ScrapIron Prime, on 27 January 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:
As I've pointed out, on the one hand you have the "shall not infringe" clause in the 2nd amendment, while on the other hand you have similar language in the 5th and 14th amendments that have, over time, determined that requiring taxes and/or insurance on something does not constitute an "infringement".
Well, that's an interesting line of argument. I would raise the point that, at least for cars, you
don't need insurance if you're just going to drive it on private roads.
I'm also ideologically opposed to property taxes on property that you are
not deriving income from (such as property tax on your primary residence when you're not running any kind of business from it), but I know that legal precedent on that is quite clear. It's just that it seems wrong on principle, because if I'm just living in a house I own and not running a business out of it, I'm not making any money from it, and yet the government is able to tax me on it every year, then it's like I don't actually own it, it's more like I'm just renting it from the government. As I said, I know that the law is very clear on this and takes a completely different interpretation, but I don't always go for purely legalistic arguments (slavery, after all, was once legal). Just explaining my philosophy on this.
Generally I'm leery of the government levying what amounts to a tax on the exercise of a right, as has been attempted before with Voting Poll Taxes. Although most people could afford those Voting Poll Taxes, it effectively disenfranchised poor people, or was selectively waived for poor whites and selected enforced only against poor blacks.
So, it's on a similar basis that I oppose this San Jose regulation. Besides the core principle disagreement with these regulations, I also think that the enforcement mechanisms and logistics of it seem fairly weak. When laws were passed elsewhere requiring firearms registration, compliance rates were quite low (approx 20%). So I don't think this will raise as much money as they estimate it will.
More "bang for your buck" regulations would instead target Domestic Violence and have better implementation of "Red Flag" laws. However, there's a lot of pressure from Police and DAs to not take DV more seriously, as in a DV conviction results in being barred from firearm ownership. This is because in some Police Departments, >40% of their roster has committed DV (in other words, they beat their spouses). If we took DV more seriously, some PDs would have to fire 40% of their force!
Current "Red Flag" implementations are also flawed, but the concept could work. The problem currently is that the implementation violates Due Process. Someone makes a report that they think you're a danger, and the police come and confiscate your firearms... sometimes using "dynamic entry" to make it happen, making it all the more dangerous for all parties involved (including the cops), because too many cops are itching to cosplay as "Operators".
Even if nothing goes violently wrong, this violates Due Process because you're being deprived of the implements for the exercise of an enumerated Right without having had your day in court, trial by a jury of your peers, etc.
A better implementation would be to do the sensible (but less exciting) thing of just picking up the guy on his way to work. Get all your ducks in a row, have a jury ready, etc., then pick the guy up, go to jail, get your (in theory Constitutionally-guaranteed) speedy trial, and then if guilty you have your firearms confiscated and go to prison. If found innocent or not-guilty, you go free.
0
