The San Jose City Council voted unanimously last night to require gun owners to hold firearm insurance and pay an annual gun ownership fee. The California city is the first in the nation with such a law.
According to Mayor Sam Liccardo, gun insurance would be a way for shooting victims to be compensated and it would be at “little to no extra cost” for many. He said most gun owners would have the ability to take the firearm insurance onto their homeowner’s insurance.
“And that way we can ensure that victims are compensated where there’s an insurable event. And of course, insurance companies will help us make gun possession safer,” he told CBS San Francisco.
Liccardo wrote in an opinion piece for CNN that gun owners would have to pay a “modest fee” on an annual basis. What that “modest fee” actually is has yet to be determined. The goal, according to the mayor, is to prevent the city from footing the bill for mass shootings.
Tonight, City council unanimously approved our #GunViolence reduction initiatives, which included two first-of-their-kind proposals: mandatory gun insurance, and mandatory gun ownership fees. (1/3) https://t.co/WL5eJ8uJca
— Sam Liccardo (@sliccardo) June 30, 2021
Second, we will require gun owners to pay a modest annual fee to compensate taxpayers for the cost of gun-related violence. Every day, our residents bear the financial burden for police officers who bravely respond to shootings, for ambulances that transport the wounded, and for trauma surgeons to save them. These direct costs of gun violence to California taxpayers — to say nothing of the costs to victims or their families — exceeded $1.4 billion in 2018, a sum equivalent to the entire General Fund budget of my city, America’s 10th largest.
Sam Paredes, the Executive Director of Gun Owners of California, is working with a number of other pro-gun groups to challenge the new law.
“I strongly believe that Mayor Sam Liccardo is trying to do things he has no authority to do,” Paredes told KPIX, citing pre-exemption laws.
“Without that, various communities could sponsor their own laws governing firearms acquisition, sales, use and storage, and all of that. And law abiding citizens from other parts of the state would be breaking the law just by passing through some of these communities,” Paredes told the outlet. “That’s why no other city has successfully done what the mayor is proposing to do.”
“It is, we believe, very strongly unconstitutional for the government to require law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing more than exercising their Second Amendment rights to be required to have insurance, or to be taxed, while they are exercising that enumerated right,” Paredes went on to say.
The news comes after the city council voted earlier this month to require FFLs to video and audio record all firearm transactions. FFLs are required to keep the video for a minimum of one month, KPIX-TV reported at the time.
In a shocking bit of candor, Liccardo admits these laws will not prevent criminals from breaking the law. They are intentionally targetting law-abiding gun owners.
As he wrote at cnn.com . . .
Skeptics will say that criminals won’t comply. They’re right; yet that’s an important feature of these proposals, not a defect. These ordinances create a legal mandate that provides police with a lawful means for seizing guns from non-law-abiding, dangerous people.
The response to every officer’s call for domestic violence in my city, for example, includes the question, “do you have any guns in the home?” If that gun owner lacks proof of payment or insurance, the police can seize the gun — and dramatically reduce the lethality of the risk to the victim. Of course, the benefits can be more widespread: the majority of mass shootings in the US victimize intimate partners or otherwise involve domestic violence.
The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. We take the right to keep and bear arms seriously, but we also respect human life. No gun owner wants to have to utilize his or her weapon. No lawful gun owner purchases a firearm in hopes that one day he or she will need to use deadly force.
We own guns in case the need to protect ourselves or others arises. Because we’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
Requiring gun insurance doesn’t somehow strengthen red flag laws. In fact, it has almost nothing to do with law enforcement’s ability to seize someone’s firearms. But having a so-called “small” yearly fee – the amount yet to be determined – is blatantly unconstitutional. No other enumerated civil right requires a fee in order to exercise it.
Maybe the worst part of this entire ordeal is, unless it’s blocked by the courts, gun owners in San Jose are literally going to have to pay the city to further implement due process-free red flag confiscations…in the name of “gun violence prevention.”
And you know Second Amendment supporters will comply… because we’re law-abiding and we follow the rules. Yet we’re treated as though we’re the ones committing crimes.
Of course they’re targeting the law abiding.
What absolute moron could still believe gun control has anything to do with stopping crime? Such a person belongs in an institution. Breathing without a reminder would be too complicated for them.
Revenue sharing?, illegal selective taxation?… Hmmmm…
More like “revenue enhancement,” a policy New Jersey residents have been familiar with for decades.
Yeah I “participated” in “revenue enhancement” in a number of states including NJ and CA when I owned my big rig…
HI..HO..HI..HO…It’s off to court we go…..nothing new about this, they’ve been peddling this pablum for years…..
If gun control actually stopped crime, then they wouldn’t be able to justify more gun control.
California gun owners that reside within the city limits need to tell the city Council what they can do with their request, preferably forcibly and sideways
I agree with you. This stupidity will not hold up in the Supreme Court. The good people in that communist city need to move out and let the thugs have it like they did in Portland and Minneapolis.
This will never see the light of day in the SCOTUS
Yes, in 20 years they may even hear the case.
It sounds very similar to the old “poll tax” idea from years back. Those were eventually “shot down”. I’m sure Debbie W will weigh in on this take…
https://youtu.be/wX3hRj6XoUM
https://youtu.be/0OHH49vtl2g
Why would anyone want to live in an oppressed city let alone a state?
“Second, we will require ̶g̶u̶n̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶ VOTERS in San Jose to pay a modest annual fee to compensate taxpayers for the cost of g̶u̶n̶-̶r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶v̶i̶o̶l̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ELECTING MORONS like Mayor Sam Liccardo”
FIFY
How about a free speech license fee to compensate the people who are injured when some idiot incites a riot?
Stop giving the morons more ideas of how to dig deeper into honest citizen’s wallets!
I fled that state in 2007 in part due to this form of crooked thought process.
Where are you going to run to? To steal from the NRA, stand and fight. I bet a large number of us behind enemy lines didn’t start in a state or city with onerous restrictions, and instead had the increasingly regressive population cram this garbage down our throats. Running doesn’t solve the problem, because there are far more of them moving, voting, and being “educated” than there are those who believe in what this country is supposed to be.
Staying in a place like California gets you nowhere. It’s the worst of both worlds. There’s an endless supply of progtards and illegal immigrants, and you’ll always be vastly outnumbered and outvoted. That place isn’t getting any better or exporting any less stupidity if you stay. On the contrary, if people like you stay put, it’s actually exporting MORE stupidity as a percentage.
However, in raw numbers, there are still enough liberty-minded folks in California that if only half of you moved out, you could tip the balance back toward freedom in nearby states that are going purple and have only recently started the “progressive” downward slide: Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, take your pick.
A mass exodus of conservative Californians could secure liberty in those states for a generation at least.
Exactly. These states are going purple largely because of the libtards that have already fled communist-left hellholes like California, made so due to THEIR OWN dumb-ass political leanings. Which, rather than learning from their mistakes like most responsible, sane adults, they’re doubling down on them by taking this stupidity with them to what are for the time being at least, still free states.
rather than learning from their mistakes
Cockroaches don’t flee from the light to become Crickets, They will ALWAYS be cockroaches…
Why do people live in a shytehole like San Jose?
Evidently because many are Shitites. Not all, but many.
“Why do people live in a shytehole like San Jose?”
It’s the original ‘Silicon Valley’, where small, insignificant companies like Intel, Apple, and HP came from.
Dyspeptic worked out there…
When I moved there in August 86, it wasn’t anywhere near this bad but had already lost its balance and was irretrievably leaning that way. One of the first pieces of news I heard upon arrival was that Calipornia was dealing with a “low self-esteem” issue and they were going to be dealing with it and correcting it in the school systems. What am utter crock of feces that was. It never happened. Not as if I didn’t see that coming. Just another colossal waste of tax money.
“At little or no cost” to those who are actual homeowners.
Renters, rarely carry rental policies and those who commit crime never do.
This is more virtue signaling and the wealthy California property owners who can comply at little cost will do so just to keep “them” from having guns. As if one of “them” isn’t going to use a gun in his crime anyway.
“If you’re poor, you don’t deserve the ability to defend yourself with a firearm.”
“And you know Second Amendment supporters will comply… because we’re law-abiding and we follow the rules. Yet we’re treated as though we’re the ones committing crimes.”
I wouldn’t comply…and I’m law-abiding. These are the same people that tell us that unjust laws (i.e., laws they don’t like) should be disobeyed.
So is this where the second revolution starts or is it still scheduled for D.C.??
it’s still up for grabs I believe……..
This is what happens when municipal “councils” assume they have some kind of real authority… They tried that crap in Florida, got smacked down and STATE laws preventing any further stupidity were enacted… Of course in CA this will be heralded by the Governor and unless the locals step up and replace the local government it will stand, sucks….
This sounds kind of like a poll tax. Or at minimum a tax.
But a tax for practicing a constitutionally protected right?
Yeah this will go down in flames I am sure.
Meanwhile the city can go F**K themselves.
There’s a little thing called nexus regarding fees here in Caliweird. That means there needs to be a connection with the impact in order for the fee to be charged. Also, is this “modest fee” per person, per household, or per gun? This could get pretty expensive pretty quick.
Soooo Mayor Doofus, what is the connection between a legal gun owner, and the crimes being committed?
I think I’ll be waiting for answer for a very long time…
Anytime these insane laws are proposed another council member should copy it, replace the words gun with vote, and watch the fury.
“… the majority of mass shootings in the US victimize intimate partners or otherwise involve domestic violence.”
Where in the world did that come from? I know the anatomical answer, but ??
Figures can lie, and liars can figure.
Well, if that’s what they figure then the obvious solution is an intimate partner tax and domestic violence insurance- problem solved!
See– easy as cake, piece of pie.
We are, after all, brothers and sisters, fellow travelers on this great journey through the universe on our tiny planet, which makes us all intimate partners in the existential sense, because it takes a village, which obviously means that all violence is domestic, which means that that inner-city gangbanger, or brother, offing his rival Yutes of Color en masse is both our responsibility and our fault, which also means that we, too, are guilty of domestic violence and should willingly pay a substantial fine in the form of additional tax surcharges to defray the cost to society at large while forfeiting our privilege to possess lethal weapons of any sort.
Did I get it right? Can I be a Liberal Progressive now?
Hawkeye – that would depend on the gang you joined on how intimate you got 😉
I’m sure the gunman at Mandalay Bay in Lost Wages was only trying to take out his anger on family members and not any innocent public bystander. RIGHT???
The Muslims taxed Jews for centuries just because they were Jews. Legally. Now, gun owners will be taxed just because they’re gun owners. Legally. And most amazing is when Liberal Jews support these laws. What a short memory.
That’s not from short memory. It’s intentional.
Examples of their short memory would be all the times God rained fire on them, had them invaded, or otherwise punished them for their infidelity.
And Chistians and any other non-Muslims.
They should also require every voter to pay for ‘election insurance’ in case an election is stolen.
People doing things they have no authority to do has been such a big problem over the last five years or so. Particularly after Covid started.
“ Second, we will require gun owners to pay a modest annual fee to compensate taxpayers for the cost of gun-related violence.”
This is another example of politicians treating unrelated individuals as part of a “community” or a collective and holding them responsible and punishing them for acts over which they have no control. It’s obscene and it’s dangerous as hell.
Not to mention the requirement to pay the government for exercising an enumerated right.
This is what tyranny looks like.
Sounds like a “Modest Proposal,” indeed…
Make criminals pay for insurance and a license.
Ah, no, that would be unConstitutional.
You see, for a criminal to actually be required to obtain a license and insurance for an illegally-possessed gun, he would have to admit to having an illegally-possessed gun, which would be a forced admission of having committed the crime of having in illegal gun, which is being compelled to provide evidence against his penal interest, which is in violation of the 5th Amendment.
Marchetti V. US, further strengthened by Haynes V. US.
Isn’t this fun?
What about a license for crime? The Democrats seem hell bent on legitimizing criminal activity.
That is illegal as hell on its face. Requiring someone to pay a fee in order to exercise a Constitutional right is clearly an infringement. This will last about ten minutes once a lawsuit is filed.
“This will last about ten minutes once a lawsuit is filed”
depends on the politics of the judge.
It’ll last 5 years by the time all the appeals are heard.
Another ” common sense ” law formulated in a Socialist state. How about a $ 10,000 fine and 10 years in jail for everyone that proposes, votes for an unconstitutional law that infringes on any of the items in the Bill of Rights.
Anybody got a guillotine? Anybody?
It’s simple machine, easily and quickly constructed at moment’s notice.
Get a rope
“Are there any guns in the house?” “I plead the Fifth.”
“Show me your insurance documents.” “Get a warrant.”
it won’t go the way you expect. “Get a warrant.” “you have 30 days to vacate.”
“you have 30 days to vacate.”
You’re obviously a renter…
“obviously a renter”
so are you. ownership is about control. if they’re determined you’ll find they’re in control of your property, not you.
So…illegals and felons with guns…what if they don’t comply?
Gang members…other criminals?
I hear a LOT of crickets…a LOT!!
That’s right the sick Jim Crow Gun Control ratbassturds in San Jose want to hold innocent law abiding citizens accountable for the acts of criminals.
That is the kind of crap the party of slave shacks and nooses will continue until Gun Control along with all of its racist and genocidal baggage is rolled off a cliff.
And after Gun Control lands in hell the democRat Party needs to held monetarily liable for Reparations. Since kicking around Black Americans became unpopular the democRat Party has tried to whitewash its history and blame everyone but themselves for their race based atrocities.
The democRat Party owns the democRat Party Label making the party responsible for its laundry list of liabilities. Liabilities that include slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the KKK, lynching, Eugenics, Gun Control and other race based atrocities. PAY UP.
If the vic is dead call the non-emergency number. While the police take days to get there make sure no weapons are on the premises
How about a modest annual fee on all mostly peaceful protesters for exercising their right to assemble?
Close, but not quite. “How about a modest fee on all mostly peaceful protesters to compensate tax payers for all of the damages caused by rioters and looters?” That gives you the same sort of nonequivalent equivalency the logic of this proposal demands.
This needs to happen. Also, you must pass a background check, take a class, and get a permit before you can protest.
More evidence the system only cares about people getting shot because of the lost money. It’s why CDC is involved. Trouble is the people who can afford the gunm insurance aren’t the ones causing the problem. And the ones causing the problem will pay no insurance no matter it be house, car, or gunm.
Democrat candy store logic. “To many kids were stealing candy bars so we raised the prices.”
Did you mean “tack”? >He said most gun owners would have the ability to take the firearm insurance onto their homeowner’s insurance. >> SO city counsel consulted with the insurance companies on this liability? Or like a 2nd Lt – they Assumed?
>“And that way we can ensure that victims are compensated where there’s an insurable event.” – Insurable Event! Brilliant ! > – murder, manslaughter, mass shootings or accidental discharge will not be covered. Only justifiable homicide will be reimbursed following all court proceedings. Read your policy for further details.
Will this Gun/Homeowners/Renters “Forced Insurance” also cover civil suits?
Question number one (that the Council should have been asked): How many accidental shootings were there in the City of San Jose in the last year? Of those, how many were not covered by insurance instead of the public till?
Question No. two: If an accidental gun shot victim is not insured, doesn’t the cost of services get picked up by MediCal? Isn’t MediCal paid for by the State, not the City?
Good points MArk, but i don’t live under medical -so I won’t assume. Part 2 was a rip on most insurance policies with their small print “Exemptions”. I seriously doubt “Civil” litigation would be covered under any government plan.
Well you can either “work” at protecting your rights. Or you can do as the rich libertarian Joe Rogan did. And move his Rich atheist ass to Texas.
“Maryland Gun Owners Vow They Will Not Comply, Gun-Grabbers and Legislators Freak Out”
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/maryland-gun-owners-will-not-comply-gun-grabbers-and-legislators-freak-out/
Or you can “not work” and just sit back and do nothing. Just like Joe Rogan did.
Why It’s OK Not To Vote – Katherine Mangu-Ward video 1 hour long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSmBG1uU1ig
First, this viilates California’s Pre-emption laws, and is knowingly a violation of the civil rights of gun-owners. Second, because this is passed, knowing it violates Pre-emption, the mayor, and all who voted for it, should be held civilly liable for malfeasance of office, in addition to the civil rights violations. Someone out there, sue their ass! As for “seizing” the firearms, tge owners should file Federally, for willful violation of the 4th Amendment. Time to start holding these Cretins responsible!
I agree with Ron, being as these politicians conspired to violate honest law abiding gun owners rights they should be held civily and criminally liable. Any officer who attempts to take any firearm is also liable for a conspiracy and 4th amendment violation. Any 18 year old who can read, even with minimal education, can see that this is a civil rights violation.
Let’s try this and see if we can treat abortion like they treat the 2A: Anyone wishing to obtain an abortion must first obtain a Fetal Termination Identification Card. That requires fingerprinting, background checks and will be revoked upon felony charges or admission to a mental facility. You may wait up to one year for processing times. Anyone with this card will pay an annual fee to pay for babies that have lost their lives due to abortion. Liability insurance is now required and the abortion of twins will be considered trafficking.
…And your name may end up on a public list so some jerk can make a map of everyone in your neighborhood that’s had an abortion.
Protect the people with criminal intent first.
“…A modest fee to offset the cost of gun violence.”
I’m sorry, I’m confused, or apparently stupid. How did an innocent party suddenly become responsible for others’ actions, financially, under penalty of law?
“How did an innocent party suddenly become responsible for others’ actions, financially, under penalty of law?”
If I don’t pay my taxes that they use to bus and fly illegal immigrants around and pay for their healthcare, they’ll throw me in jail. Why do I have to pay for that again?
Because whoever got voted into office in your name thinks it’s a good idea? Because this isn’t a ‘republic’ any more, but has turned into a ‘democracy’? Because we delude ourselves into actually believing that we do not live in a socialist country? Because if you don’t pay your taxes, they will throw you in jail after taking everything that you own and destroying your life forever?
I’d go with that last one; You were right, of course.
Do you know the way FROM San Jose?
Who is even crafting this gun insurance policy? You literally cannot take out insurance for a crime you commit. Insurance simply doesn’t work that way.
The funny thing that I can see is that the insurance part is very shaky. So, which company is going to be the underwriter for the polices that is going to be required.
I’m curious is they have a LE carve out exception? Either way, it sounds unconstitutional. What are they going to do next, have to pay to have a knife or a bat? Jurisdictions pull this BS all the time until they get slapped down by the courts, which they probably will eventually.
Dear Grand Potentate Lickcardoor, how many squares of TP is allowed for wiping a stuipd mayors ass?
None. They don’t wipe their ass with TP. (don’t shake their hand)
“Second, we will require gun owners to pay a modest annual fee to compensate taxpayers for the cost of gun-related violence.”
Okay, now do a modest annual fee for drug and alcohol users to compensate taxpayers for the cost of alcohol and drug related violence. Let’s see how that goes over.
It’s been done. In my fair Liberal city in the Far North, where one can actually drive to Alaska in only a few short minutes and in any direction, the residents thereof actually voted themselves an increased tax on alcoholic-beverage sales to help pay for programs that benefit the ‘homeless’ (that’s an euphemism for ‘hopeless drug-addled alcoholic ne’er-do-well,’ in most cases). Of course, those paying the increased taxes are not ‘homeless’ for the most part, and their money will thus be spent on somebody else, but no matter.
People are, as you certainly know, incredibly stupid in large numbers, especially when they vote with their heads firmly inserted into their nether orifice.
Back in the ’70s, Monty Python did a skit that featured a staid English upper-class businessman claiming that Britain’s financial problems could be solved by ‘taxing foreigners living abroad.’
I thought it was a joke. It was only an harbinger of things to come.
Clearly, the opportunity for finding new sources of revenue is endless! We could tax Canadians and Mexicans on incomes earned in their own countries; Closer to home, we could assess sales and income taxes on people living in other cities and states across the country. Even closer, we could tax customers of grocery stores and restaurants to help pay for the expenses of rampant obesity, collect fees from non-smokers to help pay for the care of smokers, and put extra taxes on all motorists to pay for collisions caused by drunk drivers. Skydivers, base jumpers, and motorcyclists would also be subject to special assessments to defray the costs to care for those of them that crash and burn but don’t actually die immediately.
This new learning amazes me! Explain again how sheeps’ bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes!
Gosh I wonder how many criminals would answer that question about any guns in the house by saying yes?
They think we’re stupid and can’t reason something out. No criminal will say yes and probably won’t have the gun in the house unless it’s on them.
And so the quest goes on and that’s to make (he actually said it outright) to make the law abiding criminals for the purpose of arresting them and maybe a few stupid criminals.
The Democrats seem to have a tough time understanding what a criminal is and how they are (not) impacted by any law.
Soon there’ll be a federal law of some sort and we’ll all start hiding our guns and then what’s he going to do. People will go outside the state or across country lines and buy their guns or maybe even start buying them off the street. And there goes the city’s tax revenue and also the current denial of the criminals from buying a legal firearm.
Way to go moron. Why doesn’t anyone get in their face and demand to prove that these laws will protect people. Can’t be to find more criminals we can already do that now. Most gun crimes get either tossed or pled down. BY DEMOCRAT prosecutors.
Sung to tune of Do you know your way to “San Jose”
Do you know the way to San Jose?
I’ve been away so long
I may go wrong and lose my way
Do you know the way to San Jose?
I’m going back to find
Some BIG NICE GUNS in San Jose
LA is a great big freeway
Put a hundred down and buy a GUN
In a week, maybe two, they’ll make you a FELON
Weeks turn into years, how quick they pass
And all the stars that never were
Are parking cars and pumping gas
You can really breathe in San Jose
They’ve got a lot of GUNS
There’ll be a place where I can stay
I was born and raised in San Jose
I’m going back to find some BIG NICE GUNS in San Jose
Fame and fortune is a magnet
It can pull you far away from home
With a dream in your heart you’re never alone
Dreams turn into dust and blow away
And there you are without a GUN
You pack your car and ride away
I’ve got lots of GUNS in San Jose
Do you know the way to San Jose?
Oh, LA is a great big freeway
Put a hundred down and buy a GUN
In a week, maybe two, they’ll make you a FELON
Weeks turn into years, how quick they pass
And all the stars that never were
Are parking cars and pumping gas
I’ve got lots of GUNS in San Jose
Oh, do you know the way to San Jose?
Can’t wait to get back to San Jose
Illinois tried to pass a law exactly like this 12 years ago:
“Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.”
It went nowhere.
Last year after JB Pritzker was in office for a year they tried again:
Amends the Illinois Insurance Code. Prohibits surplus line insurance producers from procuring and domestic surplus line insurers from insuring the risk of legal fees, costs, or expenses related to an investigation, indictment, or prosecution of any criminal charge arising out of the use of a firearm. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that an applicant for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card or for renewal of that Card must submit to the Illinois State Police that he or she has proof of liability insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 for accidental injuries caused by a firearm. Provides that the Illinois State Police may require annual proof of the person’s liability insurance coverage and may suspend a person’s Firearm Owner’s Identification Card for failure to maintain that coverage or for failure to provide the Illinois State Police with proof of that coverage. Provides that the proof of liability insurance coverage required under these provisions is required for both an initial application for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and for renewal of that Card.
It went nowhere.
The question is why? Well for starters most people have 100K-300K in liability insurance on their homeowners policy. You want to go higher to a million? You have to buy umbrella insurance and it may have out clauses plus it’s not cheap. Some insurance companies wont cover modern sporting rifles at all, either from theft or for liability. Take time and read your homeowners policy, if you are defending your home and shoot someone with an AR, your insurance might not cover the cost of cleanup which can be substantial. If it’s a mess 25K isn’t unheard of and if your homeowners policy says no ARs then you have come up with that. Second mortgage time.
Why or what does San Jose have in common with Illinois (Chicago)?
Drugs and violent crime.
San Jose is Silicon Valley’s largest city, the third-largest in California, and the tenth-largest in the United States. How does this translate into violent crime and drugs?
Simply San Jose is full of Methheads. People are drawn there by high paying IT tech jobs. The more work you do, the faster you move up the ladder. The faster you work and more you produce the higher your salary. The problem is that the people who really know their shit tend to be a bit older. By that I mean in their 30’s. They do not have the stamina to write code for 70 hours straight but there is an equalizer:
Crystal Meth.
They start off with some here and there and eventually become full blown Methheads. Eventually they burn out and are fired. They cant put that they worked for Adobe or Cisco on their resumes. They are now full blown Methheads and are unemployable. They end up homeless seeking out that next hit of meth.
If you weren’t homeless and took that job with say Google, assuming you were a renter they cost to live is about 150K a year so you had better be making that just to survive. Want to do better then just survive?
Do more work and make more money. The best way in the short term is meth. In the long term you lose everything. Once someone loses everything and is a hard drug addict, they will do anything to score.
The easiest way? Rob someone. The easiest way to rob someone? Have a gun. Oops someone got shot.
That translates into use of city services and insane hospital bills. Someone has to pay that. These idiots think that that burden falls onto law abiding gun owners.
BIG HINT here: Law abiding gun owners aren’t the ones shooting other people. It’s criminals. I have no pity for someone who falls into the trap of hard drugs and has to resort to a life of crime.
I have better idea. San Jose methheads, jump off of say the top of PayPals building and go splat. They can scrape you up with a shovel and then the fire department can hose the area down.
Oh wait, that wont work, San Jose is almost out of water.
I just came up with a solution: Fill up tanker trucks with water from the Pacific Ocean.
When someone goes splat use that water.
Problem solved.
And not a single criminal will pay insurance on their illegally obtained firearm which they are prohibited from possessing.
Oh wow. Democrats are concerned about public sector spending all the sudden? Color me surprised.
Or just maybe, making this about “smart economics” and “public spending” is about giving an excuse to wishy washy RINOs to jump onboard with this.
Yeah, it’s SO much easier to go after us than take a chance of pi*sin off the thugs! Fu**in cowards!!!
That idiot mayor said “the majority of mass shootings in the US victimize intimate partners or otherwise involve domestic violence.”
He needs to explain that. How the he!! does he come up with that. I guess his brilliant idea is either mass shootings involve one person or someone has many intimate partners that need to be shot.
(Kickabitch? Slap-a-hoe?) Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…
These morons are going to exact a fee for keeping something which is Constitutionally protected? Where do these Bozos come from?!?!?!?!?!
Seems like making criminals carry insurance so their victims or victims family can be compensated would be a better plan. Oh wait, democrats love criminals and hate law abiding citizens.
These idiots should be laughed right out of office and into the streets but democrat voters seem to be as stupid as the people they elect. Go figure.
Just wait until the left starts charging a fee for Republicans to Vote………!
If I have this correct, the Mayor and City Council are going to ‘tax”me for exercising my 2nd Amendment Right which as written says in part ‘ will not be infringed’.
I would suggest to the people of San Jose that they slap him with a tax for speaking and impose other limits upon his 1st Amendment Rights.
This Mayor along with the city council are imposing rules upon law abiding citizens of their city which will not limit the acquisition of guns by criminals; I suppose they do not know how to so they attack the good guys. Sounds like a liberal Democrat to me.
Comments are closed.