Protester Says Officers Shot Him in the Face at Close Range With Non-Lethal...
Daily Beast Gloats Over 'Whistleblower’ Revealing Personal Data of ICE Agents in Data...
House Oversight Posts Audio and Video From Hillary Clinton's Deposition (When's the Arrest...
Bluesky Takes a Shot at X While Recognizing It as the 'Global Town...
Illegal Tries to Ram His Way Out of ICE Vehicle Blockade; One Officer...
Here's How Seriously ANOTHER Dem Takes Their Warning About Devastation Climate Change Will...
Democrats' Perfect Spokesman: Guy Who Struggles with English Demands We Abolish Border Cop...
Perfect Zeros From The Judges: The Lincoln Project's Epic Anne Frank Faceplant
MS NOW's Lawrence O'Donnell: 'Every Video From Every Angle' Shows Renée Good Posed...
State Dept. Pauses Visa Processing From Countries Whose Migrants Take Welfare at ‘Unaccept...
Sen. Josh Hawley Asked This Doctor If Men Can Get Pregnant and She...
Pramila Jayapal Rewrites American History—Here’s Who Actually Built the Country
The Digital Rage: MS NOW’s Jen Psaki Gets Touchy Over Trump’s Middle Finger...
From 'Not for Sale' to White House Talks: Trump's Greenland Power Play Goes...
Mike Johnson Makes Massive Prediction for Republican Chances in the Midterms

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