Time Magazine: AC Is Really Bad For ‘Climate Change’, Here’s How Government Can Take It Away

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 3:00 pm

With it being summer and people using more air conditioning, Time Magazine is very upset. Not upset enough for them to give up their office AC, of course

A/C Feels Great, But It’s Terrible for the Planet. Here’s How to Fix That

For the past few days, a heatwave has glowered over the Pacific Northwest, forcing temperatures in the region to a record-breaking 118ºF. Few people in the region—neither Americans nor Canadians—have air-conditioning. Stores sold out of new AC units in hours as a panicked public sought a reasonable solution to the emergency. Unfortunately, air-conditioning is part of what’s causing the unusual heatwave in the first place.

We came close to destroying all life on Earth during the Cold War, with the threat of nuclear annihilation. But we may have come even closer during the cooling war, when the rising number of Americans with air conditioners—and a refrigerant industry that fought regulation—nearly obliterated the ozone layer. We avoided that environmental catastrophe, but the fundamental problem of air conditioning has never really been resolved.

This comes via Jazz Shaw, who writes

As I said, the article begins with the history of air conditioning and how it was originally invented for industrial purposes rather than personal cooling. It then steps through the various incarnations of cooling technology… at great length. Finally, at the very end, we get to the big reveal. What do we do about it? Here you go.

The troubled history of air-conditioning suggests not that we chuck it entirely but that we focus on public cooling, on public comfort, rather than individual cooling, on individual comfort. Ensuring that the most vulnerable among the planet’s human inhabitants can keep cool through better access to public cooling centers, shade-giving trees, safe green spaces, water infrastructure to cool, and smart design will not only enrich our cities overall, it will lower the temperature for everyone. It’s far more efficient this way.

To do so, we’ll have to re-orient ourselves to the meaning of air-conditioning. And to comfort. Privatized air-conditioning survived the ozone crisis, but its power to separate—by class, by race, by nation, by ability—has survived, too. Comfort for some comes at the expense of the life on this planet.

It’s time we become more comfortable with discomfort. Our survival may depend on it.

By we, they mean you. Not themselves at Time. And who will force people to re-orient themselves? Government, of course! You should no longer have privatized air condition. Just get used to discomfort, peons.

Anyway, a couple other things from the article below the fold

Read More »

Read: Time Magazine: AC Is Really Bad For ‘Climate Change’, Here’s How Government Can Take It Away »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Climahypocrites, Energy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is a hazy day from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on “Entitled Progressive White Male Governor Bullies Minority Woman to Bend the Law on His Behalf”

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN Seems Pretty Upset About SCOTUS Voting Decision

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 10:30 am

I’m guessing the people in the airports got to see the report

Supreme Court deals blow to American democracy

crying democratEight years ago, the US Supreme Court gutted a major portion of the Voting Rights Act in its infamous Shelby County v. Holder decision, making it easier for states with a history of voter discrimination to enact new onerous voting rules. States like Georgia and Texas took notice, passing strict new voter ID laws, absentee ballot rules and a host of other provisions that make it harder for some people to vote.

Yeah, because it was pretty much unconstitutional at this point. The majority of Americans support voter ID and other measures which verify that the person voting is exactly that person and is eligible to vote.

Also, we aren’t a democracy. If Democrats, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, blocking blacks from voting, and so forth, really want to protect the system, let’s get rid of the 17th Amendment and go back to when Senators were appointed by state general assemblies.

The Court just doubled down on that attack on the right to vote.

The specific Arizona laws at issue in the Brnovich case, which the Court just decided by a 6-3 vote that fell on predictable ideological lines, are less momentous than the rule the Court laid down for future Voting Rights Act cases. Still, while upholding the Arizona laws, the Court made it much harder for voting rights advocates to protect against racial discrimination.

Yup, CNN’s Joshua A. Douglas went with the raaaaacism angle. Funny how Leftists don’t think blacks can vote like everyone else in 2021, that they need the Government to provide protection. That blacks can’t obtain proper identification.

Voting rights plaintiffs had filed suit against two Arizona laws: one says that a vote will not count if a voter goes to the wrong precinct and then, finding their name not in the poll books, fills out a provisional ballot. The other limits who can collect and return completed ballots, also known to opponents as ballot harvesting. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting rules that have the effect of making it harder for minority voters to cast a ballot that will count.

Wait, Douglas, and the rest of the Dems, are upset that the state is limiting who can pick up ballots, protecting the integrity of the ballots? Huh.

Rather than continuing with the long, whiny screed, which fails to once again note that we do not have a Democracy and that the Constitution deems that States have the power to enact most of their own voting rules, let’s go to National Review (yes, full of Never Trumpers, but, they tend to be correct and not losing their minds when Trump isn’t involved)

A Good Day for Free Speech and Free Elections

Legal constitutionalists and political conservatives have had reason to be disappointed at times with the Roberts Court, but today is not one of those days. The Court concluded its 2020-21 term with a pair of 6-3 rulings written by George W. Bush’s appointees (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) and joined by all six Republican appointees to the Court. Both reached the right conclusions. Both will advance the progress of the law toward a vibrant space for democracy, by protecting free speech and free and fair elections. (I’m skipping past the part related to California)

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee upheld two Arizona laws that are common across many states: a ban on counting provisional ballots if they are cast in person in the wrong precinct, and a ban on “ballot harvesting,” preventing activist groups from collecting and handling another person’s completed mail-in ballot. Both types of rules are regularly decried as “voter suppression” by hysterical Democrats. The Court properly found that Arizona had a legitimate interest both in assigning voters to precincts and in protecting the sanctity of the secret ballot from the threat of voter intimidation or fraud presented by third parties handling ballots. (snip)

The Court’s renewed focus on the language of the law passed by Congress, and its guidance in how to apply it in practice, is welcome. The doors of the federal courthouse should always remain open to protect all Americans — and black Americans in particular, given the nation’s painful history — from laws that result in real discrimination in who is able to vote. But federal law was never intended to put every state in the Union in a permanent straitjacket to the point where even temporary emergency voting rules adopted to manage a once-in-a-century pandemic can never be revisited. Brnovich is bad news for junk lawsuits such as the Justice Department’s suit against Georgia. But it is good news for letting the people’s representatives protect free, fair, open, and orderly elections. Trust in democracy requires nothing less.

Even NRO drops “democracy”. It’s an easy term in this case, meant to denote being able to vote. Anyhow, SCOTUS noted that there is nothing in the Voting Rights Act that precludes states from putting mild inconveniences on voters in order to protect the sanctity of the vote.

Read: CNN Seems Pretty Upset About SCOTUS Voting Decision »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Climate Apocalypse Could Cost Condo Boards Billions

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 8:01 am

I just got done deleting a bunch of articles about climate cultists Blaming the collapse of the Surfside building on anthropogenic climate change (and, yes, a quick peak sees moron cultists on Twitter still climablaming), and then I run across this insane bit of climate crazy while looking for climate change articles, which takes it to a new level

Climate change could cost condo boards billions. They aren’t ready for it.

The collapse of the Champlain Towers South condominium building in Surfside, Fla., is a terrible tragedy. Besides the stories of the victims and their grieving loved ones, early attention has focused on the causes of the collapse, such as how the building was constructed, the effects of saltwater on reinforced concrete and whether the condominium association was properly maintaining the high-rise.

Those are important matters, but the disaster exemplifies a bigger problem, one that will still loom once we have answers about what went wrong in Surfside: The untrained, unpaid and unsupervised volunteer directors of the nation’s more than 350,000 condo and homeowners’ associations, armed with limited financial resources, are expected to deal with the unprecedented infrastructure challenges that climate change poses to their communities. And there is no reason to believe that they are up to that task.

Well, I’m glad that Evan McKenzie, who teaches in the political science department and the law school at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is here to tell us that Doom is coming. Remember when we were only supposed to listen to actual climate scientists? Regardless, what you have here is the Cult of Climastrology doing what they do best: taking one incident, blaming it on their cult belief of ‘climate change’ doom, then expanding this one incident to say that there is going to be much wider Doom soon.

As condos and HOAs blossomed across the country in the last 50 years, little or no thought was given to the eventual effects of climate change, in terms of location or construction quality. The common-interest housing sector emerged in the 1960s as a way to put more people on less land, increasing developer profits and local property tax revenue. The model spread rapidly, and condos and HOAs are now the default options for new construction in many states, not just across the Sun Belt where they originated but in older metro areas as well.

Now, McKenzie does seem to have a pretty good knowledge about HOAs and condos, having written several books on the subject, but, has he asked why so many grand high poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology, like Barack Obama, have purchased homes so close to the ocean. And, no, no one cared 50 years ago, and seeing how so many companies continue to put up buildings near the ocean, no one cares now. You don’t have to throw in the climate emergency when discussing putting up tall building near the ocean in areas that do not have a lot of bedrock, aren’t that far above sea level, and areas that are prone to violent storms. After a long lead up about the pitfalls of privately run HOAs, we get

In effect, condo and HOA developments are a huge experiment in privatization of local government functions, and sometimes the offloading of government responsibilities goes too far. We can expect a condo or HOA board to handle garbage collection, get the leaves and snow removed from private streets, and broadly live up to its responsibilities to residents. But when private communities took off in the 1960s, we didn’t even know what climate change was. We cannot realistically expect condo boards to prevent damage from sea level rise, more-frequent severe storms, extreme heat and drought, and other major changes in the environment — especially not in buildings that weren’t built to withstand such conditions. If the proliferation of condos and HOAs is to continue in the time of climate change, federal, state and local governments must play a more supportive, directive and protective role. Otherwise, millions of owners and their volunteer community leaders will be swamped by forces beyond their control.

In other words, the Government should take over running of condos and HOAs. Who is surprised that a climate cultist wants to go this route? It seems that Government control is part and parcel of the climate cult doctrine.

Oh, and as for climate apocalypse

How to cope with the climate apocalypse

The Financial Times screed is behind a true paywall, but, the point here is that it is really one of the first instances I’ve seen of a major news outlet using that phrase, climate apocalypse, for real, after those of us on the Skeptic side have used it to make fun of the climate cult.

BTW, there are some who are already linking the D.C. building collapse Thursday to ‘climate change’.

Read: Washington Post: Climate Apocalypse Could Cost Condo Boards Billions »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

D.C. AG Subpoenas Facebook Study On Bat Soup Virus “Misinformation”

By William Teach July 2, 2021 – 7:38 am

Could someone direct Karl Racine to the First Amendment part about Free Speech? If Facebook, as a private entity, wants to crack down on people giving out what they consider misinformation, they can do that. That the AG of D.C. should want all this information for some reason is a good reason to do away with the position, which did not exist prior to 2014, with Racine being the first one voted into the office

D.C. AG subpoenas Facebook in escalating probe of Covid-19 misinformation

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has subpoenaed Facebook for records related to the platform’s handling of coronavirus misinformation as part of a previously undisclosed investigation into whether the tech giant is violating consumer protection laws.

What he is demanding: Racine, a Democrat, is calling on Facebook to release by the end of next week an internal study it conducted looking into vaccine hesitancy among its users, as first revealed by news reports in March.

The subpoena, filed June 21, also calls on Facebook to provide records identifying all groups, pages and accounts that have violated its policies against Covid-19 misinformation and documents detailing how many resources the tech giant has devoted to the cause.

“Facebook has said it’s taking action to address the proliferation of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on its site,” Abbie McDonough, director of communications for Racine, told POLITICO. “But then when pressed to show its work, Facebook refused. AG Racine’s investigation aims to make sure Facebook is truly taking all steps possible to minimize vaccine misinformation on its site and support public health.”

What is Racine investigating? That people had their own opinions, some of which were very wrong and some which were deep into conspiracy theory land? What will he do with this study? Especially when you can expect that the vast amount of data came from people who do not live in the District of Columbia, especially considering that D.C. operates 100% under the federal Constitution and the attacked Bill Of Rights.

In response to the subpoena, Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement that the company has “removed more than 18 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram that violate our COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation policies, and labeled more than 167 million pieces of COVID-19 content rated false by our network of fact checking partners.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have skewered Facebook for over-policing claims about the origin of the virus. The company recently announced it would no longer take down posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made, as first reported by POLITICO, a move that came amid surging speculation that the virus may have accidentally leaked from a lab in China.

How much of the posts have been taken down that were correct, especially in terms of saying that Bat Soup Virus was manmade? And why does Racine need this? If he finds D.C. residents had their posts removed, what does Racine plan to do with it? Perhaps Racine should focus more on the rising crime rate, the rising murders rather than worry about people engaged in Freedom Of Speech, protesting peaceably, Freedom of Religion, and petitioning for redress of grievance.

Read: D.C. AG Subpoenas Facebook Study On Bat Soup Virus “Misinformation” »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on D.C. AG Subpoenas Facebook Study On Bat Soup Virus “Misinformation” | Trackback URL

Mayor Pete: The Time For Arguing On Climate Crisis (scam) Is Over

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 3:00 pm

I wonder if there’s taxes and fees involved

Buttigieg: ‘There’s no time to argue’ over climate change

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the debate over whether climate change exists needs to stop, saying “there’s no time to argue about whether it’s real — it’s happening, and it’s incredibly dangerous.”

Buttigieg was asked during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Wednesday how his department is addressing climate change amid record-setting heat in the Pacific Northwest.

“We’ve got to do two things. One, we’ve got to make our infrastructure more resilient, because this is going to keep happening. So, we’ve got to make sure that our roads and our bridges are designed for rising sea levels and more heat waves,” Buttigieg said.

“But the second thing we got to do — we’ve got to stop it from getting any worse. That’s why it’s important to make sure that we help Americans afford and drive electric vehicles. It’s why we have to make sure we have alternatives like transit and make sure it’s easier for people to get around without having to bring a vehicle sometimes, depending on where you’re going,” he added.

So, Pete will force you out of your affordable fossil fueled and, if you’re rich, you can get an electric vehicle. If you you can’t afford an EV, which is most people, then you can ride a bike (if you’re Pete, you can can climatevirtue signal while being followed by a fossil fueled SUV), walk, or take the train or bus. All while Big Shots like Pete take long, fossil fueled plane trips and ride in luxury limos.

But, no, no, don’t argue, the time for that is over, right? Despite 30+ years of being wrong, providing little in the way of actual scientific proof of anthropogenic global causation, all the Doomsaying, don’t argue. Just let Pete take your freedom, liberty, choice, and money. Because, how do we pay for this?

Carbon fees are part of the solution to climate change

…

Pricing carbon is the best first step to address climate change. It works fast to reduce carbon pollution. We’ll start seeing reduced carbon emissions in as little as nine months. Thirty-four countries have a price on carbon, including a border adjustment. The U.S. is one of two developed economies that don’t have that. As a result, we pay those nations a fee for exports, which we wouldn’t be paying if we had a carbon fee.

And the cost of living skyrockets, energy is much more expensive, and Government tells you how to live your life

Insurance costs: Should California homeowners pay for climate change?

In hard-hit Napa Valley, which has burned multiple times this last decade, successful winemakers and longtime residents are weighing their options to rebuild or move out entirely simply by looking at their property insurance policies.

“They just can’t get insurance,” said Democratic state Sen. Bill Dodd, whose district spans the region’s celebrated vineyards. “Or the insurance is so expensive that there is no way they could ever afford that kind of coverage.”

Yes, they’re blaming this on ‘climate change’, not the policies that created the dangerous conditions for things like wildfires, not California just being insane to start with. But, yes, I think Californian’s should pay, because this is what they have voted for. Let them deal with the consequences. And, no, don’t leave. Live with the policies you advocated for. Every experiment needs an experimental group, right?

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1410598463385919500?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1410598463385919500%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fgregp-3534%2F2021%2F07%2F01%2Fdear-new-yorkers-you-voted-for-the-power-cuts-right-now-so-why-complain%2F

Suck it up, New Yorkers, you wanted this stuff with your cultish beliefs in ‘climate change.’

Read: Mayor Pete: The Time For Arguing On Climate Crisis (scam) Is Over »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Energy, Global Warming | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is an area turning to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on LGBT militants beating up an elderly hot dog vendor.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Coulter: Democrats Move On To Trying To Break Police Officers

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 10:30 am

Why, yes, Ann Coulter has gone nuts during the Trump era, but, she actually makes sense

Ann Coulter: Dems Say Don’t Defund the Police. Break Them!

In the left’s ongoing war on the police, their plan to strip cops of qualified immunity is among the most preposterous. The sole objective is to jam up cops and make them more passive.

Qualified immunity means a police officer can’t be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights unless those rights are “clearly established.” Officers can still be fired. They can still be disciplined. And they can still be criminally prosecuted. They just can’t be sued by every lowlife they arrest.

Liberals act as if qualified immunity is some extra-special benefit bestowed only on police, unheard of in any other line of work. Michigan’s power-mad Attorney General Dana Nessel says, “We’re not asking that police officers even be held to a higher standard than other professions, just to the same standard as other professions.”

How about you, Dana? Can you be sued?  

No, but that’s different.

Indeed, the Michigan attorney general doesn’t have mere “qualified immunity” from civil suits: She has absolute immunity. Unlike police officers, even if Nessel violates clearly established constitutional rights, she cannot be sued.

Democrats spent a lot of time yammering about defunding the police to placate their unhinged BLM/Antifa base. Most knew that it would never happen, but, many cities did actually take a lot of money away from police departments, and their defund yapping, along with demonizing all police officers for the actions of a few (who were still mostly right, because they were dealing with violent criminals, but, liberals want to treat violent criminals with kid gloves), general bad mouthing, treating them like garbage (but still demanding the police protect the politicians), has caused a lot of police officers to resign/retire, and the ones left have become very passive in arresting criminals and stopping crime.

Taking away qualified immunity will simply cause the rest of the cops to leave the job, not become more passive. Those who are getting close to retirement will stick around to get their retirement benefits, but, do little actual work. And you can bet they won’t be patrolling or doing anything in crime ridden areas.

But, hey, if Democrats want this, let them deal with it in their own cities. No leaving

Armed robbers hold up Oakland TV crew during interview about city’s crime wave and 90% spike in murders after it defunded police department by $18.5million

Robbers held up a television crew at gunpoint during an interview with the director of violence prevention in Oakland amid the city’s huge wave of violence, police have said.

The attack took place outside City Hall on Monday just hours after the police chief blasted his city’s decision to defund its police department by $18.5 million despite a 90 per cent increase in murders.

The NBC Bay Area news crew was interviewing Guillermo Cespedes at around 3pm when two armed men tried to take their camera, the Oakland Police Department said.

A scuffle broke out and a private security guard who was contracted by the news agency, pulled out a gun and told the robbers to leave.

Hmm, I guess having a firearm to ward off criminals does work. Anyhow, this was broad daylight outside city hall. But, even if the funding is restored, don’t expect police to work hard to do anything beyond the normal. Oh, heck, they’ll take the easy road for everything, because they won’t do anything to put themselves in a position to be demonized. Suck it up, citizens of Oakland, you wanted this. Don’t complain about crime.

Read: Coulter: Democrats Move On To Trying To Break Police Officers »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Failure: 25 Years Ago NY Times Claimed Doom From Sea Rise

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 8:20 am

First, though, the NY Times has to fearmonger some more, as provided by Michael “Robust Debate” Mann

That Heat Dome? Yeah, It’s Climate Change.

In the old days, we could escape the summer heat by heading north — to the Adirondacks in the East or to the cool, forested Pacific Northwest in the West.

But this is not your grandparents’ climate.

And though we’re only one week into official summer, the characteristically cool Pacific Northwest has turned into a caldron of triple-digit temperatures, with Portland, Ore., and Seattle reaching record highs of 115 and 108 degrees, respectively. That’s unseasonably hot — for Phoenix.

Blah Blah Blah. He of course gets around to all sorts of prognosticating Doom. Does Mann have any comments on this?

From that article

The climate doom-mongers at The New York Times must now face the reality that their decades-old eco-Armageddon predictions were flat out wrong.

The Times screeched in a 1995 story how “some of the predicted effects of climate change may now be emerging for the first time or with increasing clarity.” One of the predictions included a “[a] continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100.” The Times then cautioned that an apocalypse for beach-goers would be a likely result: “At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years.”

Twenty-five years from 1995 would mean the beaches would be gone by 2020. Newsflash: The East Coast beaches are still intact. U.S. News & World Report even ran a report in May 2020 headlined: “16 Top East Coast Beaches to Visit.”

Have beaches disappeared? Any? The Times was yammering about them disappearing at around 2-3 feet a year. Which is not shown by the actual data. Or by beaches when you look at them. One of the best data points is at The Battery in NYC (city where the NY Times is located), which shows a whopping 2.88mm of sea rise per year, equivalent to 0.94 feet of sea rise per 100 years. Which is pretty much about average for the Holocene, and well below what should be occurring during a Holocene warm period.

So, what penalty does the NY Times pay for their 1995 Doomsaying prognostication, one designed to scare people and get politicians to pass laws that increase taxes, fees, and take away freedom, liberty, and choice? Should there not be consequences for this? And we will continue to see more prognostications fail.

Read: Climate Cult Failure: 25 Years Ago NY Times Claimed Doom From Sea Rise »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Journalistic Malpractice | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

San Jose Looks To Tax Legal Gun Owners, Confiscate For Failure To Pay

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 7:54 am

This is basically criminalizing the lawful ownership of firearms, all while actual criminals are the ones who commit the vast majority of shootings

San Jose to make gun owners carry insurance, pay into public fund

Gun owners in San Jose will soon have to pay for insurance to keep their firearms.

The San Jose City Council unanimously passed gun control measures Tuesday that will require all gun owners in the city to carry insurance and pay an annual fee to cover taxpayer costs related to gun violence, or risk having their guns confiscated. The city attorney’s office will return to the council in the fall with an ordinance for final approval.

San Jose could become the first city in the nation to pass such reforms.

“The council has made clear that while the Second Amendment certainly protects the right for every citizen to own a gun, it does not mandate that taxpayers subsidize that right,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said at a news conference Wednesday. (snip)

According to numbers from nonprofit Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation—which Liccardo frequently cited leading up to the vote—between 2013 and 2019, San Jose residents paid a combined $441.9 million in gun violence-related costs.

Why not tax the criminals when they are caught rather than lawful gun owners who have not committed a crime? Because it is not about criminals, but about gun grabbing. You know that the insurance will be expensive, making it harder for law abiding citizens to own a firearm, leaving them exposed to the actual criminals.

https://twitter.com/sliccardo/status/1409888533851033614?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1409888533851033614%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsanjosespotlight.com%2Fsan-jose-to-make-gun-owners-carry-insurance-pay-into-public-fund%2F

You know that is a huge bunch of mule fritters, right? The vast majority of those shot in San Jose see illegal firearms involved

San Jose residents phoned in Tuesday, with some gun control groups, such as Moms Demand Action, praising the measures.

“There is no one law or policy that will solve the public health crisis that is the gun violence epidemic,” said Jessica Blitchok, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. “However, a holistic approach will reduce gun harm in San Jose and the greater community.”

A holistic approach? How about a legal approach? A Constitutional approach? Because the idea is to burden law abiding citizens

“The mandatory gun liability insurance puts a financial burden on a constitutional right,” said Owen, a caller who didn’t give his last name. “When a police officer comes on a call and they ask the question, ‘Do you have a firearm? Do you have insurance?’ You have to produce that. Seems kind of ridiculous.”

Oh, and police can ask

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

“Crooks aren’t going to follow this law,” Liccardo told reporters. “When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun.”

These same people are against asking illegal aliens for their papers, but, want law abiding citizens to provide their papers. This criminalizes those who are in lawful possession of a firearm, especially through California’s already draconian gun laws. Mayor Liccardo is calling crooks crooks, but law abiding people who refuse to pay his tax and get his insurance.

Read: San Jose Looks To Tax Legal Gun Owners, Confiscate For Failure To Pay »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove