San Jose to require gun owners to carry liability insurance

[gaussian]

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.

This guy has to work for gifford's. It's the same non-sense talking points over and over again that give off a sense that he has a solution but is really just talking out of his ass. Literal diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. How about you talk about regulating something you understand, like eating tide pods?

You neither understand the economics of firearms, nor the motivation for the people possessing them to retain them. You should go ask your buddies over in Australia and New Zealand how well their forced confiscation worked. I'll save you the time - it didn't. In NZ it was so poor they've done something like 2 or 3 more and barely collected more. It would appear even in the modern leftist meccas gun owners understand the utility of having an equalizer when the thugs have better guns than you do.

And local thugs? Vice has ran several documentaries on Africa, Colombia, and Filipino thugs that literally take a 2x4, some plumbing pipe, and a nail and make a fully functioning weapon capable of being used to acquire an even better weapon from someone. Do you plan on including requiring licensing and insurance to shop at home depot? Maybe we should do background checks and force people to sign 4473s when picking up some roofing nails and galvanized pipe!

 

[Tony Stark]

??? 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.

That is not a deal both sides agreed to.There was a deal both sides agreed on under Obama,a comprehensive reform bill that included E verify, border security and included everyone,not just dreamers.Marco Rubio led from the GOP side and made a deal.Racists republican voters wanted no part of it because because it a provided a multi year path to citizenship and repiblcans renaged on a deal they agreed to.Now racist republican voters wont accept any deal that doesn't have deportation of any non dreamers.Racist republican voters are to fucking stupid to realize that 20 million or so illegals will never be deported.In the mean time the current system stays in place with more illegals coming in and those illegals having America born children who in 18 years will vote 70% democrat turning states like Texas,Arizona,Georgia etc blue like they did CA.

 

[Cuddles]

This guy has to work for gifford's. It's the same non-sense talking points over and over again that give off a sense that he has a solution but is really just talking out of his ass. Literal diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. How about you talk about regulating something you understand, like eating tide pods?

You neither understand the economics of firearms, nor the motivation for the people possessing them to retain them. You should go ask your buddies over in Australia and New Zealand how well their forced confiscation worked. I'll save you the time - it didn't. In NZ it was so poor they've done something like 2 or 3 more and barely collected more. It would appear even in the modern leftist meccas gun owners understand the utility of having an equalizer when the thugs have better guns than you do.

And local thugs? Vice has ran several documentaries on Africa, Colombia, and Filipino thugs that literally take a 2x4, some plumbing pipe, and a nail and make a fully functioning weapon capable of being used to acquire an even better weapon from someone. Do you plan on including requiring licensing and insurance to shop at home depot? Maybe we should do background checks and force people to sign 4473s when picking up some roofing nails and galvanized pipe!

you right now:

do you ever get tired of being wrong? Go tell us about middle east geography and Trump's lawyers some more

 

[UsualName]

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.

Lol. A president would not have to “re-present” the case. The case is closed. Any president could just simply scratch a reason for rescission on presidential letterhead with a crayon and get it done if they so wanted but Trump couldn’t even meet that low bar. Sad. And you want that guy back? Whatever. DACA is here for now and is one of those things that Republicans will fight and balk on ad infinitim.

As far as Joe Biden and the people, I will be honest he is doing a better job than I expected.

 

[UsualName]

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.

Ok. If you go back to what I originally posted about, I explained this is good for a national policy. States being laboratories and all. However, if we could get republicans to agree to registration then there is no need for back door accountability measures like insurance. Remember, the goal here from my perspective, is to make sure people still have the guns they purchased. That’s how we stop the vast majority of guns going from legally purchased to illegally sold.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Lol. A president would not have to “re-present” the case. The case is closed.

Oh, you clearly don't understand the case at all.

The court clearly left open the option for the administration to present the case again by submitting arguments in those areas where it said it would have to do so to overcome the presumption of arbiitrary and capricious. Trumps doj proceeded with the idea that it had the right to reverse just based on the presidents will to do so. The court said it still needed to make argument for the basis for doing so.

You sound like these scenarios do not happen. We went through this with DAPA which the lefties eventually lost. However, in that case the court allowed a rehearing on issues where it said it would be willing to rehear the case. Just as it suggested in the DACA case. It told Trump that he could come again by satisfying the need for argument in the areas specified.


Nevermind.

 

[UsualName]

Oh, you clearly don't understand the case at all.

The court clearly left open the option for the administration to present the case again by submitting arguments in those areas where it said it would have to do so to overcome the presumption of arbiitrary and capricious. Trumps doj proceeded with the idea that it had the right to reverse just based on the presidents will to do so. The court said it still needed to make argument for the basis for doing so.

Nevermind.

I get it, Trump argued the EO was unconstitutional as a reason for rescission and the court said that is not reasonable as described by law for rescission. We all get it. The point is the EO still stands and is therefore legal and any president with half of a brain could simply rescind the EO. But thanks.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The point is the EO still stands and is therefore legal and any president with half of a brain could simply rescind the EO. But thanks.

Yeh, No.

You missed the whole point of the court decision. The court specifically ruled in both DAPA and that DACA cases that a president cannot simply rule to rescind. You missed the whole thing. It ruled that a president may be able to simply decide to reverse it but there are still administrative procedures and at least sufficient argument presented to show that it as not done capriciouosly. But that must done.

Sheesh.

Nevermind. You missed the whole thing.

 

[UsualName]

Yeh, No.

You missed the whole point of the court decision. The court specifically ruled in both DAPA and that DACA cases that a president cannot simply rule to rescind. You missed the whole thing. It ruled that a president may be able to simply decide to reverse it but there are still administrative procedures and at least sufficient argument presented to show that it as not done capriciouosly. But that must done.

Sheesh.

Nevermind. You missed the whole thing.

You should check your work better. It still doesn’t matter though because DACA stands so you deal with it however you want to.

Repeal the filibuster!

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You should check your work better. It still doesn’t matter though because DACA stands so you deal with it however you want to.

Repeal the filibuster!

You and your ilk are geniuses on border and immigration issues.

I wonder what the border and immigration would look like if Biden and your Hamas Squad buddies take charge. Nevermind. We are seeing it.

You "improved" immigration and border policy so that is just a total collapse and invasion.

Similarly, your progressive ilk "improved" our cities to the point where they are no longer live-able and there is just chaos in the streets.

Meanwhile Biden and you and your ilk are rapidly bringing that same "magic" to foreign affairs which primarily consists of just identifying what our enemies want and proceeding to do that as fast as possible.