Friday, September 10, 2021

San Jose Will Force Law-Abiding Gun Owners to Pay for Cost of Gun Violence by Criminals

Must Read

Nurses are Vaccinated and Angry at those who aren’t, reports otherwise are totally fake – Veterans Today

“One report of a nurse refusing to be vaccinated and all of a sudden it’s ‘a majority’ of nurses,”...

China Considering Move to Humiliate US by Taking Over Afghanistan Military Base: Report

China reportedly is considering the deployment of military personnel to Afghanistan’s Bagram airfield following the U.S. departure from the...

Oath Keepers/Proud Boys Face Decades in Prison for Sedition – Report – Veterans Today

Raw Story: A lawyer for the right-wing militia group then Oath Keepers tweeted on Wednesday that she was served...

The city of San Jose, California, has launched what is arguably the most brazen attack yet against law-abiding gun owners, forcing them to pay for crimes committed by those who do not abide by gun laws.

In a stunning vote on Tuesday, the city’s council — all but one of whose members are Democrats — unanimously decided that law-abiding gun owners must carry liability insurance to own a gun and must pay a fee to help the city pay for instances of gun violence not created by people who are simply exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo was pleased by the decision.

“We won’t magically end gun violence, but we stop paying for it,” the Democrat said.

Liccardo added that those unwilling or unable to comply with the draconian gun control ordinance simply shouldn’t own firearms — rendering themselves defenseless against those who will without a doubt ignore the new law.

The mayor went to Twitter multiple times to share updates about his city’s anti-gun law.

“The @CityofSanJose is taking action against gun violence with this first-of-its-kind landmark decision. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to own guns, but doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership. #EndGunViolence,” Liccardo tweeted.

In another tweet, the mayor again said his city is simply looking out for taxpayers.

“Gun violence in San José costs taxpayers $442 million. That’s $2.2 million in taxes *per gun violence victim*. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to own guns but doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership,” he wrote.

If Liccardo is being truthful, this might be the first time in recent history that a Democrat has been genuinely concerned about taxpayers. The mayor, of course, isn’t being truthful. Liccardo and other city leaders are simply going after guns.

This isn’t about saving money — it’s about exercising control.

San Jose is now putting people of modest financial means in a tough position. Do they resort to buying illegal guns, now that Democrats have decided to make gun ownership a luxury for the wealthy?

How many minority residents living in San Jose will pay for the city’s assault on their rights by becoming victims of crimes? The city hasn’t answered those questions.

If you employed the logic and rhetoric commonly used by Democrats, you’d say San Jose is simply targeting its impoverished citizens in what is no doubt a move to deny disadvantaged Americans their rights.

Will Liccardo next come for voting rights? Will poor and minority Californians in the San Francisco Bay area be taxed so they can exercise other constitutional rights?

There are numerous questions about this ordinance that have yet to be answered. Perhaps at some point, a rational judge will have something to say about this attempt to make people less safe while also forcing them to pay to exercise a constitutional right.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Source link