City Forcing Gun Owners Pay Up for Crimes They Didn’t Commit

( – There have been a number of mass shootings in American since President Joe Biden took office in January. One of the most recent massacres happened in San Jose, California. The May shooting occurred when a gunman opened fire on his colleagues at a light-rail yard in the city. He killed nine people, including himself.

More than a month after the massacre, San Jose took steps to punish law-abiding gun owners for a crime in which they were not involved.

Gun Owners May Have to Pay Up

On June 29, the San Jose city council approved a motion to write a policy that will allow the city to impose a yearly tax on gun owners and force them to carry extra insurance. The city council said it wants to receive repayment for the cost of responding to gun crimes. The amount of the fee has not yet been determined.

According to a report by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, an anti-gun nonprofit organization, sent a representative to discuss the issue. They claimed the city pays $63 million a year as the result of gun violence.

Opponents of the proposal have said it is unconstitutional. Resident Sasha Sherman said that she opposes forcing gun owners to pay more taxes. Each time a gun owner buys ammunition, there is an 11% tax, plus a background check fee,” she said. Others echoed her sentiments, telling the city council that it would put a “financial burden on a constitutional right.”

A Senseless Rule

What’s strange about the proposal is that the gunman at the rail yard shooting totally ignored the California gun laws. He did not purchase his weapons in San Jose and would not have had to pay these extra costs. The people who are going to get stuck paying are the ones who own firearms for personal protection.

After the massacre in the city, gun rights activists said the crime proved that the state’s strict laws did absolutely nothing to prevent a violent crime. They argued that what it did stop was law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Now, those citizens, the ones who survived and may own firearms, are going to be victimized again by the county’s assault on the Second Amendment. Does that seem fair?

The question now becomes whether courts are going to uphold the proposal if the city council finalizes it. Certainly it seems like an infringement on rights, but we will have to see how the courts rule.

Copyright 2021,