San Jose Mayor: Firearms Will Be Confiscated From Gun Owners Who Don’t Pay City Fee And ‘Liability I (Read 1583 times)

aletheuo137

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/san-jose-mayor-firearms-will-confiscated-gun-owners-dont-pay-city-fee-liability-insurance/

San Jose’s city council passed a measure last month requiring gun owners to pay a $25 “harm reduction” fee and liability insurance or relinquish their firearms to the government, making the city the first in the nation to impose an annual fee on law-abiding, firearm owning citizens.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

RSN172

Bet HI going be quick to jump on dat if it holds up in court.  I still tink dey shud make a yearly registration fee fo surfboards. Wud be good source of extra income fo da state.


Disclaimer: I no surf.
Happily living in Puna

mrgaf

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/san-jose-mayor-firearms-will-confiscated-gun-owners-dont-pay-city-fee-liability-insurance/

San Jose’s city council passed a measure last month requiring gun owners to pay a $25 “harm reduction” fee and liability insurance or relinquish their firearms to the government, making the city the first in the nation to impose an annual fee on law-abiding, firearm owning citizens.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Will it stand up in court?
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.  Thomas Paine.

No man can get rich in politics unless he is a crook.  It cannot be done. Harry Truman

Only good liberal is one taking a dirt nap.

changemyoil66

Reminds me of the RAPBACK fee and how charging extra "fees" was not allowed. But rapback's excuse was it cost that much to process the paperwork. Compare to a "harm reduction" fee.

SawXIV

The Supreme Court ruled that "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/#:~:text=The%20tax%20imposed%20by%20the,Magnano%20Co.

While I disagree with the wording (rights exist independently of whether the Constitution "grants" it), I think this is the issue.  No state can charge you a fee, tax or anything else in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

To do so restrains in advance the exercise of one's liberties, and it tends suppress their exercise.



Flapp_Jackson

The Supreme Court ruled that "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/#:~:text=The%20tax%20imposed%20by%20the,Magnano%20Co.

While I disagree with the wording (rights exist independently of whether the Constitution "grants" it), I think this is the issue.  No state can charge you a fee, tax or anything else in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

To do so restrains in advance the exercise of one's liberties, and it tends to suppress their exercise.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

eyeeatingfish

Holy constitutional rights violation Batman!

DocMercy

Somewhere in the back room of the state legislature, some snarky gubmint official is going to sneak a carbon tax in our laws which allows them to tax ammo as a source of pollution, and since the tax will be applied to diesel fuel, oil, etc., it won't be seen as a tax singling out one item. This is why we pay a gross excise tax on guns and ammo right now, even with a second amendment.