Speaking of insurance, stupid, stupid San Jose California has passed a law requiring gun owners to have liability insurance and pay a violence tax.
So stupid.
Oh, wait. That sounds like the total opposite of stupid. I wonder what would happen if I posted that in Boney’s thread?
Interesting idea. But either that law, or the article reporting it, has a lot of holes. First, is that a kind of law that a local municipality can pass? Who would the law apply to? Anyone who lives in San Jose? Anyone who spends a lot of time there, like a local employee even if he lives elsewhere? Anyone who sets foot (or wheel) within city limits while carrying a gun? Anyone of sets foot (or wheel) within city limits while owning a gun? Any gun owner who just happens to drive through?
You’d be reprimanded for violating their Safe Space, that’s what.
Back when some states required car insurance while others did not, if you were pulled over in a mandatory insurance state, you could be fined for not having insurance. I imagine this would work much the same way: if you find yourself in San Jose and have a firearm on you or in your vehicle, you would have to show proof of insurance if the police question you. If you do not have insurance but no one notices you, you slide by.
See, I can sort of see this happening on a state-wide level, but it’s harder to see on a city-by-city level. So if someone happens to have a gun and drives from Sacramento to Santa Barbara, passing through San Jose, he becomes subject to this law while passing through?
What if laws about carrying open alcohol bottles were done like this by individual cities? Laws like that work because they are uniform across the state. Having laws that uniquely apply to individual cities is like having speed-trap cities.
I know that cities have their own laws, but I’m wondering how much freedom they have about it. I think some cities have their own laws about hitch-hiking within city limits, or sleeping in cars within city limits and stuff like that.
It seems to me that the issue is all the places the guy can go with a deadly weapon unchecked, not the one place they treat it seriously.
I’m all for better gun control laws. But I’m a little skeptical about how workable it can be when done by individual cities. I think laws like that would be much more workable when done on a state-wide basis. (Or maybe better still even, have some Federal level laws, like banning assault weapons.)
Don’t they? Las Vegas comes to mind.
What exactly is the rule? Is it about carrying an open bottle in public? Or having one in your vehicle where the driver can reach it? Or having an open bottle anywhere in your vehicle?
The problem with having a city-by-city patchwork of laws is that it becomes legally risky to drive from one place to another, passing through various cities en route, and transiently becoming subject to a different set of laws at every city boundary.
Forget the city-by-city laws. Copy and paste the Texas abortion bill with civilian vigilantes and $10,000.00 “rewards” for charging pregnant women and their doctors gun owners for not having the tax stamp and insurance card.
It’s only risky if you insist on strapping on a metal death-dick. You could also, like, not.
Regardless of the subject, there are valid reasons for concern about having significant differences in laws between cities. Differences between states is confusing enough.
That thing about the insurance had a thread of its own not long ago (on phone, will search later). The other main practical problem discussed there IIRC was with that municipalities can’t fiat insurance companies into offering it (insurers are state-regulated).
Problem is, is then you have to have laws that satisfy both the needs of the rural communities as well as the urban. That’s just not feasible, as they have different needs, and different concerns about guns and their prevalence.
A city should be allowed to pass laws that pertain to how guns are owned and carried within its limits without having to tailor that law to still work with those in rural areas.
Gun advocates keep playing the same game, where they first demand that laws shouldn’t be passed that affect rural needs of firearms, but then demand that laws are passed statewide, so that they don’t have to take the responsibility of checking the laws of the areas they plan to enter.
This is kinda the reverse of the issue at hand though. Most (all?) states have laws against open containers. It would be a change in the law where individual areas would allow something that is otherwise prohibited.
But if there were no laws against open containers, then I would think that cities should be allowed to make such laws that cover how alcohol is consumed on its streets.
Many cities have laws about discharging guns within city limits that don’t apply to more rural areas. If someone in Boston sees a rat in their backyard, they are not allowed to shoot it. If someone in Wendell sees a rat in their backyard, they may have more options.
Does it make sense if these laws are not uniform across the state?
Not all - Missouri allows open container, but the driver can’t be holding one. It’s possible various cities have overridden this.
If it makes people outside the city think twice before running around with a death device too, that seems like a feature, not a bug
In my state, you cannot have any open containers within the driver-accessible area of your car. Trunk or truck bed is fine, just not in the people area. If you have an empty bottle of schnapps lying in the back seat, an officer might use it as an excuse for a sobriety test, and possibly issue a citation. Rules are basically the same for cannabis.
Of course, the other day I got home from the grocery store and noticed there was an empty bottle of Bombay Sapphire in my back seat – but no police had taken any particular notice of me, so it worked out to no issue.
So, your back-seat drivers have to get bombed to ignore your driving?
Dan
All the other drivers around here seem to be coping with my driving style by smoking more and more meth.