# San Jose CA gun tax law is a positive first step to rational gun ownership **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2021, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433 "2021-07-01T15:14:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/201 "2022-01-26T18:10:58Z")
> [@ParallelLines](#): > > This isn’t a slippery slope, this is the logical conclusion of each area picking its own rules NOT subject to the governing state or federal laws. No, that’s pretty much a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy. Just claiming that it isn’t doesn’t stop it from being so. Do you also think that all speed limits should be the same, everywhere in the country, or else we fall into your dystopian fearmongering land? > [@ParallelLines](#): > > but those are normally subject to said State and Federal laws Except that cities _do_ pass laws as well. And your fears have not come to pass. > [@ParallelLines](#): > > allow such communities to co-exist within a framework in which we can continue to operate. The problem is that these communities cannot co-exist, as they have different needs and priorities, and trying to run them both under the same set of laws is going to make one, the other, or both communities lesser. > [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > The core idea is without merit because it turns a right into a privilege. No rights are absolute. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/202 "2022-01-26T18:17:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, so why does everyone keep comparing licensing a car with licensing a gun? Because it is identical. To be compatible with modern society, vehicle operation requires regulation based on function, need, application and appropriate use. The same is true for weapon ownership. Whatever is being done in San Jose is largely a futile effort in the absence of federal standards. But if it focuses attention on the problem then it is a step in the right direction. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/203 "2022-01-26T18:19:07Z")
You’re conflating ownership with operation. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/204 "2022-01-26T18:20:34Z")
[quote=“Crafter\_Man, post:203, topic:945433, full:true”] You’re conflating ownership with operation. [/quote The post is a quaint observation. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/205 "2022-01-26T18:29:54Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > You’re conflating ownership with operation. BTW: The phrase ‘bear arms’ implies operation not ownership. ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/206 "2022-01-26T18:50:16Z")
Oh FFS - you say it’s a slippery slope to dodge the damn question. Is this a situation you want to continue? Where each and every area makes it’s own legislation in defiance of existing state and federal laws, including ones you disagree with? Because, guess what, it’s a slope we’re sliding down right now. Which is why I used the example of Texas not ‘banning’ abortion, but allowing anyone to sue for profit. Or, as another NOT random example, of mask laws - where the legislature passes one law, the executive sets a different mandate, and each and every school board and city choses one or goes an entirely different route. And those aren’t even directly protected constitutional rights! I don’t really care that it’s gun-specific, I was the one who less than 15 posts ago made the argument that I want more FEDERAL laws. This is _bad law_. You may be in favor of it, because it supports your pre-existing POV, but if applied to your personally valued constitutional rights, would you support such an overreach? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/207 "2022-01-26T18:53:54Z")
> [@ParallelLines](#): > > So this is a too be desired outcome? Each ever-smaller group of individuals in the former United States of America will self-determine? Each single community can decide, as it sees fit, to write their own laws and constitution that will govern both the people who live there, pass through, or work there? So if I’m in the 49.9% minority of whatever population I can be forced to worship a ‘Divine Being’ I despise, unless I have the wealth or power to move to another area, which, oh wait, I may not have the right to do so if said 50.1% write laws to say I may not? Or, you know, it’s like how we handle traffic - urban areas often have a lot of restrictions like “no U-turn” or “no turn on red” and elaborate light signals and low limits on speed vs. rural areas that might have few stop signs or NO stop or yield signs, few restrictions, and high speed limits based upon the type of environment we’re talking about. Or how aviation has different classifications of airspace and different rules based on traffic volumes, what’s below where the aircraft are flying, and so forth. What makes sense in rural/wilderness Wyoming could be ludicrous in New York City and vice-versa. We could argue all day on how to divvy up various environments (should a cut-off be absolute population number of a city, like 100,000 or 1,000,000, or should it be based on density per square unit of measure like mile or kilometer?) but in a less polarized environment it should be possible to at least discuss broad outlines of what is and isn’t appropriate for firearm rules. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/208 "2022-01-26T23:15:22Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I would hope that licensing for firearms would be appropriate to firearms This is question begging and circular. You have assumed that licensing for firearms is appropriate in the first place merely by comparing them to cars, which are only comparable under your definition because they both must be, under your belief, licensed. > [@Broomstick](#): > > When I was actively flying airplanes I carried liability insurance specifically for my aviation activities. Are planes like guns? Should we treat guns like airplanes? I thought they were cars. In any event, the support for this proposition was because of gun violence which is almost always intentional and not covered by this plan. > [@Broomstick](#): > > If my car is stolen, I don’t report it, and subsequently it is used in a bank robbery then I should not be surprised if the police knock on (or down) my door. They could knock on your door and perhaps reporting that stolen car would be good evidentiary support to take away a lot of your headaches. But what is being argued in this thread is that you should be responsible for that car being used in a bank robbery even if the car is stolen and intentionally used. No insurance policy will cover that. ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/209 "2022-01-26T23:15:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > We could argue all day on how to divvy up various environments (should a cut-off be absolute population number of a city, like 100,000 or 1,000,000, or should it be based on density per square unit of measure like mile or kilometer?) but in a less polarized environment it should be possible to at least discuss broad outlines of what is and isn’t appropriate for firearm rules. Thank you Broomstick, that is exactly my point - one that was being dodged. Yes, in a _less polarized nation_ it should be possible to discuss broad outlines of what is and isn’t appropriate. But, and this is where I keep arguing with k9, each side getting sick of the other and deciding to rule _for themselves_ is what is _currently_ going on. It may be inevitable, considering the polarization shows zero signs of stopping, but it isn’t good for us on a city, state, or national level - especially when they directly contradict each other. Which is why I used the warring legislation and edicts over masking as a pointed example, as well as the Texas abortion legislation. Every area going their own way, is bad enough for a regulatory environment that people have to work and live in. But to govern? Probably impossible in the long term. And we’ve already had plenty of threads about just splitting the country up - this is the same thing writ small. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/210 "2022-01-26T23:42:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Are planes like guns? Should we treat guns like airplanes? I thought they were cars. Until you understand the concept of “analogy” I really see no point in responding to you. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/211 "2022-01-26T23:42:53Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > but in a less polarized environment it should be possible to at least discuss broad outlines of what is and isn’t appropriate for firearm rules. I could agree with that if we were talking about “rules” but it seems that some of these proposals for “rules” are to ban entire classes, if not all classes, of guns. And as the Supreme Court has recognized gun possession as a fundamental right, that necessarily takes it out of the hands of the legislature (or city council) to restrict, even if it is a good idea. I’m sure more crimes would be solved if we could randomly search people’s homes, but the Constitution takes that choice off the table, just like with banning guns. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/212 "2022-01-26T23:44:45Z")
Yes, that’s a very apt example. “Rules” that effectively ban something that should be a right are not good rules. I would agree that is NOT appropriate for rules/regulations of anything. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/213 "2022-01-26T23:45:28Z")
Argument by analogy is an informal logical flaw. Until you have show that guns are sufficiently similar to cars, then the argument that they should be treated the same way has not been proven. I’m sure that you could point to some similarities, but why does one thing: a two ton conveyance that travels in excess of 75mph that must be actively operated be regulated or licensed (if at all) in the same way as a small metallic object carried around the waistband for personal protection? Or the same as a larger metallic object used for hunting deer or elephants? Until you have shown that, I don’t accept your analogy, even though as a general rule, argument by analogy can be helpful. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/214 "2022-01-26T23:50:23Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Yes, that’s a very apt example. “Rules” that effectively ban something that should be a right are not good rules. I would agree that is NOT appropriate for rules/regulations of anything. Would you also agree that laws which fall short of a ban which only show animus towards a right protected by the Constitution are forbidden as well? We wouldn’t allow a tax on Republican speech, but not Democratic speech because the government feels that Democratic speech is “good” or “better.” That would be struck down immediately. So why can a city law pass muster that has the effect of saying “we don’t like that the Supreme Court has recognized this right, so we will make it costly to exercise”? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/215 "2022-01-26T23:50:31Z")
I am NOT saying they should be treated the same way, just that both categories of objects should be subjected to rules and regulations for the benefit of people who are not participants that could be harmed by mis-use of said objects because both sorts of objects can cause severe injury or death to bystanders if mishandled or used carelessly either deliberately or through ignorance. Which is different than overtly illegal uses of said objects. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/216 "2022-01-26T23:52:45Z")
When you define the similarities so narrowly, then anything fits the analogy. How about kitchen knives? Or (I think this is still acceptable, if not I retract) backyard swimming pools? The rule you propose is at once too broad and too narrow and while seemingly making superficial sense, it ignores all differences between the objects. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2022, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/217 "2022-01-27T00:03:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The council also voted to require gun owners to pay an estimated $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety education and training, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and mental health services. This is another repugnant aspect of the law. Why, simply because I own a gun, must I pay for others to have “firearm safety education and training”? How does my gun ownership make others not get trained on using their guns? Same way with suicide. I consider myself reasonably mentally stable and don’t anticipate committing suicide, but I have to pay if others are mentally depressed or in a bad situation and would choose to take their own lives. Did my gun cause that problem? Domestic violence…same. I don’t threaten my wife with a gun. Domestic violence is largely punching and hitting anyways. Does my gun cause others to shoot their spouses? If I pay into this fund, but shoot my spouse, is it all good because I already paid up front? I think not. Mental health serves? Same. Mental health problems are not caused by the presence of a gun, mine or anyone’s. Why I am I paying to help someone with a mental health problem simply because I own a gun? Is there any real rational relationship between these things, or is it a “fuck you” to gun owners? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2022, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/218 "2022-01-27T00:03:59Z")
Not costly, it **is** a **total ban** and they know it. It sounds so reasonable “Liability insurance” and indeed you can as e.g. a CCW holder buy liability insurance for any lawful acts you might perform. Your homeowners/renters insurance will cover accidents. But there is no such thing as insurance for deliberate criminal acts by the insuree. Nor for acts committed by your property after they leave your control. If you car is stolen, then rammed into a demonstration, you are not liable. Even if you have not yet reported that theft. **This is impossible insurance.** Ain’t no such thing. There can’t be such a thing. San Jose is suggesting they have the authority to re-write 200 + years of common and tort law. Let us look at another right- 1st Ad. A city is tired of inflammatory comments, and dangerous lies, so passes a law that in order to speak in public, or write anything publicly, you must have a license. In addiction, you must have insurance in case any harm ever comes out of your utterances. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2022, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/219 "2022-01-27T00:05:19Z")
“Dude, we’re all better off because everyone can read.” That usually puts a stop to “why should I be taxed to pay for your kid’s school?” Same principle likely applies here, eh. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2022, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433/220 "2022-01-27T00:05:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > **This is impossible insurance.** Ain’t no such thing. There can’t be such a thing. San Jose is suggesting they have the authority to re-write 200 + years of common and tort law. I agree, but if you read the cite that @Snowboarder_Bo posted, this law does not require you to insure against intentional criminal acts. It’s, I guess “better” in that sense, but it just makes it a nuisance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-jose-ca-gun-tax-law-is-a-positive-first-step-to-rational-gun-ownership/945433.md?page=12)