San Jose to require gun owners to carry liability insurance

[TreeFrogTrader]

DACA held as legal though, didnt it?

No. The court did not uphold DACA on its face or uphold any statutory or constitutional right for it to be maintained provided that the administration provided a reasoning beyond just deciding to end it because a president can reverse an executive order. The court held that if Trump's administration wanted to end it that it had to follow a process of outlining the reasoning and specifically told the administration it could present that again with the reasoning outlined, rather than just a decision to overturn it.

This is essentially the same decision as in the DAPA - not DACA- case where the court acknowledged that the president might have the power to reverse an order but it was still bound by the Administrative Procedures act when unwinding it and had to provide reasoning and notice and hearing etc. Which is not a finding that it was legal, only that certain steps need to be followed in unwinding it.

Further, that was a 5-4 decision while Ruthie was still on the bench and she has since been replaced by Amy Barrett tipping the balance even more. Very shaky for DACA. If Trump were still there and they want to re-present the case with the argument the court requested to see, and with Barrett on the bench, DACA would be toast. Instead the election came along and that fell apart but your suggestion that DACA was held to be on solid legal grounds is a crock. The court ruled only that there was another hoop to jump through, and in addition the court composition has changed making it even tougher for DACA. If you want to argue that DACA is still there because the current administration won't pursue it further, well that may be, but that is the reason, and not that previous ruling definitely upheld it.

Joe owns the massive invasion coming across the border. You and he and can beat your chests about how DACA survived because Trump was tossed out but be careful what you wish for and crow about. It has already been the ruination of Kamala who also had lots of ballsy and peppy things to say in the campaign about how the border will be open. Next up is Joe. If pubs think they can take the house and senate at midterms then they will just agree to nothing and let you and Joe crow about how you got what you wanted at the border. You better hope that is what the people wanted too.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

??? Maybe me memory is bad

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-daca-deal-is-a-dream-come-true-for-democrats-commentary.html

The Trump administration has finally made a detailed and public proposal on what to do about the so-called "Dreamer" illegal immigrants who came to this country as children.

Predictably in this climate of political rancor, leading Democrats are already slamming President Trump's offer. But even a casual analysis of the White House plan shows why the Democrats would be crazy to reject it. Though it's not the "skinny deal" that would more easily pass, it does offer Democrats a number of benefits and a chance to save face after the shutdown mess.

First, the Trump offer covers a surprisingly larger number of illegal immigrants than expected. The White House plan more than doubles the number of people who could take advantage of its pathway to citizenship.

It would include not just the roughly 700,000 Dreamer immigrants who have applied for DACA protection since 2012, but an additional 1.1 million illegal immigrants who could have qualified but have not yet applied.

That's a major gift from the administration any way you look at it. Democrats were hoping to come out of these eventual negotiations with protections for about 800,000 people. But without even presenting a counteroffer, they're being offered protection for 1.8 million.

Totally, totally valid points.

Not only did Trump up the offer on the number illegals covered, but he flat-out offered a pathway to citizenship when the dems were only insisting on some kind of legal status.

Trump totally used up a huge pile of good will and politically capital with some conservatives and it cost him plenty. Then the dems let him know that they would not take YES for an answer because they did not want Trump to have victories while in office.

At that time the leading spokesman for hispanic causes was Louis Guitterez. He ranted for years, day and night, against republicans - including on all the lefty media sites- speaking out against republican positions. But when Trump made that offer I remember him saying: "If all Trump wants is his wall as part of that deal, I will go down and help build it myself." However it may have been all about hispanics for Louis, but he was about to learn what everyone knows, it was not about hispanics, it was about dems not giving Trump a victory.

Such is the nature of the scumbags we are dealing with. They threw ten to twenty million plus hispanics under the bus all in one shot.

 

[Cuddles]

??? Maybe me memory is bad

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-daca-deal-is-a-dream-come-true-for-democrats-commentary.html

The Trump administration has finally made a detailed and public proposal on what to do about the so-called "Dreamer" illegal immigrants who came to this country as children.

Predictably in this climate of political rancor, leading Democrats are already slamming President Trump's offer. But even a casual analysis of the White House plan shows why the Democrats would be crazy to reject it. Though it's not the "skinny deal" that would more easily pass, it does offer Democrats a number of benefits and a chance to save face after the shutdown mess.

First, the Trump offer covers a surprisingly larger number of illegal immigrants than expected. The White House plan more than doubles the number of people who could take advantage of its pathway to citizenship.

It would include not just the roughly 700,000 Dreamer immigrants who have applied for DACA protection since 2012, but an additional 1.1 million illegal immigrants who could have qualified but have not yet applied.

That's a major gift from the administration any way you look at it. Democrats were hoping to come out of these eventual negotiations with protections for about 800,000 people. But without even presenting a counteroffer, they're being offered protection for 1.8 million.

your memory is indeed bad. This was Trump attempting to rescue the dem offer which would've been dumb to take since Trump tried to tack on a bunch of other unreasonable shit.

Schumer offer:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-immigration-deal-trump-shouldve-taken-didnt-msna1174156

Trump rescue attempt after court decision and midterms:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...hway-citizenship-1-8-million-dreamers-n841156

 

[Wallet]

your memory is indeed bad. This was Trump attempting to rescue the dem offer which would've been dumb to take since Trump tried to tack on a bunch of other unreasonable shit.

Schumer offer:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-immigration-deal-trump-shouldve-taken-didnt-msna1174156

Trump rescue attempt after court decision and midterms:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...hway-citizenship-1-8-million-dreamers-n841156

I think it’s called negotiating and what Trump requested was common sense.

At the end of the day, Democrats turned their back on DACA citizenship.

 

[Cuddles]

I think it’s called negotiating and what Trump requested was common sense.

At the end of the day, Democrats turned their back on DACA citizenship.

It's not common sense to end legal migration. It's also not common sense to take Trump seriously on anything, especially when he's poison pilling the fuck out of a proposal.

 

[Wallet]

It's not common sense to end legal migration. It's also not common sense to take Trump seriously on anything, especially when he's poison pilling the fuck out of a proposal.

Closing loopholes is common sense and your opinion is just that, your opinion.

 

[ph1l]

It's the same shit as illegal immigration. Punish the offenders, do nothing about those feeding the problem. It's why they oppose e-verify, it's why they oppose closing down the gun fair and private sale loopholes.

Agreed. Punish the feeders.

 

[Cuddles]

Closing loopholes is common sense and your opinion is just that, your opinion.

An opinion shared by congress and told Trump to take a hike.

 

[LS1Z28]

So, I’ve already addressed this having insurance is fine but the real teeth of this provision would be that there is an accountability for retaining possession.

To curb the street gun violence we have to stop the flow of guns moving from legally purchased to illegally sold. There’s something called the iron pipeline that runs guns usually purchased in large scale from southern states to northern cities. Being accountable with an insurance for purchasing 12 guns a month make those sorts of trades unprofitable and drastically reduce the illegal guns used on the streets.

Think about what you just posted. If people are buying guns out of state and bringing them into California to sell illegally, how would an insurance requirement change anything? The people selling the guns illegally aren't going to buy insurance. The people buying the guns illegally aren't going to buy insurance. The only people that will end up buying insurance will be the law abiding citizens, and nothing will change.

These are the proposals I would support:
1. Require all private sales to go through a police department so that a background check can be run. (Some states are already starting to do this.)
2. Increase the penalty for people selling guns illegally.
3. Step up enforcement to identify the people selling guns illegally.
IMO, these proposals make a lot more sense than what the City of San Jose has put forth.

 

[Cuddles]

Think about what you just posted. If people are buying guns out of state and bringing them into California to sell illegally, how would an insurance requirement change anything? The people selling the guns illegally aren't going to buy insurance. The people buying the guns illegally aren't going to buy insurance. The only people that will end up buying insurance will be the law abiding citizens, and nothing will change.

These are the proposals I would support:
1. Require all private sales to go through a police department so that a background check can be run. (Some states are already starting to do this.)
2. Increase the penalty for people selling guns illegally.
3. Step up enforcement to identify the people selling guns illegally.
IMO, these proposals make a lot more sense than what the City of San Jose has put forth.

Well, at the local level, you reduce the gun supply as more guns=more insurance=less grey/black market stolen guns. Importing guns from another state bumps the price and makes them pricier for the local thug. We've gone over this supply/demand problem when it comes to guns.