“This set of ordinances is really focused on narrowing the flow of guns to those which are clearly legal and hopefully doing something to deter the flow of guns that are unlawful to own.”
— San Jose, California Mayor Sam Liccardo quoted in the San Jose Mercury News
Ummm…what? I cannot think of any way in which mandating that gun sales at licensed dealers (the only kind allowed in California) are audio-video recorded will further either of those goals.
The only quote that makes any sense in the Mercury News’ article is from our friends at the Firearms Policy Coalition:
“It is outrageous that Mayor Liccardo wants to use Big Brother-style omniveillance to record gun owners’ every move, violating the privacy of millions, especially at-risk firearm purchasers,” the coalition wrote in a statement. “This Orwellian requirement would be rightly universally opposed were the City to impose similar video and audio-recording mandates in mosques and churches, book stores, or abortion clinics.”
OK, so let’s have such video recording at polling-places and drop-boxes.
As you are checked-in at the registry desk at the poling place you are photographed along with a chalk-marked sign with your voter registration number and name.
As you are about to drop your mail-in ballot at a drop-box or post office you are photographed along with your ballot envelope showing your name and address.
It should be a simple matter for computers to search the photos looking for likely matches. If it appears that a face appears twice, or many times, the computer kicks-out a match of the records. Do the names match? Do the photos seem a likely match? Is there strong enough evidence to pursue an investigation?
@MarkPA
Sometimes your thinking and rationales are positively Machiavellian.
I respect that!
“OK, so let’s have such video recording at polling-places and drop-boxes.”
I second this.
Literally take any restriction (real or suggested) on the 2nd Amendment and apply it to any other liberty and see how that relative infringement holds water:
“You need to obtain a government permit to worship God/Allah.
You need a background check to go to the library and check out that chemistry book.
You can only peaceably assemble in groups greater than 3, protest or express a non-approved opinion outside of designated municipal/county safe-spaces or speech-free zones.
Any speech that falls outside of approved guidelines is deemed as hate or assault speech and is banned.
We finally need to enact common sense speech, expression and religion laws.”
…to illustrate how completely stupid they sound
@MarkPA,
Remember how I mentioned last week that I don’t 100% agree with you on all things, but I respect how you present your statements?
This is a shining example of something you’ve said I *do* think should be brought to every City Councilperson, State Legislator, and Federal Congresscritter who claims to champion gun control. I wish I’d thought of this.
Well done. I’m going to use this in my conversations with others.
It would be useless to present this argument, as no one in the Adminispherium would listen; It would be as the ravings of a madman or a religious zealot speaking in tongues.
The INSTANT response would be simple, and to the point: “The 2nd Amendment is like no other; It is the only one that enshrines a right to commit mass murder with firearms. None of the other amendments carry within them a lethal threat.”
You cannot reason with these people; They are a breed apart, and make no sense. Therefore, do not try logical arguments based upon analogy and comparison. Visualize an annoyed pig. . .
It’s okay, John. Sit on the bleachers and avoid the hard work, then, and let the more determined Patriots do it. We’ll let you know when we make progress so you can come back out and enjoy the field after we’ve put in the sweat and tears on your behalf.
John in ….Let’s break it down….The Second Amendment includes such words as “Well” “Necessary” “Security” “Free” “Right” “People.” No where does it say or imply mass murder, etc. In fact it says and does just the opposite by preventing and stopping mass murder, slavery, genocide, etc.
Surely you would not want someone to be defendless against someone wanting to do them harm? I mean people who prefer others to be unarmed are either just plain stupid or they are murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, kidnappers, perverts, tyrants and Gun Control Zealots.
Wow.
One thinks that arguing with pigs is a constructive pastime, and that by refusing to argue with pigs one is abandoning The Cause; The other thinks that advising against arguing with pigs by illustrating how the pigs will respond to the argument is somehow a desire to arm mass murders, terrorists, and other Liberals.
Bless your hearts.
Video tape? What f/n century do they think this is?
Good idea, that’s why it will never happen…
not a big deal for the big gun stores…[they probably do it anyway]…but a bit of a burden for the little guys….
what gun store doesn’t already have security cameras installed? a court order could produce a video copy for law enforcement already. audio would be a different matter i suppose…
I’d bet that, barring a robbery, the cameras erase the video by the next day at the latest. Let’s see the city state that the city’s taxpayers will be paying for all required equipment, storage, maintenance, et al, no cost to the FFLs, and you’ll discover what the real intent of this requirement is. The paperwork including photo ID obviates any need for a video.
The intent is to make operating a gun store very expensive with all these extra requirements.
obviously…
Enjoy all those hours of video of people leaning on the counter waiting for the 4473 to come back.
Analog VHS and audio recordings on a talkboy handheld. Store everything unlabeled in a one of those giant cardboard boxes for watermelons. Have fun finding what you want and matching up the audio/video.
Why not a law mandating video taping of all illegal drug sales??? I’m sure there are never any gun sales anyplace but at a licensed FFL?
The tax the City passed smells a lot like a Poll Tax and will probably be struck down.
Golly I’m already being videotaped damn near everywhere I go. That mask mandate was actually a boon to gun owners…& to the comment of waiting on a 4473 I have never had anything but instant approval(knock on wood!😏). Of perhaps 25.
“That mask mandate was actually a boon to gun owners… “
Hallelujah! At least someone gets it!
I’m not sure why most POTG saw the mask mandates as a bad thing, I still wear mine routinely, there’s no better way to compromise the facial recognition software then a large asymmetrical mask covering most of your facial features. Add sunglasses and a hat and you could be anybody.
Add a pebble in your shoe for an authentic limp and the disguise is complete
Really, when your enemy is making mistakes, don’t interrupt them.
Yep, we’ve had a golden ticket pass over the past year in regards to dodging surveillance that is expiring.
Wait, wut?…I actually agree with Miner on something? …the end of the world is truly nigh.
As a longtime believer in Fezzik’s Maxim, I found this past year very unsettling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_66KLWwV0I
The statists were granting chicom flu recovery $ for the rewriting of existing facial recog software so to would work with area ABOVE mask only. The FEDs already have full facial photo of anyone with a drivers license.
Sure to be even MORE accurate
We know you still wear your initially mandated mask. Probable even in the car alone, like the distracted lady driver that almost plowed into me on the crosswalk when I had the right of way not too long ago. Because wearing a mask tells the world you are a smooth brain.
The film they put on license plates could also work on your glasses, so the camera can’t get the ratios need for the software to work.
don’t give ’em ideas..private sales could be next…
After the background check and paperwork is completed and I am ready to walk out with my gun (still able to do that in PA), I would be sorely tempted to flash a big ole smile and middle finger at that camera. Probably wouldn’t go over well with our masters.
Well you know, in almost every retail establishment in any relatively modern area you will find multiple video surveillance cameras recording every moment.
And all that content is available to the authorities, often with nothing more than a polite request.
So no need to make it a law. Case closed.
so you want to draw their attention?…….
They obviously STILL think we’re all too stupid to see what they’re trying to do!! That’s the problem when you think you’re the smartest one in the room!!!
Do the Marijuana stores on those States have the same video requirement?
Only for brownie sales. Sale of marijuana laced muffins are not recorded.
Debate continues to rage on the video and audio recording requirements on marijuana tea.
Does recording apply as well to the steam rising out of the marijuana tea pot?
What of iced marijuana tea? If it was recorded during the boiling process, must another recording be made after chilling?
And we still haven’t begun to address excess sugar in marijuana baked goods or beverages!
It appears you have frequented these stores.
On should have be in, most people would have understood that. At least intelligent people.
Correct me if I am wrong, however I foresee some 4th amendment issues. Is the video and audio taping an actual search without warrant?. isn’t this an intrusion when government mandated surveillance on private property?
It’s got more than just Fourth Amendment issues, but those are the ones that should get this crushed easily.
I am SO glad I left that fcking socialistic cesspool of a city and state three years ago. I was one of the lucky ones that could (retired, sold the house, took the money and jumped ship).
“This Orwellian requirement would be rightly universally opposed were the City to impose similar video and audio-recording mandates in mosques and churches, book stores, or abortion clinics.”
The ACLU has sued cities to stop them from video taping people coming and going from abortion clinics.
Interestingly enough, California is a two-party consent state for audio recording. I’d say that the requirement to record audio (as opposed to standard video-only surveillance cameras) is in direct conflict with state law and the ordinance will swiftly be barred from enforcement by a judge immediately after it takes effect.
Comments are closed.