San Jose’s aspiring tyrant, Democrat Mayor Sam Liccardo, thinks he’s figured out a way to separate gun owners and their guns. He pushed through a measure to require gun owners to buy an insurance policy (that doesn’t exist) and to pay a “fee” in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Nevermind that the Mayor’s plan will impact the poor and minorities in his city the hardest. As every good wanna-be authoritarian inevitably concludes, Mayor Liccardo will have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet.
Now the gun-grabbing Dem says he plans to confiscate the guns of those who don’t secure the non-existent insurance coverage and pay the unconstitutional firearm “poll tax” to own a firearm within his utopian #gunsense planation.
Has the mayor calculated how many cops his police department has who are willing to risk working the confiscation detail, gathering up firearms from law-abiding gun owners?
Liccardo plans to start small. He first wants to grab guns cops encounter in public spaces.
The Western Journal has the San Jose mayor’s latest folly:
A California city has approved a law forcing gun owners to have insurance and pay an annual $25 fee.
“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN.
“According to CNN?” Well, that explains why such a silly statement would go unchallenged by the reporter.
Gun owners who do not pay the fee will face a fine, he said, but they will not be subject to criminal charges. However, he said, they could have their gun seized, and illustrated a possible scenario.
“Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs — you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun. ‘Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?’ ‘No.’
If only Mayor Liccardo was as interested in enforcing the rule of law across the board. After all, illegal aliens are welcome in San Jose thanks to his city’s “Sanctuary City” status. Legal American citizen gun owners? Eh, not so much.
“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing,” he said.
Liccardo insisted that the fee is legal.
Of course he’s going to insist it’s legal. After all, it’s not his money that will go to pay the attorneys to litigate the matter in court. And does anyone think the city will keep seized guns waiting for gun owners to comply with the new mandates? Uh huh.
Let’s play out another scenario. Every time the San Jose PD stops at a private residence on a call, they ask if there are any firearms on the premises. If so, “Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?”
“No?”
Using Liccardo’s own words, “OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun.”
It’s just a matter of time until gun owners say “enough.” Let’s just hope San Jose residents don’t run through the first three boxes in defense of liberty. Opening that final box is something the Mayor doesn’t even consider a possibility.
There is no prescient for such action, and the very attempt might get people killed. Not smart.
So he wants to send the police out to confiscate guns?
I am sure that every officer knows that the first time a POC refuses and there is a shootout charges against all involved officers will be filed.
“Go out and perform legally questionable actions, but at least I won’t have your back.”
This is true. That is the paradigm the left has created, and it is increasingly biting them in the ass.
The fact that they seek “opportunity” to take your firearm rather than a legitimate “reason” says everything.
Creating some new “paper” crimes. An opportunity to remove some guns from some venues if the owners aren’t paid up and have their documents in order.
Because guns = bad for him, less is best. When he should be concerned with what are the people with the guns doing? If they are breaking a law, stealing, robbery, assault, murder, then yes, you would want to (hopefully) arrest the person and take their gun. But if they are just driving home, sitting in a restaurant, or at a concert, then why do you need to take the gun? Other than not having the new paper, what threat are they vs someone who does have the paper? And if they are already a prohibited person, you could already arrest them.
And if there is a barroom brawl going on with guns involved, then it doesn’t matter who has a slip of paper anyway. The people they should be targeting are already the ones who aren’t allowed to have weapons but still do, and use them to terrorize the law abiding. And they won’t be obeying this law anyway.
“And if there is a barroom brawl going on with guns involved, then it doesn’t matter who has a slip of paper anyway.”
Well if you’re in a bar it’s illegal to be drinking and fighting when concealed carrying anyway…isn’t it??
Country Boy, actually in most states it is not illegal to be in a bar with a firearm. I must say it is not the brightest thing to do, but….
Don’t worry the Libertarians Liberals and the Left made it legal for you to steal in CA. So you’ll still be able “to pay” for your drug habit. “Free” of charge. The police won’t interfere.
You obviously have no idea what libertarianism is.
Libertarians (both big L and small l) are the first to defend your rights, your body, your property.
Obviously, if you steal, you are infringing on someone’s rights, and that is a legitimate area for the government to enforce laws.
What you do on your property, what you own, what you ingest is irrelevant.
“Obviously, if you steal, you are infringing on someone’s rights, and that is a legitimate area for the government to enforce laws.”
You seem like a smart guy. Why don’t you go research Prop 47? Go find out who wrote the proposed law? And find out why the drug legalization crowd wanted to raise the misdemeanor dollar value up, to $950???
And explain to me what that has to do with making pot legal???
If necessary ask your Libertarian friends to help you. You can make it group project.
The loss of property rights because of the Proposition Process has happened in California before.
Years ago the voters approved of a law that would force a property owner to cut down their tree. If the shadow of the tree interfered with a neighbor’s solar energy panels.
And years before that, labor unions tried to get the voters to approve of a law, that would allow them to walk onto the land of farmers. Without the landowner’s permission, to try to unionize the workers there. And back then Gov. Moonbeam made a state wide TV address. To support passing that law. But it failed to pass back then. In the 1970’s.
I was in HS, in Sacramento back then.
You need a crash course in proper punctuation. Your writing is atrocious.
“Obviously, if you steal, you are infringing on someone’s rights, and that is a legitimate area for the government to enforce laws.”
Why do I need the government to enforce my property rights? I can easily kill to protect my property if the government would just get out of the way. Which is something the Libertarians claim they support. Having government get out of my way.
to Gipper’s Ghost
Thankyou for your insightful commentary. Now please ansewer my questions. Or are you going to still provide distractions???
Based on the last few years, it’s apparent to me that far too many so-called libertarians don’t have the foggiest clue what liberty is.
Chris doesn’t give enough credit to the libertarians that *aren’t* Democrat-lite, “muh weed” morons…but he’s not wrong.
It is frustrating, if you have “come to Jesus”, and realized that the Republican Party does NOT have your best interests as a priority, but can’t stand the agenda of the Leftist/fascist “Dimocrat” Party – what do you do??
I chose to be a small “l” libertarian – government is too big, too intrusive, seeks power that it is not entitled to, and ALL politicians are scum.
Famously, Bill Maher used to style himself a “libertarian”, until one of his more perceptive guests cut him off with, “Bill, being a libertarian means more than ‘Oh boy! I get to smoke pot and screw whoever I want!'”. Shortly thereafter, Maher stopped referring to himself as a “libertarian”.
“Libertarian” does not mean “libertine”, but nor does it mean “Republican”. I guess I have to find the particular “flavor” of libertarian that works for me. But, yeah, most of them are morons. Gary Johnson being an excellent case in point. And don’t even get me started about Evan McMuffin.
Republicans are far worse, they are nearly as bad as the Democrats. You all cry about how much you love freedom until your gay neighbor wants to get married.
Chris is a hard-core statist and always has been. He’s just in the closet.
to Ing
You are correct. I apologize to you. I should have separated people like yourself from the other Libertarians that I find disgusting. You are correct. There are Libertarians out there who really do believe in Liberty. And the consequences and responsibilities that go along with it.
I will try to be better. But its not easy. These “Libertarians” have caused a great deal of damage.
AR Libertarian I rgret to inform you that your “Libertarian” philosophy takes in the whole political spectrum. It is not about “preservation” of individual rights except you have the right to believe as you do. Please do NOT try to equate your “Libertarian” philosophy with Constitutional Conservativism. That is a fantasy.
As a Libertarian living in the free state of Tennessee, I’m only mildly interested in California Craziness. You lump “Libertarians, Liberals, and the Left” into a common basket of non-Deplorables who “made it legal for you to steal in CA.” So, with my Libertarian card in one hand and a strike-anywhere match in the other, I frantically launched an online quest to quell or confirm your disturbing assertions.
First, I read about Prop 47 (https://www.courts.ca.gov/prop47.htm). Yes, I agree. Prop 47 appears (at face value) to be one part of a pattern for reweaving the fabric of society. The Prop lessens the severity of consequences when existing criminal laws are transgressed.
Next, I reviewed Libertarian philosophy, thought, and principles. Nope, Libertarians maintain a consistent stance on governmental overreach. Minimal government involvement in personal life, minimal state intervention in the free market, and fiscal responsibility by all levels of government are the three pillars of Libertarian thought. But Libertarians do not advocate for lawlessness (https://www.libertarianism.org/what-is-a-libertarian) .
Finally (and here’s the big card burner), I wanted to know exactly who supported Proposition 47. The only place I found a compilation of who did what way back in 2014 is (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47_(2014)_supporters). Sweating profusely (remember, match in one hand, card in the other), I scrutinized the list of individuals, unions, musicians, and organizations. I certainly found a Liberal Marxist’s Who’s Who of the Left; but I did not recognize any Libertarian influences.
Now Chris T in Ky, the gauntlet passes back to you. Remember, I’m in Tennessee (maybe you are really in KY). I care very little for California citizens screwed by their own actions; but I do care about falsely smearing Libertarians. Enlighten me please with your research.
fyi
Are you really going to insist that Libertarians did not support proposition 47 when it came up for a vote? A chance to legalize recreational marijuana in the state of California.
As a former California resident I used to read the state supplied voter’s guide at every election. It included a detailed description of everything that was up for a vote. I wonder how many of the drug legalization crowd ever read Proposition 47 in the first place, before they voted for it?
“New York foundations bankrolled Proposition 47”
“The biggest chunk of Proposition 47 funding came from New York hedge fund billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society Foundation contributed $1.4 million directly. Other Soros money was less visible.”
“The ACLU gave $3.5 million to the Proposition 47 campaign in the weeks before the election. The Soros grant will not be publicly disclosed until the organization’s federal tax filings are due more than a year from now.”
https://archive.ph/unrCR
I hope they never try to repeat a proposition 47 type law in the state of Tennessee or Kentucky. Or any free state.
“plans to confiscate the guns of those who don’t secure the non-existent insurance coverage”
what, you think he’s going to go door to door? give you a chance to vent?
no. what he’ll do is line up the ability to cancel your bank account and credit cards, suspend your licenses, and cut your internet and phone connections. then ignore you.
what will you do?
I will be fine staying on my property I have food water ammunition and power and the mindset woe to the people coming to vax me or buy back my guns start up the hill and that’s your ass all ready sharpening and shitting on the bamboo stakes
“I will be fine staying on my property”
if you’re alone, you won’t survive when they come.
Neither will the first one’s to show up. The fear of death is an interesting motivator. Especially when it comes from hundreds of yards away. Just ask any military personnel who’ve been under a sniper attack. Not to mention all the little tricks of the trade, Charlie and the VC have taught in regards to perimeter defenses. Some things are worth dying for. if you aren’t willing to put your life on the line for Freedom. You didn’t deserve it to begin with.
Dark man
I’ve believed, for a long time, in the theory be nice until it’s time to not be nice. Then I’m a real mother fucker.
And do you, rant7, suppose that you will live forever? Judging from your many previous comments on this topic, might I suggest you lay in a good supply of knee pads, if that’s how you… roll (over). Once again; thanks for nothing. And I’m sure your children and their children’s children will thank you as well.
“thanks for nothing”
you guys have been talking tough for decades, but no action yet. you have more guns and ammo than you can use, but no action yet. you talk about this red line and that line in the sand, but no action yet.
thanks for nothing.
By far the best reply yet….
First time I heard the “4 Boxes” concept. LOVE how succinct of a point it makes about what order to fight injustice.
I’ve often heard of 3 boxes. I would suppose the 4th box is the one the funeral home screws closed before the tyrant is buried?
Nope
soap box
letter box
ballot box
cartridge box
Our forefathers of the time of LexingConcord Paul Revere, Billy Dawes, John Adams, Jonas Clarke, Samuel Wittemore, David Lamson, Isaac Davis, Luther Blnchard, all know bout all of those, and used the first three on a regular basis. But that morning when Gen. Thomas W Gage sent 800 of his best bought goons out to disarm the people of Lexington and Concord, they all realised it was time to take out that fourth box and make good use of it. Which they did. The report from Gage back to his “betters” in London is amusing….
anyone who things of those men as cowards and weakling,s, devoid of any determination or skill, will find himself very much mistaken. There are men amongst them who know very well what they are about”.
Yup. COunt ’em: One Two Three FOUR. They all know number four was coming, and had for fifteen yars, at least. Some (such as Paul Revere) for far longer. He had been active in “the resistance” for twenty five years the day he had himself rowed under the counter of the HMS Somersett and off to sound the alarum of the pending attack.
They were kind enough to put in a link…
Soap, ballot, Jury then cartridge.
Smh letter box
“The report from Gage back to his “betters” in London is amusing….”
Yes, it was. 🙂
The overall gist was, “They didn’t fight fair! They hid behind trees and rock walls and picked us off one by one as we tried to retreat!”
They weren’t fighting fair, they were fighting to *win*, and they did.
Keep that in mind Albert Hall (?)…
Tionico,
“Jury box”, not “letter box”. Soapbox and “letter box” are of a piece – the right to free speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances. Both 1A rights. Jury box was the other box – the act of jury nullification to curb overzealous/corrupt government prosecutors (c.f., Kyle Rittenhouse).
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Cartridge
This stupid plan hasn’t seen the Jury box yet, and it has little legs to stand on, even the comical 9th Circuit.
[email protected]
Tell this petty tyrant what you think. My own email will be to the effect, “The Second Amendment was written with you in mind.”
Sorry, don’t bother with that email address:
” Address not found
Your message wasn’t delivered to [email protected] because the address couldn’t be found, or is unable to receive mail.”
You could try emailing the people here. Oddly the mayor doesn’t have an email address listed so probably start with the chief of staff.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/city-council/members/mayor-s-office/meet-our-team
Oh and clicking around that a-hole has a section where you can download his headshot. What a pathetic narcissist.
You called it, Dev,
Liccardo is a pathetic, megalomaniac narcissist, who hopes to ride this hobbyhorse into the CA Governors Mansion. He, like SO MANY other politicians, has never had an honest job in his life. He is a career sucker-off-the-government-teat.
But, in KKKalifornia, he has a pretty fair chance of achieving his goal – KKKalifornians will vote for any idiot with a (D) behind his/her name, and a sufficiently Marxist agenda.
There was a time when people in our country thought “damn gubment” but slept soundly at night and went to work and raised kids and grew old and died believing this was a land of liberty.
Now is the time to fear your city government San Jose, for now is the time when tyranny will knock on your door with armed force and take your rights from you by force. This is one of those times for which the 2nd amendment was intended. Its not just the Second Amendment, its the fourth Amendment too being threatened. If they can set this precedent especially for the 4th they can apply it to what ever they wish and take without warrant. You people in San Jose better put a stop to this now, its going to get really ugly if you don’t.
“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun.”
“Opportunity” is the key word and the left seeks opportunity.
Like hitler and all tyrants the gutless mayor needs goons to do his dirty work.
There are always willing goons.
Dacian is probably fervently jerking it while reading this article.
I hear the sound of one hand fapping.
“I hear the sound of one hand fapping.”
Ewww, it a ‘wet’ sound.
A sound my apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll hears daily… 🙁
Southern Cross,
You give him too much credit – that’s the sound of one pair of tweezers fapping.
Any cop confiscating a law abiding citizens firearms should be shot. I hope they shoot every cop in San Jose who violates their oath to the Constitution of the United States by following this illegal order. This is America and the Supreme Court recently reiterated you cannot go into someone’s home without a warrant. I hope the people in San Jose stand up for their rights and make them pay dearly for their unconstitutional transgressions.
“I hope they shoot every cop in San Jose”
you going to lead the way?
broken record.
avoiding the issue.
“Opening that final box is something the Mayor doesn’t even consider a possibility.”
Because, on a large scale, it isn’t a possibility.
There might be a handful of incidents, but overall? Nope.
Unlike in the days of the framers, or even the southern Confederacy, there are no organized, disciplined, experienced local militias.
If one carefully, and honestly, reads the actual wording of the Second Amendment, the amendment is a declaration of the right to overthrow a tyrannical government and standing army. And we run around telling everyone the Second Amendment is about firearms possession for the purpose of self-defense.
A survey we never see tests the loyalty of gun owners, and non-gun owners, alike: “Would you ever take up arms against a tyrannical government”?
The public is comfortable with the existence of small bands of bubbas calling themselves “militia”, but would the public welcome the idea that the Second Amendment and organized militias of citizens are the last, violent, resort to dealing with a rogue government? Would the public be accommodating to the idea that all the 2A defense organizations are also protecting the right of the people to rebel against oppression by government?
Better yet, ask some of your neighbors who do not own firearms if they feel more secure knowing that the Second Amendment protects them from subjugation by an authoritarian government? That the Second Amendment is the declaration of authority to engage in civil war, if necessary, in order to rid the land of tyranny?
The questions above will tell us the true status of the fight to preserve the right of people to possess firearms.
“Unlike in the days of the framers, or even the southern Confederacy, there are no organized, disciplined, experienced local militias”
you mean “well-regulated militia”?
no, there aren’t. and the ones who should form them now specifically reject them – to reject ANY organization above themselves – as “fascism”. just like they’ve been taught for decades. they’ll end up just like rittenhouse – alone, on the ground, surrounded by those who will team up against them.
who knows. maybe they’ll get lucky like rittenhouse did. wouldn’t count on it.
We might agree on something, everyone of milita age should be required to maintaine an M4 and M9 along with proficiency on how to use it. The Founders envisioned this with the line; “A well regulated militia”.
Of course that terrifys you if we were to actually follow the BOR.
You mean like how a bunch of illiterate peasants in Afghanistan fought both Russia and the USA to a standstill?
if you live like the afghans, you can beat the u.s. too.
beating what will be coming after you, however, may be a different story.
“You mean like how a bunch of illiterate peasants in Afghanistan fought both Russia and the USA to a standstill?”
Not sure comparing invasion to civil war is valid. In the US, we don’t have society based on tribes. Tribes are not simply mobs of disconnected people. Afghanistan has a long history of fighting invasion. Tribes have organization. People in tribes tend to know each other. In the US, we are a vastly disconnected group of residents, with no sense of tribe, and little sense of nationality.
Now, foreign invasion is one thing, and successful resistance depends on the invader not willing to do what is necessary to conquer another country/society/government. Civil war is the worst of types because real hatred consumes both sides.
In Afghanistan, the US was unwilling to annihilate the population (Carthaginian solution). In civil war, we have evolved to a point where the government is willing to lay waste to those who object to government. We are currently seeing conditions approaching those of the 1850. We do not have a Lincoln who cautions, “Let them up easy” in order to prevent unending guerilla war, and scorched earth policies that would keep the southern states at a low boil indefinitely. In civil war, retribution and revenge are great motivators.
I am not even certain there is political will to fend off an actual foreign invasion (see Dim border control failure).
In the end, this is not Afghanistan, and we are not organized in tribes.
The North won the Civil War, but the South won the Reconstruction.
“In the US, we don’t have society based on tribes.”
Yes, we do, both roughly equal in size, with distinct differences in how they perceive their relationship should be with the government as a whole, and you know it, Samuel.
Neither has much interest in associating with the other. Each disparages the other, and willingly discriminates against the other…
When your “leadership” is clueless and brain dead and surrenders. Demtards of Vietnam revisit stupid land for Afganistan. Shut up Boch (or fake Boch)
Alas, they didn’t really DO that. What those illiterate peasants DID manage to do is to enlist the West’s sense of humanity, fair play, and the idea of ‘noncombatants’ and ‘collateral damage’ against it.
If Russia, who taught the Chechnyans a few lessons in how to go all ‘Rome On Carthage’ when necessary, had used their actual strength, Afghanistan could have been subdued in DAYS, if not sooner–although there wouldn’t have been much left to ‘subdue.’
The same for the US. Notice that the Germans, and the Japanese, have been very, VERY polite for the last three-quarters-of-a century. Imagine how much better and faster Afghanistan could’ve been ‘pacified’ if that sort of firepower had been unleashed, but on a modern scale.
Oderint dum metuant, and all that Latin stuff. Or, if you like, ‘Neca eos omnes; Deus suos agnoscet’. Either one will do.
If a superpower has the will to destroy a forest to ensure the political freedom of a couple of the trees, the forest is going to be mighty sparse unless it surrenders, and that right quickly.
We’re just too nice to win a war nowadays. The Chinese won’t make that mistake.
The only right in the 2A is the right to bear arms PERIOD. The arms can be used for any lawful purpose and gun ownership is NOT dependent on militia service. The right to keep and bear arms guarantees the militia can not be disarmed by the government.
In other words, the 2A does not protect the right to form a militia giving the people the right to bear arms for that purpose. The right to have guns for any lawful purpose precedes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 2A says that right can not be taken away.
“The only right in the 2A is the right to bear arms PERIOD.”
Afraid you missed the point, entirely.
If you read the letters of the founders, you will find that they were quite sensitive to the potential for the central committee to try to use its power (and standing army) to subjugate the populace. Thus, the founders preserved the right to overthrow tyranny through the use of armed force.
My point is that we are almost exclusively focused on self-defense, with nary a public organization referencing the prime purpose of individuals bearing arms (not just guns).
I submit that if you advertise the anti-tyranny purpose of the Second Amendment, you will find out who really is a 2A defender. And you will likely find out that a significant number of 2A defenders will be appalled at the idea of armed rebellion. Indeed, if the lead organizations supporting RTKBA were to use protecting the nation as an argument for gun ownership, there might arise sufficient political will to repeal, or modify the Second Amendment.
Missed nothing, you’re wrong.
“My point is that we are almost exclusively focused on self-defense”
“We” haven’t focused on one specific thing, you have.
Reread what I wrote, it doesn’t focus on self defense or militia service, it includes them in all lawful uses.
Although the answer is, as always, ’42,’ the TRUE purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to allow you to shoot bunnies or deer. It is not so that you can fend off occasional marauding aboriginals. Neither is it intended to enable you to keep out burglars, discourage footpads, or shoot holes in paper targets and aluminium beverage containers. All of these things, although important, are secondary to the prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
It exists to guarantee the hypothetical ‘you,’ as a free citizen,’ the ability, through commensurate and equivalent firepower, to ward off the depredations of a tyrannical power, in the form of a government, that is traducing your freedom.
Thus the preface: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . ” Nope, not a single bunny, deer, aboriginal, or footpad is mentioned. Not even a beverage container.
And that’s the way it is.
You cannot be peaceful unless you are capable of great violence.
If you’re not capable of great violence, you’re not peaceful.
You’re just harmless.
And never , ever underestimate a pissed off Southerner.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Nor a pissed off notherner. Us canucks might say sorry a lot but trust me, we are only pretending to be nice.
“…when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back.”
Not so fast there. If I legally own a handgun in CA that was grandfathered before our infamous Safe Gun Roster was created, but LE confiscates it, they will not return it to me because they will not be able to legally transfer that gun, under any circumstance. This actually happened recently, in which a judge ruled that a Department had unlawfully seized a citizen’s gun and ordered it to be returned. The Department refused, saying CA law prohibits transfer of the gun in question because it wasn’t on the Safe Handgun Roster, regardless of a judge’s order.
Two LASD buddies of mine who have 15+ years each in service both told me to fully expect to never get my gun back – regardless of the gun’s legality in CA – after a shooting event because it will be held indefinitely as supportive evidence to the case. They shook their heads and said it isn’t fair, but they’ve seen it numerous times and it just the reality in CA.
Proves the old Libertarian saying, “The power to tax, is the power to destroy.”
To operate a motor vehicle legally you need license, registration, and insurance.
I dont know why getting those to own a gunm should be any different, they’re both a privilege the State gives you.
high schools should have gun classes alongside drivers’ ed.
FWIW…My high school did. ORMI. Shooting range was under the gymnasium. Rifle Training Class involved a .22LR rifle with military style adj sights. We were also issued an M-14 rifle (minus the firing pin) to clean every week, and had to pass the MT class by being able to disassemble and reassemble it under 60 seconds while blindfolded. I did it in 45 seconds. School record at that time.
I never thought that possums had such a weird sense of humor.
They don’t. They also seldom make it across the road.
I think he’s just playing possum. This time…
Operating a vehicle is not in the constitution like rights to have a gun is.
He knows that, its a joke.
“Operating a vehicle is not in the constitution like rights to have a gun is.”
Skim reading is dangerous. Possum got one past you.
You have thr giht to travel freely and unhindered. At first you were not required to have a drivers license to operate motor vehicles. Guess which state was the 1st one to require a DL…NY.
But the other states also quickly found a new way to make more $$ of it’s citizens……….
You DO have that right–so long as you stay off of roads that are not built or maintained with any government funding, or that run across government property, or that of another person without express permission.
If you drive around in circles in your own front yard, and are not renting the property, you can travel as freely as all get-out. Just don’t go on the sidewalk. THAT belongs to the government, too. Just don’t do it while impaired.
Oh, and don’t try to just climb into an airliner, unless you’re an illegal alien with an arrest warrant. There’s some ‘hindrance’ involved, there, too.
But, other than THAT, travel away. Take a change of shoes.
possum,
You are a sly one, sir. You constantly slip those little zingers in, and they often escape notice. Can’t even claim for sure I always catch them, but I’m ALWAYS on the watch for them. Nicely played!
“I dont know why getting those to own a gunm should be any different, they’re both a privilege the State gives you.”
I see what you did, there.
Owning a gun is a right protected under the constitution of the United States. Driving is not hence why it is a privilege. Do you know what you are talking about? You don’t know what the 2nd Amendment is? When you charge fees for a right, it turns into a privilege and that is tyranny going against the Constitution! You have no clue about the law of this country and here you are giving your ignorant statement.
I forgot, how much does that state issued CCW permit cost?
Don’t interrupt a man when he’s being both literal AND obtuse. It’s not fair.
Jin,
possum got you. possum is a sly marsupial. About 90% of the time, just imagine the /sarc tag at the end of his comment.
“You have no clue about the law of this country and here you are giving your ignorant statement.”
RIF (reading is fundamental). So quick to blast someone, you completely missed the fact that Possum’s comment was sarc.
Speed reading and knee-jerk reactions don’t serve to sustain or improve the credibility of the commenter.
They just never learn, do they!? They always seem to forget……they work for us!!
“They always seem to forget”
they haven’t forgotten, they’ve simply rejected it and adopted another belief system.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
more exactly, they reject anything other than themselves. protest doesn’t reach them, logic doesn’t reach them, rationality doesn’t reach them. it’s all about them, and anything that isn’t is evil.
“……they work for us!!”
Since when?
Every decent citizen of San Jose should join BLM in demanding the defunding, disarming and disbanding of the police.
“Every decent citizen of San Jose should join BLM in demanding the defunding, disarming and disbanding of the police“
At last, the light is beginning to dawn!
Everywhere but your empty head, MinorIQ.
The funny thing is that, in the absence of police?? I don’t fancy your chances for long-term survival. You might want to rethink your so-called “belief system”.
You, dacian the stupid, the nameless, brainless troll? Have fun when your Leftist/fascist brethren line YOUR asses up against the wall – like Leftist/fascists ALWAYS do. Gotta have those purges.
Mayor Licky Liccardo ??
Hands up anyone who didn’t see that coming?
But we’re told to ” back the blue”…this chit won’t end well.
I can just see the cop telling the victim householder that he has to ask these questions and then shake his head from left to right when he asks if there are any on the premises.
Think of the children. Send bachelors.
@Cato
Reread what I wrote, it doesn’t focus on self defense or militia service, it includes them in all lawful uses.
Do you have citations from major 2A organizations explaining that the Second Amendment is about overthrowing tyrannical governments? Do you have citations from said groups that overthrowing tyranny was the main concern of the founders?
On this forum, many people proclaim that the Second Amendment protects against government, and the people have the right to take on rogue government militarily. However…..
I have seen no 2A organizations publicize the fact. As noted, all the 2A organizations are focused on self-defense, hunting and sport.
To borrow from you: Go read the Federalist Papers, and other letters between the founders, regarding the primary purpose of the Second Amendment.
And ask your neighbors if they support an armed populace’s right to overthrow government. And, perhaps, find a court case where the right of the citizenry to bear arms to overthrow tyranny is at issue.
I’m assuming that if any pro 2A organization mentioned it believed the 2 Ammendment was about overthrowing a tyrannical government that organization wouldn’t be around very long.
Freedom of speech has limits.
The constitution lost its power when 40 acres and a mule was no longer sufficient. Now we are controlled by money, money that is controlled by government, therefore the government controls us.
One of the things I like to hear is when someone says they own this or that, my reply is “Miss paying your taxes a couple of years and you’ll find out who owns what.”
“I’m assuming that if any pro 2A organization mentioned it believed the 2 Ammendment was about overthrowing a tyrannical government that organization wouldn’t be around very long.”
I wouldn’t bet against you.
Perhaps if the phrase was modified to say, “. . . overthrowing a hypothetical tyrannical government, but certainly not THIS one, which is the Greatest Thing Since Warm Sliced Bread With Fresh Creamery Butter and could NEVER become tyrannical, which would be inconceivable, because we’re just speaking hypothetically, of course!” might pass muster.
possum,
We were screwed blue when we IDIOTICALLY ratified the 16th Amendment. As a PRACTICAL matter, we “own” only what the benevolent gummint chooses to allow us to keep . . . and we own it until “they” change “their” minds.
FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!
Does San Jose’s law apply only to those that live in the city limits? Or does it apply to everyone passing through, also?
It applies to anyone who reads the article or not.
“Does San Jose’s law apply only to those that live in the city limits? Or does it apply to everyone passing through, also?”
Don’t laws in Californication apply everywhere? Thought I read that somewhere.
Just like the ATF they will be sending the goons to gun clubs, gun ranges and sitting outside legal gun stores and shows waiting to pounce on that newly purchased firearm and or people exercising their God given rights at a gun range! Papers Please!! Papers!!
“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN…”
1) then don’t
2) if the government can decide that it can charge people whatever amount it deems to avoid ‘subsidizing’ a right, what rights are left?
I say the second knowing that it’s already the case. The question is, at what point do the courts step in? $25? A million dollars? What’s the difference?
whatever the courts decide is sufficient to keep
the undesirables from owning weapons.
^ , I forgot the sarc tag
…and the folks who will actually be hurt are law enforcement officers and/or law abiding gun owners. The folks at the top don’t care one bit about those demographics.
Nor do those at the bottom. In fact, those at the bottom, IE criminals, could not POSSIBLY be assessed a tax upon their illegally-possessed firearms because to admit that one HAS a firearm that is subject to taxation would be to admit under duress that one HAD an illegally-possessed firearm, which would be a direct and blatant violation of said criminal’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination as upheld by the US Supreme Court in Haynes v. US supporting Marchetti v. US–A criminal may not be required to register his illegal firearm because to do so would incriminate him for the crime of illegal gun possession.
Therefore, a criminal can’t be compelled to pay a tax on, or obtain (nonexistent) insurance for, a gun that he cannot legally possess (and therefore DOESN’T possess, ‘wink wink’), nor admit that he possesses for the purposes of taxation and insurance, due to his Constitutional right not to provide evidence against his own penal interest.
Of course, that doesn’t apply to people who AREN’T criminals, because Reasons.l
Isn’t The Law grand?
@Tickman
“The North won the Civil War, but the South won the Reconstruction.”
The Democrats retained their slaves after all.
Well, Sam, I could argue that they didn’t get to keep them, they just “bought them back” with LBJ and his “Great Society” nonsense. After all, it was LBJ who said that his Great Society program would “have those n*****s voting Democrat for 100 years”.
But, your point is valid. Getting less so by the day, however, which is a great sign.
I am hoping that an intrepid SJPD officer decides to start w/ the mayor. Dude probably has guns and there is a good chance he has not paid. Even if he has paid, let him know what it is like when the cops go to wrong house by accident.
I HAVE USCCA CAUSE I KNOW THINGS CAN GO SOUTH IF / OR I EVER DEFEND MYSELF .
IT MAY COME TO THAT AS THAT MATOR SEEMS TO BE PUSHING .
YES , I ALSO HAVE WEAPON SAFE IN HOME .
Y’ALL STAY SAFE AND ALERT BEST CAN , GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Long time since I looked at USCCA. Have they moved from a reimbursement model to a direct representation model?
Before I’d jumped on that band wagon I would have to know what gunm insurance companies have done with a dgu as to date.
It seems to me any legitimate self defensive weapons use wouldn’t need to be insured. For instance, your bullet goes through a wall and kills someone on the other side. What good would an insurance do about that? You dont get off negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter. whatever theyd call it, simply because you have liability insurance.
Gunm insurance is a bad deal and I said it when it was NRA Carry Insurance promoted on TTAG.
First its voluntary, and with enough contributors it will become mandatory .
“It seems to me any legitimate self defensive weapons use wouldn’t need to be insured.”
Really, Possum? The insurance we are talking about is personal liability insurance. Such insurance is there to pay the expenses of restoring a damaged person to their condition prior to the damage.
The other type of “insurance” is seemingly broken down between reimbursement for expenses of legal representation in a DGU, or pre-paid legal defense service in a case where a person is charged with a crime as a result of lawful actions involving a firearm (DGU).
The problem with the NRA offering wasn’t function, but labeling. NRA positioned their product as “insurance”, but lacked the required licenses to sell “insurance”.
If a person is involved in a situation where use of a firearm is required, no matter how righteous the use, that person can be subjected to arrest and trial. The entire cost of defense, and acquittal is born by the accused. Pre-paid legal services seem like a good deal.
Sam,
The whole industry of “carry insurance” is incredibly fraught. In the first instance, it is illegal to “insure” against criminal acts, so . . . depending on the state, the carrier, and the circumstances, if you get charged and tried for a DGU, and are NOT found “not guilty” (even if you are guilty of a ‘lesser included’ charge, like negligent homicide or reckless endangerment), you’re batter out.
The real issue is that “the process IS the punishment”. A felony trial, appropriate legal representation, etc. will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In KKKalifornia (by statute) and many other states, insurance companies will usually tender defense under a “reservation of rights” – if you aren’t exonerated, they reserve the right to seek restitution for the money spent on your defense (they don’t always do it, but they have the right).
IF you want carry insurance or something similar, it only makes sense if (i) you are already familiar with your state’s laws re: self-defense, (ii) you CAREFULLY review the terms and coverage of the policy you are considering, and (iii) keep in mind what it does, and what it doesn’t, cover.
Most DGU coverage . . . doesn’t cover much. IF it covers your defense costs, that’s better than average. Liability coverage will largely depend on what allegations the DA makes and what the outcome of the trial is.
That also applies to prepaid legal – many policies expressly include charges of intentional criminal acts.
Sam, sorry, on last sentence, it should be “many policies expressly EXCLUDE charges of intentional criminal acts.”
My bad.
the insurance they want gun owners to have is not to pay any “victims” or civil liability. The insurance they want you to have is the kind that pays the city to reimburse them for the money they supposedly spend because a fool somewhere decides to commit a crime.
The self-defense “insurances” are no good in this case, its not the right kind of insurance. These pay/provide for a criminal defense if you get hauled into court because of exercising self-defense, and for civil liability in a trial in case you get sued, and you “own” the exclusive rights to that “insurance”. What San Jose wants is insurance that pays the city directly when they file a claim against it, you pay for the insurance but the city is the owner of the insurance. Such an insurance does not exist in California, such an insurance scheme is illegal in the State of California. San Jose knows this. Every firearm in San Jose is now subject to confiscation and you will never get it back while this tyranny and unconstitutional fee scheme exists because you will never be able to get the insurance because it does not exist.
And who actually offers this insurance?
how the hell is this not in Court and stayed until final resolution?
Because it’s in KKKalifornia, home of the most idiotic branch of the Leftist/fascists . . . including a functioning majority of the 9th Circus (despite Trump/McConnell’s efforts to the contrary).
Eventually, SCOTUS will (probably) slap them down – there is certainly sufficient precedent. How many people’s right will have been trampled by then is the only question.
“how the hell is this not in Court and stayed until final resolution?”
The first step in filing a law suit is determining “standing”. The plaintiff must demonstrate the legal authority to bring a suit. As I have been educated, “standing” generally requires something of value to be “damaged”, and that the court can restore/mitigate/eliminate the alleged “damage”. An “injunction” (temporary or permanent) is one form of relieving the “damage”, but not the only measure to pursue.
Some one will have to raise a claim of “damage” in order to get the SJ law before a court. So long as SJ does not take steps to enforce the law, it might be very difficult to pursue “damages” that haven’t actually happened.
(Attorneys, did I get this right?)
@Geoff “A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine” PR
“Yes, we do, both roughly equal in size, with distinct differences in how they perceive their relationship should be with the government as a whole, and you know it, Samuel.”
“Tribes” in the sense of Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., don’t live spread out across the whole nation. They are insular. Political parties are not tribes. In the US, you can live quietly next door to someone who wants to end your political party. In a classic sense, people from a disfavored tribe cannot quietly move into lands controlled by another tribe.
@John in AK
“It exists to guarantee the hypothetical ‘you,’ as a free citizen,’ the ability, through commensurate and equivalent firepower, to ward off the depredations of a tyrannical power, in the form of a government, that is traducing your freedom.”
Zackly.
That’s the quiet part the 2A defense organizations avoid.
@LampOfDiogenes
The term “insurance”, as regards personal liability, is apt. If I drop my range bag on someone’s shiny new Countach, and damage it, my personal liability will cover repairs. Should I drop my firearm on the foot of a visitor to my home, my personal liability (and/or homeowner policy) will cover medical expenses. If I tell you to use my super-duper CLP, and it ruins your firearm, my personal liability will cover repair/replacement. My personal liability policy is indeed personal liability insurance.
If I want protection for legal use of my firearm that results in civil or criminal charges, I want some sort of program that provides legal representation. In such case, it seem I have the choice of two basic programs: legal expense reimbursement; direct assistance. Neither program type is “insurance”.
If the prosecutor includes a hundred lesser offenses in charging me with unlawful use of a firearm, depending on the representation program, it may be that under either program above, that things get complicated. Regardless, I do not have the personal resources to find a lawyer (and “experts”) who could do more than enter a “not guilty” plea. If the charge is limited to a sole count of illegal use of a firearm, I would be better off with prepaid legal services*. In no case possible would I be purchasing “insurance” as a means of obtaining legal representation. The process is the punishment, and the costs are real. There is no obligation to be without any protection against ruinous costs of the system.
Today, learned that the SJ law is designed to directly benefit the city, not make whole the person receiving the conical shaped copper. If there is no way to obtain true “insurance” that would pay the city, then the matter would legitimately (in CA) be a valid law, even if it is impossible to comply (CA supreme court ruling), which has far-ranging implications.
*Essentially establishing a “retainer” for legal services. Am not aware that paying a “retainer” for legal services is prohibited in any state, under any circumstance.
Oh, I am a huge fan of prepaid legal fee programs (IF the terms make sense), because for most such charges, the process IS the punishment. But even prepaid legal will often exclude intentional criminal acts (READ the policy, not the summary of it!!). Hey, they ain’t great, but they’re better than nothing – just get the best one you can find.
And I suspect MOST homeowners policies would cover at least part of the liability from a LEGAL DGU (the standard practice is that, if you are cleared on the DGU-related charges, the perps “family” will sue you for wrongful death). READ YOUR POLICY. As my law school Contracts professor put it (quite succinctly), “Insurance companies are in the business of selling coverage, and denying liability.” For a long time, most insurance companies would almost habitually deny coverage – if you wanted it, you had to fight for it. In KKKalifornia, they first created a judicial doctrine called “bad faith denial of coverage” – i.e., the insurance company KNEW the claim was covered by the policy, but denied it anyway. Juries began awarding punitive damages against the insurance companies for bad faith refusal (entirely appropriate, IMHO). Then CA made that statutory. Now, any insurance company in CA will at least tender defense (cover your legal costs) under a “reservation of rights” letter, reserving their right to seek reimbursement if the claim was NOT covered. But they don’t deny coverage right off the bat (as a practical matter, they don’t USUALLY pursue reimbursement).
I carry homeowners, with an excess coverage rider for liability, I do have a prepaid legal program, and a separate rider on my firearms and art. I don’t like the way insurance companies do business, but that doesn’t mean I won’t buy insurance that I think makes sense. I just read EVERY WORD of every policy before I sign my name and cut the check.
@LampOfDiogenes
“Sam, sorry, on last sentence, it should be “many policies expressly EXCLUDE charges of intentional criminal acts.” My bad.”
No probla-mo. Understood what you meant.
“Has the mayor calculated how many cops his police department has who are willing to risk working the confiscation detail, gathering up firearms from law-abiding gun owners?”
My guess is all of them will be ever so happy to steal your guns and kill you and your little dog Toto too.
@John in AK
“Perhaps if the phrase was modified to say, “. . . overthrowing a hypothetical tyrannical government, but certainly not THIS one, which is the Greatest Thing Since Warm Sliced Bread With Fresh Creamery Butter and could NEVER become tyrannical, which would be inconceivable, because we’re just speaking hypothetically, of course!” might pass muster.”
You might be on to something, there.
Pick your friends wisely…….
Comments are closed.