San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia,File)
Previous Post
Next Post

 

Imposing a modest annual fee on gun owners can support underfunded domestic violence and suicide prevention programs, gun-safety classes, mental health services and addiction intervention. We’ve invited doctors, public health experts, and yes, gun owners, to help identify how to allocate the money from these fees in ways that will reduce gun violence. Prioritizing those investments to serve residents in gun-owning households will have the biggest impact because studies suggest that even a properly stored firearm in the home significantly increases occupants’ risk of death by homicide and suicide.

Gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. To be sure, the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens to own guns, but it doesn’t require the public to subsidize gun ownership. Every day, taxpayers bear the financial burden of police officers, ambulances and trauma surgeons responding to gun violence. These direct costs of gun violence total $40 million annually for San Jose taxpayers, and $1.4 billion for taxpayers statewide.

Critics say that criminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates — and they are right. But these ordinances create a legal mandate that gives police the means for at least the temporary forfeiture of guns from dangerous law-breakers. Particularly given the legally frail status of concealed-carry regulations before the current Supreme Court, law enforcement agencies face steep challenges keeping communities safe amid the ubiquitous presence of guns. Giving the police the ability to distinguish the scofflaws from the law-abiding among gun owners will have tremendous public safety benefits.

— San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo in My city’s new gun control laws will help more than waiting on Congress to do something

Previous Post
Next Post

125 COMMENTS

    • Taxes subsidize criminals, not gun owners. The left have always bundled gun owners in the same boat as criminals. That’s what they think of gun owners.

      • Let’s tax people who voted for another stupid democRat mayor. A mayor whose annual tax idea is nothing more than another pompous jerk’s attempt to lower law abiding gun owning citizens to the level of criminals who misuse firearms, vehicles, bats, bricks, knives, etc.

        Such a sick idea to hang the acts of criminals around the necks of the law abiding clearly originates from an individual’s hate and disdain for The Second Amendment and those who legitimately own firearms. Notice how the mayor’s “reasoning unfolds” and his finger point 100% at the pocketbooks of citizens and zero percent toward criminals. It is easy to see what the finger pointing mayor and his band of worthless knee jerk useful idiots are up to. And they can all go pound sand.

    • As a gun control advocates we find gun owners incorrigible and very dangerous people. The only way to keep normal people safe is to seize all the guns and initially block up all NRA members and their sick families until they realize what crimes against humanity they have committed. This first step is in the right direction. If it doesn’t work seizing gun owners property to pay for what racism incurred to our children and inner city programs for minorities is a logical momentum back to sanity.

      • Wow. I cant tell if you are serious or not. I really hope you aren’t lol. If you are then you are either extremely uninformed/brainwashed or you fear anything you dont understand and cant control. Which you could control if you knew what a gun was and how to use it properly. If you are serious then you are totally blind to the fact that criminals will always find a way to harm and commit horrible acts of crime. More people are harmed by hands and fists then guns every year. I dare you to prove me otherwise. Its not there statistically. The list goes on and on and on about why gun ownership is viable and totally logical. The racism has been coming from gun control for decades. The black panthers were disarmed in california so they couldnt stop the police from going in and attacking innocent people. And the last 2 years alone massive amounts of black,hispanic,asian and LGBTQ citizens have been buying arms for self defense. I guess you think they are all insane too. So spare me the rant that you are attempting to pass off as legitimate, If you are actually serious that is. Good lord.

      • And how will they “realize their crimes”? Through enhanced interrogation? There’s a very willing antifa member on this board who is not only salivating at the thought but is also self-pleasuring.

      • avatar Geoff "A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine" PR

        “The only way to keep normal people safe is to seize all the guns and initially block up all NRA members and their sick families until they realize what crimes against humanity they have committed.”

        Seig Heil, George the actual fascist.

        What will you do, George, when those you send out to load the gun owners into your boxcars don’t come home at night at the end of their long day?

        Will you *personally* pick up a gun and herd us into your concentration camps?

        Why, no, George, you won’t. You don’t have the balls to actually do what needs to be done. That’s why you will just sit there and seethe in anger until someone loads *you* into a boxcar.

        Read the history of the late 1700s, George. In particular, read what happened to those cheering those being put under the guillotine blade.

        They, like you, will also meet that blade… 😉

        • Guys, I’m thinkin’ he was being sarcastic. If not, he’s a d***head, who needs to be ignored. But let’s figure it out before we jump all froggy on him. (Even dacian the stupid isn’t THAT dumb.)

        • I imagine that when *he*was being dragged to the guillotine, Robespierre screamed, “Not ME! Not me, brothers! “ George would likely react in the same way.

  1. “A modest annual fee on gun owners”. This sounds like a back door gun registration list proposal to me. Then again, I have been told I think too much.

      • How about a fine and removal from office for any politician that breaks their oath to infringe on other citizens rights .

      • San Jose is a city in California. We already have a gun registry is California. If this comes to pass the next thing that will happen is that the city will hire people to go through the database to find the gun owners who are not paying the tax.

    • (sigh…)

      Dems don’t read…or flat out ignore…historical Court decisions that specifically addressed this.

      ****
      Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”

      “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

      According to the US Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional to :
      1) Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966);
      2) Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939);
      3) Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lovell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966);
      4) Delay the exercising of a right (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971);
      5) Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968).
      So a mass majority of these gun laws are unconstitutional at best.
      Murdock v Penn, 319 US 105 (1943): “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it and attach a fee to it.”

      • Haz’s post here demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of how precedent works. Then again, the Constitution Law department at Trump University was severely underfunded, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

        • Former, I have news for you. Precedent is one thing. Common sense is another. For your edification Trump University was teaching the ins and outs of real estate.

          Seems you need some education. Trump accomplished more in his four years than Obuma the Phony did in eight.

        • Oh, nameless, brainless troll, so you’re now an expert on SCOTUS jurisprudence and constitutional precedent??????

          It is to laugh. Tell me about Plessy v. Ferguson. Tell me about Korematsu. Effin’ ignorant twit, go visit the cable.

        • You’re a *special* kind of stupid, aren’t you? So, now, the Courts can overturn precedent, merely because people are scared? Interesting.

      • Haz, All good precedent, but you forgot to mention that this proposed tax would also be a direct violation of Article I, Section 9, – “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” This tax “Law” would force people to pay a tax for owning firearms that they already own (ex post facto) and it is obviously a Bill of Attainder because it would be a legislative act that imposes a punishment (paying a fee/fine) on gun owners without a trial and conviction.

      • avatar Geoff "A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine" PR

        “5) Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968).”

        Very nice! 🙂

      • … does not matter. California has a propensity for ignoring Federal law and its subjects gleefully following said illegal laws.

    • Doesn’t CA already have gun registration? If not, how do they regulate all the different restrictions on thee, but not me, and so forth?

    • If not the guns themselves, the indivicdual gun owners. But hten how do they know whether to hold out their grubby paw for the tax on one gun or on three hundred seventy four unless thay have a LIST of who has what?
      I do believe you are over the target. They don’t care about the piddly tax they wanna dun us for. They ONLY and ALWAYS have cared about the rgistry they have ben wanting for well nigh a century. The one they ain’t a gonna get.
      If ONLY five percent of “assault rifle” owners in New York State ever bothered to register their Black and Uglies, what hope does this clown have of getting EVERY firearm owne wihtin San Jose? He is truly delusional. SUre d coppers might catch one or three month. Ill bet there are close to a hundred thousand who own SOME sort of firearm in Sant Clara County/San Jose.

  2. I propose a modest fee to exercise the right and duty to vote. I also propose a modest fee to exercise the right to speech, or to publish online….I can come up with a lot more given the opportunity.

    • A modest fee for voting could be used to ensure election integrity. Unfortunately the SCOTUS said no to that a long time ago as it will this wannabe tin pot dictator’s 2nd Amendment fee. Nobody’s going to comply anyway, so I predict he’ll see diddly squat in revenue.

      • I’m sure that a half dozen or so virtue signaling left wing-nuts will dutifully come down to City Hall to pay their taxes. All done in front of a mainstream media camera, in hopes that their appearance on the evening news will shame others into registering and paying taxes on their own weapons.

      • and the REASON they said NO WAY remains, and also appliles to ANY OTHER behaviour listed as a RIGHT under the US Constitution. Cannot charge a fee for exercising a right. Else we’d be like places in Tokyo where yuo can put a nickel into a vending machine and breathe clean [pure ?) air for a few minutes.

      • Sure, and while we wait for SCOTUS to make that ruling, thousands of people will be out millions of dollars involuntary complying with the law.

        Just like Miller v Bonta, Rodde v Bonta etc

  3. Next, an annual fee after procuring a marriage license – hey, we know what you people are doing. This will help fund various GLBTXYZ counseling and discovery of previously undiscovered and undefined combinations.

    • There are still undefined combinations out there??

      I thought that after 74 (more or less) reported combinations that most of the experimental permutations had been calculated.

  4. I say a fee on politicians who run their cities, states and country into the ground because of bad policy.

    Also this guy should propose bringing back poll taxes because the state funds that as well via taxpayer dollars.

    This sounds like a new army navy law in the making.

  5. Cut police budgets then whine about an increase in violence. Sounds like typical liberal hyperventilation. I also have to wonder what is meant by “a legal mandate that gives police the means for at least the temporary forfeiture of guns from dangerous law-breakers”.

    • Michael, I was wondering about that as well. Are they saying the police aren’t currently allowed to take guns from a criminal when they’re a prohibited person?

      They have zero interest in solving problems. They always want to: increase taxes, increase spending, and increase the size and scope of the government while never solving the problem. They get bonus points if they cans simultaneously punish the opposition.

      • “ They have zero interest in solving problems…”

        No, their primary problem to solve is how to raise money to pay for their Utopian ideas that always fall flat due to- you guessed it: Not enough money. At solving that they’re trying very hard.

        • You know, they are right about one thing; it could be a really wonderful life for everybody if government just had enough money for all politicians to be filthy rich and everybody else to live comfortably, without any of us bothered by nasty old work. Since we don’t seem to be able to support that, we’ll just have to settle for filthy rich politicians and everybody else working like dogs to support them. It’s almost the same, right?

        • When it comes to politicians, I don’t think it’s all about money. It’s the power. Most of these characters get off on telling everyone else how to live more than they get off on the money — after all, one can only spend so much in a lifetime.

    • They’re not after lawbreakers, that class is alrady doing what they want them to do. There ARE laws in every state that provide for LE to take people who ARE a “danger to themsevlves and/or others” into temporary protective custody and provide for psych evaluations. Pass that, you get yer gun back along wiht your walking papers. Flunk that and you are involuntarily committed, thus debarred the use of arms This dirty pol is barking at the moon. HE should be taken in for a psych eval. Likely as barmy as my neighbur’s “pet” feral cat.

  6. This lick cardo guy is a TRAITOR to the USA….
    The sooner The People understand that and forcibly remove this guy, the better…. but….. we all know the USA really stands for UNITED SHEEP OF AMERICA….
    If we allow these TRAITORS to hold office we deserve everything we get

    • Don’t let distance discourage you. I’ve mailed congress critters, governors, mayors, and other officials who don’t represent me over the years. It costs little to tell a sheriff across the country that he’s an idiot.

      Reading back over that, I realize that I’ve neglected to contact foreign national leaders. I should compose a letter asking Boris Johnson how closely related he is to Neanderthal Man. I mean, he got that weird hair from SOMEWHERE!

      • I caren’t a fig for BoJO’s hair, OR from whence it came. I only care what lies UNDER that hair. And every time he opens the forward facing hole he proves it less than good. Abysmal is more accurate.

      • Paul You Lefties think you have all the answers to all the questions when in fact you don’t even know what the questions are. You are not “progressives”. You are actually REGRESSIVE. Your ideology is a failed system of economics as it fails miserably to take into account human nature.

  7. Imposing a fee for the exercise of a constitutional right is unconstitutional.

    Lubin v. Panish (1974) 415 U.S. 709

    SCOTUS in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969) …

    “It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, [] 322. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”

    The meaning of LICENSE is permission to act. Charging a fee for gun ownership or use is a license, you don’t pay the fee you don’t get to have or use the gun the same – you do pay the fee you have “permission to act”, that is to own and use the gun.

    Charging a fee for exercise of the right is simply another way of gun licensing and registration to control who can or can not exercise a constitutional right by making it a privilege based upon fee payment. We already went thorough this with the poll tax many years ago where SCOTUS said a fee or tax levied for the exercise of a constitutional right was unconstitutional.

    Like SCOTUS already said (see above) “And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”

    See also, Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944) (requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional)

    In a case involving fees for commercial filming in areas under the control of the National Park Service, the DC District Court has ruled that fees charged for exercising constitutional rights of the first order are unconstitutional, “This regime is difficult to square with the longstanding rule that the government may not ‘impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution,’ including the First Amendment right to free expression.”

    If the federal government “may not ‘impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution” then states, county, local governments may not do so either. No state or county or local government in the U.S. may violate the constitutional rights of citizens of the United States.

    • There you go using logic…
      Everyone know that leftist can ignore SCOTUS rulings unless they feel good about the ruling.

    • Very good informative post…Funny how this forum is supposedly dedicated to a centuries old document and yet those obligated to defend it are about as disconnected from history as disconnected can get. That’s a sign the marxist’s goal to remove God, Country, Mom, Chevrolet, Apple Pie, history and tradition from America is working. The one thing a sneaky democRat fears and does not want to discus is the history of the democRat Party therefore history has to be rewritten or it’s gotta go.

  8. ‘Our 1 million residents have endured three mass shootings in three years, along with hundreds of gun-inflicted killings, suicides and serious injuries.’

    Simple solution. Impose a suicide tax. Nobody will be allowed to commit suicide without first paying the suicide tax and of course, a 3 day waiting period. Problem solved!

    • This is a great idea, maybe make it a tiered permit – Injury: $500 / 5 day waiting period. Suicide: $2500 / 10 day waiting period and proof of easily cleanable location. Murder: $25000 per victim, with victim pre notifications and 15 day waiting period , and all intended victims are given CCW license immediately with loaner gun and unlimited ammunition of their choice.

      • Forget loaner gun, let them keep the gun, so you only get a $24,000 net per victim, it’s all good! Loaner might work for suicides, you could reuse the gun, no training or practice required, only need one round of ammo. This will work GREAT!!

  9. The words “I’m mandating”, applied to anyone except employees of the government, is categorically unacceptable in a republic.

  10. So, what is his plan for the one’s committing the violence? Uncle Fred is not out doing drive by’s or holding people up but he is expected to subsidize those who do?

    Likely this money will be skimmed by politicians anyway, so Uncle Fred is just helping politicians get richer. The criminals continue to be criminals, the politicians get richer off the criminals actions and Uncle Fred pays for it.

  11. “We’ve invited doctors, public health experts, and yes, gun owners, to help identify how to allocate the money…”

    Let’s clarify that… you invited by selection liberal gun-control advocates some of which happen to claim they own a gun as a means to have some implied relevance.

    Tax payers do not subsidize gun owners. Your gun violence is not the fault of legal gun owners.

    • Those gun safety classes they want to pay for, are those run by Bloomberg and the moms on why you should lock up or better yet not have a gun, or are they going to have pistol basics or actual shooting proficiency classes? Even if they did, people can just pay for and get the training they want now, and the overall cost will be much less at a couple hundred bucks vs what this would cost by the time the government skims money off and runs it through the government waste system.

      • avatar Geoff "A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine" PR

        “Those gun safety classes they want to pay for, are those run by Bloomberg and the moms on why you should lock up or better yet not have a gun, or are they going to have pistol basics or actual shooting proficiency classes?”

        I can only comment on how Florida conducts their required concealed carry permit classes.

        Most of the time was spent on the legality of using deadly force, and the required gun range training aspect was firing *one* .22 short into a bullet trap in the classroom.

        The absolute minimum they could get away with.

        That being said, any NRA trained individual can add as much additional training as they like, and a typical fee might be 300 dollars, and some time on an actual gun range, one on one with the instructor…

  12. Meanwhile, taxpayers are subsidizing countless abortions, resulting in the death of thousands of innocents. There of course needs to be a fee imposed on the suppliers and procurers of abortions

  13. Intriguing idea to make those blamed for a problem pay a fee to remediate that problem.
    Smoker pay, allegedly, to fun cessation programs and healthcare though where that money ends up is anywhere but in those programs. Recycling deposits allegedly fund recycling programs and encourage redemption of recyclable goods though where that money ends up is anywhere but those programs.

    So lets extend this practice to all persons and behaviors with a statistically significant affect on the well-being of society as a whole. Maybe there’s a federal organization or three that tracks this data. Oh, I don’t know, maybe the FBI. Lets see what they have to say about certain people and their contribution to criminal activity in society. Perhaps a small fee should be levied upon them to make up for the cost on society?

    Back in my city living days I watched a cop pull a guy over in a BMW for rolling a stop sign while am all out brawl took place at the walk-up window in the chicken joint across the street went completely ignored. Why? Because the guy in the BMW will pay his ticket. The animals fighting over bits of chicken wont pay any fine or appear for any court hearing so why bother?

  14. How about a modest yearly fee for people that have been convicted of domestic violence/child abuse. Studies show that these people are likely to be repeat offenders.
    Taxing gun owners because firearms are used in some crimes is like taxing anyone with fists because fists are used in many crimes of violence.
    Prove that someone is using firearms in a criminal way, fine. My firearms are owned because I may need to defend myself someday and I occasionally practice with them.

    • That bing so, how’s about hooking up twith Lowes and HHome Depot to levy a tax on all hammers and cutting tools they sell? MOre folks are murdered and harmed by those two classes of tool each year than are by the use of firearms. WHY do all those non-violent hemmer owners get a free pass, not hving to pay for “violence” perpetrated by the use of this class of tool? Ya wanna go all logical let’s go logical, OK? Partuicluarly if the guys name is Brandon.

  15. I don’t care what morons in San Jose choose to do… except for one minor problem…. half the people who voted for that guy are moving here.

  16. Seems to me the criminals convicted of the crimes should be paying ‘reparations” to those ill affected by their crimes.
    NOT law abiding Gun Owners.
    This guy is a commie.

  17. As always, take any gun control legislation and substitute “printer” for “firearm”, then see if passes muster with the Left or SCOTUS.

  18. First of all it is not his city, it belongs to the people! If everyone gets some backbone and stand against it there is nothing they can do.

  19. What you need to do is charge a very big fine for each criminal convicted of a crime with a gun involved, say $50,000 – don’t penalize law abiding US Citizens as they are not the problem and never have been.

    This ignorant mayor will soon be tied up in a long court battle costing San Jose millions of dollars and he will lose the battle and have to pay all of the court costs and legal fees of the plaintiffs.

    San Jose is making a very dumb move that will cost them dearly. Just give it up and go after the criminals, gang bangers, terrorists and illegal aliens!

  20. Given that the friggin’ NINTH CIRCUIT just held that the CIVID-mandated closures of gun stores in various SoCal counties (while allowing bike shope to remain open as “essential businesses”) violated the Second Amendment, this one will have a very short shelf life. I doubt it could satisfy intermediate scrutiny, and many judges would find it can’t even satisfy the “rational basis” test. (“We just want to do SOMETHING” doesn’t cut it, particularly given the SCOTUS authority cited in earlier comments that you can’t use a tax as an end-run around a constitutional right.)

    The best part is this soiboi’s recognition that SCOTUS is about to lower the boom on “may issue,” and that will likely start to bring down the house of cards that is the California anti-gun legal climate. It’s coming, he knows it’s coming, and he knows there isn’t jack he can do to stop it. Hence the wailing . . . .

    As noted by a certain Cimmerian philosopher, sometimes it is indeed one of the best things in life to “hear the lamentations of the women.”

    • avatar Geoff "A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine" PR

      “The best part is this soiboi’s recognition that SCOTUS is about to lower the boom on “may issue,” and that will likely start to bring down the house of cards that is the California anti-gun legal climate.”

      It may be a narrow ruling, LKB.

      *Unless* Thomas & Co. can craft a “Modified Strict Scrutiny”, perhaps?

      Do we have the votes to force a strict scrutiny ruling?

      • Boils down to Kavanaugh.
        At oral argument, he was unexpectedly strong — not telegraphing that he was backing away from his Heller II position at all.
        The fact that the Anti-2A folks are essentially resigned to the fact that “may issue” is DOA is a pretty good indication.

        • We are in trouble if the Second Amendment hangs on Kavanaugh. He just pulled a John Roberts, and screwed over health care workers with regards to the COVID jab mandate for their jobs. If that is any indication of how he will rule in the future, he may just flush down the toilet every last other right. Including the Second. He IS, after all, black mail worthy. He may (I hope) not be a pedophile, but he does have kids and a wife that can be dangled over his head, should he not rule the way he is supposed to. Whomever is black mailing Roberts may very well be doing the same with Kavanaugh. But I hope I am wrong.

  21. How about every politician put up a billion dollar bond. And when they go outside the Supreme law of the land, there is a fund to provide compensation and penalties to the oppressed. And their bond fee increases with each judgement against them.

    Politicians have to feel the consequences of their anti-liberty acts. Not just when they get arrested for corruption or other white collar crimes.

  22. Is speech going to be taxed by the word, by the sentence, or by the paragraph?
    How much will I be taxed if I chose to say nothing at all?

  23. I suspect he knows it won’t fly and will be challenged legally on a number of fronts and rightfully so. It’s just more “look at me and what I’m doing” He probably has aspirations for a higher office at the state or federal level and needs to appear strong and bold. We all know what sock-puppet Gabby says, “be strong, be bold” (even if its idiotic)

    • Best way to handle dirtbags like this is to charge them wiht felony perjury for swearing their owths of office and then faiing to keep it. This clown KNOWS or SHOULD kno taxing a clearly enumerated RIGHT is contra the US and State Constitutions.

  24. If this nut cake wants to tax legal gun owners for burdening the system, will there be a credit for capping a violent thug and saving the gov the cost of incarceration?

  25. IT’S NOT A RED OR BLUE THING , TRATIOR tttt~tratior~RUMP WAS JUST ANOTHER OUTLAW .
    tRUMP WATCH ME EVERONE WIPE MY BUNGDINGO WITH THE USA CONSTITUTION.
    IT’S THE PERSON , THATS GONE DUMBER THAN DUMBER .

  26. Here we go again. The Mayor is going to mandate, is he? Does he actually believe he has the authority to simply decide to begin charging people money for whatever he likes, without any authorization from a legislature, city council, just because he is the mayor? He should be impeached for stupidity, but what he’ll get is most likely just ignored.

  27. Wait for the knife, fist, foot, rock and narwhal horn taxes! This is a never-ending source of revenue, car ownership, possession of books [ideas have killed millions of people!] are all on the block. But, thanks to the public education system overseen by the teachers’ unions, not too many people will have to pay the book tax.

  28. Doesn’t this guy have one of the most punchable faces ever? I am not saying anyone should actually do that, just this guy is on a Fred Savage level of punchable faces. His dead-pan, douchebag stair is THE face of every self-aggrandizing bureaucrat that has ever walked the planet.

  29. After reading the linked ‘Los Angels Times’ article.. here is what I propose for Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose (America’s 10th largest city).

    I propose that all of the guns and ammunition you confiscate from criminals; For the guns, I propose these be offered back to the public for sale at no more than $100.00 each – for the ammunition I propose that this also be offered back to the public for sale at no more than $0.30 per round.

    By calculation, based upon this thing this mayor seems to have going on about this claim of the tremendous amount of gun violence going on in San Jose (that city conviction rate and police records and confiscation rate-vs-amount records do not support) the city would not have had many citizens left by about mid 2020 at ~25,000.

    Selling these back to the remaining law abiding public in your ‘almost extinct’ city resident population will enable them to protect their selves from the crime you have failed to protect them from (which is the reason you have “direct costs of gun violence total $40 million annually for San Jose taxpayers…”)

    If all the arguments of the anti-gun freaks about gun violence were true, the population of the United States would have been zero by 2017.

    Legal self-defense by gun is not an act of gun violence even though it is a violent act. It is, at its basics, an act of survival required by nature and human evolution and instinct and natural in the absence of a protective environment to deter the threat prompting such survival instinct action.

    If the ‘protective environment to deter the threat prompting such survival instinct action’ were in place society overall would be a much better and safer society. This is part of the reason why we elect mayors, governors, presidents, sheriffs, and all sorts of public offices and place people in positions – to deal with the threat and provide a ‘protective environment to deter the threat prompting such survival instinct action’. It is not the job of these people to restrain, remove, hinder, infringe, or in any way impede or burden that natural survival self-defense instinct action ability or the means by which law abiding people can enact such natural survival self-defense instinct action. It is wrong to do so, it is unconstitutional to do so, it is a violation of the laws of nature and by scientific and natural selection analysis method it is a path to extinction. All species which do not have a means of suitable self-defense eventually goes extinct when they start being preyed upon, only the ones that are able to defend themselves survive.

    Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose (America’s 10th largest city), is endangering his own city residents by not going after the actual cause of his ‘gun violence’ problems and instead is launching an attack of unconstitutional actions upon law abiding citizens placing the blame and burden on them. Its not enough that law abiding gun owners already pay their taxes and the higher cost of living and the other ‘subsidizing’ costs associated with living there – now they need to singled out and punished by a fee for simply exercising a constitutional right so more money can be in the city coffers to compensate for its mayors lack of doing his job to provide a ‘protective environment to deter the threat prompting such survival instinct action’.

  30. The mayor is an idiot. All I can see is a lawsuit heading towards city hall. Then again it silly cone valley and California.

  31. I know this will perturb the more libertarian types (I should know because I was one before I was radicalized by 2020), but the government SHOULD actually subsidize firearm ownership and training. Guns and ammo should be tax free. There should be grants or loans for first time gun owners like we do for first time house buyers. How about interest free student loans/grants you could use at a place like thunder ranch?

    • Florian Geyer Not no, but HELL NO! We don’t need any more government handouts. We need individuals who are willing to be adults and fend for themselves.

      Get off this “government can solve every problem kick!

  32. Licardo said, “To be sure, the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens to own guns, but it doesn’t require the public to subsidize gun ownership. Every day, taxpayers bear the financial burden of police officers, ambulances and trauma surgeons…”

    For his information, you can’t tax Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that when they said “poll taxes” for voting were unconstituitional. Imagine if Licardo’s logic were applied to voting — then his quote would read like this:
    “To be sure, the 14th Amendment protects the rights of citizens to vote, but it doesn’t require the public to subsidize voting. Every election day, taxpayers bear the financial burden of voting booths, poll workers,” etc., so we need a poll tax.
    Nope, poll taxes are unconstitutional, and so are “gun ownership fees!”

  33. 1. — He wants to turn a right into a privilege one has to.pay for.
    2. — There was a time when taxes were introduced for financial reasons. Today they serve control and social engineering purposes. With tax comes registration, with registration comes confiscation.
    3. — Go to hell, Mr. Lizzard.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here