jeffwCalifornia is about to tax guns more like alcohol and tobacco − and that could put a dent in gun violence
OmgboomI’ve been saying for years this was going to be what happens, instead of common sense gun laws they are just going to tax the shit out of it. Which sucks for law abiding responsible gun owners who just want to hunt or defend themselves. This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
CorkyskogI don’t get how it’s even constitutional. How are even permitting fees constitutional? I could see having the requirements exist, but I don’t see how forcing a cost can be.
danDoes the constitution say that guns need to be free?
I would consider it an infringement, do any other rights include a fee? The only reason some states haven’t made it prohibitively expensive is that it is more likely to go to the courts.
Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.
Chaotic EntropyWith respect, that’s bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much… which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.
The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans
Is it not a first step leading to full bans? Look at this very thread.
Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you’re effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
Don’t pretend that it is both sides who refuse to “negotiate”, when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.
Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
I mean, this is a succinct description. You’re saying it as a criticism, but it makes perfect sense.
Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.
Not scared, just unwilling.
Unwilling due to their fear. Of their donors, of their electorate, of losing control. Pick your poison.
The electorate is unwilling. GOP Representatives are actually representing the wishes of their constituents on this one.
A small subset of the electorate sure, made fearful… by grifters, agenda led news, and arms manufacturers who want to sell them guns.
there’s already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals
Bringing up bans on military hardware actually supports the slippery slope argument very strongly. You’re already thinking about bans.
dang you got me, I don’t want rich people to own nukes
No. Same as relaxing gun laws is not the first step leading to no gun laws. That logic is idiotic.
Why? Lots of people are calling for bans.
“Lots of people” are also calling for no gun laws. Anecdotes don’t mean shit. Come back when you have some actual numbers on people wanting a full ban and let’s see how close to a majority that is.
Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible.
Can you elaborate? This is demonstrably false so I figured I’d give you the opportunity to explain what you meant with such a ridiculously simplistic and nonsensical statement.
It’s a generalization but absolutely true. I’m not going to get drawn into a “aha! But this one Republican dude in New Hampshire supports restrictions on guns therefore you are wrong” bullshit fest.
Sounds like you think truth is just a feeling. I tend to look for collections objective facts to garner truth but I get that your way is less challenging.
If I suspected you might be actually conversing in good faith, I’d expend the effort. But I’ve seen this kind of rhetorical trap before. It’s not quite sealioning, but similar.
Yet you’ll expend the effort to explain why you won’t expend any effort to make an actual point- lol.
I’m starting to think maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about at all ;)
Big difference between saying “ha I’m not falling for that” and finding sources. The former requires little effort.
Yeah- makes it clear you’re just driven by emotion and don’t have any reasoned points to make.
Yep- just like that.
Am Democrat. Do not want bans.
I’m fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.
Did you know it’s already a felony to not report a stolen gun? If they track it down that far they’d be more than “questioned.”
In California it is, yes. That is not the case everywhere. I was stating my preferences for gun laws. Not sure why anyone would downvote that.
In most states, not just CA. And even most without a “duty to report” lets call it, can and will punish you if an unreported gun is used in a crime. Besides, not reporting a criminal stole your gun a good way to get falsely imprisoned for murder which usually people don’t want to do, so even without laws requiring one to do so or not specifically enumerating punishment for not reporting if it is used in a crime, it is still seen as a generally good idea to prevent said false convictions.
I didn’t downvote you, can’t answer for them.
Can you provide a source?
You’d have to look into state laws and previous cases where a gun purchase being tied to some murder got someone convicted. I’m not going to hunt it down to prove it to you but you’re free to spend your time doing so.
I mean a source for most states saying there is a duty to report a stolen firearm and that there is halting for failure to report it.
What I’m saying is “No I do not have an article that lays out state laws succinctly, you’d have to search the actual .gov pages for the laws themselves, and as I am not your paralegal and not getting paid for my work I am declining to do it.”
Or you could just do some thinkin’ and realize “Yeah if a gun that I did a NICs check on that got stolen shows up in a murder and I don’t have an alibi, I might be a suspect in said murder” isn’t actually that wild of a situation. If you can’t see how it could be likely though, like I said, you’re free to search yourself.
Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.
The source is there in the statutes laid out by the state, I’m unwilling to aggregate it for you, as I have a whole other job I’m doing that actually pays me. You are free to look em up yourself.
Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.
At this point I’ve spent too much time telling you I don’t have time for that, so, sorry. Deal with it.
Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.
Know what? I think I’ll do whatever the fuck I want. Keep telling me what to do, you can’t make me lol nanny nanny boo boo.
Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.
Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.
Do you know any other words? You should get that duolingo app.
Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.
So basically you made a claim that you cannot back up. It’s not my job to research claims you make.
Your scenario makes me think you watch waaaay too many cop shows. The probability that a gun is used in a murder is pretty low. The probability that police look into where the gun actually came from is extremely low. Otherwise straw purchasing would not be a thing which it very much is.
The probability that a gun is used in a murder is pretty low
Oh I thought we were talking about the US where guns are the leading weapon used in murder, my mistake.
Probability that a murder is done by a gun != the probability that a specific gun is used to murder someone. I hope you are not naive enough to think that every illegal gun is used to murder people.
Oh definitely not, actually if you look at the math of how many guns there are in the country VS how many are used in murders it’s basically just a rounding error. That’s actually why it makes me laugh when people demonize all gun owners like they’re all just one day away from killing. Statistically that isn’t the case. Of course nobody made that claim, so “cool” I guess.
Still though, if they find a gun at the scene with a serial number and NICs says that Steve’s Pawn sold it and Steve’s Pawn’s paperwork says it was sold to Joe Smith, Joe better have a good alibi in most states or else he may find himself in court defending his innocence because “It was stolen and I never reported it” is a very shaky pretense for a defense, the DA could believe you, but it’s unlikely.
Or not, whatever, believe what you wish idgaf. I wouldn’t take “oh I live in X state so I don’t legally have to report stolen guns” to be a good idea myself but you’re free to make your own decisions regarding your stolen guns I guess. Personally I’d report it anyway to avoid future questions and hopefully recover my stolen property, but that’s just me, obviously you disagree since you’re so dead set against me on that.
Oh, unless of course you mean in cases where the gun isn’t found, in which case all this is moot because without the gun there’s no serial number to tie it to anyone anyway, it may as well be unreported. Of course they have to have the gun. Not sure why you are going on a tangent about “not all illegal guns are used to murder people,” because typically ones found at murder scenes were, and if it is tied to a NICs check you did and you haven’t reported it stolen, know what? Just come on back here and let us know how it went for ya.
uisI’m fine with permits after training
Does it include half of Russia? Because if you have wrong chromosome, you will be trained with weapons even if you actively avoid it.
they need to question the registered owner.
Also what to do if owner is too dead for this?
There are not two sides here. Try ten, or twenty, or some large number.
We are not talking about sane world.
The constitutionality of this tax will come down to how the Roberts Court wants to interpret and apply the 200-year old concept first issued in an opinion during the Marshall Court – the power to tax is the power to destroy. The government cannot use its authority to levy taxes in a manner which significantly encroaches on the exercise of an enumerated right. I like CA’s idea here, but it’s all going to come down to implementation.
“As a giant chicken with a southern accent wearing a judges robe, this here tax is unconstitutional on the grounds of me not liking it.” -The Roberts court, most likely
In my heart I genuinely wish that I could argue to the contrary, reality is just dashing my dreams term over term.
Foghorn Leghorn had more integrity and righteousness than the justices on the current SCOTUS
samus12345