In This City, a US First on Gun Ownership
A $25 annual fee and liability insurance now required if you want to own a gun in this town. Which town? Well, let’s just say there’s a guy on here that hogs the internet at his local library and is starting an “organization”
I'm all for this. It's about time criminals started to take some responsibility and buy insurance for their unregistered firearms
If San Jose is looking to grab some attention they should give SJG a mic and let him do a press conference talking about his organization. If he does that every womens rights group in America will install forget who Christ Brown and Marilyn Manson are.
Still waiting for CA to pass a law allowing any citizen to sue anyone else cause they don't like them having a firearm, just like TX abortion law...
Apparently it's not unconstitutional if the government isn't enforcing it?
Actually I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to require that gun owners carry liability insurance.
^^ The difference is that the right to bear arms is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, and the "right" to an abortion was spelled out in what legal scholars agree is a poorly reasoned argument. Oh and I'm mostly pro choice.
Gavin Newsom proposed some right to sue your neighbors over "ghost guns" without serial numbers, but those are rare.
Shall not be infringed means what it says.
There is no question that states are able to regulate firearms. Question is whether an insurance requirement unduly infringes on the 2d amendment. Should be interesting to watch it play out. In practical terms, insurance for an adult homeowner with no criminal record probably wouldn’t be all that expensive. Might even be able to include it under your homeowners policy. The NRA will obviously get a lot of mileage out of it.
I don’t see requiring that you carry insurance for liability as an infringement on anyone, actually it’s a way of protecting your rights, consider this, suppose you are in the legal right and protecting yourself you shoot an innocent bystander, no question that you have liability, but suppose you don’t have the means to make an injured party whole, or if you carelessly in a moment of weakness lose control of that firearm and it is used by an person who is prohibited by law from handling a firearm to cause harm again you have legal liability maybe not criminal but even so you lack the means to repay the injured party. Sorry I think the requirement that you establish that you can carry out your responsibilities, and liability insurance would be the best way make this a reality and isn’t unreasonable nor infringement of your rights
Charlton Heston must be turning over in his grave hearing this!
The great Moses wouldn’t allow this on his NRA watch!
In all honesty, this seems reasonable. It’s not restricting gun ownership. It’s simply making gun owners bear the burden of insurance for the firearms they own. I don’t think the tax payers should bear the burden of this liability.
@25
"actually it’s a way of protecting your rights,"
And would it cover the scenarios you described and prevent legal liability? Shit, I'd pay $150 a year, even if I'm already covered under my company's legal insurance and the US Concealed Carry Association. It would have to be insurance rather than a backdoor fine or tax. That means that $150 a year will only be borne by responsible law-abiding citizens, i.e. not the people who are doing damage with guns. As such, it looks like a liberal politician wants attention.
You guys need to stop worrying so much about who’s a liberal and who’s a conservative and start focusing on what makes sense and what doesn’t, BTW there’s been criminal behavior in this country by both liberal and conservative people neither has a monopoly on that
Responsible behavior means just that it has no ideology other than be responsible
Curious as to exactly how many shootings over the last 5 years were not in in furtherance of criminal activity that would require insurance company to pay out. I own several firearms and am all for responsible gun ownership but this seems much more like a political stunt than something that will actually do anything
I think it's great. This should be nationwide.
^ Do you think this has been proffered in good faith, when the annual fee "will be funneled to a nonprofit that will use the funds to help victims of gun violence and prevent other gun crimes"?
Super, so you can own a gun if you kick Bloomberg (ironic number!) $25 every year?
The people who cause damage with their guns are not the responsible ones.
Stop laying car insurance. Coz responsible drivers don't hurt others. Right?
^ Stop laying car insurance? Please translate that to English.
Responsible drivers pay lower premiums, and aren't forced to kick money to anti-driving associations.
This is stupid all the way, I don’t know how much insurance would cost, but that isn’t the issue, you want people to identify themselves before allowing them to vote, and we very well should, if you want the right to own a firearm you need to demonstrate your ability to take care of your responsibilities regarding ownership of that, both voting and gun rights are in the constitution you need to treat them equally or you’re not a conservative you’re a hypocrite.
@25, ID card to vote = insurance to own firearms? That is one of the most painful analogies I've ever heard.
How can one justify a $25 annual fee to a "a nonprofit that will use the funds to help victims of gun violence and prevent other gun crimes," as the price to exercise a constitutional right?
Trolladon you argue for the sake of arguing right wing delusions
And your car insurance money pool is used on claims caused by bad drivers
@Icey, you call me delusional when you clearly have no idea how insurance, auto or otherwise, works.
I never said one word about any fee, you’re laying a straw man at my feet, all I said was very simply I don’t think it’s a bad idea to require gun owners to carry insurance.
^ The proposal is saying words about fees. And that's why I say this proposal is in bad faith.
If you want to indemnify me against any non-criminal misuse of my gun, sure. And show me the analysis that I'm not paying more than that (which would make it a backdoor fine).
BTW my idea of conservatism is being a responsible person, I find the new breed conservatism to be bullshit and hypocrisy
^ Label me whatever you want. My views are my views.
That’s just that proposal and just like everything else it will be debated and my guess is the fee will be stricken as unconstitutional but the idea that rights come with responsibilities will get more favorable treatment
^ OK. Let's apply that to every right we have. No trying to backdoor them.
BTW what you’ll be identified against will be subject to debate as well, but there’s no doubt in my mind that expectations that you will bear the cost of your actions and to that end the only way I know of forcing that responsibility on the persons responsible it to require that you have the means to cover your expenses, for most that would mean an insurance requirement
^ I think it's a dangerous precedent in other ways. Do we have to insure ourselves against harmful assembly, equal to the cost of the BLM riots prorated? Or speech that might cause offense? Surely, the pen is mightier than the sword (or gun).
BTW I favor girls having the right to defend themselves against pimps. Hope you do too.
Trolladon going off with what if scenarios again thinking it makes him a right wing martyr
Insurance for gun owners is a great idea
^ I know thought experiments tax your limited intellect, but that's how a lot of law and philosophy are done, dumbass.
It’s crazy
The vast majority of gun ownership results in bad things happening, not good things.
You can't keep guns away from hardened criminals like this, but you can keep law abiding people within the law.
SJG
Chaka Khan - Melody Still Lingers On (Live, 1981) 84,349 viewsSep 19, 2012 youtube.com
Its just more Unconstitutional grandstanding by the tards on the left and violates all second amendment rulings. Texas law violates no precedent at all and despite what the nitwits on the left say, has yet to be ruled upon. What next from the left? Infectious disease insurance.
Insurance companies tried to sell gun liability insurance in NJ and the libs went fucking crazy. They called it "murder insurance" and passed a law. It is now ILLEGAL to sell or buy liability insurance that covers use of deadly force.
They thought if insured, lawful gun owners would feel empowered to go out and start shooting people.
Sorry, it was an executive order, not an actual law. lawenforcementtoday.com
It isn't unconstitutional since it benefits government interests. The argument that it hinders the 2md amendment is ridiculous. Its like opposing criminal background checks for gun ownership
"It isn't unconstitutional since it benefits government interests.
I'm sure that made sense in your head.
Shall not be infringed.
@IceeJerkoff... How do you explain the fact that San Jose wants to REQUIRE insurance while NJ has BANNED it, punishable by a fine of $1,000,000 if an insurance company attempts to sell it? Just shows how fucked up everything is on the left.
Ok Icee... we'll just record your response as "no comment" and a rare instance when you're at a loss for words.
They'll lose the lawsuits challenging it's constitutionality.
It's pathetic watching dumb tricks pretend to get worked up over legislation in other states just so they have a soap box for their bigoted vitriol
^ Eminent constitutional scholar, lol
What's genuinely stupid is calling people that don't agree with your point of view tricks or tards, like that's really going to make your point.
@25, you forgot to say "lulz."
Anything to the right of AOC to him is "Q" or "Nazi." He's established factual knowledge and moral turpitude repeatedly.
Lulz.
Buddy there are just as many on the other side of the debate, that use slurs and yes I've been guilty of this myself, but in all honesty I don't see this as unconstitutional, and I am not a lawyer, but none of our lawyers here are what I would consider to be constitutional scholars, so there's that as well. P.S. You know I'm no fan of Icee's
Do you oppose criminal background checks? Waiting periods when buying guns? These are aimed at lessening liability as well.
But you don't really care about this law. This thread is just another soap box for your twisted politics. Trolladon = Dave Andersons twin
@25, I know you are. We were discussing this civilly before DumbasseyLoco stuck himself in the middle of this thread. Lulz.
Like others mentioned, this policy might not even be popular among the left. It has to be insurance, not a backdoor tax which has been struck down.
It'll go to court and, if it gets as far as the Supreme Court, it'll be struck down (most likely).
The question is whether or not liability insurance is an onerous burden on gun ownership as compared to the risk of harm to the public, and thus triggering 2nd Amendment protections or not. States require car insurance which is a precedent for requiring insurance on property that might harm (or kill) persons or property. And I know that the ardent 2nd Amendment guys like to yell "Shall not be infringed!" in response, but the reality is that the courts have carved out exceptions to Constitutional rights in several instances. So, it could happen here as well.
But I don't think it will ... this time. The NRA is a hot mess and far less effective than they used to be (and it's all their own fault).
Also, I own several guns, so this is relevant to me.
^ CMI, I don't think the left would take kindly to "insurance" that indemnifies gun owners against mishaps. See above and what happened in NJ.
The fee that kicks money to an "anti gun violence" organization (which sounds like one that supports gun control) sounds punitive. And in my experience the left wants to punish gun ownership, not make it safe. I don't like that's proposition's odds.
This isn't an exception like shouting fire in a movie theater, or criminal background checks. There's no argument that this is going to prevent imminent harm or unlawful use.
I would easily pay $125 a year to indemnify myself from anything not explicitly criminal that might happen with my guns, though I store them in full accordance with Massachusetts law.
Tetradon said "And in my experience the left wants to punish gun ownership, not make it safe."
That's not wholly true. I know people and spend a fair amount of time in Vermont, which is sort of the poster child for blue states. Except that gun ownership in Vermont is off the charts (especially in comparison to the population density). That's why Bernie Sanders got pilloried by the Democratic Party when he was running against H. Clinton. His voting record is very gun friendly.
And there are similar cadres of "gun-friendly but left leaning" populations popping up in places like Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, where the politics are starting to skew purple, but a lot of people still love their guns.
All that being said, I don't believe that this San Jose law will stick.
@CMI, it's a general statement, not a universal. The left is driven by coastal progressives well haven't seen a gun not on TV.
Those states you mention are blue to purple, but all somewhat rural. A gun is a tool to them, not a penis extension or an object of fear.
$25 a year is not much.
This is influenced be a few things. That spree shooting at the Light Rail Office. That many cannot own guns because of a felony conviction, a Domestic Violence Conviction, or a psychiatric incident.
Mayor Liccardo has said before that he wants to find ways to restrict guns.
If courts let this stand, then there will be less guns.
We run about 35 homicides per year, low for our city size. Almost all are solved. But we have lots more shootings.
Most of these are cases where the registered gun owner might not be squeezing the trigger, but they many have some culpability. I suspect that this is part of the motivation, making lawful gun owners keep their guns out of the wrong hands.
And the public is paying the costs. This is true.
SJG
Clapton, Beware of Darkness youtube.com
@SJG, your statements are contradictory. If $25 a year isn't much, it wouldn't reduce the number of guns.
And see above, if this sort of liability was described as "murder insurance," it might not be popular with either side.
There are ways to go after permitted gun owners who purchase for others, but that would involve prosecuting straw purchasers. And that's directly at loggerheads with the left's stated goal of "decarceration." Insurance would indemnify people whose guns are stolen.
As I read the article, $25 was the municipal fee.
The cost of the insurance remains unknown. And they may impose rules, like trigger locks, or even safes. They may have a reporting rule if the whereabouts of the weapon should ever become unknown, and they may require safety and legal training.
I don't know.
We had a Gilroy Chief of Police who brought his off duty gun when he was to attend his daughter's college graduation. He was told that he could not take the weapon in, so he locked it in the car.
It got stolen.
Some have said that police agencies need to provide car gun safes.
And some police agencies impose a fine in such situations. Guns locked in cars have proven to be a big safety problem. I think it is this type of stuff, the lawfully registered gun which is not being kept safely, which is motivating Liccardo. It is this and the public costs.
Need to wait until more info comes out about this move of the SJ Council.
And so of course we want this thread open as this will likely playout over many years.
SJG
I oppose the Government doing criminal background checks on anyone simply because they are the ones that make us need guns in the first place. Why would I tell my enemy about how I defend myself? Anyone think that California's sole reason for passing this is that insurance companies won't insure gun owners and that its nothing more than a way to ban guns. Fer chrissake people; think.
Liccardo and the Council would like to cut down on the number of guns in circulation.
But Skibum609, how far would you go, machine guns, dynamite, artillery?
SJG
insurance companies won't insure gun owners and that its nothing more than a way to ban guns<
That's ridiculous and there are many insurance companies writing all types of insurance policies for firearms including liability, if you can post you can go on Google and find this out for yourself, but you prefer to make up shit out of your ass
Sorry it sucks being you and when you can point out a policy at any insurance company that would be in line with California's law I will admit I am wrong. I won't hold my breath whiny bitch. Such a progressive, oy vey.
you're retarded
Lets see how this unfolds, in San Jose, in the courts, and likely in other states.
SJG
I accept your surrender.
Kiss my ass dumbell
That seems kinda gay. Learn that in prison?
^^ Glad you two guys don't have guns, virtual guns.
SJG
I have real guns, and I have both, liability insurance, and my guns are insured against loss. Anyone can get insurance on firearms as long as they are lawfully acquired, and used in a lawful manner, any place in the United States of America, knuckle head. I'm not going to waste my energy arguing with the likes of you any more it makes me feel stupid to think, that you believe anyone with a brain even cares what you think.
Do you have any links which explain about this insurance?
And how do you feel about the new law? Do you think people should be required to have such insurance to own a gun?
Does the insurance require any training or impose any rules?
SJG
^ I stated earlier on this thread I don't think requiring the owners of firearms to purchase liability insurance was a bad idea at all, and I don't think that the second part requiring a annual fee would fly, My insurance requires my CCP be kept up to date, and that I abide by all laws and keep my firearms in an approved secure container when they are not on my person. Does that answer your question ?
@SJG "The cost of the insurance remains unknown. And they may impose rules, like trigger locks, or even safes. They may have a reporting rule if the whereabouts of the weapon should ever become unknown, and they may require safety and legal training."
It said the cost of guns to the community is $125 per year. Add in some administrative costs, and it couldn't come out to much more than that per year.
I don't know CA laws but I imagine they're close to on par with MA which requires guns to be secured, reporting if a gun is lost or stolen, and safety and legal training to get a license. So that's already covered.
This insurance would need to provide something else. I have legal insurance through work, carry insurance through the US Concealed Carry Association, and have taken advanced classes in firearms law.
I think the $25 is just an administrative fee. It all looks rather like motor vehicle rules.
You know that it is often police who have not followed that secure container rule. Police off duty guns get stollen out of parked cars, and some have turned up in violent crimes.
Yes 25, your information is very informative.
Do you think the courts should let this stand and that other place should follow the example?
SJG
No, they said the $25 will go to a "a nonprofit that will use the funds to help victims of gun violence and prevent other gun crimes"
That sounds like a mandatory donation to Everytown or some other gun-ban (masquerading as "gun safety" organization).
Well that is interesting. A basis on which it might be challenged. Not sure.
I am sure that in principle Liccardo and the SJ Council would like to ban guns. San Francisco's administration has long promoted that.
SJG
^ Much of the left, especially the urban left, takes a punitive attitude towards firearm owners. They don't see a use for them in the Upper East Side or the Back Bay, so they want to ban them everywhere.
If they wanted to reduce gun crime, they could enforce the laws on the books.
I'm all for federalism on the matter. Laws that make sense in one place might not make sense in another.
Do you oppose criminal background checks? Waiting periods when buying guns? These are aimed at lessening liability as well.
^ I support criminal background checks but oppose waiting periods. Women die during waiting periods to protect themselves from domestic abusers.
It's a different paradigm than insurance.
So you support mitigating gun liability so long as it fits into your myopic world view
^ Ooh, I knew you couldn't stop being a jackass for more than one post! I should have taken bets on how many posts you could get before you reverted to your usual dickhole self.
I am more educated on this topic than you. So is 25, and Skibum is an actual lawyer. I don't know SJG's creds, but he is holding a civil conversation.
Shut the fuck up when the adults are talking.
Now you're butthurt coz I called you our.
^ You called nothing out. You can see my proposals above on the thread and engage with facts.
Or you can fuck off.
Your what if fantasy scenarios are irrelevant drivel. But keep on using every thread as a soapbox. Event hough you admitted to supporting liability measures when it suits you
^ "What if" scenarios are how laws are created and philosophical arguments are made.
Of course, being incapable of independent thought, you have to reflexively take the leftist opinion and can't analyze an issue beyond that.
Still waiting for a single fact from you, rather than an assertion of your shallow worldview.
Good. This reflects the reality that private gun ownership endangers the public and impoverishes our society, rather than the "conservative" fantasy of a lone concealed carrier saving the day, Hollywood style, which pretty much never happens.
^ Don't like guns, don't own one. Hey, it works for abortion.
I've never heard abortions going off in my neighborhood, not knowing where the fetus is coming from and what it's going to hit.
Nor has my kid's school ever gone into lock down cause another kid was caught with an abortion in the building. I suppose you think he's some kinda good guy?
Abortions don't hit innocent bystanders. EVER.
"Abortions don't hit innocent bystanders. EVER."
HAHAHA. I'm pro choice (because an abortion ban is virtually unforceable) but had a good laugh over that one. Thank you.
If you want to repeal the second amendment, come right out and say it. Until then, "shall not be infringed."
18th amendment to the US Constitution:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
There's really nothing in the constitution that makes one amendment any more important than any other... So there's no reason other than political will preventing another amendment from doing what the 21st amendment did to the 18th but to the 2nd. So stop hiding behind this as if it is some greater power scribed to stone by some almighty fantasy passed on through 2000 years of history.
And for most of that political willpower, it's just a wedge issue used to divide people.
"Good. This reflects the reality that private gun ownership endangers the public and impoverishes our society, rather than the "conservative" fantasy of a lone concealed carrier saving the day, Hollywood style, which pretty much never happens."
I agree with LecherousMonk
This NRA fantasy of the lone gun carrier is the basis of Republican Party populism.
SJG
Frampton youtube.com
@bkkruined
Have you ever heard of this little-known thing called the Bill of Rights? How about this... Go fuck yourself.
^ A Well Regulated Militia is what is called for. Individual gun ownership is something very different from that.
SJG
Year of the Tiger 2022 latimes.com.
Starts Tues Feb 1st chinahighlights.com
CharmyNY tuscl.net
Individual civilian gun ownership IS the militia.
Don't like it, overturn it. Wouldn't hold my breath.
No, Well Regulated. Private gun ownership has been a disaster.
The idea that the 2nd Amendment should allow arbitrary unrestricted gun ownership has long been over turned. There are all kinds of restrictions in place, and these have been for a long time.
Attitudes started to turn against guns after the murders of Jack, Bobby, and Martin.
For people who want to use guns in a revolutionary way, like the abolitionist John Brown, it makes no difference whether on not they are legal. They know they are sacrificing their lives. robertsspaceindustries.com
Sweden runs about 7 murders per year. But at that Dallas Parkland Hospital they are dealing with gun shot wounds in high volume every weekend. And they get more than 7 homicides committed by children under the age of 12 every month.
Remember when Bill Clinton came into office, the FDA considered regulating guns as a public health problem. I think it is out of this that Sam Liccardo's thinking comes. Early in his mayorship we had a San Jose PD officer gunned down. And then there was that Light Rail Office spree shooting. And a few years back we had a rampage shooter at a cement factory in Cupertino. The whole town spend a night in lock down until the killer was finally apprehended.
SJG
A well regulated militia refers to a volunteer military force regulated and controlled by the government. That was the context for gun ownership under the end amendment. It was never meant to be a free for all. That stems from the wild west. Not yhe constitution.
^ agreed.
The well regulated militia today is our National Guard.
Gun fervor got going because of the fear of slave revolts like Nat Turner's.
SJG
the militia was all people capable of military service or fighting. Back then it basically meant adult men but today it includes pretty much everyone over the age of 18. The militia is just he population of the country.
Therefore when the 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", it's saying that an armed population ready to organize and fight is necessary for the security of the country.
It then goes on to say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Here, bear means to carry around and keep is obvious.
So, what the 2nd amendment actually says in modern tongue is something closer to, "The population being armed and in working order is necessary for the security of the country. The right of people to have and carry around guns shall not be restricted."
That is what it says and every law beneath it which exists in contradiction is not valid except that it is enforced by those in power. This is something people need to understand. It's the people not the armed services or national guard.
Sounds like a few people here haven't read Heller vs. DC. Or do you only accept Supreme Court rulings you already agree with.
@ime has actually done some research on the matter, on what a "well-regulated militia" refers to.
Who here is honest enough to say they want to overturn the 2nd amendment? At least be honest about that.
bkk> So stop hiding behind this as if it is some greater power scribed to stone
To change the Constitution you need 75% of the states to ratify the change. Right now the Republicans dominate control at the state level controlling 60% of state senates and houses. Republicans usually support the 2A so any change would require a massive shift in attitude.
According to pewresearch only 53% favor stricter gun control laws.
You're misinterpreting the second amendment. Gun regulations are constitutional. Weapons bans are constitutional.
^ Firearm ownership is an individual right. Deal with it.
Who here is honest enough to say they want to overturn the 2nd amendment? At least be honest about that.
I think the left is open and honest about their dislike of the constitution. They don't like the Senate, the electoral college, 2A, and now even the 1A is under their fire.
@yahtzee, most of them take an incremental approach to dismantling gun rights.
Everything they say has an expiration date. From "no one's trying to take your guns" to "hell yes we're going to take your AR-15s."
Or treating "gun violence" as a public health issue when the very name declares their conclusion.
Every win emboldens them to go for more. It would be honest for them to say "we want to repeal the second amendment and confiscate your guns at gunpoint."
They won't because that gives away the game.
There is no God. If there was, every anti-gun nut job would drop dead. If there is any kind of God he's a fucking piece of shit.
Unregulated gun ownership is unconstitutional... deal with it.
^ Incorrect. Read it. Shall not be infringed.
State and local taxes and regulations are legal as long as ownership is allowed. That doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. It gives you the right to own arms but doesn't guarantee you gun ownership.
Stop with the q anon bs and educate yourself
^ You said "unregulated gun ownership is unconstitutional." Show me the part of the constitution that said that.
I never said every regulation was unconstitutional. Stop tilting at strawmen.
And educate yourself on what "q anon" means.
You have zero understanding of the law. You claim unregulated gun ownership is constitutional then back track to saying some regulations are okay.
You're just trying to force your misinformed dogmatism on here just like dixienormus et al. But at least he doesn't keep contradicting himself in every post. Unlike you.
Backtrack? Your little brain can't process any nuance of political views. Even when I said earlier that I favor criminal background checks but not waiting periods. Everything to you is either "my side" or "not my side."
Leave the stripper hoes alone for a bit and get your GED. You might embarrass yourself a little less when speaking to more educated and intelligent people.
You favor measures that lessen liability and limit ownership while arguing the opposite for the sake of being a troll.
Now hurry and call me stupid so you feel smart and have the last word trolladon
Ok, stupid. Educate yourself on firearms law, as well as how it's possible not to be 100 percent in agreement with one party.
Well, many want t limit private ownership of firearms, and this is a way. It is not just the cost of the insurance, it is the rules the insurance will impose.
And guns getting stolen, like out of parked cars, has been a serious problem. There might be some training requirement, as the insurance will be a requirement.
A lot of people walk around with guns, with a completely distorted view of the relevant laws.
SJG
Weather Report - Weather Report (1971) [FULL ALBUM] youtube.com
@SJG, do you believe private ownership of firearms should be permitted at all?
I think that is a difficult issue, and that we have to look carefully at what all the parameters are. I don't think we have to stop all such ownership, but I do believe that their should be serious restrictions.
Rampage shootings are so common, and most all uses of guns are for bad.
SJG
Monalisa Twins youtube.com
if looks could kill tuscl.net
One thing I would support is that any time a known gang member is arrested for any reason, before he can be released he's got to complete a gun safety and marksmanship course. Then maybe next time he'll hit the intended target and not some little kid or other innocent bystander.
I mean, if you think about it, they're not the kind of guys who regularly go to a range for practice. I'll bet the ONLY time most of these idiots ever pulled a trigger is when they were trying to shoot someone.
@SJG, as you could tell, I am very pro-2nd amendment, though not one of the extremes that believe rocket launchers should be available to civilians. I've heard a few different interpretations, such as that the 2nd amendment allows "arms" (i.e. small arms) but prohibits "ordnance" (i.e. cannons and that kind of shit). There's a misconception that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern arms, when muskets were the AR-15s of the day, or only protects deer hunting and sport shooting, when that isn't a militia.
The idea of incrementally restricting any amendment from the Bill of Rights scares the shit out of me. Because once "it's in the Constitution" becomes a suggestion rather than a law, it becomes precedent to neuter any other part of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, and the Press create discord in society. Rallies turn into riots. Disinformation gets promulgated. Religions promote a loyalty that supercedes the state. All those come with social and financial costs. Do we want to charge a tax to assemble, equal to the cost of the BLM and January 6th riots? That gets scary.
I don't buy the idea that going door to door confiscating guns is possible, let alone salutary. In a 2013 police survey, the great majority of police and sheriffs surveyed said that cause of gun violence is one of values, not one of the availability of guns, and that they would refuse confiscation orders. To say nothing of half a billion in civilian hands, the owners of which won't part with them easily. Ergo, that ship has sailed.
Personally, I own several arms for the purpose of recreational shooting, self and home defense. I went through the state permit process and didn't see it as onerous or restrictive. I store them in accordance with Massachusetts law, though I keep them ready just in case. I know guns are used in crimes, but mine are not. The right to self-defense pre-dates the Constitution, going back to the Magna Carta and English Common Law from which our legal system descends (and is still used as precedent). I will not forfeit that right.
Police have been found not-liable for failing to respond to home invasions and gruesome rapes, and during the BLM riots were even called away from a woman whose car was surrounded by rioters. They also average 20 minutes to respond to a distress call. Hiding in a closet and praying is not a viable strategy.
Well Freedom of Speech does not mean that you can say absolutely anything anywhere. The people who usually try to push it this way are the Religious Fundamentalist Evangelists who are trying to take over public space. I have had innumerable heated discussions with law enforcement and other officials making them understand that religious groups are not above the law.
Good book about this: amazon.com
A well regulated militia means our state National Guards, and these cannot be released to a governor except by the President.
Other approaches to maintaining public safety guardianangels.org
SJG
Monalisa Twins youtube.com
The 2nd amendment came over a century before the National Guard, and the Supreme Court has affirmed it as an individual right. So, no idea where you're getting that from.
Freedom of Speech means you're going to hear things you don't like. It has societal costs. Should those require "insurance" as well? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword (or gun)...
When the Bill of Rights was passed we had well ordered militias.
And SCOTUS as approved many gun ownership restrictions.
What Liccardo has done may or may not stand. But I am sure he has checked it out and has tried to write it so that it will stand.
Freedom of Speech does not give you any right to say anything you want anywhere. When the religious groups try to take over tax payer funded space they are usually saying that their religion puts them above the law, so they are protesting against the First Amendment.
Many times necessary to educate LE and officials. I have always suggested that if they think the religious groups are above the law that they let them use the Mayor's Office and the City Council Chamber.
We have SWAT officers with body armor and assault rifles, but they are still scared of bible brandishers.
I cannot speak to the specific BLM protest incident you have mentioned. But BLM was for he most part been entirely peaceful and non-violent protest. Here in San Jose what violence was perpetrated was perpetrated by police. Some of their officers came pretty close to a riot. Though Liccardo was no help here, the Chief did have to resign over it, and the Governor did denounce it.
SJG
Please Mr. Postman / Wipe Out - MonaLisa Twins (The Marvelettes Cover) // Live at the Cavern Club youtube.com
When the Bill of Rights was passed, we WERE the well-ordered militia.
SCOTUS has set examples of laws it considered lawful, including prohibiting firearm possession by dangerous people, possession in schools and government buildings, conditions of sale, restrictions on automatic weapons and "destructive devices," storage, etc. This is right from Giffords.org.
It has also affirmed that 2A applies to state and local governments, and overturned complete handgun bans in DC and Chicago. It has affirmed that the right is one of individuals to use for lawful purposes including home defense.
Lots of laws get overturned, so that fact that Liccardo has written it in a certain way, means nothing to me.
Not sure where your obsession with religion came from, but if he's not hurting anyone, the crazy preacher on the corner handing out Chick pamphlets has a right to be there. And BLM protests caused north of $2 billion dollars in damage. To those that say 93% of the protests were peaceful, I say 99.9% of the days of their lives, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer weren't killing people and raping their corpses, yet they were still punished.
We were never a mono-culture. The Brits imported people from Scotland and settled them in the South East, and they were loyal to England, and they fought against the revolution. And there were others, known as Tories, who opposed the revolution.
We will see if Liccardo's law stands. We require liability insurance to own and drive a car. $35,000 minimum coverage last time I checked. This is probably how Liccardo is thinking.
Many other cities and states have some gun restrictions.
Organized groups try to take over tax payer funded space, claiming in effect that their religion places them above the law. ffrf.org
I think BLM is one of the best things which has developed in recent years and I completely stand with it. The effect they had on the governance and policing of San Jose has been salvific. And I love that Hands Up Don't Shoot salute.
SJG
Drive My Car youtube.com
Monoculture or not, our law directly comes more from English Common Law than continental European civil law, nor foreign courts or rulings, nor international bodies like the UN. It is directly descended.
The car insurance paradigm is difficult to apply to the black-letter law of the Constitution. Driving a car might be more necessary in modern society, but it is not explicitly protected. And like I said elsewhere, to be ruled as insurance, it will need to provide insurance against something. And the left will be more up in arms than the right if it covers accidental discharge damage, negligence, theft, etc.
BLM is the newest cast of characters in the racial blackmail racket, just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They're effectively ambulance chasers who see profit opportunity in racial strife. Booker T Washington called them out over 100 years ago.
"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Hands Up Don't Shoot turned out to be a lie. The net effect of BLM has been to increase awareness of a tiny problem (police killing unarmed black civilians) and exacerbate a greater problem (urban homicide and chaos). BLM riots have disproportionately destroyed black-owned businesses and cities.
Your inane rants have zero impact on the fact that the San Jose legislation has been enacted. If you believe in this cause so much go protest in front of sanjo city hall. But you won't. You'll just throw tantrums on a stripper hoe forum.
@DumbasseyLoco, here, we can see how SJG actually has informed himself on the matter, while you just talk shit and show your ignorance of judicial review.
Go get your hoes addicted to something else.
^ I swear if little dick Icee talked this much shit to people in real life someone would have stabbed him to death by now.
^ Or one of his "stripper hoes" exercised her second amendment rights against him next time he mistreated her.
English Common Law has severe short comings. This is why Jefferson's preamble reads Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, instead of following John Locke and reading Life, Liberty and Property.
The United States of America is not a historical nation, not an ethnicity. It is a political project.
The Civil Law countries are more progressive in a number of arenas.
Richard Rorty says that our criminal justice system is designed to destroy the identities of Afro-Americans. It shatters the stories of who they are that they tell to themselves. And everyone needs such identity stories. amazon.com
This is why something like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was very important, just as Black Lives Matter is today. They give people a way to fight and gain back a new identity.
PANTHER ( 1995 ) Full Length Movie (really good!) youtube.com
All Power to the People (also really good) youtube.com
SJG
Ayla tuscl.net
Weather Report - Live at Montreux (1976) [Remastered] youtube.com
M Davis Bitches Brew 1970Full Album] HD 1080p (1) youtube.com
Bob Dylan - Like A Rolling Stone (Live at Newport 1965) youtube.com
Mick Jagger about Bob Dylan's voice. youtube.com
All Along the Watchtower (1994) youtube.com
Frampton youtube.com
Steely Dan: "Live" St. Louis, MO, Sept. 4th, 2006, Full Concert, (HD) youtube.com
Steely Dan - Katy Lied (1975, Studio Album) 09 Any World (That I'm Welcome To) youtube.com
English common law is the system we have, like it or not. We're not meant to be the most progressive country, or not that ultimate liberal insult "on the wrong side of history." There's a process to create a new Constitution.
"Built to destroy the identity of African Americans" is an inflammatory opinion, not a fact. Therefore it doesn't mean anything to me.
And BLM is, like a lot of "civil rights organizations," a money making scheme for the higher ups. Lots of gangs and shakedown artists, around the world, started as "civil rights organizations" then degenerated. Their finances are not transparent. Even families of victims of police shootings say they don't care. Like urban Democratic machines and a lot of race hustlers, they make good money off the misery of black people.
At 127 comments, I wonder if Shailynn has made the choice to ignore his own thread so that he doesn't get a notification every time there's a new post?
I know that nicespice had to ignore at least one of her own threads because it included the subject of 'neurodivergence' and some dick muppet sitting in the San Jose Public Library decided to hijack her thread rather than create his own on the same topic.
^ This has gotten far afield, but is actually a good conversation.
The usual conversation-derailing shitheads are dormant.
British Common Law is our heritage. But even in the UK things have changed much since our revolution. We can and are changing too.
Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors on Abolition & Imagining a Society Based on Care democracynow.org
SJG
We have a process to change that. If we decide, we can do that. Until then, we have what we have.
Patrisse Cullors' is one of those grifters I mentioned above. The definition of "abolition" seems to be a bunch of airy aspirational statements that don't deal in reality. Created a new model in Los Angeles county? Does she mean the homeless camps full of plague and typhus? If that's her dream, it's a nightmare to everyone else. Like most leftist propositions, it would be great if we were angels. But betting on that is for fools.
But we've seen what happens without police or public order. It looks more like Lord of the Flies than Utopia. Look at CHAZ in Seattle, full of armed bands, sexual assault, and even murders. The silly thing is, those "abolitionists" tend to want gun control as well. Take away public order and self-defense, and we're all at the mercy of said armed bands.
Give me cops and prisons any day.
Seattle and Portland are doing very well.
BLM and some related abolitionist movements want to roll back the criminal justice system, de-emphasize it. They say they want to abolish it, but that will not happen anytime soon.
There are homeless encampments in or around all of our large cities. Capitalism is an economic system which shuts many people out. It was like this by the year 1600. Now because of automation and the information economy it is more true. All the Work Ethic Squirrel cage does is make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It costs our society far more to maintain paying jobs than it would for UBI, Medicare for All, Public Housing, and Free College.
We can fix this with Universal Basic Income, Medicare for ALL, and a strong Public Housing Offering.
The UK has one of the most extensive single payer health care for all systems.
SJG
Now we're going in circles and you're repeating the same stuff you say on any thread.
BLM owns their outcomes, not their intentions.
BLM was started in order to address an exorbitant number of suspicious police killings of black men.
It is still responding to this, and I guess also to our over dependence on the criminal justice system.
And we need Medicare for all right now.
SJG
"exorbitant number of suspicious police killings of black men"
This doesn't exist. The number of unarmed black people killed by police is in the teens (and many of them still posed a threat). As far as what's killing young black males, it's waaaaaay down the list.
No, there is a serious problem with our incarceration system: amazon.com
And suspicious police killing of blacks and others is extreme bbc.com
Lets look at the San Jose Insurance Ordinance
Here Mayor Liccardo states his view: npr.org
Insurance requirement passed 10-1, $25 fee requirement passed 8-3 cnn.com
SJG
^^^ man I wish someone would lock you up with no internet access.
@SJG, the plural of anecdote is not data. Several of those are appalling, several are justified self-defense.
The left systematically overestimates the number of black men killed by police. That is a fact. skeptic.com
And we'll see that gun law in court.
"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."
Such a simple and straightforward statement. What it means is that ordinary people may be called upon to quickly organize into "a well regulated militia" if/when it becomes necessary to defend our freedom from tyranny by our own government.
Unfortunately, as technology progressed from black powder muskets to nuclear weapons that can fry entire cities, the right of "the people" has been eroded and infringed with every new advancement that became off-limits to the average citizen.
Am I saying that people should have the right to keep nukes and stinger missiles in their garage? No, of course not, but I'd rather have AR-15s than rakes and pitch forks. In my view ANY concession to the anti-gunners, no matter how seemingly small, is about a million times bigger when you consider how far behind the power curve we already are.
No, a well regulated militia is not made that way.
SJG
^ Yes it is.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights came in the wake of Shay's Rebellion, and the Constitution was promoted by The Federalist Papers. They were moving away from the Constituted Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration of Independence.
So a well regulated militia, not a bunch of vigilantes or hot heads with guns.
We might never get that restrictive, but what the 2nd Amendment gives is not that much.
Fauci tuscl.net
SJG
Joni Mitchell youtube.com
Nonsequitur. See this article about taxes on enumerated rights.
Thanks for that article.
The law is very easy to enforce, just as it is easy to enforce gun registrations and the requirements for sale.
SJG
There is no evidence for positive practical impact of this scheme. It won't raise much money at the rates they're talking about, if they wanted to make the cost punitive then it wouldn't be insurance and the courts would look at it as a tax or a fine (and probably throw it out).
This is, like most gun regulations, a shot fired in the culture war--a way to burnish progressive credentials by finding an innovative way to burden lawful gun owners.
These below make sense:
"If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.
The city could focus its energy on enforcing existing gun laws—perhaps, for example, by disarming its share of the 23,000 Californians who state authorities know possess guns despite being prohibited persons.
It could make these unlawful gun owners and others who commit gun crimes pay by imposing fees and restitution to the state as part of criminal sentencing.
The city also could increase the size of its police force to deal with chronic understaffing and workload problems that inhibit officers’ ability to enforce the law."
Despite the fact that I believe that it is not a bad idea to require liability insurance, I also believe there are too many laws, on the books, and quite a number of what could be effective laws, simply not being enforced, and and it wouldn't be a bad idea to enforce some of the laws we already have, a great start to this would be focusing on those people that are prohibited from owning firearms, and take that sub group of criminals, guns away.
Not to pick on this one place, but it is what I have read about. Dallas Parkland Hospital, every weekend between the emergency room and the morgue, they are pulling out slugs non-stop.
Now if you talked to some people, they would say that it is a constitutional right to own a gun, so you can't do anything about it.
But others look and say no, there has to be something to do about it.
So in Clinton's Presidency there was talk about regulating guns as a public health problem.
I am sure that this is how SJ Mayor Liccardo looks at it, just a numbers game.
And he is a Harvard Law School Grad and former Federal Prosecutor. So I am sure that he got good consultation in drafting the ordinance.
A police officer gunned down, a spree shooter at the Light Rail Office.
And then the insurance, that is a financial barrier, but I don't think that is the real reason, or the idea that the public gets reimbursed.
I think it is the Approved Security Container that 25 has written about. Stolen guns are big problem, even sotlen police guns.
And 25 has voluntary insurance. The involuntary insurance might have a legal training requirement.
Lots of people carrying guns around that are completely misinformed about what constitutes lawful use.
SJG
"Lots of people carrying guns around that are completely misinformed about what constitutes lawful use."
As a percentage, even more people ranting on a strip club website are completely misinformed. Read some case law.
I have spent lots of hours in strip clubs, likely more than you. And especially, with a greater span of years.
I hear stories of thing people say they are going to do with guns, thinking it is lawful and prudent content, even though it often is not at all.
SJG
OMS Martinism 4 of 5 youtube.com
^ Not sure what more time in strip clubs has to do with anything. I didn't say "listen to Tetradon," I said "read some case law."
We will have to see what SCOTUS does with the San Jose law. But I suspect that it will stand and that other cities will follow suit. For one thing, police will want it.
Liccardo is very pro-police.
SJG
^ I'll take the other side of that bet.
We will see. I am not a SCOTUS Justice, but I think Liccardo did his homework. In this state you must have liability insurance to own a car.
SJG
"... The University of Michigan consumer sentiment for the US fell sharply for a second straight month to 61.7 in February of 2022, the lowest since October of 2011 and well below market forecasts of 67.5, preliminary estimates showed ..."
Well our Capitalist Economic System has been broken since the 1870's when we turned into a society of gross surplus.
Now we need to move to:
The Work Ethic Squirrel cage has been stopped!
SJG
^^ my comment above was meant for a different thread
"The Work Ethic Squirrel cage has been stopped!"
If you want your org to be one-tenth of what you say it is, you better be putting 120 hour weeks towards it.
You have no idea what I am doing, or how it is all working.
SJG
I have to carry liability insurance on... My home My cars My boat
Part of my dues to my local carving club goes to liability insurance, which is good only at three locations
So, why should anybody be pissed that somebody wants them to carry insurance on their guns?
"You have no idea what I am doing, or how it is all working.
Except spending the equivalent of a full time job on TUSCL. And having talked about it for 8 years with nothing to show.
Tetradon, my f2f affairs are private, so you have no idea what I do or do not have to show. The Organization I am building is invitation only. It will stay concealed until it is too big for that to be possible.
I think this is how Liccardo is looking at gun regulations. It is just a numbers game, not a civil liberties issue. How do you craft rules which will stand constitutional scrutiny, and which will bring the casualty rate down. Other industrialized countries do not have anything like this kind of a gun violence problem. We don't get any benefit from this either. And it still seems to be racism which drives the gun lobby.
Other than the US, you only have a high gun violence rate in pre-industrialized countries, and these have a higher homicide rate across the board anyway.
“45K People Died from Gun Violence on Your Watch”: Parkland Survivors Demand More Action from Biden
A Brief History of the United States of America youtube.com
SJG
70s Electric Miles Davis Mix (Jazz, Jazz Funk, Jazz Rock, Fusion..) youtube.com
"Tetradon, my f2f affairs are private, so you have no idea what I do or do not have to show."
Lol. Other than 40 hours a week fantasizing on an obscure strip club website. If my affairs sucked like that, I'd want them private too.
"Gun deaths" is a misleading term that conflates homicide, accident, and suicide and their very different causes. In fact, using that term is a good sign of a dissimulator.
How exactly does racism drive the gun lobby? If anything, gun control came about to stop black people from owning guns.
It is very mucha civil liberties issue. Read the Constitution.
Tetra, you still know nothing of my personal life, and it is going to stay that way.
Racism drives the gun lobby because that is what motivates the gun owners.
SCOTUS has let more severe gun restrictions stand. Just like you cannot yell 'fire' is a crowded theater, you cannot automatically have any kind of a gun anywhere.
Local public colleges have ordinances which do not allow guns on their campuses.
Try bringing a gun to an airport and TV news will show the helicopters and armored vehicles which are sent out.
I believe NYC is much more restrictive than San Jose.
The San Jose ordinance only applies to muni San Jose. So it is looser than these other restrictions.
A future City Council could repeal it. But the vote was 10-1, and I think SCOTUS will let it stand because of stare decisis. They don't want to overturn all of these other restrictions.
SJG
If I'm never going to know anything about your personal life, you are saying your org is never going to grow so large I'm going to hear about it otherwise!
Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson were established precedent too. Ask NARAL how confident they are about it.
"Racism drives the gun lobby because that is what motivates the gun owners." Incorrect. In fact, blacks, Asians, and women are some of the fastest-growing gun-owning demographics. If you want to defund the police, you're going to have to defend yourself somehow. Defund the police + gun control = You are at the mercy of criminals.
You know, I could actually see liability insurance being necessary in conjunction with a CCW to carry your gun in your vehicle. My concealed carry pieces are a 9mm and .38 snub nose. The .45 and .357 stay at home except when evacuating for a storm. I worry enough already about what may be downrange if I am ever forced to use my handgun in a lawful fashion outside my home. The small rounds in concealed carry pieces can be stopped by a car door or a thick window. ACPs and Magnums will wreak a lot of havoc if I miss, maybe even after I hit my target.
Did anyone else see that news article about the fire inspector who had a bottle of water thrown at his car and used that as cause to unleash a full clip while driving on the interstate? Imagine if you were just another motorist who happened to on the road at the same time as that road-raging asshole, and had your car or your person shot up by his carelessness and reckless behavior. His auto insurer is going to say it's not covered. I wish we did not have to consider whether it was necessary or not, but the assholes ruin it for everyone.
However, to keep your gun in your home? Nah. There will always be the ignoramuses who do not know that law about keeping a barrel lock on your weapon when there are children in the home, or having a hidden and/or biometrically coded gun safe to keep a loaded weapon ready. Pity the poor children, but don't tread on me.
Once in a while SCOTUS will overturn their own precident, and Brown v Board was one of these. But that was the Warren Court, not the Roberts Court. I think SCOTUS will let the San Jose oridnance stand. But we will have to wait and see.
The dominant image of the gun owner is a White person who is frightened of Blacks.
Brief History of the United States.
And Tetradon, my face 2 face life is private. I am involved in all sorts of things, but this is totally walled off from my online life.
gammanu95,
I think what SJ Mayor Sam Liccardo really wants are the insurance carriers rules. In FL 25 has voluntary insurance and it requires that anytime the gun is not on his person, that it be in an approved security container. Stolen guns are a big problem, even stolen police guns.
And then since the SJ Ordinance will mean mandatory insurance, that might go even further. Like a safety training and legal and rules of engagement training.
And after all, the NRA claims to represent "Responsible Gun Owners".
SJG
"The dominant image of the gun owner is a White person who is frightened of Blacks." YOUR dominant image. Suggest you get out more.
"And Tetradon, my face 2 face life is private. I am involved in all sorts of things, but this is totally walled off from my online life." OK, then let's never again hear about your org. I'll wait until it makes CNN. Or the 6 o'clock news. You know, if you wanted to keep your life private, I suggest you be like most other members here and just shut up about it.
To be ruled as insurance, it will have to cover only the costs, not be some backdoor tax on the second amendment. Otherwise it isn't insurance.
I don't talk about my f2f life, only about the organization I am building, and that is just to show that I am not a chump who buys dances in strip clubs. There are otherways to live. Beyond that , my f2f life is private and very well protected.
The San Jose insurance ordinace is a very sensible way to reduce the amount of gun crime, but while still letting the central concepts of the 2nd Amendment stand. But it will be SCOTUS who make the final decision here. There are already more serious gun restrictions which they have let stand.
SJG
"I don't talk about my f2f life" Thanks for the laugh, man. That was a good one. Instead of spending your waking hours here, telling us how we're having fun wrong, why don't you go recruit for your org? If you've been at it 8 years and we haven't heard of you, might be time to pack it in.
If the insurance part of the ordinance (not counting the odious part of donating to a Bloomberg-esque organization) stands, it will be only a minor imposition on gun owners, meaning it will not take guns out of many hands. And it won't be an impediment to illegal gun ownership, because they aren't declaring their ownership.
It's not whether it's a restriction, it's about whether it's honest.
I'm not 100% against requiring some form of liability insurance to carry a gun, but it depends on the construction of the law. Regardless, if there's a SCOTUS that will strike down this law, it's the one we have right now.
Whack!
Tetradon, you have gotten your blood and lymph fluid onto my privacy wall. This is what happens when you act like my privacy wall is not there. Now I am going to have to come out with a wire scrub brush and clean it up. And you probably have a concusion.
The insurance rule will cut down on the number of guns being stolen, and it might also force the lawful gun owners to go through some training.
Maybe the extra $25 is something SCOTUS will over turn. Maybe that is the reason for it. It only passed SJ council 8 to 3.
The SJ ordinace is 100% honest.
SJG
^ Again CMI with the measured and thoughtful response.
The problem is, liability insurance has to insure you against something. Someone above posted an example in New Jersey where liberals excoriated it as a "murder tax."
In my extensive discussions on the matter, the left could give a shit about making civilian gun ownership safer; it's all a waystation on the way to ending it.
"Tetradon, you have gotten your blood and lymph fluid onto my privacy wall."
LOL. I'm still here, reminding you that your "privacy wall" keeps you off the internet after 5:30 Pacific. Give me the address of your shelter, I'll buy you an HJ (Huffy Job), a BJ (Bicycle Job), and FS (Full Schwinn).
"The insurance rule will cut down on the number of guns being stolen, and it might also force the lawful gun owners to go through some training."
You mean training like the NRA provides? Or securing guns like is already the law?
^ The way the insurance works is not murder insurance, it states that you are insured for using that gun in a lawful way, and securing that gun in approved containers, especially if there is a theft clause attached, there are many restrictions, but it does not insure you for committing murder or using a firearm to commit an illegal act. Some policies insure you against the negligence of others, none insure you if you are negligent, nor does it insure you for ignorance of the applicable laws, you are required to have a working knowledge of those, just to be eligible for a CCP.
Tetradon, you are very lucky. Do you know what would have happened if you had broken one of the InfraRed beams which control these?
Approves secure containers, and maybe the NRA will be one of the parties which provides safety and legal training for the insurance ordinance.
SJG
@25, that's what people called the NJ law. Their term, not mine.
@SJG, glad you're showing how well you differentiate reality from video games. Though the Metal Gear Solid series (the original Kojima stuff) was awesome.
Fly me out to one of your underground places. We can bend a hottie over your privacy wall and FR double team her.
Tetradon, you don't understand, my f2f life is private, securely firewalled off from my online life.
You are beginning to sound like someone who is suicidal.
SJG
@SJG, does your privacy wall allow for multiple positions? Missionary? Doggie? Do you keep Astroglide nearby for anal? Could you and I high five while we're front-room-double-teaming her?
YES, MISTER SAN JOSE GUY! I'VE BEEN A BAD GIRL! BEND ME OVER YOUR PRIVACY WALL AND HAVE YOUR WICKED WAY WITH ME!
My privacy wall and its defenses are designed for the potential of senile-suicidals like yourself.
SJG
^ That isn't what I asked. I asked if it's conducive to multiple sexual positions with a woman.
Does your privacy wall have a gloryhole through which a woman (or so you think!) can give you a blowie?
You Tetradon sound like someone who likes to fellatiate shotgun muzzles.
SJG
^ Way not to answer my question. And the word is "fellate," not "fellatiate."
Man, all this misdirected anger. Get out of the library and get some pussy. Life is too short to live like that.
Learn to respect the privacy of my f2f life and stop trying to build siege scaffolds you fucking creep. And you sound like you are both suicidal and on some kind of drugs.
SJG
^ My siege scaffolds contain many safe beams for bondage and slave/master play. Personally I'd like to play the marauding knight who captured an enemy princess and had my way with her like a peasant.
I'd let you join me on the siege scaffolding. Sounds like you'd like the chance to get medieval on a chick.
Oh Sir Lloyd! Giveth me thine fleshly sword upon thine privacy wall!
My privacy precautions are designed to turn intruders like you into burned gristle.
SJG
^ Hey, some girls are into that. Drip a little hot wax on the nipples. Whatever floats your little boat. Do what makes you happy. But the real party is on my siege scaffolding.
FSMOS (front scaffold makeout sessions) galore!
Cordite and Burning Flesh, that is what I like Tetradon.
SJG
^ There are girls into whatever you like. You'll need someone extra freaky for that.
Until then, I shall ravish peasant girls on my siege scaffolding. Thanks for the privacy wall, it adds an aura of danger. Chicks dig that.
Tetradon, I love the small of cordite and burning flesh. It is how I deal with intruders.
SJG
^ There could be some great sexual roleplay in there.
Sir Lloyd: "How dare you attempt to breach my privacy wall! Therefore I shall breach thing!" Stripper who is definitely not P4P: "No, Sir Lloyd, think of my betrothed!" Sir Lloyd enters her Stripper who is definitely not P4P: "Ah! Yes! Give me that cordite and burning flesh!"
Sir Lloyd hath ridden off for the night on his Huffy steed!
It's hard for people outside of NJ to understand just how detached from reality the laws and left-wing thinking is here.
First of all, the insurance thing that was attempted here had almost nothing to do with concealed carry, because you can't obtain a carry permit unless you're a judge, senator, mayor, etc. But @twentyfive was correct that the proposed (now banned) insurance was to protect you for LAWFUL use of a firearm to defend yourself and family. That's why Murphy called it "murder insurance" and got rid of it - because assholes like him think self defense is murder.
In NJ, it doesn't matter how obviously clear that it was self defense, you're fucked. When the cops come, you could show them security video of the guy coming at you with a machete, have two priests and a rabbi as eye witnesses, your terrified grandma having a heart attack and drop dead right in front of them... and you will still be arrested. You will need a lawyer, and probably have to come up with a $10,000 retainer just to get the case started, plus your bail which will certainly be exorbitant. If it goes to trial it will be many times more than that.
So by banning this kind of insurance, Murphy and his left-wing thugs essentially tried to guarantee that if you are ever in the unfortunate situation of having to defend yourself, your life will be a living fucking hell for a very long time, and you'll probably go bankrupt. They want you to be so afraid of using your 2nd Amendment right that you'll just try to fight the guy off with a frying pan. If you die, you die.
Fortunately, a prominent gun-rights lawyer here in NJ partnered with a group called U.S. LawShield and found a loophole. Legally it is not insurance. It's more like paying membership dues, and when you need an attorney they provide one and also post your bail. No limit on the attorney's hours or the cost to defend you, all the way through a trial if necessary. And you get an attorney that specializes in NJ gun law.
So Phuck Phil Murphy!
I am interested to see how this San Jose ordinance plays out. I think Liccardo and the Council are just looking to cut down on the number of shootings.
Other places have regulations which are more restrictive, and SCOTUS lets that stand, I mean mostly NYC, as I know.
I think the Approved Security Container rule from the Insurance Carrier will make a big difference. And they might also require an approved training course on safety and the legalities of engagement. I think that would make a big difference. And yes, may be it would be the NRA which puts on this kind of training.
So even if SCOTUS lets this stand, more rural places and red states might not vote to do anything like this. San Jose is the 10th largest city in the country, over 1 million people. And quite blue in how we vote.
SJG
This shouldn't last five minutes in court. Like Seattle's bullet tax which was ruled to be a backdoor violation of the second amendment.
This sounds like an attention grabbing scheme.