By - ZheeDog
Oh so they're like cars now? So you're saying that I can make my own unregistered and unlicensed guns to do whatever I want with so long as it's on private property? Neat, let's start a new machine gun shoot on my property.
You sonofabitch I'm in!
My carry license is accepted in all 50 states and available in every courthouse? Sounds perfect.
And if guns are to be treated like cars the overwhelming majority of new ones ought to be automatics.
Don’t forget fully legal to transport through any public space just make sure it’s ~~on a trailer~~ not being operated.
And ship it via common carrier to the guy who buys it.
Well the Bruen case just, effectively, said that they can't do this.
> Surety Statutes. In the mid-19th century, many jurisdictions began adopting laws that required certain individuals to post bond before carrying weapons in public. Contrary to respondents’ position, these surety statutes in no way represented direct precursors to New York’s proper-cause requirement. While New York presumes that individuals have no public carry right without a showing of heightened need, **the surety statutes presumed that individuals had a right to public carry that could be burdened only if another could make out a specific showing of “reasonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace.”** Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 134, §16 (1836).
So, only if the state can show that a SPECIFIC PERSON poses a SPECIFIC THREAT can the be required to provide a "surety bond" (insurance).
Granted, this won't stop them from passing it, but it should get it slapped down pretty quickly.
>Granted, this won't stop them from passing it, but it should get it slapped down pretty quickly.
We can hope. The 9th circuit has done its best to uphold all the gun control it can at the en banc level. Maybe they will actually apply Bruen though like they are supposed to.
If they follow the law, as dictated by SCOTUS in this decision and apply text, history, and tradition, then they'll only allow a "surety bond" when there is specific justification for a specific person.
But, as you say, it's the 9th. And the problem is that Kagan oversees the 9th. So, unless the full court hears a preliminary injunction appeal (assuming it's denied by lower courts) then Kagan will uphold it pending the years long merits process. But it shouldn't take 10 or more years.
>like they are supposed to.
What they're supposed to do means nothing next to what they want to do. It's not about following the law or legal procedures.
California has always just done whatever the fuck they want. Gavin Newsom has taken it even farther.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) also says this too.
"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113."
SCOTUS has just demonstrated that they dgaf about past rulings.
You completely missed the point and the meaning.
Read my post again. Or read the decision in full.
My point is that our current SCOTUS bench has just shown it is willing to press Ctrl+Z on previous rulings. Meaning case law is irrelevant to the ruling elite.
Our current Giant Douche vs Shit Sandwich political system is showing its susceptibility to monetary influence in an all out human rights denial offensive masquerading as a struggle of people vs people; when it is in fact it's class vs class.
So who do you thinks paying for all this?
98.01% not likely to be either of us.
Not gun related, so only read if you feel like it. I'm up for more discussion, but I've been pretty incensed by US politics all day. It's kind of renting a lot of space in my head.
- In 2010 SCOTUS said corporations, et.al. can make campaign contributions.
- Link to public record of these contributions which run in $100,000,000's in some cases.
- Video shows *actual* wealth inequality vs perception. - Wage vs productivity showing how per capita production has increased while wages stagnated.
- Why? Taft-Hartly Act prohibiting some forms of collective bargaining.!<
I’ve heard the Citizens United argument before. But it makes no sense in light of the fact the Fortune 500 is unbelievably left wing. Almost all contribute heavily to LGBTQ and fight to get on the “Diverdity 50” list-the top company list of LGBTQ supporters. See diversityinc.com.
Given this trend in the largest companies (and in the small ones too) it doesn’t mesh with the warnings inherent in the CU argument, that corporations are inherently right wing and all that money is going to right wing causes. I’ve never seen it. Sadly, it’s very demoralizing when one reads of companies like Chick Fil A and Absolutely Vodka giving into LGBTQ demands to be “more inclusive” or states persecuting small business owners for failing to kow tow to LGBTQ demands.
We are seeing evidence of push back-but where us it coming from?
Google "fortune 500 workers' rights violations" and tell me which company is going to bat for the working class. They can afford to make contributions on both sides to get what they want. You can promote "equality" and slit treat all people like shit equally.
My point is about the top 1% which represents 45.9 T$ (up 6.5 T$ last year alone), or the 100s T$ of companies they control or directly influence. Compare with the vast, vast majority of people they want to be fighting each other instead of noticing their wealth grow exponentially. They play both sides to ensure they get richer while the poor get more numerous. It's not a left v. right comparison but, a libertarian v. authoritarian argument I'm making. The rich want "blue" oases to live in while the "red" majority of the country's landmass lives below the poverty line. They want us voting against them enough to keep the "other side" thinking they're accomplishing something other than throwing away each others' rights.
Then again maybe the above is wrong, and it's red old-money vs. new blue-money like I've heard a lot. Maybe the wealth/influence of the Fortune 500's you mentioned is diluted by playing and influencing on a world stage while all the old, domestic industry is fighting for all it's worth because the US is all it has.
My point is that if corporations are supporting “the Right” there’s very little evidence of it. They could be, but like other seismic events, there’s preliminary signs that one would reasonably expect to be there. I’m not seeing such evidence, thus the question.
WRT Google, the conservative group that naively believed they could speak out without consequences suffered a decimation of their ranks after shortly thereafter..
As a sidebar, my experience has been in concert with theirs. HR assurances are never to be trusted.
There are bills on the floor trying to stop oil companies from price-gouging the 99% poor of the country, which corporate interests are 100% guaranteed calling in "favors" to kill. Meanwhile the media gives it 250 words on page 9 compared to the inundation of headlines about how proud they are to be oppressing the masses.
Some see the PKK as a political group, and some see it as a terrorist group. All I know is when I see a fash I call them a fash, and when I see a coup attempt I call it a coup attempt. I may be way off base with which group you mean. My mind jumps to logical extremes like a reflex.
Oh, no joke about HR. They are not a resource for humans, they're a corporate tool for treating humans like resources. Hence why we need to repeal Taft-Harley for one. Also prevent state's rights from depriving individuals' rights to free association without corporate retaliation; like we strive to prevent them depriving the right to bear arms; like we prevented them from depriving the right to equal education regardless of skin color.
Good luck getting that past Text, History, and Tradition lol.
Gonna be hard if their justification is a comparison to cars which are going be to excluded from the relevant period of history.
Going to be hard when driving cars on public roads _isn't a fucking right_
Yeah- just like cars at the time of the founding.
"Guns kill more people than cars."
No the fuck they don't, not even close. Even if you count the vast overwhelming majority of annual gun deaths that are due to gang violence and suicide which would of course be massively disingenuous when talking about forcing liability insurance on law-abiding legal gun owners, it's still not true. There are over 46,000 deaths due to car crashes each year and even in 2020, the year with the highest amount of gun deaths on record, there were only 45,222 gun deaths.
I wonder how many of those gun deaths happened during the summer of love and subsequent breakdown of law and order…
Fiery but mostly peaceful.
Meanwhile, how many district attorneys in high-crime California counties are prosecuting any of the following? 1) driving without a license, 2) driving after revocation or under suspension, 3) driving without valid registration or insurance. My guess is NONE
> “Guns kill more people than cars,” Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, said in a statement.
> “Yet gun owners are not required to carry liability insurance like car owners must. Why should taxpayers, survivors, families, employers, and communities bear the $280 billion annual cost of gun violence? It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”
Uh... Hmm. Where the hell are they getting those numbers...
\*looks at the [CDC dataset](https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D158;jsessionid=152BCA2166A3952EB800ABE12D50)*
Transportation accident fatalities in the 2018-2020 dataset: 129,143
Firearm-involved homicide deaths (keep in mind this includes justifiables): 47,756
Now I might just be using that racist math the left keeps going on about, but I'm pretty sure 47,756 is LESS than 129,143. Someone wanna crunch the numbers for me on that one?
Hell, let's narrow it further - *car accident deaths* are: 120,850
Firearm homicides and accidents: 49,235.
... So still over 2x more car deaths than firearm deaths.
Unless they're being dishonest and including suicides. But sure they wouldn't do THAT.
Suicides are also in that number.
So, who exactly is getting an insurance payout on suicides if CAs law stands?
Whoever gets paid for said “insurance”
Just like life insurance doesn’t pay out for suicide if the policy isn’t old enough
I'm more like "how does this help any externalities on society of gun ownership, when the biggest swath of death via gun is suicide?"
And I'd wager none of these policies would cover suicide _at all_.
I must be way behind the curve....I thought *all* firearms related deaths were 40-50k, including the suicides, which is obviously dwarfed by the car accident deaths. What am I missing?
Mandate liability insurance for the first amendment before any one is allowed to talk to their friends in public, in case someone accidentally slanders someone else.
For people who claim to stand up for poor people they sure do like making rights cost money.
This is one of my primary arguements against gun insurance. The weight of it falls the most on poor people who will likely have the highest premiums because they live in high crime neighborhoods where they are more likely to use the weapon (and incure costs) and more likely to have the gun stolen.
I remember our driving instructor telling us it was a privilege and not a right. Americans don't have gun privileges; we have gun *rights.*
(for now...not available at all locations...)
Why bother? It's just another charge to drop when convicted felons are caught with guns.
You mean (gasp!) they don't actually enforce the numerous gun laws we already have on the books and (gasp!) routinely let repeat violent criminals go free to commit more serious crimes later?! Golly! If that's the case, it sure makes it hard to justify EVEN MORE gun control.
I would still boycott them, GOA FTW!
That might help make the NRA less useless as well.
Wait didn't they already get in trouble for something like that?
But I mean-the insurance is fundamentally just to cover the fucking banks. The vast majority of private liability insurance just covers the car (if even that much, minimum limit in TX is $25,000) so the liability insurance should be for if another gun owner scratches my gun?
Red states need to make a law that taxes voting with a clause that will kill this law when California stops this crazy @$+
Do you mean remove the 24th amendment?
Liability insurance is just backdoor registration.
Why? Democrats have made owning a gun criminal, it is now illegal for anyone to shoot in the Sierra or on National Forest land which is supposed to be the "peoples natural Resource".
Now the only place you can shoot is at a gun range, so why the hell do you need insurance when the range has to have it.
Some Dems are claiming you have to have insurance to drive but it isnt the same
Owning a gun is a constitutional RIGHT, Driving isnt it is a privilege
> Driving *on public roads is a privilege.*
The details matter. It should not be assumed that they're automatically making the distinction between what you can do on public property vs private property.
Everyone is all of a sudden okay with a poll tax?
You are correct, this is analogous to a poll tax. And it would have a very similar effect; it would impede people from exercising their rights.
Right, Because law abiding citizens are the ones out there shooting up all these innocent bystanders, huh? I’ll buy liability insurance as soon as DAs hold criminals accountable
This fiasco is just to have folks self-incriminate that they have guns And place financial burdens, I call it infringement, and turns making firearm ownership a luxury that those who cannot afford insurance will not be able to pay those insurance premiums, and in turn unable to own firearms….
What people don’t realize, if they follow the auto-insurance model, that would create a de-facto registry of folks who own firearms. The ploy is to have those folks PAY for the maintenance of the registry through insurance premiums. Quiet genius actually… what happens if one lapses on their insurance payments? Will they get their door and teeth kicked in because of it??? A nice letter stating back-pay is demanded otherwise you will need to pay a hefty fine??? See where this is going…law abiding citizen are burdened to pay for things that CRIMINALS do with a firearm!!! How is that NOT Constitutional!?!?! Otherwise it’s a luxury to own a firearm and those that cannot afford to pay are, well, infringed upon.
but don think for it moment it won’t be abused, like many other issues with this, the data can, and will, be hacked and used by criminals to have a shopping list of folks who own firearms and makes it easier to target those households to steal firearms.…this actually happened in a state, but using FOIA to post addresses of registered CHP holders in a county…..
California: beautiful countryside and weather, garbage government.
I don’t agree with any of it but there was an interesting debate between David French and Rajiv Sethi on [Bari weiss’ Podcast Honestly](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000565759542)
It’s long but worth a listen to understand more about what the other side thinks.
I do not care what the other side thinks. I only care about what laws they can pass, which judges they can appoint, what precedents they can set, and how much the corrupt media will cheer-lead for them. The bottom line is this: If the gun-grabbers win, America is finished. Either we defeat them or they defeat us - and the USA.
In theory you could try and require insurance for OC/CC when in public (but not at home) under the premise that discharging a fire arm in public could maim/kill a bystander and cause property damage.
Although requiring insurance for fire-arms opens the same problem other forms of insurance have long had. IE Poor areas get higher premiums from adjustors.
They should pass as many draconian infringements as possible so Thomas and the crew can strike them down and set precedent.