The Bulwark: Volunteers Delivering Babies at Home for Mothers Afraid of Going to...
Jeffrey Epstein Survivors to Attend SOTU as Guests of Democrats
Globe and Mail: 'Out of Nowhere,' Canada Became Poorer Than Alabama
Mayor Zohran Mamdani Requires Two Forms of ID to Become an Emergency Snow...
Talked Smack About America, Flipped the 'L' at Trump — Hunter Hess Finishes...
Attorney Attacks ICE Agents During Detention Operation, Finds Out
MLB Hall of Famer Bill Mazeroski Who Hit the Greatest Home Run In...
Sixth-Grade Special Needs Student Left Behind at Anti-ICE School Walkout
Minnesota Somali Women Demand Reparations for ICE 'Trauma'
Seeking a Better Life... at America's Expense: Expired Student Visa Scammer Bilks Seniors...
Texas Dems Looking Into 8-Month 'Coverup' of ICE Agent Killing a Citizen
MS NOW Host Says NOTHING As Chuck Schumer Claims Trump's Criticism of SCOTUS...
Remember Dems Denying Coordination Between the WH and DOJ on the Mar-a-Lago Raid?...
Another 'Outrageous ICE Abuse' Story from The Guardian—Headline Ignores Husband's Expired...
Poor Canada: Betting Their Entire Country's Worth on Beating the 'Hated' USA. Spoiler:...

San Jose passes ordinance requiring gun owners to compensate taxpayers for gun violence

Jazz Shaw reported over at our sister-site Hot Air a couple of weeks ago that San Jose’s mayor, Sam Liccardo, had big plans. “He just wants to charge an annual fee to anyone who happens to have a legally owned firearm and force all gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance,
Shaw writes. “See? Totally harmless, right?”

Advertisement

It looks like the city council has approved the ordinance, making San Jose the first city in the nation to make (law-abiding) gun owners compensate for gun violence (by non-law-abiding gun “owners”).

How is it a symbolic step if the annual fee is real? According to CBS San Francisco, “San Jose would become the first U.S. city to require gun owners to pay a fee to compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun violence.”

That sounds … unconstitutional.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

“Symbolic” ordinances that are unconstitutional don’t tend to apply for very long. Let’s see if the city collects a penny before this is struck down.


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement