Crime Governor Just Took Away My Right to Protect Myself

Looks like this only impacts Albuquerque and the county sheriff is publicly stating he will not enforce it.
 
Last edited:
slavomir said:
Wall of text. Do you sincerely believe you should follow rules of people from 1791? In 2023?
Click to expand...

Yes.

slavomir said:
Countries around the world banned guns, resulting in less gun related deaths, incidents.
Click to expand...

Don't know about you guys, but I'm certain Jews in Germany that died during the holocaust were glad they gave up their guns when they were banned for Jewish ownership during the 1930s.

Same with Russian citizens being starved to death, but they were unarmed so they couldn't revolt.

Same with Chinese citizens under Mao.

Oh, and this will be a shocker... but did you know Fidel Castro first act as dictator was strict gun control?



My point being is your claims about gun rights being out of date are very out of date for anyone that knows the last 100 years of history of dictatorial regimes rising to power and causing genocide against 'inconvenient groups of people.'
 
Smokes said:
Everyday allday. These are though times we living in. Worst than to worst of the 90s. I sleep with a chopper and have dr on speed dial to ease my minds.

A lot, I would say so but the thing is, these are not gang killing or robberies gone wrong, these are common folks getting killed in their day to day life. Not ones out looking for trouble. This yr alone a guy got killed in a movie theater disrupt over a seat, a girl got kill sleeping in her living room, a boy got killed leaving a baseball game and a few others that have been killed doing everyday thing they need to do to survive.

so to me, the normal civilians are being put in life or death situations just leaving the house. I wish it wasn’t like that but it is. So it’s foolish not be having a gun, it be like driving a car with no spare tire. You might need it
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that your head is so filled with this fear of violence. When you say you have a Dr. on speed dial, is that for stress/mental health issues?
 
- Dont liste to them @Smokes.
Because unlike them, i really love you:

I will protect you
Nothing can hurt you
No storm clouds gathering terrify

I am a mountain
Surrounded by your love
You are a mountain that dreams are made of

We fight for love
We fight for love
Fight for love

Somewhere, somehow, someone
Somewhere, somehow, someone

I fight with fire
As I watch them conspire
To blow my world apart

Between the light
And the endless night
You will always be in my heart

8a8a2d6491b14462dbd7b0a2d6bc6b36

Someday we're gonna play with our action figures togheter.
 
HomeCheese said:
I'm sorry to hear that your head is so filled with this fear of violence. When you say you have a Dr. on speed dial, is that for stress/mental health issues?
Click to expand...

Naw, he is a surgeon ready to go to work the second someone tries to kill me while picking up my mail from the mailbox. I wish I had a nice soft life you, that would be a dream but the world I live ain’t like that. I don’t think there is a single day that I been alive were someone wasn’t killed that day in the world. Every single day I have been alive someone has been killed. That is the world I live in and it’s dangerous.
 
Smokes said:
Naw, he is a surgeon ready to go to work the second someone tries to kill me while picking up my mail from the mailbox. I wish I had a nice soft life you, that would be a dream but the world I live ain’t like that. I don’t think there is a single day that I been alive were someone wasn’t killed that day in the world. Every single day I have been alive someone has been killed. That is the world I live in and it’s dangerous.
Click to expand...

And every single day a guy gets a blowjob from three beautiful women at the same time. Every single day I have been alive this has happened to some lucky bloke.

I wish I did, but I don't expect this will ever happen to me.

I would suggest you have an irrational fear. Serious question, have you ever discussed this with a therapist?

It must be horrible to live with this kind of stress.
 
HomeCheese said:
And every single day a guy gets a blowjob from three beautiful women at the same time. Every single day I have been alive this has happened to some lucky bloke.

I wish I did, but I don't expect this will ever happen to me.

I would suggest you have an irrational fear. Serious question, have you ever discussed this with a therapist?

It must be horrible to live with this kind of stress.
Click to expand...

Naw. Never felt the need. I guess I am just used to and if it hasn’t killed me yet, I doubt it ever will.

Glad to see you a half glass type fella cause I couldn’t handle 3 chick at the same time. That would smell.
 
method115 said:
I had no idea about any of this but I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...
​


Oh man, I typed out a full response for this last night and my entire browser got wiped! So I will try to recreate it, but I will have to find my sources again, which will be the worst part. But, as you said, you didn’t know about this. I love to educate people on issues and you’re definitely the only one, so strap in, it’s a very long, detailed, response that I put a lot of time into. So please, read and enjoy.

A real quick recap of the ordinance with the full ordinance being linked below.
San Jose is a Cali city with just over one million residents. The mayor, sam liccardi, began pushing for this ordinance in 2019 after the area experienced a mass shooting. In 2022, the gun harm reduction act was passed 9-1 in the city council. I am not at all surprised this passed or was attempted in San Jose, however, if you read through the actual ordinance that sets up the problem, ie, gun violence, accidents, and suicides, the studies they use to bolster their plight are old and unimpressive. They have stats in there from 2006, 2014, and there are way juicier numbers out there, but I did have an idea why they stayed away from those numbers and I will explore that later.

What does it do? For starters, every gun owner must pay a fee of $25. This fee is per household. The money then goes directly into a non-profit that will focus on one of several options: drug addiction, mental health, domestic violence reduction, or suicide prevention.

The ordinance requires every gun owner to have either home or rental insurance that specifically covers gun accidents within the home.

The ordinance reinforces a 2018 law that requires all guns to be locked up when they are not in use. This was introduced because of the amount and frequency in which guns are stolen from homes and cars nationwide.

How is the ordinance enforced and what are the penalties? Similar to having to provide proof of insurance with car ownership, police encountering a subject with a gun can demand the proof of insurance and ensure that the fee has been paid. Theoretically, if police were in a home and saw that guns were not locked in a gun safe, they could consider this a failure to comply. This is a civil ordinance, meaning that on this leg of the ordinance, there is no arrest or jail time, however, failure to provide the gun insurance results in an escalating fine-$250,$500,$1000.

My issues with this ordinance. Oh boy, where to begin?

First, I do not believe that this ordinance is constitutional for several reasons. Like the New Mexico governor declaring a state of emergency suspending gun rights, I don’t believe that a mayor and city council have the power to determine who gets a gun, how many guns they get, how they choose to store them, train with them, and while very modest($25), charging a fee to be able to express a constitutional right is simply not constitutional. This ordinance is not as egregious as the New Mexico snafu and lives more in the gray area, but that does not mean it is legal. It’s similar to how chicago, nyc, dc, Seattle, and many other cities and states have enacted gun control that denies constitutional rights to law abiding citizens. And even though some of those local ordinances have been struck down by the scotus in recent years, the cities are shifting rules and appealing decisions to try and continue to suppress the second amendment.

Just because these laws are illegal in my, and many others’ opinions, doesn’t mean the good guys will win. These laws are liberal ticks dug in deep into the fur of a fat bear or giant moose that are incapable of removing said tick without help.

Another reason this is unconstitutional is because it potentially prices gun owners out of being able to exercise their rights. Similar to what biden wanted to do with rifles and magazine capacities during his campaign & where he wanted to charge something like $200 in taxes per gun and additional $200 taxes for any magazine that held over 9 rounds, leaving you the choice of a six shooter, 1911, small handguns, or shot guns/sniper rifles OR you can sell all those guns back for $400 each. So, if you owned a single ar-15 with four magazines, for the “right” to own a firearm, you are paying $1000/year, every year until you finally break down and sell back your $800 gun for $400.

Again, the gun fee registration cost of $25 is not a lot, but the insurance can be. “Gun and trophy” insurance starts at $130/ year. Penguin self defense insurance is $300/year, but covers legal fees if you actually use your gun rather than pay the $130 just to own a gun.

But what does this insurance even cover, you may ask? Not fucking much. I have looked at multiple policies and have found that this type of insurance will cover an accidental discharge or shooting with the insured weapon on the insured property ONLY. I linked a video below where San Jose mayor claims that gun violence cost the state of Cali 1.4 billion in damage due to gun crimes. I actually thought this was incredibly low. Think about it. You have the medical costs for those shot, most of whom would not have their own health insurance, so it falls back on the tax payers. You also have the criminal prosecution, police investigation and overtime, and court costs to convict a gun criminal-big trials aren’t cheap. Then, on top of that, once convicted, you have to house each criminal in prison, or, it’s California, so maybe house arrest costs. Anyway, I did a search and found a much higher and likely, a much more accurate number-18 billion dollars per year to cover gun violence costs in the state of California.

Why do I bring that up and why did I do further research to find a more accurate cost? Well, liccardi claims that the insurance requirement for the San Jose gun harm reduction ordinance would help offset some of the costs of gun violence. In fact, when posed with the constitutionality of his ordinance, liccardo says “tax payers subsidize the second amendment every year to 1.4 billion to cover the costs of gun violence.” First, as I already pointed out, his number was ridiculously low. And second, no, tax payers do not “subsidize the second amendment,” you fucking ass. You are talking about the costa associated with crime-not the second amendment. That would be like tallying up all the costs associated with crimes related to verbal altercations that escalate and claim the first amendment is responsible.
And back to the original point, the insurance does absolutely nothing to offset any of the costs associated with gun violence.

And finally, I want to know if this ordinance is working or has any chance of working. Are all these steps and fees having the desired effect on reducing gun crimes?

I will start simply and get more complex as I go. First, the whole point of a gun is protection on oneself, family, and to a much lesser extent, property. If you are in your home, and you are following all the ordinances’ rules, you have paid your $25, have gun insurance, and finally, have all your guns locked in a safe and have trigger guards on them, and they are not loaded. Someone starts kicking in your front door. Do you have the speed and time to get to your safe, open it and retrieve your gun, remove the trigger lock, load your gun, and then engage the suspect(s)? Probably not. So it fails the home protection test-unaleas you decide to be a criminal and disobey the ordinance and have your loaded, ready gun next to you in bed. The only good things that could possibly come out of gun safes is that children won’t have easy access to your guns(if you have children) and criminals that break into your home will not have easy access to your guns so there’s a few less guns on the street, so, you can take solace in knowing that the men that just broke into your home and killed your and your family, will absolutely not be able to get into your safe (just like you weren’t) and get their hands on more guns.

Second, and most important, criminals do not give a flying fuck about your gun laws and this ordinance. They sure as fuck didn’t pay the $25 fee nor do they have insurance to “offset the damage.”

Well, criminals are not using trigger locks or gun safes, and the $25 fees you and others following the ordinance have contributed and were thus funneled into gun prevention programs such as drug addiction, domestic violence prevention, and mental health treatment didn’t work-these guys must have slipped through the cracks. That, or the $25 fee wasn’t enough to do shit. How many gun owners in San Jose? According to polling and research I just did, about 50,000 gun owners(households) in San Jose. That means the ginormous sum of 1.25 million dollars went to gun violence prevention. That’s completely pathetic and absurd, so on this aspect of the ordinance, it is a spectacular fail.

Ok, but is it working? This will be real tough to determine for several reasons. First, this was just enacted in Jan 22, second, 2023 isn’t over and stats probably aren’t readily available yet, third, it will take years to determine if this was a success.

So, looking at the last few years, here’s what we have. I am going to try to focus on gun crimes if I can, but that may be tough. Overall, San Jose does not appear to be a violent area and has a lower crime rate than the national average. So I am going to have to take a deeper dove on this one. Also, the ordinance did not happen in a vacuum. There are many factors at play here, including one trend that is nationwide and has been controversial and contributing to changes in crime stats-bail reform.
2019 32
2020 40
2021
2022
2023


Just found this. In July 2023, a federal judge dismissed all challenges against the San Jose gun harm reduction ordinance-both the insurance and the fee. Not only that, but they were dismissed WITH PREJUDICE! What does that mean? When a case or criminal charge is dismissed with prejudice, it means that it can not be refiled. This same judge previously dismissed this case in 2022 and then again in 2023, this time with prejudice. Here’s some info on her that will provide some context. Beth labson freeman appointed by Obama in 2014 went to Harvard
and Berkeley. I am still conducting some research, but that tells me she is likely a very liberal judge. Being appointed by Obama, but it is the Berkeley education that has my ears perked up. Ok, so, some other notable cases-you’ll love these. She dismissed Donald trump’s moratorium on federal training on white privilege, critical race theory, intersectionality, systemic racism, etc. if you are unfamiliar with intersectionality, omg, look it up. I may do a thread on this fascinating subject, but it is the world championship of victim Olympics where it is said that it is impossible for a white person to understand all the ways disadvantages and advantages based on race, sex, cis, caste, immigrant status, fucking being overweight-lead to oppression and violent colonialism, cultural appropriation, and words I have never heard of, and the only cure is to listen and give people of color power that you will listen to and accept that you are an oppressor. Back to freeman, she dismissed a case against google for anti-trust practices (interesting since she is based in San Jose where google happens to be based out of) and an interesting case of anti-trust filed by former Pga golfers including Phil mickleson, in which she lost her cool in court and yelled at the pga lawyer. When he pointed out that her behavior was unfair, she flat out stated that all her other cases and litigants were being treated unfairly by her because she gave the pga case preference and too much time.

However, I definitely want to dive into the San Jose gun law case more in regard to judge freeman. Her reasoning seems deeply flawed and biased. She is applying the bruen case, but addressing it in terms of the requirements ok’d by Bruen that a fingerprint requirement and the cost to get that fingerprints taken, is not prohibitive to the second amendment. In this case, she says that the $25 fee is not too much and even though San Jose stated that this fee may go up, she said it could be readdressed if that occurs-but she dismissed the case with prejudice which means they actually can’t readdress it. In regard to the insurance, she is using this as her basis for not ruling it unconstitutional. She says that since the requirement to get insurance IS NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE and only a fine, it does not prevent a person from buying a gun-however, if they don’t get the insurance, they can face $1000 fines and how many of those could one person accrue? And if you don’t pay them, then what? The city would get arrest warrants for you-that’s what. I think I have tried to show that this judge has biases in favor of San Jose and being appointed by Obama, definitely doesn’t seem to be a fan of the second amendment and the rulings she made make it very hard for this infringing law to be challenged in the future should the fees rise.

Oh, and as for this working or not working-the reason I can’t find anything is that it is in place, but the city has not started collecting the fees or imposing fines yet, which means it will be years before it can be evaluated. Also, since no fees have yet been collected, there is no money to put into the gun violence prevention programs. But I 100% stand by my notion that criminals will not care about insurance or fees and will continue to commit gun violence and the only people that will pay the price are legal gun owners that are trying to be forced to choose to own a gun or pay money for that right. And it’s bullshit.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/0...-san-jose-gun-insurance-and-fee-requirements/

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2022/08/05/judge-injunction-san-jose-lawsuit-n61194








actual ordinance
https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf

FAQ about new gun laws

​
https://www.sjpd.org/records/documents-policies/gun-harm-reduction-ordinance
method115 said:
I had no idea about any of this but I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...
 
nhbbear said:
​


Oh man, I typed out a full response for this last night and my entire browser got wiped! So I will try to recreate it, but I will have to find my sources again, which will be the worst part. But, as you said, you didn’t know about this. I love to educate people on issues and you’re definitely the only one, so strap in, it’s a very long, detailed, response that I put a lot of time into. So please, read and enjoy.

A real quick recap of the ordinance with the full ordinance being linked below.
San Jose is a Cali city with just over one million residents. The mayor, sam liccardi, began pushing for this ordinance in 2019 after the area experienced a mass shooting. In 2022, the gun harm reduction act was passed 9-1 in the city council. I am not at all surprised this passed or was attempted in San Jose, however, if you read through the actual ordinance that sets up the problem, ie, gun violence, accidents, and suicides, the studies they use to bolster their plight are old and unimpressive. They have stats in there from 2006, 2014, and there are way juicier numbers out there, but I did have an idea why they stayed away from those numbers and I will explore that later.

What does it do? For starters, every gun owner must pay a fee of $25. This fee is per household. The money then goes directly into a non-profit that will focus on one of several options: drug addiction, mental health, domestic violence reduction, or suicide prevention.

The ordinance requires every gun owner to have either home or rental insurance that specifically covers gun accidents within the home.

The ordinance reinforces a 2018 law that requires all guns to be locked up when they are not in use. This was introduced because of the amount and frequency in which guns are stolen from homes and cars nationwide.

How is the ordinance enforced and what are the penalties? Similar to having to provide proof of insurance with car ownership, police encountering a subject with a gun can demand the proof of insurance and ensure that the fee has been paid. Theoretically, if police were in a home and saw that guns were not locked in a gun safe, they could consider this a failure to comply. This is a civil ordinance, meaning that on this leg of the ordinance, there is no arrest or jail time, however, failure to provide the gun insurance results in an escalating fine-$250,$500,$1000.

My issues with this ordinance. Oh boy, where to begin?

First, I do not believe that this ordinance is constitutional for several reasons. Like the New Mexico governor declaring a state of emergency suspending gun rights, I don’t believe that a mayor and city council have the power to determine who gets a gun, how many guns they get, how they choose to store them, train with them, and while very modest($25), charging a fee to be able to express a constitutional right is simply not constitutional. This ordinance is not as egregious as the New Mexico snafu and lives more in the gray area, but that does not mean it is legal. It’s similar to how chicago, nyc, dc, Seattle, and many other cities and states have enacted gun control that denies constitutional rights to law abiding citizens. And even though some of those local ordinances have been struck down by the scotus in recent years, the cities are shifting rules and appealing decisions to try and continue to suppress the second amendment.

Just because these laws are illegal in my, and many others’ opinions, doesn’t mean the good guys will win. These laws are liberal ticks dug in deep into the fur of a fat bear or giant moose that are incapable of removing said tick without help.

Another reason this is unconstitutional is because it potentially prices gun owners out of being able to exercise their rights. Similar to what biden wanted to do with rifles and magazine capacities during his campaign & where he wanted to charge something like $200 in taxes per gun and additional $200 taxes for any magazine that held over 9 rounds, leaving you the choice of a six shooter, 1911, small handguns, or shot guns/sniper rifles OR you can sell all those guns back for $400 each. So, if you owned a single ar-15 with four magazines, for the “right” to own a firearm, you are paying $1000/year, every year until you finally break down and sell back your $800 gun for $400.

Again, the gun fee registration cost of $25 is not a lot, but the insurance can be. “Gun and trophy” insurance starts at $130/ year. Penguin self defense insurance is $300/year, but covers legal fees if you actually use your gun rather than pay the $130 just to own a gun.

But what does this insurance even cover, you may ask? Not fucking much. I have looked at multiple policies and have found that this type of insurance will cover an accidental discharge or shooting with the insured weapon on the insured property ONLY. I linked a video below where San Jose mayor claims that gun violence cost the state of Cali 1.4 billion in damage due to gun crimes. I actually thought this was incredibly low. Think about it. You have the medical costs for those shot, most of whom would not have their own health insurance, so it falls back on the tax payers. You also have the criminal prosecution, police investigation and overtime, and court costs to convict a gun criminal-big trials aren’t cheap. Then, on top of that, once convicted, you have to house each criminal in prison, or, it’s California, so maybe house arrest costs. Anyway, I did a search and found a much higher and likely, a much more accurate number-18 billion dollars per year to cover gun violence costs in the state of California.

Why do I bring that up and why did I do further research to find a more accurate cost? Well, liccardi claims that the insurance requirement for the San Jose gun harm reduction ordinance would help offset some of the costs of gun violence. In fact, when posed with the constitutionality of his ordinance, liccardo says “tax payers subsidize the second amendment every year to 1.4 billion to cover the costs of gun violence.” First, as I already pointed out, his number was ridiculously low. And second, no, tax payers do not “subsidize the second amendment,” you fucking ass. You are talking about the costa associated with crime-not the second amendment. That would be like tallying up all the costs associated with crimes related to verbal altercations that escalate and claim the first amendment is responsible.
And back to the original point, the insurance does absolutely nothing to offset any of the costs associated with gun violence.

And finally, I want to know if this ordinance is working or has any chance of working. Are all these steps and fees having the desired effect on reducing gun crimes?

I will start simply and get more complex as I go. First, the whole point of a gun is protection on oneself, family, and to a much lesser extent, property. If you are in your home, and you are following all the ordinances’ rules, you have paid your $25, have gun insurance, and finally, have all your guns locked in a safe and have trigger guards on them, and they are not loaded. Someone starts kicking in your front door. Do you have the speed and time to get to your safe, open it and retrieve your gun, remove the trigger lock, load your gun, and then engage the suspect(s)? Probably not. So it fails the home protection test-unaleas you decide to be a criminal and disobey the ordinance and have your loaded, ready gun next to you in bed. The only good things that could possibly come out of gun safes is that children won’t have easy access to your guns(if you have children) and criminals that break into your home will not have easy access to your guns so there’s a few less guns on the street, so, you can take solace in knowing that the men that just broke into your home and killed your and your family, will absolutely not be able to get into your safe (just like you weren’t) and get their hands on more guns.

Second, and most important, criminals do not give a flying fuck about your gun laws and this ordinance. They sure as fuck didn’t pay the $25 fee nor do they have insurance to “offset the damage.”

Well, criminals are not using trigger locks or gun safes, and the $25 fees you and others following the ordinance have contributed and were thus funneled into gun prevention programs such as drug addiction, domestic violence prevention, and mental health treatment didn’t work-these guys must have slipped through the cracks. That, or the $25 fee wasn’t enough to do shit. How many gun owners in San Jose? According to polling and research I just did, about 50,000 gun owners(households) in San Jose. That means the ginormous sum of 1.25 million dollars went to gun violence prevention. That’s completely pathetic and absurd, so on this aspect of the ordinance, it is a spectacular fail.

Ok, but is it working? This will be real tough to determine for several reasons. First, this was just enacted in Jan 22, second, 2023 isn’t over and stats probably aren’t readily available yet, third, it will take years to determine if this was a success.

So, looking at the last few years, here’s what we have. I am going to try to focus on gun crimes if I can, but that may be tough. Overall, San Jose does not appear to be a violent area and has a lower crime rate than the national average. So I am going to have to take a deeper dove on this one. Also, the ordinance did not happen in a vacuum. There are many factors at play here, including one trend that is nationwide and has been controversial and contributing to changes in crime stats-bail reform.
2019 32
2020 40
2021
2022
2023


Just found this. In July 2023, a federal judge dismissed all challenges against the San Jose gun harm reduction ordinance-both the insurance and the fee. Not only that, but they were dismissed WITH PREJUDICE! What does that mean? When a case or criminal charge is dismissed with prejudice, it means that it can not be refiled. This same judge previously dismissed this case in 2022 and then again in 2023, this time with prejudice. Here’s some info on her that will provide some context. Beth labson freeman appointed by Obama in 2014 went to Harvard
and Berkeley. I am still conducting some research, but that tells me she is likely a very liberal judge. Being appointed by Obama, but it is the Berkeley education that has my ears perked up. Ok, so, some other notable cases-you’ll love these. She dismissed Donald trump’s moratorium on federal training on white privilege, critical race theory, intersectionality, systemic racism, etc. if you are unfamiliar with intersectionality, omg, look it up. I may do a thread on this fascinating subject, but it is the world championship of victim Olympics where it is said that it is impossible for a white person to understand all the ways disadvantages and advantages based on race, sex, cis, caste, immigrant status, fucking being overweight-lead to oppression and violent colonialism, cultural appropriation, and words I have never heard of, and the only cure is to listen and give people of color power that you will listen to and accept that you are an oppressor. Back to freeman, she dismissed a case against google for anti-trust practices (interesting since she is based in San Jose where google happens to be based out of) and an interesting case of anti-trust filed by former Pga golfers including Phil mickleson, in which she lost her cool in court and yelled at the pga lawyer. When he pointed out that her behavior was unfair, she flat out stated that all her other cases and litigants were being treated unfairly by her because she gave the pga case preference and too much time.

However, I definitely want to dive into the San Jose gun law case more in regard to judge freeman. Her reasoning seems deeply flawed and biased. She is applying the bruen case, but addressing it in terms of the requirements ok’d by Bruen that a fingerprint requirement and the cost to get that fingerprints taken, is not prohibitive to the second amendment. In this case, she says that the $25 fee is not too much and even though San Jose stated that this fee may go up, she said it could be readdressed if that occurs-but she dismissed the case with prejudice which means they actually can’t readdress it. In regard to the insurance, she is using this as her basis for not ruling it unconstitutional. She says that since the requirement to get insurance IS NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE and only a fine, it does not prevent a person from buying a gun-however, if they don’t get the insurance, they can face $1000 fines and how many of those could one person accrue? And if you don’t pay them, then what? The city would get arrest warrants for you-that’s what. I think I have tried to show that this judge has biases in favor of San Jose and being appointed by Obama, definitely doesn’t seem to be a fan of the second amendment and the rulings she made make it very hard for this infringing law to be challenged in the future should the fees rise.

Oh, and as for this working or not working-the reason I can’t find anything is that it is in place, but the city has not started collecting the fees or imposing fines yet, which means it will be years before it can be evaluated. Also, since no fees have yet been collected, there is no money to put into the gun violence prevention programs. But I 100% stand by my notion that criminals will not care about insurance or fees and will continue to commit gun violence and the only people that will pay the price are legal gun owners that are trying to be forced to choose to own a gun or pay money for that right. And it’s bullshit.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/0...-san-jose-gun-insurance-and-fee-requirements/

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2022/08/05/judge-injunction-san-jose-lawsuit-n61194








actual ordinance
https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf

FAQ about new gun laws

​
https://www.sjpd.org/records/documents-policies/gun-harm-reduction-ordinance
Click to expand...

Does this come in paperback?
 
nhbbear said:
​


Oh man, I typed out a full response for this last night and my entire browser got wiped! So I will try to recreate it, but I will have to find my sources again, which will be the worst part. But, as you said, you didn’t know about this. I love to educate people on issues and you’re definitely the only one, so strap in, it’s a very long, detailed, response that I put a lot of time into. So please, read and enjoy.

https://www.sjpd.org/records/documents-policies/gun-harm-reduction-ordinance
Click to expand...

Damn lucky for you it's a slow day at work so I plenty of time to read through this. Insane reading about that judge. I can't stand reading about judges like this because it's one of the most respected positions in our legal system and people like her chip away at the respect when they do things like this.

Seems like San Jose is fucked but I've heard from Rogan that Cali in general is fucked when it comes to guns. I remember him saying at one point that you need a sheriff to get permission to conceal and carry or something like that which is insane to me. I never looked into it so not sure how true it is but just made me glad to live in Texas. People love to shit on this state and that's fine but I love it here and I'm not even close to leaning right.
 
method115 said:
Damn lucky for you it's a slow day at work so I plenty of time to read through this. Insane reading about that judge. I can't stand reading about judges like this because it's one of the most respected positions in our legal system and people like her chip away at the respect when they do things like this.

Seems like San Jose is fucked but I've heard from Rogan that Cali in general is fucked when it comes to guns. I remember him saying at one point that you need a sheriff to get permission to conceal and carry or something like that which is insane to me. I never looked into it so not sure how true it is but just made me glad to live in Texas. People love to shit on this state and that's fine but I love it here and I'm not even close to leaning right.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reading all that. I love really digging into an argument, especially when it has constitutional implications. Honestly, I think I got my masters as an excuse to do stuff like this where someone is forced to read it and react to it. I had a prosecutor as a professor and he said at the end of the class that he wants my number so he could run some stuff by me at some point. If I would have had this level of constitutional knowledge when I was still a police officer, j would have been unstoppable in court.

I am not saying judge is stupid, I just think she has an agenda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,509
Messages
55,566,943
Members
174,825
Latest member
obrad

Share this page

Back
Top