Mayor Admits Gun Confiscation the Purpose of New Gun Laws

On January 27th, we notified you of a law passed by the San Jose City Council, requiring gun owners to carry insurance and pay a yearly tax.

You can read more about the two laws in this post.

San Jose Passes Anti-Gun Legislation —

We anticipated and warned that this law, like so many others, is only part of a comprehensive effort to harass gun owners and disarm both legal and illegal possession of firearms.

Why do I say this? After the ordinances passed, the architect of the gun control plan, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, said:

This won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime.

Well, I wish our collective fears were incorrect, but unfortunately, we have an update to the story that confirms those suspicions.

A tool for gun confiscation —

Beth LaBerge/KQED via AP, Pool, File

As reported on by Breitbart News, Liccardo lets out the true intentions behind the laws. The laws are an effort to counter what everyone believes will be a favorable Supreme Court ruling against “due cause” requirements for concealed carry permits.

Liccardo made the following statements for a post published on the website called “Slate“:

Encountering people with guns, out on the street, in bars and nightclubs—you can imagine a host of different venues where a police officer would really like to have the ability to remove a gun from a potentially combustible situation. For example, there’s a bar brawl and they’re patting down everybody and someone’s got a gun.

“Have you paid your fee? You have insurance?” “No.”

OK, well, there’s an opportunity for us to remove the gun. And then when the gun owner comes back and demonstrates that they comply with the law and they’re a lawful gun owner, they get their gun back. But in the meantime, you’ve taken a gun out of a bar brawl. And that’s not a bad thing.

Liccardo doesn’t know the first thing about policing, and he’s betting no one else does either. Because anyone who does knows his statement is absurd. The law is clearly just a tool to disarm and harass gun owners and force them to pay further fees to the government.

Shut-Up peasant, it’s a “fee”, not a “tax” —

The Mayor doesn’t like the mandatory fee paid to the government for the right to possess a firearm, a “tax.” He says it’s just a “fee” and not a “tax” but doesn’t think he should take the time to explain the difference. He said:

I don’t blame anyone for being emotional about this. These are really important issues that go to the core of what we believe about freedoms and rights and our own safety. But I’d say this. First, it’s a fee, it’s not a tax, and I won’t go into the details about what the difference is, but the reality is that in this country, there have been taxes on guns and ammunition since at least 1919, and they’ve been upheld by the courts. So the fact that there’s a constitutional right attached somewhere to the exercise of a particular activity doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated, taxed, or have a fee imposed.

He either thinks you don’t deserve to know the difference, are too stupid to understand, or really it is a tax, and he just wants to assert otherwise.

The Mayor is Right —

The Mayor is right about one thing when he says, “These are really important issues that go to the core of what we believe about freedoms and rights and our own safety.” He is right, and that is why gun owners in San Jose need to make their voices heard.

Gun rights, the right to self-protection is an inalienable right.

Liccardo and every Council Member who voted for this should be held politically accountable. You need to vote for people who will not violate fundamental rights. Get anyone who plans on representing you on the record, stating where they stand on legislation like this.

Nationally, we need to resist these politicians and their desires to take away freedoms. If you’re not a gun owner, and this doesn’t affect you, pause a moment and realize they won’t stop with guns. These people are demagogues who crave power.

Our freedoms get in their way.