WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Discuss Continuing Conversations on Shootings from Shoutbox

Jung

???
Premium
14,098
2,314
487
The financial penalty was eliminated starting in 2019 by Congress in 2017, but the mandate was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS in 2012. Not sure exactly if that SCOTUS ruling could apply as precedence for Gun Liability, as they love writing decisions with constraints and stipulations that narrow the scope or limit applicability.
My understanding is that the 2012 ruling relied on the penalty being read as a tax. When the amount was reduced to 0 in the tax bill, it effectively ceased to be a tax, and Texas district courts jumped on the opportunity to rule it unconstitutional as it would fall outside of congressional powers. I don't know if that would hold up against the 2012 ruling, but the Texas ruling will probably make it to appellate courts in the next few yrs.
 
  • 1Helpful
Reactions: BRiT

ib4

Error
Staff
1,831
2,772
257
I'm warming up to the idea of having Gun Liability Insurance, similar to Automobile Liability Insurance because of the potential for causing damage.


San Jose mayor proposes gun owners’ liability insurance in the wake of Gilroy mass shooting

Just weeks after the shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, California that left three people dead including two children, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo is proposing requiring gun owners to either carry liability insurance or pay a fee to “compensate taxpayers for the public costs of firearm violence in America’s 10th largest city,” The Mercury News reports.

In a statement, Liccardo acknowledged that his proposal is far from a “complete solution,” but is something that can be done “without waiting for Congress to take action.”

“We require motorists to carry automobile insurance, and the insurance industry appropriately encourages and rewards safe driver behavior,” Liccardo said. “We tax tobacco consumption both to discourage risky behavior and to make sure non-smokers are not forced to subsidize the substantial public health costs generated by smoking-related illnesses and deaths.”
I'm sorry dude, I will never look at any bill proposed here in California that ends in ANOTHER COST of some type.. I'm all for doing whatever it takes to reduce gun violence and working from both political angles to do so, but in this state its as if its apart of the regular agenda to create more industry, add more taxes and fees, whatever it takes to get more money from people that live here to boost a shit economy the politicians destroyed in the first place. Doing things like this isn't going to deter anyone. Its not going to push responsible gun owners to be more sympathetic to the liberal angle in removing guns. Its going to anger the responsible gun owners and add another chip on their should. Thus another push towards the thin line everyone from all ideal groups is already headed towards.

The general consensus from practically the entire state is that the government of CA will do anything to pluck another quarter from your pocket. You can spin whatever logical response to this you want, at the end of the day, the politicians of this state have a daily agenda of generating revenue regardless of how much they continue to piss off all of its inhabitants. Like I said, I agree somethings need to change, but this guys proposal, I promise you, is not in anyway sympathetic or constructive to this problem. It is 100% another lane of revenue to create in this state.(taxing the liability companies that spring up, taxing existing insurance companies more who adopt offering gun owner liability, taxes and fees that get pinned on you by the state for an incident that your newfound liability insurance will be required to cover).

Here's a good example. The state lets our freeways go to shit. THEY handled the tax revenue the state generates poorly. But when it came to fixing our roads, the attitude was, "you want new roads, we gotta raise the taxes and fees around here!" What?! All we've been doing ever is paying absurd taxes and fees. Now you guys want us to pay more to fix something you let go in the first fucking place that you failed to manage properly?
 

Crazizniac

Particinator
Premium
1,116
851
157
They could also tax guns and ammunitions the same as they tax tobacco.
Obviously you don't buy weapons and ammo. The taxes are liberally assessed.

Insurance? You are a moron if you don't think that is the dirtiest game in the world. Spell it out for yourself. A system where it is mandated by law to pay money to a corporation. Does the fucking government mandate that people pay you for your "service" or whatever. Do not continue that precedence. It makes more sense to mandate marriage insurance or child insurance, or climate change insurance, or you name it cause you're so dimwitted that you don't understand that there IS a sucker born every minute insurance... which come to think of it I am selling right now if you want to purchase some voluntarily.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: ib4