San Jose To Tax Law-Abiding Gun Owners For The Actions Of Criminals

The Democratic Party’s war against the second amendment opens a new front thanks to the San Jose City Council’s decision to tax law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals:

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.

Chief Justice John Marshall said that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and here the attempt is to destroy lawful gun ownership by imposing collective guilt on the law-abiding for the actions of the criminal and turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals for refusing to comply with an unconstitutional, punitive tax. The endgame, as always, complete civilian gun confiscation.

Next up: A tax on sober drivers to pay for the actions of drunk ones.

Meanwhile, in other California war against guns news, various challenges to various California gun law are pending an en-banc hearing on Duncan v Bonta. (Previously.)

Tags: , , , , ,

30 Responses to “San Jose To Tax Law-Abiding Gun Owners For The Actions Of Criminals”

  1. […] to add: Lawrence sent over this tweet from CBS LA: their helicopter was directly overhead […]

  2. David Jay says:

    “A tax on sober drivers to pay for the actions of drunk ones.”

    We already have it in my state. It is called “no fault”. I pay an insurance premium so that when I get hit my car gets fixed.

  3. Paige Jackson says:

    For the life of me I can’t see any difference between the San Jose proposed tax on gun ownership (a 2nd Amendment right) and a Poll Tax on the right to vote.

  4. Socratease says:

    “…turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals for refusing to comply with an unconstitutional, punitive tax…”

    They could do what Minneapolis Star Tribune did when the state taxed their paper and ink: Pay the tax, then file a court case to recover it for being unconstitutional. I’m not a lawyer, but that seems like it would also establish standing requirements that courts often throw cases out for not satisfying.

  5. […] Musicians, also, Biden Planning To Loosen Restrictions On Castro’s Dictatorship? BattleSwarm: San Jose To Tax Law-abiding Gun Owners For Criminals’ Actions Behind The Black: Today’s Blacklisted Americans, also, Bezos Invites Original Female Mercury […]

  6. JohnB says:

    The San Jose city council:

    https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/city-council

    Every bit of destruction is downstream from mass immigration.

  7. ant7 says:

    “Every bit of destruction is downstream from mass immigration”

    the mexicans and south americans don’t cause nearly as much damage as do certain other tribes.

  8. FiftycalTX says:

    Never allow a cop in your house without a warrant. NEVER answer questions over the phone. NEVER talk to a bureaucrat about what you own. Decline to answer questions from cops without a lawyer. Demand all correspondence be in writing. Get a lawyer, form an association or move out of town. SUE!

  9. Chemist says:

    I don’t know what everyone is getting so upset about.
    They are just requiring gun owners to buy insurance.
    Its not a tax – its insurance.
    And SCOTUS has already decreed that American citizens can be forced to buy insurance.

  10. ant7 says:

    I don’t know what everyone is getting so upset about. They are just requiring gun owners to buy insurance. Its not a tax – its insurance.”

    it’s foot in the door. it’s the first step towards “them” having the power to say “you can’t do or own this or that unless you meet our conditions first”, and then expanding the conditions until they are impossible to meet.

    like in mexico. the mexican constitution flatly states people have the right to obtain weapons, but imposed bureaucratic rules and conditions that have rendered that right impossible to exercise – there is only one legal gun store in all of mexico, and getting anything from it takes 6 months of bureaucratic paperwork. this “insurance” thing is just the first step towards that.

  11. ant7 says:

    “Demand all correspondence be in writing. Get a lawyer, form an association or move out of town. SUE!”

    you’re a lot of fun at parties, aren’t you ….

Leave a Reply