[HN Gopher] San Jose passes first US law that gun owners need li...
___________________________________________________________________
San Jose passes first US law that gun owners need liability
insurance/annual fee
Author : MilnerRoute
Score : 32 points
Date : 2022-01-26 18:45 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbsnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbsnews.com)
| biomcgary wrote:
| "The council also voted to require gun owners to pay an estimated
| $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit
| and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety
| education and training, suicide prevention and domestic violence
| and mental health services."
|
| I find these government-NGO partnerships disturbing. The
| government mandates a tax, but a private entity collects it and
| decides who spends it? Elected officials really like to avoid
| responsibility for the consequences of their votes.
| earleybird wrote:
| Otherwise known as PPP, Public Private Partnerships. Dubious in
| all the ways you might imagine.
| djbebs wrote:
| That's not what this is. This is a long established concept
| known as tax farming.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Regardless of my stance on gun rights, this is means testing
| equivalent to a Poll Tax and is unlikely to stand up to a court
| challenge.
|
| If we want gun rights reform you have to take it to the
| Constitution; anything after that erodes the rest of the rights
| by creating case law that a right can be limited in some way by
| some level of the gov.
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I am always frustrated how news article never include the actual
| law/ordinance/mandate they are reporting on.
|
| I believe this is it:
|
| https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=...
|
| Found here:
|
| https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=53797...
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Follow up, it is hard to imagine this standing up to legal
| challenges and is also hard to imagine the projected 1 million
| revenue will offset the legal costs
| mullingitover wrote:
| It's not too hard - the Supreme Court hasn't immediately
| dismissed the Texas "nullify the constitution with this one
| weird trick" approach of deputizing random citizens to end-
| run around civil rights using civil lawsuits.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| This is a pretty common misunderstanding of the ruling.
|
| The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits against
| certain state officials may proceed as they have direct
| involvement in the enforcement of the law, while the
| lawsuits against other state officials like judges should
| be dismissed due to their lack of involvement in
| enforcement.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| You're replying to a misunderstanding they didn't make.
|
| > The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits
| against certain state officials may proceed as they have
| direct involvement in the enforcement of the law,
|
| Yes, but in doing so, they didn't enjoin enforcement of
| the law until the SC hearing, which is to say that the
| court "hasn't immediately dismissed the Texas "nullify
| the constitution with this one weird trick" approach of
| deputizing random citizens to end-run around civil rights
| using civil lawsuits."
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Fair, I can see reading of immediately dismissed as
| meaning granting an injunction.
|
| Edit:
|
| but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to
| endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a
| party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially
| a new trick to counter texas' new trick
| nostrademons wrote:
| Last line of the article is that law firms have already lined
| up to defend the law pro bono.
|
| I suspect this is 2 parts political grandstanding and 1 part
| test case, but it'll be interesting to see it play out in the
| courts. The low dollar amount and revenue collected is
| probably intentional, so that the lawyers can argue that it
| doesn't pose an undue burden on gun owners and get the case
| law precedent opening up the door to bigger taxes later.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| But it will generate votes at taxpayer expense, and that's
| all this virtue-signaling BS is meant to do.
| bruceb wrote:
| So many stories do this. I think it a feature not a bug, they
| don't want readers leaving or making it too easy to fact check.
| egberts1 wrote:
| It's CBS News!
|
| A premier authoritative journalistic reporting outfit that never
| includes a citation (much less an URL link).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-26 23:02 UTC)