens who are exercising their constitutional right to own guns - to pay for costs incurred by the actions of a few bad eggs who happen to also own guns? Not a chance. This may initially pass, but in the end it will be found unconstitutional.

Don't we already allow sales taxes on guns (in places that have sales taxes) when a gun is purchased?

A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

But if a sales tax doesn't invoke Constitutional protection for gun owners, why would the Constitution prevent a "ownership liability tax"? What's the legal reasoning for the distinction that would hold up in court?

Because a sales tax is a tax that every person must pay on any non-food goods they purchase, with the generated revenue going towards the state's general coffers, which benefits all residents.

This gun tax would be a punitive tax meant to pay for very specific services such as "police response, ambulance transport and gunshot-related medical treatment for victims." Why, as a gun owner (which I'm not, BTW), should I be burdened with paying for services related to gun violence when I've never shot anybody or used a gun to commit a crime in my entire life, and never will? Why shouldn't the individuals who will benefit from the provided services be the ones to pay the tax? That's more in line with how taxation is supposed to work: those who potentially stand to benefit from the service pay the tax.

Not to mention that gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Purchasing a car isn't. Going on a shopping spree isn't. Owning a gun is. Taxing gun owners simply because they happen to own a gun won't fly legally.

Believe me or don't - doesn't matter to me. I'm no legal scholar, that's for sure. But let's get together a few years from now to see how this played out - I feel pretty confident my prediction will have turned out to be correct.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: June 30, 2021 07:43PM
Well - if the reasoning behind this is to raise revenue to pay for criminal misdeeds, why don't they implement a licensing scheme?

i.e. in order to commit a crime within City Limits, a person would have to be licensed to do so.
The collected licensing fees could then be used to pay for any damages resulting from crime.
There...done...easy-peasy.

As an added bonus, the City would also already have a database of known criminals, which should make solving crimes much easier as well.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Ted King
Date: June 30, 2021 08:41PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Ted King

But if a sales tax doesn't invoke Constitutional protection for gun owners, why would the Constitution prevent a "ownership liability tax"? What's the legal reasoning for the distinction that would hold up in court?

Because a sales tax is a tax that every person must pay on any non-food goods they purchase, with the generated revenue going towards the state's general coffers, which benefits all residents.

This gun tax would be a punitive tax meant to pay for very specific services such as "police response, ambulance transport and gunshot-related medical treatment for victims." Why, as a gun owner (which I'm not, BTW), should I be burdened with paying for services related to gun violence when I've never shot anybody or used a gun to commit a crime in my entire life, and never will? Why shouldn't the individuals who will benefit from the provided services be the ones to pay the tax? That's more in line with how taxation is supposed to work: those who potentially stand to benefit from the service pay the tax.

Not to mention that gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Purchasing a car isn't. Going on a shopping spree isn't. Owning a gun is. Taxing gun owners simply because they happen to own a gun won't fly legally.

Believe me or don't - doesn't matter to me. I'm no legal scholar, that's for sure. But let's get together a few years from now to see how this played out - I feel pretty confident my prediction will have turned out to be correct.

I believe you think your argument is correct, but I was wondering if your opinion about whether or not such taxes are unConstitutional was based on precedent that you know of. I can see that there might be a plausible case for courts ruling the way you argue - especially with the makeup of this Supreme Court - but until the courts rule we can't be sure.



e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2021 08:41PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: hal
Date: June 30, 2021 08:55PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Not to mention that gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Purchasing a car isn't. Going on a shopping spree isn't. Owning a gun is. Taxing gun owners simply because they happen to own a gun won't fly legally.

It just occurred to me that this is not true at all. The 2nd amendment says there is a right to 'keep and bear arms'. They could have specifically stated 'own', but they say 'keep and bear' instead. I never noticed that before...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 30, 2021 09:14PM
I suspect that some of the same issues raised in abolishing poll taxes will be used to attack and overturn this tax.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: freeradical
Date: June 30, 2021 10:12PM
This will get shot down by The Equal Protection Clause...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Ted King
Date: June 30, 2021 10:52PM
Quote
freeradical
This will get shot down by The Equal Protection Clause...

[constitutioncenter.org]

Quote

The Supreme Court has also used the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination on other bases besides race. Most laws are assessed under so-called “rational basis scrutiny.” Here, any plausible and legitimate reason for the discrimination is sufficient to render it constitutional. But laws that rely on so-called “suspect classifications” are assessed under “heightened scrutiny.” Here, the government must have important or compelling reasons to justify the discrimination, and the discrimination must be carefully tailored to serve those reasons. What types of classifications are “suspect”? In light of the history of the Equal Protection Clause, it is no surprise that race and national origin are suspect classifications. But the Court has also held that gender, immigration status, and wedlock status at birth qualify as suspect classifications. The Court has rejected arguments that age and poverty should be elevated to suspect classifications.

One of the greatest controversies regarding the Equal Protection Clause today is whether the Court should find that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. In its recent same-sex marriage opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court suggested that discrimination against gays and lesbians can violate the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply, leaving this question for another day.

I don't see gun ownership listed as being adjudicated to be a "suspect classification", so the court would need to hear an argument for the inclusion of gun owners as a "suspect classification" and rule in favor of it.



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: sekker
Date: June 30, 2021 11:06PM
I’ve been advocating for a form of gun insurance for years. This might fit the bill.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 01, 2021 08:25AM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Ca Bob
There are excise taxes on all sorts of things. There are fees. It cost me a huge amount to renew a passport. The price of an airline ticket includes all sorts of add ons.

Not even close to being the same thing.

Au contraire...

"Federal taxes (on gasoline) include excises taxes of 18.3 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents per gallon on diesel fuel, and a Leaking Underground Storage Tank fee of 0.1 cents per gallon on both fuels. State taxes include rates of general application including, but not limited to, excise taxes, environmental taxes, special taxes, and inspection fees..."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 01, 2021 08:31AM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

It's a "user" tax/fee. See my above on fuel taxes. Use causes damages; damages incur costs; tax/fee goes to defray those costs.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: July 01, 2021 09:23AM
Don't tax the gun, don't tax the ammo - tax the fuel, aka gunpowder. That gets around the 2nd amendment, it gets around self-loaders too as no one makes their own gunpowder.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: July 01, 2021 09:48AM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

It's a "user" tax/fee. See my above on fuel taxes. Use causes damages; damages incur costs; tax/fee goes to defray those costs.

Fuel taxes for everyone make sense because we all, more or less equally, use fuel and cause the damage associated with its use. When’s the last time you — or anybody you know to own a gun — used it to cause damage?



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 01, 2021 10:00AM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

It's a "user" tax/fee. See my above on fuel taxes. Use causes damages; damages incur costs; tax/fee goes to defray those costs.

Fuel taxes for everyone make sense because we all, more or less equally, use fuel and cause the damage associated with its use. When’s the last time you — or anybody you know to own a gun — used it to cause damage?

RollingEyesSmiley5

When was the last time you - or anybody you know who owns a car - caused an underground storage tank leak?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Acer
Date: July 01, 2021 10:10AM
Everyone pays for schools, but we get an educated citizenry out of it.

Everyone pays for gun violence now. Our taxes are calibrated to cover the cost. But what do I gain from the presence of guns? Random homicides, dead toddlers, and maniacs in high places sniping a hundred victims out of a street festival? Why should I, who owns no guns and thus have ZERO role in any of that violence, be on the hook for its cost?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: July 01, 2021 10:21AM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

It's a "user" tax/fee. See my above on fuel taxes. Use causes damages; damages incur costs; tax/fee goes to defray those costs.

Fuel taxes for everyone make sense because we all, more or less equally, use fuel and cause the damage associated with its use. When’s the last time you — or anybody you know to own a gun — used it to cause damage?

RollingEyesSmiley5

When was the last time you - or anybody you know who owns a car - caused an underground storage tank leak?

Do fuel sales tax revenues go toward paying for underground storage tank leaks? I wasn't aware of that.

(Hint: Because they don't.)



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 01, 2021 10:27AM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

It's a "user" tax/fee. See my above on fuel taxes. Use causes damages; damages incur costs; tax/fee goes to defray those costs.

Fuel taxes for everyone make sense because we all, more or less equally, use fuel and cause the damage associated with its use. When’s the last time you — or anybody you know to own a gun — used it to cause damage?

RollingEyesSmiley5

When was the last time you - or anybody you know who owns a car - caused an underground storage tank leak?

Do fuel sales tax revenues go toward paying for underground storage tank leaks? I wasn't aware of that.

(Hint: Because they don't.)

huh smileyAre you actually reading other’s posts here? Geez, even when it’s in red!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: July 01, 2021 11:07AM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
A sales tax is entirely different thing than an ownership liability tax.

It's a "user" tax/fee. See my above on fuel taxes. Use causes damages; damages incur costs; tax/fee goes to defray those costs.

Fuel taxes for everyone make sense because we all, more or less equally, use fuel and cause the damage associated with its use. When’s the last time you — or anybody you know to own a gun — used it to cause damage?

RollingEyesSmiley5

When was the last time you - or anybody you know who owns a car - caused an underground storage tank leak?

Do fuel sales tax revenues go toward paying for underground storage tank leaks? I wasn't aware of that.

(Hint: Because they don't.)

huh smileyAre you actually reading other’s posts here? Geez, even when it’s in red!

Yep, missed that one.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Racer X
Date: July 01, 2021 09:14PM
most violent criminals aren't taxpayers.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Racer X
Date: July 01, 2021 09:19PM
Quote
Ombligo
Don't tax the gun, don't tax the ammo - tax the fuel, aka gunpowder. That gets around the 2nd amendment, it gets around self-loaders too as no one makes their own gunpowder.

no one? really? I know how to make black powder, and "gun cotton" that's a fun one to make. don't try it at home though.

no one? really? not one of the 7+ billion humans?



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Racer X
Date: July 01, 2021 09:20PM
Quote
Ombligo
Don't tax the gun, don't tax the ammo - tax the fuel, aka gunpowder. That gets around the 2nd amendment, it gets around self-loaders too as no one makes their own gunpowder.

no one? really? I know how to make black powder, and "gun cotton" that's a fun one to make. don't try it at home though.

no one? really? not one of the 7+ billion humans?

If you want to save lives, abolish alcohol and tobacco. And stop installing revolving doors on prisons.

[news.yahoo.com]

"Police Superintendent David Brown on Monday was back to lamenting, as he has in the past, that at least some of the shootings involved people he contends should not have been on the streets.

He pointed to a suspect in the shooting of six people, two of whom died. He said the person had seven felony arrests and at the time of the shooting and had been released from jail and placed on electronic monitoring after being charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

“It’s beyond frustrating,” he said."

bet the perp would pay a tax on his firearm purchases..... smiley-laughing001



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2021 09:22PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 01, 2021 10:51PM
Racer, I don’t think you’re responding to what’s being said here; perhaps intentionally.

The tax/fee is intended to be paid by ALL (to mitigate the costs of gun violence), but acknowledging that some will not pay.

Perhaps a clarifying analogy would be the carrying of uninsured motorist coverage; to ease the suffering and lessen the financial costs of other’s offenses.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: kj
Date: July 02, 2021 01:12PM
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 02, 2021 01:24PM
Quote
kj
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.

Then they (and you?) would be wrong.

"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".

Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2021 01:25PM by DeusxMac.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: kj
Date: July 02, 2021 01:55PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
kj
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.

Then they (and you?) would be wrong.

"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".

Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.

Car insurance has nothing to do with it. In fact, this isn't even insurance. And what if the reasoning behind that insurance is wrong-headed?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 02, 2021 07:57PM
Quote
kj
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
kj
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.

Then they (and you?) would be wrong.

"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".

Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.

Car insurance has nothing to do with it. In fact, this isn't even insurance. And what if the reasoning behind that insurance is wrong-headed?

facepalm
Car insurance is an analogy

a·nal·o·gy - noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Racer X
Date: July 03, 2021 01:07AM
"Officials have not decided how much gun owners will be required to pay in fees, which would be used to defray the direct costs of gun violence to city taxpayers for services that include police response, ambulance transport and gunshot-related medical treatment for victims. "

There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.

Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2021 01:09AM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: pdq
Date: July 03, 2021 08:19AM
I think that falls under “…and the pursuit of happiness”.

wink smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 03, 2021 03:38PM
Quote
Racer X
There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.

Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.

Lemme see. So yer sayin’ abuse of “copulation” leads to babies, and abuse of guns leads to dead people. And they’s the same, right?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: July 03, 2021 03:49PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Racer X
There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.

Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.

Lemme see. So yer sayin’ abuse of “copulation” leads to babies, and abuse of guns leads to dead people. And they’s the same, right?
There are a HELL of a lot more people who have unplanned children than there are who shoot people.

Nearly all people with functional genitalia have sex - almost no one who owns a gun shoots people. As a benefit to society, the fee proposed by X makes a helluva lot more sense than the proposed gun fee.

But that fee would never fly, either.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: July 03, 2021 03:50PM
Quote
pdq
I think that falls under “…and the pursuit of momentary happiness”.

wink smiley

FTFY. smiley-laughing001



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: kj
Date: July 03, 2021 08:16PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
kj
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
kj
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.

Then they (and you?) would be wrong.

"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".

Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.

Car insurance has nothing to do with it. In fact, this isn't even insurance. And what if the reasoning behind that insurance is wrong-headed?

facepalm
Car insurance is an analogy

a·nal·o·gy - noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification

Well der, but analogies don't support your point, they only help to explain what you're talking about. I understand what you're talking about, I just disagree.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence
Posted by: Racer X
Date: July 03, 2021 08:22PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Racer X
There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.

Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.

Lemme see. So yer sayin’ abuse of “copulation” leads to babies, and abuse of guns leads to dead people. And they’s the same, right?

The cost to the country in dollars is probably hundreds, if not thousands of times higher for children not being properly and financially taken care of by their bio parents vs gunshot victims.

And once again, being able to reproduce is not a guaranteed right. Lots of people are actually actively denied by law the ability to reproduce.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 93
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020