San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    I expect one of the Cali 2A Orgs to be very quick to file suit , if it hasn't already happened . Hopefully , they will obtain Preliminary Injunction .
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    This should get slapped down at the District Court level but remember this is CA9 territory and the MO is for the appeals court to put a stay in place while they wait a year to hear the appeal, then if the 3 judge panel rules for plaintiffs, it’ll be reversed en banc then we wait another 1-2 years for another lame decision.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    This should get slapped down at the District Court level but remember this is CA9 territory and the MO is for the appeals court to put a stay in place while they wait a year to hear the appeal, then if the 3 judge panel rules for plaintiffs, it’ll be reversed en banc then we wait another 1-2 years for another lame decision.

    This.

    And all the tax and guns given over to gov won't be returned if its struck down.
     
    Jun 4, 2015
    71
    There is a remedy but apparently we are too pussified to take that step. The past 7+ months are proof of that.

    The last 16 months of Covidiocy.

    97% will meekly comply, because they "Want people to feel comfortable." They'll whine on the internet, but won't actually do anything. They'll wave IIIer banners and Gadsden flags, but they'll comply.

    Americans have become indolent, compliant, and craven.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    “ Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
    Murdock v. Pennsylvania

    No. 480

    Argued March 10, 11, 1943

    Decided May 3, 1943*

    319 U.S. 105

    Syllabus

    1. A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. Pp. 319 U. S. 108-110.

    2. The mere fact that the religious literature is "sold", rather than "donated" does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise. P. 319 U. S. 111.

    3. Upon the record in these cases, it cannot be said that "Jehovah's Witnesses" were engaged in a commercial, rather than in a religious, venture. P. 319 U. S. 111.

    4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

    “5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

    “6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.”

    7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

    8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116...”

    The important parts:

    “ 4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113...”

    “ 5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties… and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.”

    7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

    8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.“

    This is settled law.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,566
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom