7 ms·

San Jose passes first US law that gun owners need liability insurance/annual fee

53 points by MilnerRoute 5y ago

CobaltFire 5y ago
Regardless of my stance on gun rights, this is means testing equivalent to a Poll Tax and is unlikely to stand up to a court challenge. If we want gun rights reform you have to take it to the Constitution; anything after that erodes the rest of the rights by creating case law that a right can be limited in some way by some level of the gov.
mrtweetyhack 5y ago
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I am always frustrated how news article never include the actual law/ordinance/mandate they are reporting on. I believe this is it: https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097 https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=... Found here: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379736&GUID=8DECD401-25ED-4CAE-A973-50FBD2BE8365&Options=&Search= https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=53797...
- bruceb 5y ago
  So many stories do this. I think it a feature not a bug, they don't want readers leaving or making it too easy to fact check.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Follow up, it is hard to imagine this standing up to legal challenges and is also hard to imagine the projected 1 million revenue will offset the legal costs
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    It's not too hard - the Supreme Court hasn't immediately dismissed the Texas "nullify the constitution with this one weird trick" approach of deputizing random citizens to end-run around civil rights using civil lawsuits.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      This is a pretty common misunderstanding of the ruling. The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits against certain state officials may proceed as they have direct involvement in the enforcement of the law, while the lawsuits against other state officials like judges should be dismissed due to their lack of involvement in enforcement.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        You're replying to a misunderstanding they didn't make. > The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits against certain state officials may proceed as they have direct involvement in the enforcement of the law, Yes, but in doing so, they didn't enjoin enforcement of the law until the SC hearing, which is to say that the court "hasn't immediately dismissed the Texas "nullify the constitution with this one weird trick" approach of deputizing random citizens to end-run around civil rights using civil lawsuits."
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Fair, I can see reading of immediately dismissed as meaning granting an injunction. Edit: but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick
        mullingitover 5y ago
        > but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick Their ruling on injunction was clearly along republican party lines, and not on the lines of their own reservations about legal conservatism. It's okay to call a republican supreme court what it is, we all know that these justices wouldn't hesitate to issue a novel injunction if it were second amendment rights being trampled.
egberts1 5y ago
It’s CBS News! A premier authoritative journalistic reporting outfit that never includes a citation (much less an URL link).
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
biomcgary 5y ago
"The council also voted to require gun owners to pay an estimated $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety education and training, suicide prevention and domestic violence and mental health services." I find these government-NGO partnerships disturbing. The government mandates a tax, but a private entity collects it and decides who spends it? Elected officials really like to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their votes.
- earleybird 5y ago
  Otherwise known as PPP, Public Private Partnerships. Dubious in all the ways you might imagine.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    That's not what this is. This is a long established concept known as tax farming.
    - profunctor 5y ago
      That's not what tax farming is.
    - earleybird 5y ago
      Given what I've seen with P3's in my neck of the woods, I can see there could be a high degree overlap to the point that P3s are much like the private Roman tax collectors - which had its problems with corruption way back then. So it was, so it is.
908B64B197 5y ago
"Shall Not Be Infringed" I truly wonder what they really meant by this. Surely we can twist the meaning of words through legal interpretation until we can levy a tax on people for exercising their constitutional rights.
- krapp 5y ago
  I mean, we already twisted the meaning of "well-regulated militia" to mean "literally everyone" including clowns like this[0] so why not? [0]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11420/production/_114088607_4134eab6-8c47-491b-9969-589fd046adb4.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11420/production...
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    "Written material, being necessary for an educated populace, the right of the people to keep and own books shall not be infringed" Question: who has the right to own books under such a law? The 'written material'? The 'educated populace'? Or the 'people'?
  - yes_really 5y ago
    The text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That means that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. It does not mean that only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms.
    - krapp 5y ago
      Thank you, Constitutional scholar 'yes_really,' the Supreme Court will no doubt be humbled by your brilliant and objectively correct interpretation. Clearly they never needed to bother arguing the point in Heller vs. DC, they could have just read the text of the amendment, it's so obvious.
      - tradertef 5y ago
rayiner 5y ago
Arbitrary tax to exercise a constitutional right? Let’s see this stand up in court.
- sjg007 5y ago
  I have a constitutional right to work. Yet I am still taxed. Wait.. What? The right to private property does not mean you can't be taxed for it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
friendlydog 5y ago
Gun leasing is a real thing, and so is financing. If you lease in another state the commerce clause might protect you see a lawyer for details: https://www.guns.com/financing https://www.guns.com/financing
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

53 points by MilnerRoute 5y ago

Regardless of my stance on gun rights, this is means testing equivalent to a Poll Tax and is unlikely to stand up to a court challenge. If we want gun rights reform you have to take it to the Constitution; anything after that erodes the rest of the rights by creating case law that a right can be limited in some way by some level of the gov.

mrtweetyhack 5y ago

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I am always frustrated how news article never include the actual law/ordinance/mandate they are reporting on. I believe this is it: https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097 https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=... Found here: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379736&GUID=8DECD401-25ED-4CAE-A973-50FBD2BE8365&Options=&Search= https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=53797...

bruceb 5y ago
So many stories do this. I think it a feature not a bug, they don't want readers leaving or making it too easy to fact check.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Follow up, it is hard to imagine this standing up to legal challenges and is also hard to imagine the projected 1 million revenue will offset the legal costs
- mullingitover 5y ago
  It's not too hard - the Supreme Court hasn't immediately dismissed the Texas "nullify the constitution with this one weird trick" approach of deputizing random citizens to end-run around civil rights using civil lawsuits.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    This is a pretty common misunderstanding of the ruling. The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits against certain state officials may proceed as they have direct involvement in the enforcement of the law, while the lawsuits against other state officials like judges should be dismissed due to their lack of involvement in enforcement.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      You're replying to a misunderstanding they didn't make. > The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits against certain state officials may proceed as they have direct involvement in the enforcement of the law, Yes, but in doing so, they didn't enjoin enforcement of the law until the SC hearing, which is to say that the court "hasn't immediately dismissed the Texas "nullify the constitution with this one weird trick" approach of deputizing random citizens to end-run around civil rights using civil lawsuits."
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Fair, I can see reading of immediately dismissed as meaning granting an injunction. Edit: but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick
        mullingitover 5y ago
        > but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick Their ruling on injunction was clearly along republican party lines, and not on the lines of their own reservations about legal conservatism. It's okay to call a republican supreme court what it is, we all know that these justices wouldn't hesitate to issue a novel injunction if it were second amendment rights being trampled.

egberts1 5y ago

It’s CBS News! A premier authoritative journalistic reporting outfit that never includes a citation (much less an URL link).

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

biomcgary 5y ago

"The council also voted to require gun owners to pay an estimated $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety education and training, suicide prevention and domestic violence and mental health services." I find these government-NGO partnerships disturbing. The government mandates a tax, but a private entity collects it and decides who spends it? Elected officials really like to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their votes.

earleybird 5y ago
Otherwise known as PPP, Public Private Partnerships. Dubious in all the ways you might imagine.
- djbebs 5y ago
  That's not what this is. This is a long established concept known as tax farming.
  - profunctor 5y ago
    That's not what tax farming is.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    Given what I've seen with P3's in my neck of the woods, I can see there could be a high degree overlap to the point that P3s are much like the private Roman tax collectors - which had its problems with corruption way back then. So it was, so it is.

908B64B197 5y ago

"Shall Not Be Infringed" I truly wonder what they really meant by this. Surely we can twist the meaning of words through legal interpretation until we can levy a tax on people for exercising their constitutional rights.

krapp 5y ago
I mean, we already twisted the meaning of "well-regulated militia" to mean "literally everyone" including clowns like this[0] so why not? [0]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11420/production/_114088607_4134eab6-8c47-491b-9969-589fd046adb4.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11420/production...
- missedthecue 5y ago
  "Written material, being necessary for an educated populace, the right of the people to keep and own books shall not be infringed" Question: who has the right to own books under such a law? The 'written material'? The 'educated populace'? Or the 'people'?
- yes_really 5y ago
  The text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That means that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. It does not mean that only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Thank you, Constitutional scholar 'yes_really,' the Supreme Court will no doubt be humbled by your brilliant and objectively correct interpretation. Clearly they never needed to bother arguing the point in Heller vs. DC, they could have just read the text of the amendment, it's so obvious.
    - tradertef 5y ago

rayiner 5y ago

Arbitrary tax to exercise a constitutional right? Let’s see this stand up in court.

sjg007 5y ago
I have a constitutional right to work. Yet I am still taxed. Wait.. What? The right to private property does not mean you can't be taxed for it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

friendlydog 5y ago

Gun leasing is a real thing, and so is financing. If you lease in another state the commerce clause might protect you see a lawyer for details: https://www.guns.com/financing https://www.guns.com/financing

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]