Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire San Jose Gun Law?

So I have been watching this for a while now and its really not making much sense to me.............so the city has passed an ordinance that requires gun owners to purchase insurance (that doesn't exist) and also to pay an "ownership fee" of $25 annually to a non-profit that also does not exist. The real kicker is........if you dont comply...........there are no legal ramifications.....you wont lose your guns or face any "criminal charges".

This whole thing seems largely symbolic and really makes no sense to me.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/gun-right...iability-law-requiring-firearm-insurance

Are they trying to guilt people into compliance? How do they even know who owns a gun or not? Does San Jose have a registry? Would it even be legal if they did?

I am really confused as to what they hope to accomplish with this...........I really am

SJ is completely polluted with foreigners. mex, india, chinese. i spent quite a bit of time there and it was like hell for me. i highly doubt this "law" will affect hardly anyone.

Its not a law, its an "ordinance" and it has no teeth........I just dont get it.

City or county ordinance is valid as long as you live in that city or county they can hang you. And as far as how do they know, go here.
https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/afspi

Only dumbasses live their!

How can you require impositions on a Right guaranteed by the Constitutional?

They're making a statement. For the children.

The same people who consider requiring proof of identity to register to vote to be voter suppression have no problem trying to tax a constitutional right.

Easy, but I guess all you people who squeal about the constitution seem to forget that the constitution has something called States Rights. What does that entail,

Current states' rights issues include the death penalty, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, gun control, and cannabis, the last of which is in direct violation of federal law. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, permitting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled the practice of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is legal. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not withhold recognition to same-sex marriages. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the District of Columbia could not completely ban gun ownership by law-abiding private citizens. Two years later, the court ruled that the Heller decision applied to states and territories via the Second and 14th Amendments in McDonald v. Chicago, stating that states, territories and political divisions thereof, could not impose total bans on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

Damn that pesky wording of the constitution.

Saw their Mayor on the new the other night.

Admitted they will be sued, but they have money and lawyers or something along those lines.

Many city/county ordinances have been successfully stopped in court, and I expect this one to be also. Doesn't seem to stop them from coming up with another silly law and spending their taxpayers' money to defend it.

Probably going to write a check to CA Rifle and Pistol Assoc legal team soon.

Just more liberal, "let's throw this out there and see what sticks" governing theory!

I understand Californios leaving the state, but leave your liberal voting habits for Gov. "Hairdo"!
We don't want them in Texas!!!!! .....OR Oklahoma!!!

its CA.. there is nothing "to Get"...

My folks have passed now, but they were living down there, after retiring from the military and government service of 50 years apiece...
mainly due to my mother's health, of having rheumatic fever like 4 times in her life and surviving...she couldn't be exposed to cold weather...

Stupid things like, their county passed an ordinance against using water, to water their lawns... $500 fine...
City passes an ordinance at the exact same time... if people didn't water their lawns and they turned all brown, that would mean they were a fire hazard.. and that was a $500. fine....

Some guy broke into my folks home one night.... old man cornered him with a golf club ready to hit him with it, while my mom calls the police...
the cops come and take the guy away... this is 3 in the morning....while they are interrogating him at the Police Station or where ever they took him, he tells the cops he was threatened with a golf club by the old man...so the cops are back knocking on the door at 5 AM, to confiscate the golf club because it was being used as a weapon... citing local ordinance... he got it back a month later, but he just gave them one of his old clubs....

not much makes sense in CA any more....

The Second Amendment is Federal - encompasses ALL states... Those that live in CA can then sue the snot out of SJ and have that BS ordinance nullified....

I certainly hope so. It is clearly unconstitutional.

You deserve to live in the State of Jefferson.

Yes, the 2nd is federal, but just why are there 50 states that have 50 different sets of laws that govern purchase and possession of firearms. Seems that .gov gave the states the authority to assert primacy,(in other words stronger than federal law) over water and other federal regs. Sure SJ can sue, but it won’t go anywhere.