Author Topic: Gun Control  (Read 42047 times)

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54838
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #225 on: June 05, 2021, 08:55:24 AM »
I'm all for it

satisfied

And just like everything else, you have no concept of it which is why you're too fucking stupid to vote

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #226 on: June 05, 2021, 10:58:38 AM »
Supreme Court Blocks Police From Entering Homes Without A Warrant For ‘Caretaking’—Siding Against Biden, Law Enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that law enforcement cannot legally enter homes without a warrant even in cases where doing so may benefit the public interest, striking down the suggestion from law enforcement and the Biden administration that doing so under a “community caretaking” exception would be justified.

The case, Caniglia v. Strom, considered whether police acted lawfully by entering a man’s home and removing his firearms without a warrant after he had expressed thoughts of suicide and was taken to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

Police entered the home under a “community caretaking” exception that allows entry in cases where doing so benefits the public interest, which has traditionally applied to incidents regarding vehicles but not in homes.

That exception had been favored by the law enforcement in the case and also the Biden administration, whose Justice Department said in an amicus brief that police should be able to enter homes without a warrant in cases that are “objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

The court ruled that the exception could not be extended to the home without violating the Fourth Amendment, overturning two lower courts that sided with the police officers and their argument that the amendment “does not prohibit law enforcement officers from diffusing a volatile situation in a home to protect the residents or others.”

“What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the court, noting that the previous standard that allowed the “community caretaking” exception was not “a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.”

The court’s decision does not affect police officers’ ability to take “reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid” that are protected under a separate “exigent circumstances” doctrine, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, such as when an elderly person has fallen or to prevent a potential suicide.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/17/supreme-court-blocks-police-from-entering-homes-without-a-warrant-for-caretaking-siding-against-biden-law-enforcement/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-overturns-california-ban-032400825.html

Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

LMFAO this is the issue with people who have no idea what their talking about making policies that effect everyday people

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54367
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #227 on: June 05, 2021, 04:09:31 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-overturns-california-ban-032400825.html

Overturning the ban would allow not only assault rifles, but things like assault shotguns and assault pistols, state officials said.

LMFAO this is the issue with people who have no idea what their talking about making policies that effect everyday people
Assault rifles, assault shotguns and assault pistols??? What are those ???
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Moontrane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #228 on: June 05, 2021, 04:26:36 PM »
Assault rifles, assault shotguns and assault pistols??? What are those ???

Assault Foot:



Assault ruler:



Assault stage:



Assault shadow:


Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #229 on: June 21, 2021, 07:07:50 PM »
As expected.

US appeals court blocks judge’s decision to overturn state’s assault weapons ban

A federal appeals court decided Monday to put on hold a judge’s decision to overturn California’s 30-year ban on assault weapons.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Judge Roger T. Benitez’s June 4th decision, in which he likened an AR-15 semiautomatic to a Swiss Army Knife and called it “good for both home and battle.”

Benitez overturned the California ban but gave the state 30 days to challenge the decision. The 9th Circuit, acting on a June 10 appeal filed by Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, put Benitez’s ruling on hold pending a full-blown decision.

“This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said said in a tweet. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-21/appeals-court-blocks-judges-decision-to-overturn-states-assault-weapons-ban

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #230 on: June 23, 2021, 07:26:17 PM »
 ::)

Biden touts new crime prevention strategy focused on gun control
He rejected the argument that the right to self-defense is needed to protect against potential government tyranny
By Morgan Phillips | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-crime-prevention-strategy-gun-control

ThisisOverload

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5394
  • Team Horse Cock
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #231 on: June 25, 2021, 01:18:52 PM »
As expected.

US appeals court blocks judge’s decision to overturn state’s assault weapons ban

A federal appeals court decided Monday to put on hold a judge’s decision to overturn California’s 30-year ban on assault weapons.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Judge Roger T. Benitez’s June 4th decision, in which he likened an AR-15 semiautomatic to a Swiss Army Knife and called it “good for both home and battle.”

Benitez overturned the California ban but gave the state 30 days to challenge the decision. The 9th Circuit, acting on a June 10 appeal filed by Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, put Benitez’s ruling on hold pending a full-blown decision.

“This leaves our assault weapons laws in effect while appellate proceedings continue,” Bonta said said in a tweet. “We won’t stop defending these life-saving laws.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-21/appeals-court-blocks-judges-decision-to-overturn-states-assault-weapons-ban

Assault weapons.

Oh brother. ;D

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #232 on: July 06, 2021, 01:53:17 PM »
San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.

The city council's aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths. According to the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, which studied the issue and sent a representative to testify before the panel, gun-related incidents cost the city roughly $63 million every year in the way of paying for police officers, medics and other expenses, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

San Jose-based FOX 2 reported that citizens weighed in on the proposal, with some praising the council for the measure and others condemning the move as unconstitutional.

"I strongly oppose more taxation on legal gun owners," San Jose resident Sasha Sherman told the council. "Each time a gun owner buys ammunition, they pay an 11% tax, plus a background check fee."

Another speaker argued, "It puts a financial burden on a constitutional right, which is the right to bear arms."

While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be "a couple dozen dollars," and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."


https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54367
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #233 on: July 06, 2021, 04:50:45 PM »
I wonder if straw supports this since it's his neighborhood  ???
I think it's leaving San Jose open for a beautiful lawsuit from somebody.
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Moontrane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #234 on: July 06, 2021, 05:05:35 PM »
San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.

The city council's aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths. According to the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, which studied the issue and sent a representative to testify before the panel, gun-related incidents cost the city roughly $63 million every year in the way of paying for police officers, medics and other expenses, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

San Jose-based FOX 2 reported that citizens weighed in on the proposal, with some praising the council for the measure and others condemning the move as unconstitutional.

"I strongly oppose more taxation on legal gun owners," San Jose resident Sasha Sherman told the council. "Each time a gun owner buys ammunition, they pay an 11% tax, plus a background check fee."

Another speaker argued, "It puts a financial burden on a constitutional right, which is the right to bear arms."

While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be "a couple dozen dollars," and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance

I don’t believe SJ’s proposal will pass constitutional muster.  Imagine needing insurance to plead the fifth, go to church, or march with BLM.

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #235 on: July 13, 2021, 04:40:28 PM »
Law banning handgun sales to Americans under 21 violates Second Amendment, court rules

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that prohibitions on selling handguns to Americans under 21 violates the Second Amendment, the latest legal victory for gun rights advocates in federal court.

At issue is a gun control law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 that banned the sale of handguns to people under 21 years old but permitted the sale of shotguns and rifles to those same people.

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., said Tuesday that the law was an arbitrary restriction that relegated 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status under the Second Amendment. The decision is likely to be appealed and may eventually reach the Supreme Court.

"When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33?" wrote Judge Julius Richardson, nominated to the court by President Donald Trump in 2018. "In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age."

The suit was filed by 19-year-old Natalia Marshall, who obtained a protective order against an ex-boyfriend, according to court records. The boyfriend had been arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. Marshall was 18 when she attempted to purchase a handgun. Another plaintiff has since turned 21.

The decision comes a month after a federal judge in California invalidated California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, comparing the AR-15 assault rifle to a "Swiss Army knife." The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit extended a stay in that case last month, delaying its impact while another dispute works its way through the courts.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/13/banning-handgun-sales-those-under-21-unconstitutional-court-rules/7955496002/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #236 on: July 13, 2021, 05:05:17 PM »
Law banning handgun sales to Americans under 21 violates Second Amendment, court rules

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that prohibitions on selling handguns to Americans under 21 violates the Second Amendment, the latest legal victory for gun rights advocates in federal court.

At issue is a gun control law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 that banned the sale of handguns to people under 21 years old but permitted the sale of shotguns and rifles to those same people.

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., said Tuesday that the law was an arbitrary restriction that relegated 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status under the Second Amendment. The decision is likely to be appealed and may eventually reach the Supreme Court.

"When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33?" wrote Judge Julius Richardson, nominated to the court by President Donald Trump in 2018. "In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age."

The suit was filed by 19-year-old Natalia Marshall, who obtained a protective order against an ex-boyfriend, according to court records. The boyfriend had been arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. Marshall was 18 when she attempted to purchase a handgun. Another plaintiff has since turned 21.

The decision comes a month after a federal judge in California invalidated California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, comparing the AR-15 assault rifle to a "Swiss Army knife." The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit extended a stay in that case last month, delaying its impact while another dispute works its way through the courts.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/13/banning-handgun-sales-those-under-21-unconstitutional-court-rules/7955496002/

Yeah good decision.  Pretty dumb to permit an 18 year old to join the service, or get drafted and be forced to learn how to shoot a weapon, but not let them be privately purchased. 

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #237 on: September 30, 2021, 12:52:42 PM »
It would be nice for once to see the arrest and imprisonment of those who ignore court decisions and violate the laws, instead of arresting and prosecuting the law-abiding citizens.


U.S. judge: Nation's capital liable for wrongful arrests under struck-down gun ban

A federal judge found the D.C. government liable Wednesday for wrongfully arresting between 2012 and 2014 six people who were accused of violating its ban on carrying handguns in public.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth did not rule on a motion seeking class-action status, but the decision, if upheld, could clear the way for claims for damages by as many as 4,500 people similarly arrested under the law the courts overturned in 2014, according to court filings.

The decision is the latest in a long line of litigation after Washington’s strictest-in-the-nation gun regulations made the nation’s capital a key focus for gun rights activists two decades ago. The Supreme Court struck down the District’s long-standing ban on handguns in a landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protected individuals’ right to own a gun in the home.

The District enacted new restrictions on openly carrying firearms in the city, but a federal judge in July 2014 and an appeals court in July 2017 again struck down regulations requiring residents to show “proper reason” to do so, such as a fear of injury or transporting valuables. The 2014 ruling also barred the city from enforcing carrying restrictions against people “based solely on the fact that they are nonresidents.”

The city subsequently repealed statutes criminalizing possession of firearms not registered in D.C., possession of ammunition by people without a D.C.-registered firearm and otherwise barring possession by nonresidents.

In Wednesday’s 19-page opinion, Lamberth rejected the D.C. government’s defense that it could not have violated the plaintiffs rights before a court struck down its statutes.

Instead, Lamberth ruled, laws banning carrying firearms in public and nonresidents from registering firearms, and permitting the arrest of nonresidents for carrying weapons or ammunition without a license, “go the core of the Second Amendment.” The judge said the amendment preserves the “right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to long-standing restrictions,” quoting the 2017 opinion, Wrenn v. District of Columbia.

“The District violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by arresting them, detaining them, prosecuting them, and seizing their guns based on an unconstitutional set of D.C. laws,” Lamberth wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-gun-ban-wrongful-arrests/2021/09/29/4d639960-2155-11ec-9309-b743b79abc59_story.html

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54838
  • It’s All Bullshit

Princess L

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13030
  • I stop for turtles
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #239 on: September 30, 2021, 03:57:17 PM »
H R 4350 has some ridiculous language in it


:

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #240 on: January 31, 2022, 08:16:57 PM »
Biden Admin Has Records on Nearly One Billion Gun Sales
ATF database on firearm sales sparks fears Biden admin tracking millions of gun owners
Adam Kredo • January 31, 2022
https://freebeacon.com/guns/biden-admin-has-records-on-nearly-one-billion-gun-sales/

Gym-Rat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5455
  • Member of the 'proud straight white male' movement
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #241 on: February 02, 2022, 12:43:39 AM »
Biden Admin Has Records on Nearly One Billion Gun Sales
ATF database on firearm sales sparks fears Biden admin tracking millions of gun owners
Adam Kredo • January 31, 2022
https://freebeacon.com/guns/biden-admin-has-records-on-nearly-one-billion-gun-sales/

he beat the old record (obama) for the title 'worlds greatest gun salesman' everything they do is a fail

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17352
  • loco like a fox
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #242 on: February 02, 2022, 04:26:33 AM »

Skeletor

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13307
  • Silence you furry fool!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #243 on: February 07, 2022, 01:08:11 PM »
Showing his true colors: "The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed."


Mayor Plans to Seize Guns of Citizens Who Haven't Paid 'Fee' to Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights

A California city has approved a law forcing gun owners to have insurance and pay an annual $25 fee.

“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN.

Gun owners are also required under the law to have insurance. The law, which received its first approval in January, will need approval on a second reading this month before it can go on the books, taking effect in August.

Gun owners who do not pay the fee will face a fine, he said, but they will not be subject to criminal charges. However, he said, they could have their gun seized and illustrated a possible scenario.

“Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs — you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun. ‘Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?’ ‘No.’

“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing,” he said.

Liccardo insisted that the fee is legal.

“The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed. Newspapers pay taxes, even though that’s an important First Amendment right,” he told Slate.

https://www.westernjournal.com/mayor-plans-seize-guns-citizens-havent-paid-fee-exercise-2nd-amendment-rights/

Gym-Rat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5455
  • Member of the 'proud straight white male' movement
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #244 on: February 07, 2022, 01:34:01 PM »
gun control
i control all 9 of mine very easily

Moontrane

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #245 on: February 07, 2022, 02:52:02 PM »
Showing his true colors: "The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed."


Mayor Plans to Seize Guns of Citizens Who Haven't Paid 'Fee' to Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights

A California city has approved a law forcing gun owners to have insurance and pay an annual $25 fee.

“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN.

Gun owners are also required under the law to have insurance. The law, which received its first approval in January, will need approval on a second reading this month before it can go on the books, taking effect in August.

Gun owners who do not pay the fee will face a fine, he said, but they will not be subject to criminal charges. However, he said, they could have their gun seized and illustrated a possible scenario.

“Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs — you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun. ‘Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?’ ‘No.’

“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing,” he said.

Liccardo insisted that the fee is legal.

“The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed. Newspapers pay taxes, even though that’s an important First Amendment right,” he told Slate.

https://www.westernjournal.com/mayor-plans-seize-guns-citizens-havent-paid-fee-exercise-2nd-amendment-rights/

Yeah, have insurance and pay an annual fee to go to church, publish your writings, plead the fifth, or confront those who claim you’ve committed a crime.  ::)

Irongrip400

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19295
  • Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #246 on: February 07, 2022, 05:11:09 PM »
Showing his true colors: "The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed."


Mayor Plans to Seize Guns of Citizens Who Haven't Paid 'Fee' to Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights

A California city has approved a law forcing gun owners to have insurance and pay an annual $25 fee.

“Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen’s right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,” Democratic San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said, according to CNN.

Gun owners are also required under the law to have insurance. The law, which received its first approval in January, will need approval on a second reading this month before it can go on the books, taking effect in August.

Gun owners who do not pay the fee will face a fine, he said, but they will not be subject to criminal charges. However, he said, they could have their gun seized and illustrated a possible scenario.

“Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs — you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun. ‘Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?’ ‘No.’

“OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing,” he said.

Liccardo insisted that the fee is legal.

“The fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed or have a fee imposed. Newspapers pay taxes, even though that’s an important First Amendment right,” he told Slate.

https://www.westernjournal.com/mayor-plans-seize-guns-citizens-havent-paid-fee-exercise-2nd-amendment-rights/

“Does not require the tax payer to subsidize that right”. What does that mean? What does it cost the tax payer for a citizen to have a gun? ???

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54367
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #247 on: February 07, 2022, 07:16:28 PM »
gun control
i control all 9 of mine very easily
Rookie numbers
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 54838
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #248 on: February 07, 2022, 07:17:51 PM »
1 gun you’re a mass murderer, 10 or more you’re a collector

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59685
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #249 on: February 07, 2022, 10:09:11 PM »
BREAKING: Biden stresses need for gun control after NYPD officers murdered by career criminal
Hannah Nightingale
Washington DC
February 3, 2022
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-biden-gun-control-nypd?utm_campaign=64487