North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,052 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
https://www.newsmax.com/us/san-jose-gun ... d/1027137/

Read this article about how San Jose is trying to implement a "fee" for gun owners. Also they will require gun owners to carry "liability" insurance.

Two things...

1. You cant "tax" a constitutional right. This has been fought in court before and lost.
2. Liability insurance.... No company will give this policy to anyone. Or for what they are wanting it to be used for.

Side note on the insurance. Some insurance companies will defend you or "cover" you if the shooting act is in the process of DEFENDING your home type situation. But it wont cover if you go and "shoot up" a place of work or what ever. So carrying the insurance will do absolutely nothing if you get sued by "victims" of a mass shooting or intentional act other than defending your home.

This will be challenged in court ASAP but and will lose. But it is something to keep an eye on for sure.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,688 Posts
I can't tolerate the lying every day liberal when they deny democrats are against the second amendment. They know better they simply lie like the politicians. When they say that crap you can't believe anything else that comes out of the hole in their face either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,052 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

This article talks about how Tucson is going against what the state voted for....ie: The State is a "sanctuary" state for gun owners. It is saying that they will go with FEDERAL law over state law.

Now this one will be the interesting one to watch. Because this goes along with State Rights and then boils down to City/County rights.

Because you can make things more "strict".... ie: If the state speed limit is 30 MPH and you want to in the city make it 25 MPH you can if you think it is good for your city.

So if the Federal laws are "more strict" than state laws... this could come into play. :bop:

Now this is something that will get really interesting if you ask me.... Lets say that the Supreme court upholds this... You know that Tucson can have the "more strict" laws. Then it will show you what I have talked about all along about states rights and smaller goverment rights (Town/county). So then all the arguements about voter ID laws and what not... go right down this line as well. IE: A state or town can see what fits them as long as it doesnt "infringe" on civil rights violations and what not.

So to put it into an example... The USA federal laws says.... YOU DONT NEED AN ID TO VOTE.... but then AZ says we need an ID to vote in STATE RUN ELECTIONS... well then the ACLU or whom ever cant "sue" the state. But also in that same breathe.... if Tucson wanted to say any CITY RUN elections they dont need to show ID they can.

So like I stated... this one could be very interesting to watch how it unfolds. :thumb:
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top