CA Mayor Seeks to Mandate Insurance, ‘Violence’ Tax on ‘Law-Abiding’ Gun Owners

Birds of a feather: San Jose Mayor Liccardo and CA Rep. Eric Swalwell look forward to nuking your right to keep and bear arms. (Sam Liccardo/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Nearly two weeks after a gunman fatally shot nine coworkers at a San Jose light rail yard, the mayor of Northern California’s most populous city is proposing first-of-its-kind gun safety restrictions that would require gun owners in the city to obtain insurance and pay an annual fee to cover the cost of gun violence,” CNN “reports.”

I put “reports” in quotation marks because even though the story is presented as news, it’s really an advocacy piece, the first telltale sign being the editorial assertion that these latest infringements have anything to do with “gun safety.” To give the pretext of “balance,” several paragraphs down in the article CNN quoted Gun Owners of California executive director Sam Parades raising preemption objectives, noting California law supposedly precludes cities from enacting their own “gun control” edicts. He’s right, of course, but laws can be changed by Democrat majorities. Besides, Liccardo’s going after bigger fish, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

“The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to own guns but does not require that every other taxpayer pays for that right,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo misdirects. “Requiring gun users to pay fees will help fund critical emergency medical and police response and reduce our taxpayers’ burdens.”

“The reality is the public taxpayers are footing the bill for those that choose to own guns,” CNN anchor Ana Cabrera dutifully quotes the mayor via Twitter. “It’s appropriate that if gun owners believe in the importance of this right then they pay for the costs of the guns incur on the public.”

“Cost of gun violence” numbers have been used by the antis, generally presented with heartbreaking (and thus manipulative) anecdotes, for years, receiving a real boost in media attention with the publication of a Michael Bloomberg-funded “study” in February that somehow managed to completely avoid the subject of lives and costs saved because citizens were armed. And not to put too fine a point on it, but violent criminals killed by rivals don’t exactly represent a loss to society when you consider the damage they had already done and where the path they were on would likely lead.

And demands to require gun owners to carry insurance are hardly new. Curiously, though, when they do it on their own, privately and without coercive government mandates, the grabbers disparage it as “murder insurance.”

You can’t please some people, it would seem, but the demand for a “monopoly of violence” through incremental infringement has never been about “gun safety.” That the predatory misfits slaughtering others with firearms will continue to get whatever weapons they want without insurance and annual fees is hardly the point.

To paraphrase “Gold Hat,” they don’t have to show you any stinking policies.

The citizens this will hurt the most — peaceable citizens of limited means who live in areas most affected by criminal mayhem — will now have a choice if they are unwilling or unable to pay the tribute: Either be “law-abiding” and assume the risks of being unarmed or be “law-defying” and assume the risks of being armed. It will boil down to which criminal gangs they fear most – the private ones or the public ones.

And let’s not forget that even if they try to comply, what better way to expand citizen disarmament than to manipulate and change the rules to qualify for insurance. What if the carrier turns them down? What if their payments are late?

This prior restraint on a right is similar in many ways to the odious poll taxes of days gone by. Talk about disenfranchising minorities!

Talk about disenfranchising all Americans of the most fundamental and basic of rights. But then again, this is not just California, this is San Jose in Santa Clara County, where the sheriff’s usual denial of “may issue” concealed carry permits has been somehow mysteriously softened by campaign contributions.

Speaking of which, since this latest blood dance started with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority “mass shooting,” here’s something Liccardo isn’t telling the public and CNN isn’t telling its audience:

“[Survivor Kirk] Bertolet wishes he had been armed so he could have prevented more deaths after Cassidy started shooting. He has a concealed carry permit for Virginia, but it isn’t valid in California,” Gilroy Life (and very few others) reported. “’Me and a co-worker both looked at each other,’ he said. ‘We could have at least stopped him from going to Building A. We were willing to put our lives at risk.’”

Don’t look for that to be factored into the “costs.”


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JPM
JPM
3 months ago

Those two look like a couple of “butt-buddy” refugees from the corner gay bar.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
4 months ago

Let’s video tape the honest citizen that is going to buy a gun and put it in his safe or dresser drawer but let’s also make sure that when we show illegal people coming into our country that we blur the image or let them cover their faces or turn their backs so the cannot be identified. Yep that makes sense.

Arizona
Arizona
4 months ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

It makes perfect sense. They want to replace self-reliant free men with sheep who will do anything the gov says for a few benefits, the main one being citizenship.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
4 months ago
Reply to  David Codrea

And if the court does not find it unconstitutional in quick fashion then other counties (Sacramento) will jump on the band wagon. People will go to the next county to buy guns and if a ruling is then made that you have to buy a gun in your own county, there will be more people living in kommiefornia that have Nevada and Oregone driver licenses and addresses living in kommiefornia. Hell, they already have drunk drivers with Oregone/Nevada licenses and license plates that live in Kommiefornia avoiding suspension or revocation of their license because of a kommiefornia law called the… Read more »

Larry
Larry
3 months ago
Reply to  David Codrea

How is this not immediately unconstitutional under existing case law?

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution… The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.’
–MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

reno
reno
4 months ago

FIRST Swallowedwell is a TRAITOR!!!
This is going to backfire on the anti’s because it is going to end up at the supreme court
The NYC case is going to be ruled on in favor of the 2 cd amendment in this session likewise, the Kalifornika so-called assault weapon ban will be at SCOTUS also ruled in favor of our 2A rights

ExGob
ExGob
4 months ago

If we are going to levy taxes and mandate insurance to enjoy the rights afforded and guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution Of The United States, and the lawmakers don’t see that as ‘infringement’, then I don’t know what infringement means.

APG member
APG member
4 months ago
Reply to  ExGob

Reading comprehension is tough, for example the 2nd, and your constitution do not “afford” rights. They affirms rights, inherent to every individual human being. Some would say these rights are derived from god…

ExGob
ExGob
4 months ago
Reply to  APG member

Merriam-Webster: Afford: To make available, give forth or provide naturally or inevitably. The sun affords warmth to the Earth. We have that warmth because of the existence of the sun. We have our gun rights because of the existence of the 2nd Amendment. Yep, afford is a good word.

APG member
APG member
4 months ago
Reply to  ExGob

No it is not a good word in this case. Your constitution does not “provide” or “give forth” my rights. My rights exist in spite of ramblings written on paper by politicians. We have 2A rights because Men fought for: FREEDOM.

ExGob
ExGob
4 months ago
Reply to  APG member

Brilliant! You have twice used the phrase ‘your constitution’, which suggests that you do not consider our Constitution to be your constitution, but merely, as you put it, politicians’ ramblings. If that’s the point you’re trying to make, and reflects your true feelings about The Constitution Of The United States Of America, you might better enjoy your ‘god given’ rights and freedom in a country other than ours.

Last edited 4 months ago by ExGob
APG member
APG member
4 months ago
Reply to  ExGob

I say “your constitution” due to your pious regard for a document I did not sign and therefore am not bound to. Unlike you I would like to live in a free society; America is supposed to hold that promise, no thanks to people like you. Your flawed constitution has allowed lawmakers to infringe all over you. I point this out and it makes you mad at me, lol.

Last edited 4 months ago by APG member
Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
3 months ago
Reply to  APG member

It is not the Constitution which is flawed; a concept you would understand if you could think objectively rather than with the severe personal bias through which you view life, politics, and the world in general. It is the politicians who are flawed and they ignore the Constitution as written. They ignore the documents of the founding fathers specifically pertaining to each one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. I suggest you take off your highly biased and subjective glasses, and start viewing things objectively, empirically, and factually, because the emotional basis which you use to view the… Read more »

Larry
Larry
3 months ago
Reply to  Neanderthal75

“It is not the constitution which is flawed,” it is the entire concept of constitutions which is flawed. The US Constitution was written to shackle voracious government. It has failed, obviously and demonstrably. Of course the politicians are flawed, and were fully expected to be flawed; that is precisely why a constitution was deemed necessary in the first place. Sorry, but APG has a point here that killing the messenger won’t defeat. Some of its principles are, in hindsight, ludicrous. The entire concept of politicians checking and balancing other politicians (including black-robed politicians)? That worked out well, didn’t it? What… Read more »

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
4 months ago
Reply to  ExGob

You are incorrect.

We do not have our gun rights or any other of our rights because of the second amendment.

The second amendment is merely an enumeration of a pre-existing right. Our right of self-defense, to provide food for ourselves, and to rebel against a tyrannical government all pre-existed the formation of the United States: our rights are given to us by God Himself.

Cheers from the oil patch in Central Wyoming

Cruiser
Cruiser
4 months ago

No, No, No and No!

JDL
JDL
4 months ago

So, by that same logic, the defensive use of guns, which outnumber the criminal use by about 10,000:1, should exempt gun owners from paying taxes because they are providing their own police services. Non-gun owners should have their taxes increased because they are doing nothing to protect themselves and it is not fair that responsible gun owners should have to pay for their protection.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
4 months ago
Reply to  JDL

I like your logic. More thumbs up for you.

Larry
Larry
3 months ago
Reply to  JDL

I look at this another way. All citizens subject to this tax should uniformly refuse to come to the aid of any government employee being threatened with lethal force. After all, you performed the equivalent of that duty for the state when you paid the tax. If you have to pay the cost of violence that you do not commit, then no one should expect your positive assistance to be gratis, either.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago

I think we should mandate idiot insurance on people like him. Make sure the policy is high enough that he can’t hold office as a psychopathic control freak.

Don
Don
4 months ago

The mayor and congressman are terrible people. The denial or taxation of constitutional rights is an outrageous violation of of the people rights. Like most left-wing policies it harms the lower-income people the most. They are most likely to not comply due to the cost. That makes them the most likely to be arrested and punished.

MarkE
MarkE
4 months ago

Carrying insurance should not be considered an infringement on the 2nd Amendment – it, like all other forms of insurance, is protection of your assets. The 4th Amendment, for example, guarantees the Right of an individual to be secure in their home – however, carrying liability insurance on your house isn’t considered an infringement of the Right. The number of instances where the justifiable use of deadly force ends up in criminal or civil lawsuits is anything but small. This is a litigious society, and use of deadly force invites lawsuits – particularly civil suits brought by family members of… Read more »

Don
Don
4 months ago
Reply to  MarkE

If you OWN your home you don’t need insurance. If you owe the bank for your home, the bank forces you to have insurance. If you don’t buy insurance, they will sell you a very expensive plan. You buying insurance protects you from law suits.

MarkE
MarkE
4 months ago
Reply to  Don

Not sure where your logic is trending. The bank forces you to buy insurance on the home they own just like the auto dealer forces you to buy insurance on the car they own – they are protecting their assets. Not sure why you are so adamant about not protecting your assets. What is your definition of “need”? You don’t “need” home insurance until someone slips in your driveway. You don’t “need” health insurance until you get hit by a bus. You don’t “need” auto insurance until your car gets totaled by an uninsured driver. Your family doesn’t “need” life… Read more »

JDL
JDL
4 months ago
Reply to  MarkE

Evidently you don’t understand the issue. The government is forcing you to purchase insurance to exercise a right protected by the Constitution. Your analogy of home insurance is invalid. The government is not requiring you to buy insurance, the lender is to protect their investment. You have the OPTION of purchasing insurance once you fully own the house to protect your investment, but the government does not require it. Your argument doesn’t hold water and your rationalization is getting stranger with each of your responses.

MarkE
MarkE
4 months ago
Reply to  JDL

Where did I advocate, in either of my posts, mandatory insurance?. My reference to housing is valid – you don’t buy homeowners insurance because you have to, you do buy it because it makes common sense to have it. That isn’t a call for a government mandate to buy insurance – that is a personal choice. Please read my posts – my point is that using deadly force is a situation that, more often than not, can result in a combination of criminal/civil lawsuits (regardless of the actual legitimacy of the shooting). Hostile Grand Juries in anti-gun localities often return… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago
Reply to  Don

I’m surprised that the county doesn’t force you to have insurance on your home because after you pay it off free and clear, if you don’t pay them the RENT they demand, they will prove who owns it as they send the Sheriff out to kick you out. Oh that’s right in Russia they call it rent. here we call it “property taxes”.

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
4 months ago
Reply to  MarkE

It’s a RIGHT not a privilege. That is the point. There are people who have insurance on their own but nobody has the authority to force it on the public. You will find there are lots of people who are through jumping through hoops to load up crocked politicians wallets. Consider the Boston tea party and why it happened. Commiefornia wants to be socialist they should LEAVE THE UNION.

Arm up and carry on

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
4 months ago

Seems to me that we can sum this all up as an extortion attempt by certain elements of the gummint.What they are really saying is ‘COMPLY’ – or else.

Chuck
Chuck
4 months ago

Insurance is the biggest scam ever foisted on humanity. It has driven the cost of everything up, since the evil bastard that first conceived if the idea.

Don
Don
4 months ago
Reply to  Chuck

Insurance has saved my butt several times. Most recently I drove into a concrete post and did $4,000 damage.

John Dow
John Dow
4 months ago

How about violence insurance required of all criminals?

Finnky
Finnky
4 months ago
Reply to  John Dow

Too hard to enforce. How about taxing crime victims instead? After all costs are passed on to criminal when victims have less to steal because government has already stolen it. Sounds about as fair as taxing gun owners – at least victims have some connection to the crime 🙂

Don
Don
4 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

Gun and ammo purchasers already are taxed simply for being a customer. The federal excise tax on rifles and shotguns is 10%, handguns 11% and ammo 10%.

hoss
hoss
4 months ago

If a person were to do the necessary background research, I imagine it will be like Mi. The insurance companies run the politicians.
We all know that criminals will the first in line to purchase the mandated insurance policies.
The inmates are running the asylum.
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

Boris Badenov
Boris Badenov
4 months ago

Not related to this thread but…I reside in the same area/valley as San Jose, went to a local gun shop to get some very rare .17HMR ammo, yeah they had some. The store owner asks me, “have you purchased a ‘gun’ recently” I’m like what the flying F is it any business of yours? I was going to be flit but I really needed the 2 boxes so I was polite and said yes. I’m not going to mention Sportsman Supply on Camden Ave. that wouldn’t be nice.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
4 months ago

Ah gee let’s see. How about you stop letting illegals in, lets start there. Why you need to ask? Let me tell you what you are to stupid to realize with your so highly edumakated brain all on your own. The free welfare, free education, free medical, free interpreters, costs of translated documents and other support that you would no longer provide for the thousands of people per month, 100dreds of thousands per year, millions per decade, could save you more money in a year than it costs for medical for all the people that get shot to infinity. In… Read more »

UncAl
UncAl
4 months ago

Another turd with honorary degree of “SFB”!

Boris Badenov
Boris Badenov
4 months ago
Reply to  UncAl

As an FYI, the mayor EARNED his degree and has a Doctorate in it. This is the same fool that is mandating they go all electric and….oh yeah, jacking up electrical rates and we have less energy due to stupid policies from stupid people.

KDad
KDad
4 months ago

All this BS is just an IDIOT’s wish list ! The “Insurance” and fees are what’s known as an infringement to firearms ownership, and as such, are a very clear violation of the 2nd Amendment ! As I’ve often said, “Wish in one hand and poop in the other hand and see which hand fills up first” !

Last edited 4 months ago by KDad
musicman44mag
musicman44mag
4 months ago
Reply to  KDad

My mom used to say that but one word was different. LOL, I know you know which one.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
4 months ago

The problem with “insurance” for legal owners is that no policy covers illegal acts. Therefore, a victim of crime cannot get anything from an insurance policy, and criminals typically have no ability to pay any civil suit restitution. “Insurance” would be a “win-win” for the insurers, though, as they get the premiums, but have no legal requirement to pay anything. Obviously, the “insurance” scheme is being used to discriminate against the poor.

John Dow
John Dow
4 months ago

Every gun control law is discrimination against the poor. Every fee, tax, storage requirement, etc. puts more burden on the poor than the well off. That’s part of the plan, after all.

Don
Don
4 months ago

If I were a victim of a shooting by a bad guy, my insurance covers my care.

Idaho Bob
Idaho Bob
4 months ago

My weapons ARE my insurance. 2A is my license.

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
4 months ago

So these idiots want lawful gun owners to relieve taxpayers of the cost that criminals cause San Jose? We taxpayers already pay cops to apprehend them, the court costs to prosecute and defend them, their incarceration, medical and rehabilitation. And it’s the gun owners fault? These tyrants are a plaque to a free society, who’s going to stop them?

Tionico
Tionico
4 months ago

The “logic” (what ARE they smokng?) that we who do no harm with OUR guns must bear the burden of the damage criminals perpetrate with THEIR guns is false straight out of the gate. If memroy serves, there are about 300 milion guns in the hands of some 120 million gun owners. If what they said were to beproven true, each gun owner would have to terminate two non-gun owners. . Then ONLY gun owners would remain all accross this land. Since that is NOT happening, their premise is a false construct. But THEY already know this and caren’t a… Read more »

Don
Don
4 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

The latest numbers from NSSF is there are 472 million guns in private hands.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago
Reply to  Don

I know…I have 72 million of them. LOL!

swmft
swmft
4 months ago

comifornia wont be the flash point they have no where near the guns people in newjersey and nuyak have and the people in that reign did not and will not register them even though told to most are military not assigned weapons, not assigned cant turn it in ammo is cans of range left over 4 50 round boxes turn in 4 empty only fired 1 or 2 leftover goes home

Don
Don
4 months ago
Reply to  swmft

That doesn’t fly. When I was in the range issued x-number of rounds. They know how much the empties and links weigh. If the “turn-in” weight is not right, no one goes home.

Last edited 4 months ago by Don
CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago
Reply to  swmft

Huh_450x.png
Arny
Arny
4 months ago

So when do they get Obama & his cohorts responsible for Fast & Furious to pay up. Taxpayers foot that bill also. How about Iran Contra ? And the list goes on & on & on. lol GFY Swallowwell & ILK Go ahead turn me into a outlaw I will begin to act as such.

RoyD
RoyD
4 months ago

That’s fine as long as the liberals have to buy “criminal” insurance to offset the costs of their “pets.”

jim13a
jim13a
4 months ago

These asshats can go fuck themselves.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
4 months ago

Do you think that Fang Fang was standing just outside of the view finder in the picture?
It would have been three communists in the picture if she was in it.

Country Boy
Country Boy
4 months ago

how about making the criminals committing the crimes pay for these costs, since the criminals are the ones incurring the costs. Paying for their crimes isn’t new, they are otherwise known as “fines”. When the criminal element is locked up for their crimes, crime will decline.

Tionico
Tionico
4 months ago
Reply to  Country Boy

better yet, confer the biblican punishments prescrobed for most crimes. Release the others who have harmed no real victims, AND expunge their recoreds. For murder the biblical punishment is death. No death penatl, no fear for their own skin. For theft the punishment is for the thief to repay FOUR TIMES what was stolen. Turn prisins onto work zones, and let the criminal thievea work off their debt with their own hands. That DOES tend to make thievees work to feed themselves rather than stealing it, it also teaches them the value of other people’s stuff, and their own time.… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
4 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

Man, you took a page from the book that I support one hundred times four percent. We are weak on crime, that is our problem but now I am starting to think that is part of their job security and the more crime committed with guns the more they think they have a valid reason to remove them that people will support.

Today, I look at Hitlary, Obummer, Holder and the illegal that shot Kate Stienly that paid no penalty and I know we have gone to hell as a country.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago
Reply to  Country Boy

Criminals should pay the victims of their crimes, not the gooberment psychopathic control freaks.

Jonesy
Jonesy
4 months ago

I see Flatulent Spy Rider in the photo.

Montana454Casull
Montana454Casull
4 months ago

Sorry clown you can not charge a tax or fee for a God given right ! Time to tar and feather politicians who suggest this unconstitutional crap and charge them a tax or fee for thier stupidity !

glockster68
glockster68
4 months ago

It is all BS…and can not say what I think should happen to those two brain dead zombies in the above picture…..

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago
Reply to  glockster68

What? This? Hang em hang em hang em, till their toes are dangling? Before they up and bust us, let’s use ol country justice go out and get a rope and hang em high! ~Carl Klang

Finnky
Finnky
4 months ago

Voting creates immense social costs, primarily in form of bigger, more government. Let’s change government funding. Only those willing to pay for government get to vote and only those who vote pay. Individual’s voting power and cost don’t have to be equal, otherwise voting would cost in the millions and soon only billionaires would vote while the government would shrivel and default on it’s debt. Instead let’s say $100 per vote in federal elections and you buy as many votes as you want. Well, OK that would go the same way – my wife and I would never buy enough… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

They don’t run off “taxes”. They use them to cover up their funny money scam.

almost-legalized-theft.png
HLB
HLB
4 months ago

At some point I see convoys of Citizens rolling across the California border with untaxed supplies for the Patriots who may still live there.

HLB

Tionico
Tionico
4 months ago
Reply to  HLB

Already happening. The convoys are small, but they ARE rolling.

Don
Don
4 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

The convoys are people leaving California.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
4 months ago
Reply to  HLB

I see someone that has a shared border with oreGONE and kommiefornia and you throw your money over the fence to me and I throw the ammo boxes over the fence to you.

StreetSweeper
StreetSweeper
4 months ago

Of course you would have to list every firearm you own including serial number and place it’s stored. After the insurance company drops you they will then turn all that information over to the government.

Tionico
Tionico
4 months ago
Reply to  StreetSweeper

I personally will opt to be self-insured.

SEMPAI
SEMPAI
4 months ago
Reply to  StreetSweeper

Hand raised I’m easy to find joe.

Last edited 4 months ago by SEMPAI
Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
4 months ago
Reply to  StreetSweeper

Just saw that. It’s EXACTLY what the stazi did in East Berlin before the wall came down. The nazi gustapo did the same in most of Europe for a time. Every day I wonder when that tree Jefferson talked about is going to be refreshed?

Arm up and carry on

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago
Reply to  StreetSweeper

Here is Carlin at his best: But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners, the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are… Read more »

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
4 months ago

First things first, the 2A is every bit as much a RESTRICTION ON GOVERNMENT as it is a mandate to and for the American citizen to be armed with military grade weapons. Second, if memory holds one OF THE MANY reasons for the Boston tea party was TAXES. Third, this nation came into existence only AFTER DECADES OF PLEADING FOR RIGHTEOUS LAW AGAINST THE TYRANNY THAT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED UPON THE COLONIES. This is what was explained in the declaration of independence. Forth, gun control. When the British got wind of a arms cashe they sent their soldiers… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
4 months ago

quote: “if memory holds one OF THE MANY reasons for the Boston tea party was TAXES.” Now quite. Yes, the old stale government owned tea WAS taxed…. but the real issue was that that tea had been frighted accross the Atlantic in three privatley owned merchant ships who did NOT own the tea. THey only carried it, for a fee. Once in Boston port, they were informed the tea could not be unloaded until the SHIP OWNERS paid the tax. It was not THEIR tea. Their means of livelihood was thus taken captive by the Brits. How to free the… Read more »

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
4 months ago

There are countless articles and commentators and pundits who fence and tangle, who tumble and roll the slogans and platitudes of gun control, civilian disarmament, public safety, gun violence epidemics, commonsense restrictions, loopholes, Second Amendment rights and other sophisticated and nuanced and ultimately irrelevant sophistries that dance around and completely avoid the blunt and brutally honest point of lethal, military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. They are in those hands for one purpose, and one purpose only. That purpose is cold, unmistakable and ruthless. It is to enable free men and women to rise up and butcher tyrants… Read more »

Romanian-Term-Limits-b.png
Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
4 months ago

I have been there. I was a scout, before the days of sat’s and drones.
I saw more than I wanted to. We both know that America will not be put down while the American citizen is armed. Yamamoto understood that, so does china, russia and the progressive demoncrapic socialist, communist party.

Arm up and carry on

Arizona
Arizona
4 months ago

How about a license to post on social media, a fee per post, a panel of reviewers for every news article to ensure it meets standards, a psych eval to participate in blm protests, a background check, license and annual fees before being able to create a political non-profit like moms demand action?

Let’s make all rights equal.

Mack
Mack
4 months ago

“This prior restraint on a right is similar in many ways to the odious poll taxes of days gone by. Talk about disenfranchising minorities!”

Pull Quote from the entire Column.

I would add this: this is what happens in a democracy when an unchecked, unrestrained majority faction wages war on an unpopular minority faction.

And that is why we are a Republic, NOT a democracy.

Those who disregard this truth do so at their own peril.

Thank you Davis for this needed Column.

Mack
Mack
4 months ago
Reply to  Mack

Sorry, “Davis” — of course I mean to write “David” — but here is the SCOTUS case that ended the Poll Tax: Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) [SNIP] We have long been mindful that, where fundamental rights and liberties are asserted under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications which might invade or restrain them must be closely scrutinized and carefully confined. Those principles apply here. For, to repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.… Read more »

Last edited 4 months ago by Mack
WI Patriot
WI Patriot
4 months ago

What a maroon…it may happen, but soon after will be overturned, ruled un-Constitutional…

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
4 months ago
Reply to  WI Patriot

And how many decades will it take to get from the first court to the supremes?

A right delayed is a right denied!

Cheers from the oil patch in Central Wyoming

WI Patriot
WI Patriot
4 months ago
Reply to  Neanderthal75

What “right” is being delayed…??? This is matter of an un-Constitutional tax burden, no “rights” involved…

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
4 months ago
Reply to  WI Patriot

That would be the second amendment in case you missed it!

Don
Don
4 months ago
Reply to  WI Patriot

Ahh, it violates the second amendment.

WI Patriot
WI Patriot
4 months ago
Reply to  Don

No, it doesn’t…You need to learn how to read, and then comprehend what you’ve read…