• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

CNN anchors tout 'innovative' and 'interesting' California city's proposed gun tax

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,011
Likes
20,286
Feedback: 124 / 0 / 0

'That's how we move forward as a society' one of the hosts quipped.​

Two CNN hosts eagerly touted San Jose’s new proposed gun laws that would put a tax on all legal gun owners.

On Monday, CNN hosts John Avlon and Laura Jarrett discussed the San Jose's city council's decision to impose a new yearly tax on gun owners.

This proposition, which was voted on unanimously, will require gun owners in San Jose to take out liability insurance on their firearms and pay an annual tax fee to fund emergency response teams. The measure was also supported by Democrat Mayor Sam Liccardo.

Avlon described the policy proposal as the "first of its kind in the nation" as well as "a really interesting, innovative policy."

"So super interesting. Novel, first of its kind as you said," Jarrett, who is the daughter of long-time Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, said. She went on to compare the proposed tax fee to car insurance, presuming that financially penalizing gun owners could, in fact, offset the costs of gun violence.

"This would be a huge savings if it goes through," said Jarrett.
Almost immediately following the original announcement, various gun rights organizations threatened lawsuits against the city, arguing that such a tax is unconstitutional and ultimately unenforceable without infringing on rights to privacy.

"The whole proposal is utterly insincere. It does not offer proven solutions. It’s blatantly unconstitutional," Dave Truslow, a weapons instructor for the National Rifle Association, said.

Avlon recognized the legal challenges of the mandate but pivoted to a quote given by Liccardo essentially dismissing the concerns.

Continues...
 
Folks in my circles have been waiting for when this would start. How am I not surprised a town in Cali would be the start, but this is gonna spread like wildfire if the legal fights fail.
 

'That's how we move forward as a society' one of the hosts quipped.​

Two CNN hosts eagerly touted San Jose’s new proposed gun laws that would put a tax on all legal gun owners.

On Monday, CNN hosts John Avlon and Laura Jarrett discussed the San Jose's city council's decision to impose a new yearly tax on gun owners.

This proposition, which was voted on unanimously, will require gun owners in San Jose to take out liability insurance on their firearms and pay an annual tax fee to fund emergency response teams. The measure was also supported by Democrat Mayor Sam Liccardo.

Avlon described the policy proposal as the "first of its kind in the nation" as well as "a really interesting, innovative policy."

"So super interesting. Novel, first of its kind as you said," Jarrett, who is the daughter of long-time Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, said. She went on to compare the proposed tax fee to car insurance, presuming that financially penalizing gun owners could, in fact, offset the costs of gun violence.

"This would be a huge savings if it goes through," said Jarrett.
Almost immediately following the original announcement, various gun rights organizations threatened lawsuits against the city, arguing that such a tax is unconstitutional and ultimately unenforceable without infringing on rights to privacy.

"The whole proposal is utterly insincere. It does not offer proven solutions. It’s blatantly unconstitutional," Dave Truslow, a weapons instructor for the National Rifle Association, said.

Avlon recognized the legal challenges of the mandate but pivoted to a quote given by Liccardo essentially dismissing the concerns.

Continues...
Is she related to Obama’s Valerie Jarrett? If so, we’re in for a world of hurt!!
 
Come on dude

 
"Novel, first of its kind..."

Yeah, it's not like prohibition-qua-taxation hasn't been a thing since 1934, and that this exact scheme hasn't already been proposed for decades.
 
so has any company agreed to provide these policies or are they going to effectively ban ownership by mandating something no one can comply with?
 
"So super interesting. Novel, first of its kind as you said," Jarrett, who is the daughter of long-time Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, said. She went on to compare the proposed tax fee to car insurance, presuming that financially penalizing gun owners could, in fact, offset the costs of gun violence.

Laura Jarrett is a lawyer and was a reporter covering the justice department for cnn. You’d think a lawyer wouldn’t make such an asinine and clownish comparison. Driving is not a constitutional right as firearms are. Requiring insurance for guns and fees is like a poll tax for voting. Also car insurance is required for cars on a public way, not private property.

the tax and fees are a joke and will be defeated in the courts
 
Is she related to Obama’s Valerie Jarrett? If so, we’re in for a world of hurt!!

Yeah. Because the hundreds of thousands of active CNN watchers. LOL. OK, maybe single-digit millions. Thankfully, the Ron Burgundy era of news is D-E-A-D.

Folks in my circles have been waiting for when this would start. How am I not surprised a town in Cali would be the start, but this is gonna spread like wildfire if the legal fights fail.

Wildfire. Cali. LOL. Unintended pun!
Tax car owners for drunk drivers.

Oh F that. How about tax people with fire pits in their yards an extra G a year. "To help fund the fire department and emergency services."

People already pay excise tax and gas tax and registration fees on their cars. You gotta hit them where they don't expect it. Fire pit tax. And prove you've got adequate fire coverage. ;)
 
Just another sad and misguided idea in a long line of gun-control / gun-confiscation schemes that likely will go nowhere.
This quote intrigued me:
"Skeptics will say that criminals won't comply. They're right. Yet that's an important feature of these proposals, not a defect," he (Avlon) quoted Liccardo (mayor of San Jose). "These ordinances create a legal mandate that provides police with a lawful means for seizing guns from non-law abiding dangerous people."​
Usual gun confiscation gobbledygook. Police already have a lawful means for seizing guns from dangerous people. How is the tax then "an important feature of these proposals"?
The tax / insurance mandate would only apply to lawful gun owners who have registered their guns. Criminals with illegally owned firearms would pay neither the tax nor obtain the insurance -- and they are the ones who are responsible for the gun violence the tax and insurance money is supposed to pay for.
As usual criminal behavior is excused, most likely for political reasons, while honest law-abiding people are pilloried.
 
Back
Top Bottom