San Jose City Council Approves Gun Insurance Mandate and Annual Gun Fee

The San José City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to create a first-of-its kind mandate for gun insurance, and an annual fee for gun owners aimed at relieving the public cost of gun violence.

The June 29 meeting on gun harm reduction ordinances occurred in the wake of the mass shooting that took nine lives at the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority yard in May.

Ahead of the vote, the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation (PIRE) provided preliminary estimates from its  Public Cost of Gun Harm Study for San José. PIRE estimated the cost to taxpayers stemming from gun violence in San José is $442 million annually. This research will be used while evaluating the amount of a fee the city will require from gun owners.

“While the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership,” said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo. “We won't magically end gun violence, but we will stop paying for it. We can also better care for its victims, and reduce gun-related injuries and death through sensible interventions.”

The council:

  • Approved an insurance mandate.

“Insurance-based mechanisms can encourage firearm owners to behave more safely--by taking safety classes, using gun safes, installing trigger locks--and can compensate injured victims,” city staff reported.

  • Agreed to require fees for gun owners.

City gun users will be required to pay annual fees tol help fund critical emergency medical and police response. The city also will impound weapons “from high-risk individuals unwilling to follow the law.”

Read the rest of the proposed ordinance.  

PIRE is an independent nonprofit organization currently conducting the Public Cost of Gun Harm study through private and philanthropic funding. Any fee imposed by the City of San José will focus entirely on costs to the city. PIRE also s working with Santa Clara County officials to determine final estimates of the public expense, and a more in-depth report is expected.

The preliminary research estimates gun violence in San José costs taxpayers $442 million dollars  between 2013-2019, during which 205 incidents of gun violence occurred. The estimated cost includes: direct out-of-pocket cost to residents ($35 million), lost work ($78 million), and quality of life ($328 million).

Federal, state, and local governments pay almost $40 million for gun violence in San José. Taxpayers contribute to these through costs for emergency response, victim support, tax revenue lost when a victim cannot work, healthcare, and more.

 

51 Comments

  1. What a bunch of idiotic, ignorant, good for nothing, group of hacks. This is what happens when we put idiots in charge, especially Liccardo. How is this suppose to help end gun violence in San Jose Mr. Mayor Liccardo? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t. You and your cronies simply voted on who to hold financially responsible for the clean up of the ongoing crimes committed by those who obtain guns illegally while you do absolutely nothing to control it.

  2. “While the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership,” said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.

    As would be expected of any contemptible predator, Mr. Liccardo has taken aim at residents who are, by nature of their law-abiding ways, defenseless to government-sanctioned assaults on their rights and pocketbooks. They can be expected to, like most victims of blackmail, pay the ransom being demanded for the safe return of their rights.

    Targeting the defenseless, even among people in the most desperate of circumstances, is a telltale trait of the cowardly; loathsome characters of the kind who’d prey on the unconscious (be it taking pocket change from a wino or advantage of an unconscious female). That the mayor’s efforts will unlikely stand judicial challenge matters not, for in an era when absurd stunts grab headlines and obscure political incompetence, this piece of legislative crap represents mission accomplished.

    As a law-abiding gun owner, I take personal the mayor’s attempt to link me with, and penalize me for, gun violence that is far and away more attributable to the city’s habitually-criminal element (including the illegal aliens to whom he provides sanctuary) than it is to the group to which, for now, I belong.

  3. Fiscall Conservatives should strongly SUPPORT Mayor Liccardo and the City of San Jose for taking an important step to slow gun violence in our community by acknowledging there is a very real financial burden that gun violence inflicts on our city and region. It is long PAST the time when those that the direct costs of gun violence (police response, ambulence transport, medical costs) be covered by insurance paid for by those same persons choosing to own guns, while incentivizing safer behavior such as encouraging use of trigger locks, gun safes, etc.

    In an average year, gun violence in America kills nearly 40,000 people, injures more than twice as many, and costs our nation $280 billion. This staggering figure is higher than the entire US Department of Veterans Affairs’ annual budget. I’m tired of hearing that the problem is so big that nothing can be done. San Jose is the nation’s 10th largest city, and we are showing the rest of the country that we are serious about reducing gun violence and preventing future mass shootings like that which recently took the lives of 9 VTA workers and forever changed our community. Learn more about the Economic cost of gun violence here:
    https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-economic-cost-of-gun-violence/

  4. And so, I imagine that when a criminal uses a gun in San Jose, that is not insured, and they have not paid the annual gun fee, those charges will be added to whatever other charges they are facing?
    And, the $442M in costs – where does that estimate come from?
    Does San Jose really think that adding these fees and requirements will change anything? You are only penalizing the lawful. My guess is that most lawful gun owners are NOT the problem.
    The Second Amendment protects gun ownership.
    Maybe we should start charging for the First Amendment too, the Freedom of Speech.

  5. This is scandalous as well as disgusting to people of quality, and Liccardo’s statement about it was just stupid, appealing to the kind of people who would vote him to another, higher “public service” position in addition to making Harris a U.S. Senator or see “Gavin” as Presidential material. It’s a subversive act with its infringement, including the obvious harassment and intimidation of gun owners, with the low-life cost-shifting as another burden, harassment, and intimidation as excrescent icing on the excrescent cake. It’s subversion and slime for political posturing and personal gain at least for one politician.

  6. This is a blatant overstep of constrictions placed upon Dear Leader( I mean Sam the Benevolent) by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    I went to the story’s link for PIRE and found it linked directly to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    You would think that there be an obligation to disclose that this study was bought and paid for by someone with an agenda.

    A little message for Dear Leader:

    I will not comply. Your move.

  7. No “registration” here, just buying insurance. No Harrassment here because if you drive a car you must have auto insurance, right? Especially because a vehicle is a public danger just like a gun? The Cost of dmage due to irresponsible gun ownership is not being dumped on those that are innocent. Those current costs are DUMPED on the public at this time. People being killed or possibly irreparably damaged for the rest of their lives. I just think you just wanted to make up a story like so many Q-ANON groups to distract from what is being addressed here. Guns are just like cars with regards to the public costs when they are either not used correctly, or not used responsibly. How many people are hurt either by accident or purposely by cars AND guns?

  8. It’s easy enough to check, cupcake.

    Maybe if you went to the PIRE website and clicked on their ‘study’ you would find out for yourself.

    You are in serious need of your medication.

  9. This is so laughable. They want to call this a common-sense “harm reduction” approach to gun violence? Most that commit gun violence are criminals. This is NOT a common-sense approach to reduce gun violence. Just another stupid idea from our city leaders. Like the idea they came up with to pay the homeless of San Jose cash, our tax dollars, to clean up the trash and drug needles they’ve been littering our city with. Yes, let’s give the homeless cash to purchase more drugs with. Let’s give them incentive to continue littering San Jose. Let’s pay them to do it! Let’s create a reason for homeless elsewhere to come to San Jose. Look at our city! Look at our state! This is what happens when we elect idiots for leaders. Anyhow, a common-sense approach to reduce gun violence would be to crack down on criminals, not law biding citizens.

  10. There is No Way any State becomes so politically lopsided. These people have been cheating in elections for years. California was the test section, they have since taken it nation wide. Wake up America (and all you useful idiots), they will eventually be coming for you too, regardless of how much you suck up to them.

  11. WILLIAM ASHBLESS you wrote:

    “This is a blatant overstep of constrictions placed upon Dear Leader( I mean Sam the Benevolent) by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

    NO constrictions you are free to own a gun and your rights are not infringed. But then you said:

    “A little message for Dear Leader:

    I will not comply. Your move.”

    OK lets look at the moves that can be done:

    First if you are identified as owning a gun and not buying the insurance, a civil action can be filed to require either garnishment or a lien on your real property for the premiums that will be paid by the city to establish an insurance policy in your name. Until you do get the insurance.

    Second, if your firearm is identified in an accidental or criminal act that could be grounds for a criminal charge enhancement. Accidental injury or death by the irresponsible care of a firearm is open to a criminal prosecution. Especially if it is a criminal act results in the death of another.

    William, you are really not understanding how this can play out. If you WERE a RESPONSIBLE gun owner you would be aware of these things. The 2nd amendment text actually says this:

    “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    If you are NOT A MEMEBER OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, AND YOU ARE NOT NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, then the 2nd amendment actually doesn’t apply to you.

    Sooner or later, that is going to show up in the Supreme Court and change the public misinterpretation of the Constitution. Scalia in his book in reading the federal constitution and laws clearly stated where there are only commas separating parts of the constitution or laws, the term AND is applied, thus only where ALL parts of the sentence are satisfied does the court recognize what the law or constitution says.

    I think that there is to much TRUMPIAN misinformation out there.

  12. Steven Goldstein.. you should read Federalist Paper 46, written by James Madison.. the man who wrote the 2nd Amendment. It is an essay where Madison explains the intent of the 2nd Amendment. You must read it contextually, with an eye tuned to the language and its meaning for the period it was written. Doing so will make the meaning of the words, and the context of the essay much clearer.

    You’ll find his use of the word “militia”… means The People. Further, Madison clearly articulates that the sole intention of the 2nd Amendment is to give the People the ability to defend themselves and their inalienable rights… from government overreach.

    Every risk Madison articulates in Federalist 46 is in play right now. Once simply needs to open their eyes and step away from the myopic social media fueled fog our society appears to under.

  13. STEVE LUCERO you wrote:

    “Steven Goldstein.. you should read Federalist Paper 46, written by James Madison.. the man who wrote the 2nd Amendment. It is an essay where Madison explains the intent of the 2nd Amendment. You must read it contextually, with an eye tuned to the language and its meaning for the period it was written. Doing so will make the meaning of the words, and the context of the essay much clearer.

    You’ll find his use of the word “militia”… means The People. Further, Madison clearly articulates that the sole intention of the 2nd Amendment is to give the People the ability to defend themselves and their inalienable rights… from government overreach.”

    So here is the proper substitution regarding the text if you want to say that Militia is People

    “A WELL REGULATED PEOPLE, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Your argument just got flipped against you by trying to claim that a militia is the same as the people. The reality is that there are NO REGULATIONS ON PEOPLE at this time, thus the text of the 2nd amendment is not satisfied. If you thought I wasn’t aware of that argument, what I in fact did is set a TRAP for you.

    In the end the constitution actually calls for a WELL REGULATED PEOPLE to the right to bear arms, and not EVERYONE. Sooner or later the courts are going to discover this and the proper accountability for firearms is going to prevail.

  14. The auto insurance analogy is not only wrong, but stupid. I suspect it has fans like the other scummy parts of what the city wants to do, and Liccardo is counting on these fans of stupidity and immorality by government to vote him into his next government job.

  15. BETTER BEFORE you wrote:

    “The auto insurance analogy is not only wrong, but stupid. I suspect it has fans like the other scummy parts of what the city wants to do, and Liccardo is counting on these fans of stupidity and immorality by government to vote him into his next government job.”

    First, instead of venting your emotions, your going to have to provide some PROOF that the auto insurance analogy was wrong or stupid. But of course your trying to change the subject. That the 2nd Amendment argument was defective because MADISON of all people wanted the people to be REGULATED in order to bear arms as demonstrated NOT BY ME but another poster.

    I just love it sometimes when people in fact TRAP themselves onto a ledge that can’t be climbed and a bottomless pit.

    Please tell us you have more than your opinion?

  16. Steven Goldstein – “substitution” does not satisfy your argument… in fact it makes it moot. Because the text of the 2A is specific and absolute, and since Madison is the author of the 2A, you (and I) can’t presume to know his intent beyond what he states in Federalist 46.

    So bending the intent to suit your opinion (which you are entitled to) and inserting (substituting) language in an attempt to validate it isn’t a trap…. its a red herring. And since that is your modus operandi, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.

  17. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” — 2nd Amendment

    The 2nd Amendment, like others included in the Bill of Rights, identifies rights considered to be essential to protect free men from tyranny. The ability to form a militia, well regulated in defense of freedom, would evaporate were the right of the people to keep and bear arms infringed. In other words, a militia is recognized as the instrument required to keep men free, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is recognized as necessary for its assembly.

    As applied locally, were the government’s assault on the safety and security of its citizens (by intimidating them from defending themselves and their property from criminals) to reach a point considered intolerable, the citizens, already at risk of arrest for self-defense, might come to the realization that they can either defend themselves (and have the government incarcerate them), surrender their safety, or forcefully replace the government. The patriotic choice would obviously require a disciplined effort by a collection of citizens (a militia) to have any chance at success, and would also require each of those citizens to possess arms. This action would, of course, result in Sam Liccardo’s fleeing for the safety of his Saratoga homelands, where he would cower in fear and never be heard from again.

  18. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “The 2nd Amendment, like others included in the Bill of Rights, identifies rights considered to be essential to protect free men from tyranny. The ability to form a militia, well regulated in defense of freedom, would evaporate were the right of the people to keep and bear arms infringed. In other words, a militia is recognized as the instrument required to keep men free, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is recognized as necessary for its assembly.”

    The 2nd Amendment REQUIRES THE EXISTANCE OF A WELL EGULATED MILITIA, NOT THE ABILITY TO FORM ONE. SUCH INSANITY TO SAY “IF” THE MILITIA “WAS” WELL REGULATED. SOMETIMES SO MANY TRY TO BE CLEVER BUT LOOK FOOLISH. The rest was simply fear mongering, which was the EXCUSE for Jan 6. I can’t wait to see the House Commission subpoena and force testimony under oath of the fools that defended this action.

  19. STEVE LUCERO you wrote:

    “Steven Goldstein – “substitution” does not satisfy your argument… in fact it makes it moot. Because the text of the 2A is specific and absolute, and since Madison is the author of the 2A, you (and I) can’t presume to know his intent beyond what he states in Federalist 46.”

    THAT MEANS ONLY A WELL REGULATED MILTIA WILL BE ENTITLED TO BEAR ARMS. TRUE CONSERVATIVE JUDGES ONLY READ THE TEXT AND FOLLOW THE TEXT, AND THE 2ND AMENDMNET STATES:

    ““A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOK “READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS” BY ANTONIN SCALIA AND BRYAN GARNER. I HAVE COVER TO COVER AND IT PROVES YOU SO WRONG. ALL I AM DOING IS BEING A MESSENGER AND YOU JUST WANT TO KILL THE MESSENGER. I ALWAYS KNOW THAT IF YOU ARE MAKING THE JUST CASE IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER YOU ARE A PROGRESSIVE OR A CONSERVATIVE, YOU CAN USE BOTH TO SUPPORT OR PROVE YOUR POINT

    YOU JUST REVERSED THE CLAIM YOU MADE ABOVE. THAT INDICATES THAT YOUR ARGUMETN IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING. THIS IS A JOKE, RIGHT? THE FACTS ARE SOONER OR LATER THE COURTS WILL UNDERGO A MAJOR REVERSAL OF CASES BECAUSE A GOOD LAWYER IS GOING TO PROOVE INDIVIDUALS MUST BE REGULATED IN ORDER TO HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS.

  20. Kulak and his sociopath libertarian bots (NWS, Putanella, Cynthia, Assless, Butter Before and Lucero–what happened to MT Gunn, I wonder?) are again promiscuously displaying their White fragile, hair-trigger proclivities. Don’t they know that almost every dimension of the American system of government required concessions to enable slave-holders and the slave system? The Second Amendment, in particular, was never seen by Madison or any founding father as being about freedom or liberty. Originally it was all about Madison assuaging anti-Federalist holdouts among states dominated by slaveholders.

    The Amendment insured the existence of state-level and state-controlled militias (i.e. slave patrols), rather than exclusively federal militias. Possessing guns was tied explicitly to being part of White only group–a patrol–whose existence was to prevent the escape of slaves to non-slave states and to suppress any possible rebellions among slaves. The fear among slaveholders was that a federal militia, because of the influence of non-slave state officials, would not be a reliable force to robustly and consistently suppress slave uprisings (see https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment).

    Anti-Black racism produced by White fear of slave revolts and Black retribution were and are at the very core of U.S. gun laws Prior to 1967 California was an open carry state, like Texas is today–people could legally carry loaded weapons on their person in the open. The Black Panther Party in Oakland strongly supported and used that law to their advantage in the 1960s. To deter wanton police violence against Black residents of Oakland, the Panthers created armed patrols–their very own “well-regulated militias”–who would openly carrying loaded guns near–but at a legal distance–from police stops of local residents. The aim was to “police the police” in order to eliminate excessive violence for which the Oakland police were well known.

    The terror instilled in the minds and hearts of White conservative Republicans and White liberal Democrats all throughout the state resulted in the state legislature overwhelmingly passing, and Governor Ronald Reagan immediately signing, the Mulford Act of 1967. With the firm support of the National Rifle Association, the Act outlawed open carry in the state of California, a law that is with us to this very day. The main point of the law was specifically to disarm the Black Panthers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act). Can any of the conceal carry libertarians claim this was a “color blind” public safety decision?

    What do you think accounts for the surge in gun sales in California–and nationally–in 2020? (https://laist.com/news/criminal-justice/california-sees-record-increase-in-gun-sales-in-2020) Is there any doubt that the surge in anti-racist protests around the country–mobilizations of unprecedented magnitude and duration involving Black Americans–stimulated a lot of nervous White people (and perhaps others) to buy more guns?

    So let’s dispense with the glorification of constitutional laws and regulations whose original intent was to enable and protect the slave system and slaveholders (think Electoral College) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-the-electoral-college-is-tied-to-slavery-and-the-three-fifths-compromise/ar-AAJDauP. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution).

  21. “The Amendment insured the existence of state-level and state-controlled militias (i.e. slave patrols), rather than exclusively federal militias… Possessing guns was tied explicitly to being part of White only group…” Facendo Guano

    The amendment insures? No, the amendment recognizes, acknowledges, and documents rights seen as to essential to liberty. Early Americans, including some blacks, owned guns, just as they owned axes, plows, and cook pots. But only their right to own firearms was recognized as subject to malicious control (which explains why the ownership of axes, plows, and cook pots went unaddressed). And this recognition was based on the hegemonic nature of man, which is now very much on display in D.C., Sacramento, and here in city hall.

  22. Phu Tan Elli, you wrote:

    “The Amendment insured the existence of state-level and state-controlled militias (i.e. slave patrols), rather than exclusively federal militias… Possessing guns was tied explicitly to being part of White only group…” Facendo Guano

    STATE LEVEL AND CONTROLLED MILITIAS!!! You just proved my claim regarding the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT APPLY to INDIVIDUALS. Thank you

    “The amendment insures? No, the amendment recognizes, acknowledges, and documents rights seen as to essential to liberty. Early Americans, including some blacks, owned guns, just as they owned axes, plows, and cook pots. But only their right to own firearms was recognized as subject to malicious control (which explains why the ownership of axes, plows, and cook pots went unaddressed). And this recognition was based on the hegemonic nature of man, which is now very much on display in D.C., Sacramento, and here in city hall.”

    YES IT IS TRUE THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS NOT WHAT SO MANY CLAIMS IT IS. THE 2ND AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST CLAUSE CREATES THE REQUIREMENT OF REGULATION, TOO MANY SIMPLY IGNORED IT IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER PARTS. BUT AS ANTONIN SCALIA STATES IN HIS BOOK NO SINGLE PART OF A LAW CAN BE RECOGNIZED WITHOUT ALL PARTS OF THE LAW TO BE SATISFIED. I THINK THAT GIVEN HIS RECORD EVEN HE WOULD NOT DISSENT ON AN ORDER ESTABLSIHING THAT AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT IN A MILITIA YOU DO NOT HAVE THE UNREGULATED RIGHTS TO A FIREARM.

  23. SCOTUS ruling: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 U.S. (1943)

    Conclusion: No state or public entity may impose a tax or a fee for any Right afforded by the Constitution.

  24. Steve,

    That SCOTUS CASE IS NOT ON POINT BECAUSE IT WAS A CASE OF THE FIRT AMENDMENT.

    It was saying that a news writer required a license to publish or write thus eliminating the “FREE PRESS”.

    You are taking a case VERY DISTINGUISHED from the 2nd Amednemtn out of context. Please read:

    “The Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), invalidated a city ordinance that required solicitors to obtain a license, finding that it infringed on the First Amendment rights of free press, free speech, and free exercise of religion.”

    Since the language of the 2nd Amendment requires a “WELL REGULATED MILTITA” its is not “FREE”, thus your crazy use of that case would fail miserably in any court.

    But nice try

  25. If you are going to tax gun owners and require them to purchase insurance because of the financial impact that guns create for society, how about we do the same for people who smoke or vape?
    Let’s make all smokers pay a fee to register (must show registration to buy tobacco products) as “smokers” and purchase additional insurance to cover the cost of all the inevitable cancers caused by smoking — why should we pay for their risky behavior? While we are at it, obesity is one of the other major cost generators in health care. So, let’s do the same for fat people. Oh, and what about white people? White people trigger anxiety which increases health care cost and leads to early death among non-whites. So, white folks should get registered and insured as well.
    Wow, a fat, white, smoking gun (no pun intended) owner is going to have a seriously high insurance bill.
    Gun insurance is a silly idea passed by silly, preening, political wankers.

  26. HB lets give you some free education you wrote:

    “If you are going to tax gun owners and require them to purchase insurance because of the financial impact that guns create for society, how about we do the same for people who smoke or vape?”

    Actually we have SPECIAL TAXES on Alcohol and Tobacco, and I believe they have been extended to vaping. So you just fell into the wrong logic from that statement. You went on to say:

    “While we are at it, obesity is one of the other major cost generators in health care. So, let’s do the same for fat people.”

    MAYBE if a FAT person fell on another one, they become a public risk of safety or a weapon. BUT this comparison simply demonstrates how desperate you are in trying to avoid what is clearly in front of you. THe cost of a weapon being used either accidentally or purposefully is a completely different case and you know it. You wrote:

    “Oh, and what about white people? White people trigger anxiety which increases health care cost and leads to early death among non-whites. So, white folks should get registered and insured as well.”

    Now this really demonstrates the paranoid schizophrenia of the so called “CULTURAL WARS” that Pat Buchanan promoted and is in reality today. And YES IF A PARTICUALR WHITE PERSON OR GROUP ARE IDENTIFIED AS A CAUSE OF VIOLENCE AND INJURY THEY GET BROUGHT TO COURT AND FORCED TO PAY THE COST OF THAT DAMAGE. It may not be officially a TAX, but is is quite the same impact.

    This just demonstrates the failure of finding any RATIONAL argument against this kind of long term cost mitigation because of a WEAPON.

  27. At the risk of the idiotic Mr. Goldstein again conflating my comments with the quoted comments of others, I will point out that the Madison & Hamilton (Federalist) argument against the need for an amendment such as the 2nd was based, in large part, on their observation that the people already enjoyed “the advantage of being armed,” and their belief that any assault on liberty by federal forces would be opposed by almost a half-million armed citizens. Colonial Americans were already lawful owners of firearms (in at least six colonies this right was documented, in others, taken for granted as an established right). Had it been the intention of convention members to disarm individuals they certainly would’ve put it to paper.

    The clunky language of the amendment was the result of design by committee, during which was considered the inclusion of a religious exception to militia service, the use of the modifier “select” on the word militia, and granting states the right to arm and train militias. All were ultimately rejected.

    Lastly, in no way does the 2nd Amendment require states to form militias. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not state obligations.

  28. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “At the risk of the idiotic Mr. Goldstein again conflating my comments with the quoted comments of others, I will point out that the Madison & Hamilton (Federalist) argument against the need for an amendment such as the 2nd was based, in large part, on their observation that the people already enjoyed “the advantage of being armed,” and their belief that any assault on liberty by federal forces would be opposed by almost a half-million armed citizens. Colonial Americans were already lawful owners of firearms (in at least six colonies this right was documented, in others, taken for granted as an established right). Had it been the intention of convention members to disarm individuals they certainly would’ve put it to paper.”

    That is simply just making up stories in fact thought the did PUT IT ON PAPER because the TEXT of the 2nd Amendment is again:

    “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Just understand the TEXTUALISTS of the CONSERVAIVE COURT like SCALIA is not to interpret what is NOT IN THE TEXT. But employ ONLY what is in the TEXT of either the Constitution of the laws. You just keep on trying to revise what is on PAPER You said:

    “The clunky language of the amendment was the result of design by committee, during which was considered the inclusion of a religious exception to militia service, the use of the modifier “select” on the word militia, and granting states the right to arm and train militias. All were ultimately rejected.”

    REALLY< THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS< YOU ARE REWRITING THE OCNSTITUTION FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT BUT YOU CANNOT DO THAT, YOU ARE NOT IN AUTHIRITY TO DO THAT IN ANY WAY you wrote:

    “Lastly, in no way does the 2nd Amendment require states to form militias. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not state obligations.”

    YES AND THOSE RIGHTS ARE ONLY WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT WHICH DOES IN FACT NOT DECELARE AN INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO A FIREARE UNLESS WELL REGULATED.

    Nice try again, but your attempts to distract me with personal insults is not working. Time for you to go back to school I think, especially law school. At least I have training regarding the law from a REAL ATTORNEY.

  29. This is an unconstitutional waste of time. If it were this easy to ban firearms it would have been done before. What’s to stop the idiots from raising the monthly fees for owning a firearm to $10,000 per month? Answer: The second amendment.

    That said, Sam and the other crazies got their moment of fame. Remember how many times Quack Cody was slapped in the face by the Supreme Court recently? The City Council seems to want to be slapped how.

  30. JOE SMITH you wrote:

    “This is an unconstitutional waste of time. If it were this easy to ban firearms it would have been done before.”

    THIS IS NOT A BAN ON FIREARMS, WRONG TOPIC!!! YOU WROTE:

    “What’s to stop the idiots from raising the monthly fees for owning a firearm to $10,000 per month? Answer: The second amendment.”

    As I already demonstrated, the 2ND Amendment is not what people think, and sooner or later the courts are going to have to recognize this:

    “At least 10 federal appeals courts apply what federal appellate Judge Stephen Higginson describes as a “two-step analytic framework.” Under this framework, “SEVERE BURDENS ON CORE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS” are subject to “STRICT SCRUTINY,” the most skeptical level of review in most constitutional cases. Meanwhile, “LESS ONEROUS LAWS, OR LAWS THAT GOVERN CONDUCT OUTSIDE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S ‘CORE,’” ARE SUBJECT TO A MORE PERMISSIVE TEST KNOWN AS “INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY.”

    For your information INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY works like this:

    Intermediate scrutiny is a test courts will use to determine a statute’s constitutionality. Intermediate scrutiny is only invoked when a state or the federal government passes a statute which negatively affects certain protected classes (this is described in further detail in the next section). To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must:

    FURTHER AN IMPORTANT GOVERNMENT INTEREST

    AND MUST DO SO BY MEANS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THAT INTEREST.

    As the name implies, intermediate scrutiny is less rigorous than strict scrutiny, but more rigorous than the rational basis test. Intermediate scrutiny is used in equal protection challenges to gender classifications, as well as in some First Amendment cases.

    Further courts will sometimes refer to intermediate scrutiny by other names, such as “heightened scrutiny,” or as “rational basis with bite.” When referred to by these names, courts will typically use the same two prongs used for intermediate scrutiny.”

    IN EFFECT SINCE INSURANCE IS NOT A SERIOUS RESTRICTION AS LONG AS IT IS COMENSERATE TO THE COST, THE COURTS WILL NOT DETERMINE THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE LAWS WILL W FURTHER AN IMPORTANT GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND MUST DO SO BY MEANS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THAT INTEREST. ALL YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS HAVE DONE IS JUST TRY TO MISINFORM THE PEOPLE HERE. You wrote:

    “That said, Sam and the other crazies got their moment of fame. Remember how many times Quack Cody was slapped in the face by the Supreme Court recently? The City Council seems to want to be slapped how.”

    The Supreme Court regarding the Church cases did not give the kind of victory you claimed, it only allowed for churches to operate at 20% capacity indoors. AGAIN, YOU LOVE TO MISINFORM THE READERS HERE DON’T YOU? And the Gun Insurance case will be VERY different than the Church case, you cannot equate an apple to an orange like this.

  31. One has to wonder what kind of noise all those loose marbles and CRAZED CAPITALS in Steven Goldstein’s head will make when the courts shut down Sam’s desperate grab for national glory?

  32. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “One has to wonder what kind of noise all those loose marbles and CRAZED CAPITALS in Steven Goldstein’s head will make when the courts shut down Sam’s desperate grab for national glory?”

    First observation, what case on point do you or your friends have to establish that Gun Insurance is Unconstitutional. ON POINT means it has to say CLEARLY that Gun Insurance is Unconstitutional. I would wager the City of San Jose paid lawyers and spent plenty of time to make sure their idea would not violate the 2nd Amendment.

    Second observation, who are YOU to even suggest you have any expertise or authority in the matter, you are using a racial slur fake name and posting anonymously. Since when should anyone give any validity to an anonymous poster with no credentials or authenticity?

    Third observation, constantly name calling people and trying to make totally unrelated allegations not RELATED to the topic is not a valid debate strategy, if you were competing in a debate moderated with educated and disciplined people they would disqualify your actions, and so would any court. So much distraction from addressing what is easily demonstrated as real and established processes.

    Fourth, the crazy idea that by just saying “when the courts shut down Sam’s desperate grab for national glory” was really out there. Remember the City Legal Staff AND the ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL voted for the Gun Insurance. You all by just picking on one person instead of understanding the long and probably WELL RESEARCHED policy will not be ruled unconstitutional, so long as Scalia’s Law Analysis is implemented by “CONSERVATIVE” judges in this case. No, you’re just trying to scare people, where you are not expert, you are not real, and you do not even demonstrate any knowledge about what you are arguing?

  33. Oh Steve….

    Unlike a automobiles, gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution. That’s why impediments to gun ownership may be unconstitutional where impediments to automobile ownership is not.

  34. Oh Steve,

    Supreme Court decisions have defined what the 2nd Amendment text means. Your throwing away applicable Supreme Court decisions and using your own opinions of what the text of the 2nd Amendment ignores the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of Government.

    The word fanciful comes to mind.

  35. Oh Steve….

    A militia is an organization. To see if organizations have standing to bring suit against infringements upon its members, the Court looks to see if the organization’s members would have standing. If the answer is “yes” then the organization has standing. Vice-versa is true….that members can bring suit on behalf of the organization that they are members of. A militia is not an arm of State Government.

    I must say that you are amazing in your ability to selectively define and articulate the most profound of manufactured premises and then proceed logically to logical but invalid conclusions.

  36. TRY LOGIC you wrote:

    “Unlike a automobiles, gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution. That’s why impediments to gun ownership may be unconstitutional where impediments to automobile ownership is not.”

    BUT SO FAR THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED REGULATIONS ON FIREARMS, AND THUS THIS IS JUST A REGUGLATION. Again PLEASE find a case where INSURANCE was defined as a violation of the 2ND AMENDMENT. You have not even posted any argument to substantiate that the INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY standard would determine that INSURANCE is UNOCSTITUTIONAL. You also wrote:

    “Supreme Court decisions have defined what the 2nd Amendment text means. Your throwing away applicable Supreme Court decisions and using your own opinions of what the text of the 2nd Amendment ignores the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of Government.”

    Please read this from the Cornell Law School web page found here (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-15-16/the-militia-clauses)

    “Regulation of the Militia

    THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE MILITIA “BEING UNLIMITED, EXCEPT IN THE TWO PARTICULARS OF OFFICERING AND TRAINING THEM . . . IT MAY BE EXERCISED TO ANY EXTENT THAT MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY CONGRESS. . . . THE POWER OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE ON THE SAME SUBJECTS, HAVING EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND NOT HAVING BEEN PROHIBITED BY THAT INSTRUMENT, IT REMAINS WITH THE STATES, SUBORDINATE NEVERTHELESS TO THE PARAMOUNT LAW OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. . . .”[1789]

    [1798] Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).

    UNDER THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT OF 1916, [1790]

    [1790] 39 Stat. 166, 197, 198, 200, 202, 211 (1916), codified in sections of Titles 10 & 32. See Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution, 54 HARV. L. REV. 181 (1940). back

    THE MILITIA, WHICH HAD BEEN AN ALMOST PURELY STATE INSTITUTION, WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THE TERM “MILITIA OF THE UNITED STATES” WAS DEFINED TO COMPREHEND “ALL ABLE-BODIED MALE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALL OTHER ABLE-BODIED MALES WHO HAVE . . . DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO BECOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,” BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN AND FORTY-FIVE. THE ACT REORGANIZED THE NATIONAL GUARD, DETERMINED ITS SIZE IN PROPORTION TO THE POPULATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, REQUIRED THAT ALL ENLISTMENTS BE FOR “THREE YEARS IN SERVICE AND THREE YEARS IN RESERVE,” LIMITED THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THOSE WHO “SHALL HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED SUCH TESTS AS TO . . . PHYSICAL, MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL FITNESS AS THE PRESIDENT SHALL PRESCRIBE,” AND AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT IN CERTAIN EMERGENCIES TO “DRAFT INTO THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO SERVE THEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF THE WAR UNLESS SOONER DISCHARGED, ANY OR ALL MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND NATIONAL GUARD RESERVE,” WHO THEREUPON SHOULD “STAND DISCHARGED FROM THE MILITIA.”[1791]

    [1791] Military and civilian personnel of the National Guard are state, rather than federal, employees and the Federal Government is thus not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for their negligence. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965).

    THE MILITIA CLAUSES DO NOT CONSTRAIN CONGRESS IN RAISING AND SUPPORTING A NATIONAL ARMY. THE COURT HAS APPROVED THE SYSTEM OF “DUAL ENLISTMENT,” UNDER WHICH PERSONS ENLISTED IN STATE MILITIA (NATIONAL GUARD) UNITS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENLIST IN THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES, AND, WHEN CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE, ARE RELIEVED OF THEIR STATUS IN THE STATE MILITIA. CONSEQUENTLY, THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE FIRST MILITIA CLAUSE HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FEDERALIZED NATIONAL GUARD; THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT STATE GOVERNORS HOLD A VETO POWER OVER FEDERAL DUTY TRAINING CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OR THAT A NATIONAL EMERGENCY BE DECLARED BEFORE SUCH TRAINING MAY TAKE PLACE.[1792]

    [1792] Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 434 (1990).

    Sow when you wrote “The word fanciful comes to mind.” You just made unsubstantiated assumptions regarding my understanding, Of course like others once presented with information that DIRECTLY contradicts you arguments you will resort to personal name calling. So when you wrote:

    “A militia is an organization. To see if organizations have standing to bring suit against infringements upon its members, the Court looks to see if the organization’s members would have standing. If the answer is “yes” then the organization has standing. Vice-versa is true….that members can bring suit on behalf of the organization that they are members of. A militia is not an arm of State Government.”

    In fact MILITIA’S are REGULATED by both the CONGRESS and the STATES. You cannot “CREATE” a PRIVATE militia, that is a GANG or an ILLEGAL ORGANIZATION. So, when you also said:

    “I must say that you are amazing in your ability to selectively define and articulate the most profound of manufactured premises and then proceed logically to logical but invalid conclusions.”

    Actually I used CONCLUSIONS ALREADY DEFINED BY LAW AND BY THOSE WITH EXPERTISE. It is people like yourself that ASSUME that your point of view is one of any authority. AGAIN you are not a REAL person, you have no CREDENTIALS or AUTHENTICITY other than your own. The Readers here are getting a free education because you forced “FACT CHECKING”

  37. I just saw a documentary about Jim Jones of Jonestown, and i just have the strongest understanding that Donald Trump is Jim Jones. That his followers will never accept anything other than the messege of Donald Trump over all reality. And I think when there is a complete investigation of Jan 6, a major crime against all of the U.S. by a GANG, the conflict will continue. I just think Donald Trump could have been used to destroy the U.S. and create a new Civil War.

  38. Goldstein: I don’t know what law school you went to, but me? Santa Clara University School of Law.

    Try this in for private militias and then figure out how to do actual legal research…..

    And this was just from the case at hand.

    “The concept of the citizens’ militia, as protected by the Second Amendment, is an
    informal assembly of able-bodied, ordinary citizens acting in concert for the security of
    our nation. Heller, 554 U.S., at 600 (“citizens’ militia” is a safeguard against tyranny).
    “[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the
    common defense.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 595. There are at least two reasons why the
    militia is thought to be necessary to the security of a free country. First, it is useful in
    repelling invasions. Second, “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms
    and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 597–98. For
    service in the citizens’ militia, one is expected to bring for action a commonly used
    firearm such as a gun used for self-defense at home or for hunting game. “Ordinarily
    when called for militia service able-bodied men were expected to appear bearing arms
    supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Miller, 307 U.S., at
    179. “[W]eapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home
    were one and the same.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 624–25 (citation omitted).
    In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that AR-15 platform rifles are
    ideal for use in both the citizens’ militia and a state-organized militia”
    Before the Court there is convincing and unrebutted testimony that the versatile
    AR-15 type of modern rifle is the perfect firearm for a citizen to bring for militia service.
    A law that bans the AR-15 type rifle from militia readiness is not a reasonable fit for
    protecting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the militia. It has been
    argued that citizens with nothing more than modern rifles will have no chance against an
    army with tanks and missiles. But someone forgot to tell Fidel Castro who with an initial
    force of 20 to 80 men armed with M-1 carbines, walked into power in Havana in spite of
    Cuba’s militarized forces armed with tanks, planes and a navy. Someone forgot to tell
    Ho Chi Minh who said, “Those who have rifles will use their rifles. Those who have
    swords will use their swords. Those who have no swords will use their spades, hoes, and
    sticks,” and eventually defeated both the French and the United States military. Someone
    forgot to tell the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents. Citizen militias are not irrelevant.”

  39. TRY LOGIC you wrote:

    “I don’t know what law school you went to, but me? Santa Clara University School of Law.”

    OK THEN, WHO ARE YOU AND DO YOU HAVE PRIVILEGES TO PRACTICE LAW, IF YOU DON’T WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? You wrote:

    “Try this in for private militias and then figure out how to do actual legal research….. And this was just from the case at hand.”

    WHAT CASE AT HAND, WHAT IS THE CASE YOU ARE CITING? I THINK YOU ARE PRESENTING WHAT COULD BE AN ARGUMENT IN THE CURRENT CASE RESEARCH. THAT IS NOT A CASE PRECENDENT YET. YOU WROTE:

    ““The concept of the citizens’ militia, as protected by the Second Amendment, is an informal assembly of able-bodied, ordinary citizens acting in concert for the security of our nation. Heller, 554 U.S., at 600 (“citizens’ militia” is a safeguard against tyranny). “[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 595…..”

    HELLER MADE A DECISION THAT IF A REGULATION THAT ”MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR CITIZENS TO USE [THEIR FIREARMS] FOR THE CORE LAWFUL PURPOSE OF SELF DEFENSE” IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL NICE TRY YOU MISQUOTED THE CASE AND FURTHER YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT INSURANCE “MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE” SO AGAIN YOU HAVE ONLY THE INTERMIDIATE SCRUTINY TO FALL ON.

    THE CASE YOU CITED ACTUALLY SAYS THIS:

    “District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by MAKING IT A CRIME TO CARRY AN UNREGISTERED FIREARM AND PROHIBITING THE REGISTRATION OF HANDGUNS; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1–year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. RESPONDENT HELLER, A D.C. SPECIAL POLICEMAN, APPLIED TO REGISTER A HANDGUN HE WISHED TO KEEP AT HOME, BUT THE DISTRICT REFUSED. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.”( https://casetext.com/case/dist-of-columbia-v-heller-3)

    BOY YOU REALLY CANNOT EVENT BRING UP A CASE ON POINT, GUN INSURANCE DOES NOT MAKE IT A CRIME TO HAVE A GUN OR EVEN PROHIBITING THE REGISTRATION OF THE GUNS. IT ALSO DOES NOT REQURE WEAPONS TO BE NON-FUNCTIONAL IN ANY WAY. IN FACT IT MAY ONLY HOLD ONE CIVILY LIABLE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE AND OF COURSE MAYBE PROMOTING THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIREARM FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES ONLY. UNLESS THERE IS A SITUATION WHERE IT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. I AM GETTING RATHER ANNOYED THAT SO MANY KEEP ON TRYING TO FALSELY EXHIBIT INFORMATION. YOU MAY HAVE TAKEN A CLASS AT SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY, BUT YOU ALSO DO NOT DEMONSTRATE PROPER CASE RESEARCH BECAUSE YOU DO NOT VERIFY IT IS A CASE ON POINT AT ALL. THIS IS ALMOST COMEDY.

    Maybe it is just that you bring up what you can find, but do not even bother to include the “CONTEXT” or the “LEGAL MATTER IN QUESTION” on PURPOSE in order to DECIEVE the readers. All I can say is you are still stuck with the INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY legal criteria for the CONSTITUTIONAILITY of the proposed laws. And so far, no CASE ON POINT regarding this approach. This is really just nothing.

  40. Try Logic,

    Perhaps you should have taken a course from San Jose State University (https://www.sjsu.edu/people/stan.malos/courses/bus157/firact.html) because it trained me to perform what the abbreviation I use called FIRACT, it is an acronym for “(Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Take-home message). It was part of my Legal Analysis and Regulations for Human Resource Management, it was taught by a practicing attorney. Before you present any legal research, you should be performing the following process:

    “Facts (what are the facts relevant to deciding the case?)”

    In this case you need to properly define the FACTS that will be required for a courts interpretation of the situation you are dealing with. You cannot just throw up any IRRELEVANT FACTS to a court, those IRRELEVANT FACTS be rejected by the Judge and the people reading should to. You know this. Next:

    “Issue (what is the precise legal issue that must be resolved in the case?)”

    Again if you are going to argue any ISSUE in public you better make sure your research is actually addressing the ISSUE relevant to the situation you are trying to address. Otherwise, those ISSUES will also be disregarded by the courts, and the people should too. Next:

    “Rule of Law (what is the applicable legal principle explained by the court)? What does it require or prohibit?”

    Again in this case you have to insure that the RULE OF LAW you are proposing actually was addressing the situation you are dealing with. In this case WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE OR PROHIBIT? Your writing does not even use cases involving the current topic. So in the end the judge and the people here should reject it. Next:

    “Analysis (here, you apply the relevant Facts to the applicable Rule of Law)”

    Your persist ant attempts to use case information out of context is a major problem for you. You are not performing any relevant ANALYSIS to provide any relevance regarding this topic and in fact seems to be no analysis at all. Just throwing the irrelevant information out hoping people will be convinced by your posting. You know what they say, either DAZZLE THEM WITH YOUR BRILLIANCE or BAFFLE THEM WITH [email protected] Next:

    “Conclusion (based on your Analysis above, does the employer or employee prevail? Why?)”

    In this case did you even provide any basis for the previous case of Heller to apply to this situation, and what logical basis can you support it? You didn’t, instead you just take at face value quotes in the case out of context and not the actuall case decision. In the end it makes all of your supporting argument useless. FinallY:

    “Take-home message (what should we learn from this case that is applicable to future management conduct?)”

    In this case you didn’t even demonstrate ANY legal understanding of the Heller case, and thus you had no valid take home message at all. In fact you did not one step in the FIRACT process, and from what my Professor stated, ALL LAWYERS OR PARALEGALS MUST DO THIS IN THEIR WORK, OR THEIR WORK IS TOO VULNERABLE TO COUNTER ARGUMENTS OR COUNTER CLAIMS.

    I would be scared if you were my attorney,

  41. Facendo Guaio:

    I really must thank you for your link to the NPR piece on the ‘slave patrol’ hypotheses by Dr. Carol Anderson. Her work is an expansion of the 1998 ‘Hidden history of the 2nd Amendment’, by Carl Bogus. Bogus also gave us 2004’s ‘The 2nd Amendment in law and history’(Edited by Michael Bellesiles). Bellisiles is important to this because of his groundbreaking work ‘Arming America: The origins of a national gun culture’.
    Bellisiles was celebrated and given the Bancroft prize for excellence in research and became the darling of the gun control movement.

    Only thing was, he literally made data up and was caught by his inclusion of ownership records he reported for San Francisco County in the 19th century. As every California native knows, the great earthquake and fire of 1906 completely destroyed city hall and all the records. When asked to provide his notes and records of his research, a mysterious flood in a janitors closet above his office destroyed that portion of his research.

    Bellisiles was stripped of his prize and ending up resigning his college teaching position.
    His close friend and editor, Carl Bogus work builds a circumstantial case for the 2nd Amendment being to provide for slave patrols.
    His title is rather funny in that, not once does any of those who argued for and against the second amendment’s inclusion of the Bill Of Rights, mention the issue of slave patrols. I guess his ‘hidden history’ is VERY hidden. Oh, and Mr. Bogus is a former board member of Handgun Control, International(now known as The Brady Campaign).

    Now, back to our brave Dr. Carol Anderson.

    She’s also given us the brilliant ‘White rage: The unspoken truth of our racial divide,’ and ‘One person, no vote: how voter suppression is destroying our democracy’. She penned the latter with career Chicago Democrat Dick Durban. Agenda much?

    How a black studies professor is such an expert on crime and guns, voting rights, and white psychology (or any psychology for that matter)is a bit of a mystery to me. She’s nothing more than a race baiting hustler, but she feeds the progressive need for evidence to be gobbled up by the feeble minded and then regurgitated on command.

    Anyway, I thank you for providing that bit of entertainment. It really is quite amusing.

  42. Willian Ashbless,

    Was anything you woret related to the topic here? Was it in any way saying that Gun Insurance is a bad policy?

    Here is some more information I found regarding the cost of it and that it appears that the so called gun rights proponents are way wrong in their criticism of this idea:

    “It’s going to get tossed out in Federal Court because 1. It isn’t clear that insurance will be available”

    The idea would not have been deployed if there wasn’t insurance available, you really are not making a good case here in fact it does exist here is one resource (https://locktonaffinityoutdoor.com/lawful-defense/?keyword=gun%20insurance&segmentcode=hfa03610&gclid=CjwKCAjwuIWHBhBDEiwACXQYsbAfyeqKnJ8Wdx2ld5AhDvfuzgv6Mx9STOxWqYU9Ct4b-0r_Tu3HQRoCy8IQAvD_BwE) You wrote:

    “3. Even if insurance was available then some won’t be able to afford it. Even poor people have rights.”

    The page I reported above indicates that the insurance is only $75 a year for coverage up to $250,000 on a Claim and a $50,000 Defense limitation, and as much as $265 per year for $1.5 M claim and a $250,000 Defense limit. It simply depends on if you are willing to spend only $75 a year but end up with a possible under insured situation from $250,000 or spend the additional $190 a year for good coverage. In any event that is about 18 out of 2000 hours of work at minimum wage. Maybe there will be some assistance for those with low or very low incomes? In any event your argument is a joke.

    I just find it funny that just when someone finally proves your friends wrong, you try to change the subject?

  43. Goldstein:

    It was directed at someone other than you and addressed the absurd notion that the second amendment was created to maintain slave patrols and therefore, racist by design and implementation.
    If you had actually followed his link you would have understood this.

    You have proven, again and again, you are incapable of rational thought or discourse.

    Seriously, get treatment for whatever condition you are suffering.

  44. William Ashbless you wrote:

    “It was directed at someone other than you and addressed the absurd notion that the second amendment was created to maintain slave patrols and therefore, racist by design and implementation.
    If you had actually followed his link you would have understood this.

    You have proven, again and again, you are incapable of rational thought or discourse.

    Seriously, get treatment for whatever condition you are suffering.”

    Typical reaction by a classic narcissist. When presented with evidence that proves you incorrect, you use the following language, which in itself is NOT Rational Thought or Recourse:

    Now, back to our brave Dr. Carol Anderson.

    She’s also given us the brilliant ‘White rage: The unspoken truth of our racial divide,’ and ‘One person, no vote: how voter suppression is destroying our democracy’. She penned the latter with career Chicago Democrat Dick Durban. Agenda much?

    How a black studies professor is such an expert on crime and guns, voting rights, and white psychology (or any psychology for that matter)is a bit of a mystery to me. She’s nothing more than a race baiting hustler, but she feeds the progressive need for evidence to be gobbled up by the feeble minded and then regurgitated on command.”

    Instead of presenting a RATIONAL THOUGHT OR DISCORSE, this was nothing but a rant with NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS. You went on to say:

    “Anyway, I thank you for providing that bit of entertainment. It really is quite amusing.

    It’s easy enough to check, cupcake.

    Maybe if you went to the PIRE website and clicked on their ‘study’ you would find out for yourself.

    You are in serious need of your medication.”

    Again, this is not a DEMONSTRATION of RATIONAL THOUGHT OR DISCOURSE, it was nothing but a RANT and did not even present any EVIDENCE to support your statements. I really hope the readers here are seeing the pattern, You wrote:

    “This is a blatant overstep of constrictions placed upon Dear Leader( I mean Sam the Benevolent) by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    I went to the story’s link for PIRE and found it linked directly to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    You would think that there be an obligation to disclose that this study was bought and paid for by someone with an agenda.

    A little message for Dear Leader:

    I will not comply. Your move.”

    Again you made an ergument based with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support your comment, The readers here deserve better, Peole should treat these discussions like testifying in front of a City, County, State legislature, or Congress, and not be a personal attack forum. You wrote:

    “It was directed at someone other than you and addressed the absurd notion that the second amendment was created to maintain slave patrols and therefore, racist by design and implementation.

    If you had actually followed his link you would have understood this.

    You have proven, again and again, you are incapable of rational thought or discourse.

    Seriously, get treatment for whatever condition you are suffering.”

    All I am doing is trying to avoid people making unsubstantiated claims, correcting for errors of fact presented here, and in the end trying to maintain the topic. Perhaps what you are not used to is someone setting the boundaries on you regarding your conduct. Especially when you clearly believe you have the right to dictate how others must think or believe with no RATIONAL basis to support it yourself? Please present so EVIDENCE otherwise your just a “loud mouth” that wants to manipulate the readers

  45. “Please present so EVIDENCE otherwise your just a “loudmouth” that wants to manipulate the readers”

    Irony alert!

    I’m done with your incoherent rantings.

  46. William Ashbless,

    Still NO EVIDENCE? you may be done with me, the the readers cleary have what is neccessary to PROPERLY consider your position. Oh wait!!! The readers have NOTHING neccessary to PROPERLY consider your posuition.

    You do not controll the forum or the readers, you just have dominion on yourself.

  47. The requirement for insurance is unconstitutional because it converts a right to a privilege.

    And even if it weren’t it wouldn’t have any impact on gun crime. Hard to believe the person who posted that link has passed a bar exam. Can he even read? Insurance doesn’t cover intentional criminal action. That’s why the title of the page at the link is LAWFUL PERSONAL DEFENSE INSURANCE.

  48. SEBASTIAN you wrote:

    “The requirement for insurance is unconstitutional because it converts a right to a privilege.”

    “You should read the book titled “READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS” written by Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, it will tell you that any Constitution with any provisions separated by commas, requires ALL CLAUSES TO BE SATISFIED. You cannot pick and choose the one part and have it override the others:

    “12. Conjunctive/Disjunctive Canon

    And joins a conjunctive list, or a disjunctive list—but with negatives, plurals, and various specific wordings there are nuances.

    The conjunctions AND and OR are two of the elemental words in the English language. Under the conjunctive/disjunctive canon, AND COMBINES ITEMS WHILE OR CREATES ALTERNATIVES. Competent users of the language rarely hesitate over their meaning. But a close look at the authoritative language of legal instruments—as well as the litigation that has arisen over them—shows that these little words can cause subtle interpretive problems. Although these conjunctions can appear in countless constructions, we have identified six types of sentences in which they most frequently appear in legal instruments.

    #1: The Basic Requirement

    WITH THE CONJUNCTIVE LIST, ALL THREE THINGS ARE REQUIRED—WHILE WITH THE DISJUNCTIVE LIST, AT LEAST ONE OF THE THREE IS REQUIRED, BUT ANY ONE (OR MORE) OF THE THREE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT. HENCE IN THE WELL-KNOWN CONSTITUTIONAL PHRASE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS,1 THE AND SIGNALS THAT CRUELTY OR UNUSUALNESS ALONE DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF THE CLAUSE: THE PUNISHMENT MUST MEET BOTH STANDARDS TO FALL WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION.2 THE SAME POINT HOLDS TRUE FOR THE PHRASE NECESSARY AND PROPER3 IN ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION.

    A common interpretive issue involves the conjunction and, which (if there are two elements in the construction) entails an express or implied both before the first element. Here it is implied: “Service shall be made upon the District of Columbia by delivering . . . or mailing . . . a copy of the summons, complaint and initial order to [both] the Mayor of the District of Columbia (or designee) and the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia (or designee).”4 A plaintiff sued the District for injuries suffered when a fire truck struck her car, but her complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the rule just quoted because she had not served the mayor.5 She contended that the purpose of the statute was substantially satisfied by service on the corporation counsel; since that officer was a statutory agent of the mayor, service on him or her was, in legal effect, service on the mayor. The D.C. Superior Court correctly held that what the rule says, it says (see § 2 [supremacy-of-text principle]), and the and means that service must be effected on both corporation counsel and the mayor.6

    Sometimes huge amounts of money can depend on these little words. In OfficeMax, Inc. v. United States,7 the federal tax code imposed certain taxes on “toll telephone service,” including “a telephonic quality communication for which . . . there is a toll charge which varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time of each individual communication.”8 In 1965, when Congress enacted the relevant provision, AT&T was the only telephone-service provider in the United States that offered long-distance calling, and it imposed a toll on long-distance calls based on variations in both the time and distance of the call. In the 1990s, other operators started charging long-distance rates based on time only, and AT&T adopted this approach in 1997. If the tax code required variation based on both time and distance, then no telephone-service consumers would be subject to the tax. THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THE TAX APPLIED WHENEVER TOLL CHARGES VARIED IN AMOUNT BASED ON EITHER TIME OR DISTANCE. OFFICEMAX ARGUED THAT THE TAX APPLIED ONLY WHEN TOLL CHARGES VARIED IN AMOUNT BASED ON BOTH TIME AND DISTANCE. RELYING IN PART ON DICTIONARIES AND USAGE GUIDES, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY HELD THAT AND IS CONJUNCTIVE AND THAT THE TOLL MUST THEREFORE VARY ON BOTH BASES.9

    When there is a multi-element construction with an and between the last two elements only, the rhetorical term for the construction is syndeton. Some drafters, perhaps through abundant caution, put a conjunction between all the enumerated items, as here:

    The seller shall provide:

    (a) a survey of the property; and

    (b) the surveyor’s sworn certificate that the survey is authentic and, to the best of the surveyor’s knowledge, accurate; and

    (c) a policy of title insurance showing the boundaries of the property; and

    (d) a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property.

    THIS TECHNIQUE IS CALLED POLYSYNDETON. IT IS A RHETORICAL TECHNIQUE MERELY; IT DOES NOT CONVEY A MEANING DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE IDENTICAL PHRASING MINUS THE ANDS AT THE END OF (A) AND (B). AND IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED BY LEGAL DRAFTERS LEST, OVER TIME, IT CAST DOUBT ON THE MEANING CONVEYED BY THE USE OF SYNDETON.

    Sometimes drafters will omit conjunctions altogether between the enumerated items, as here:

    The seller shall provide:

    (a) a survey of the property;

    (b) the surveyor’s sworn certificate that the survey is authentic and, to the best of the surveyor’s knowledge, accurate;

    (c) a policy of title insurance showing the boundaries of the property;

    (d) a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property.

    THIS TECHNIQUE IS TERMED ASYNDETON, AND IT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO CONVEY THE SAME MEANING AS THE SYNDETIC OR POLYSYNDETIC FORMULATION: IT IS AS THOUGH AND WERE INSERTED BETWEEN THE ITEMS. BUT BECAUSE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION COULD BE READ AS A DISJUNCTIVE FORMULATION, MOST DRAFTERS AVOID IT.”

    In effect if you are trying to say take the 2nd Amendment written this way”

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Scalias interpretation would read

    “A well regulated Militia, AND being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    IT WAS NOT WRITTEN LIKE THIS:

    “A well regulated Militia, OR being necessary to the security of a free State, OR the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    You would be correct under Scalia’s legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Please understand too many people assume the incorrect interpretation. This demonstrates your legal reasoning is WRONG.

    In effect the 2nd Amendment ALWAYS HAD REGULATIONS AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF HAVING A GUN.

    All states have laws determing that they are only allowed to exist for the purposes of having a lawfully recognized Militia:

    You seem to have an incomplete idea of the idea of a militia, you correctly indicated WHAT a MILITIA can be comprised of BUT NOT THE REGULATIONS THAT THE MILITIA MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH.

    HOWEVER, IF ANY MILITIA IS FOUND TO VIOLATE ANY STATE LAW REGULATING THE TERMS OF SERVICE OF A MILITIA, THEN THEY ARE A GANG AND NOT A LEGAL MILITIA You should read:

    “Many individual states have additional statutes describing their residents as part of the state militia; for example Washington law specifies all able-bodied citizens or intended citizens over the age of eighteen as members of the state militia, as explicitly distinct from the National Guard and Washington State Guard.[ Revised Code of Washington 38.04.030. Accessed via http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030%5D In states such as Texas, the state constitution classifies male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 to belong to the “Unorganized Reserve Militia”.[ http://constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm%5D The Texas constitution also grants the county sheriff and the governor of the state the authority to call upon the unorganized reserve militia to uphold the peace, repel invasion, and suppress rebellion, similar to the early “Texas Rangers”.

    Private militias & the modern citizen-militia movement

    Laws authorizing the state governments to officially make privately-organized militias part of the state’s official military force vary; Nevada, for example, allows the governor to “issue licenses to bodies of persons to organize, drill and bear arms as volunteer military companies or volunteer military organizations,”[ “Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 412, section 126”. State of Nevada. Retrieved February 22, 2021.] whereas South Carolina prohibits any group from being enlisted into its state guard. “South Carolina Code of Laws Title 25 – Military, Civil Defense and Veterans Affairs, Chapter 3 – South Carolina State Guard, Section 25-3-50. Civil organization, society or club enlisted as unit”. justia.com. State of South Carolina. Retrieved 25 February 2021. ] States with military histories that date back to the American revolution may officially recognize militias from that era that continue to exist and operate independently; Massachusetts law explicitly makes the National Lancers part of its organized militia and protects the right of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts to exist and operate as a private organization,[ General Laws, Part I, Title V, Chapter 33, Section 4A”. The 188th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State of Massachusetts. Retrieved 22 February 2021.][ “General Laws, Part I, Title V, Chapter 33, Section 132”. The 188th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State of Massachusetts. Retrieved 22 February 2021.] while Rhode Island recognizes a number of independent chartered militias as a separate part of its overall military force.[ “Rhode Island General Laws Title 30 – Military Affairs and Defense, Chapter 30-4 Independent Military Organizations”. Justia. 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2021.] [“Rhode Island General Laws Title 30 – Military Affairs and Defense Chapter 30-1 Militia Section 30-1-4 Classes of militia”. Justia. 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2021.] During World War II, Hawaii authorized several private paramilitary militias to operate, including the Businessmen’s Military Training Corps and the Hawaii Air Depot Volunteer Corps.[ Stentiford, Barry M. (2002). The American Home Guard: The State Militia in the Twentieth Century. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 147–150. ISBN 1585441813. Retrieved 13 July 2014.]

    Since approximately 1992, there have been a number of state- and regional-level private organizations in the United States that call themselves militia or unorganized militia, some of which have been tied to domestic terrorism and extremist views, which operate without any official sanctioning or licensing by their state governments.[ Mulloy, Darren. American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement, Routledge, 2004.] The 2000’s and 2010’s also saw the formation of several national-level private militia organizations, the largest of which being the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters.[ Sunshine, Spencer (January 5, 2016). “Profiles on the Right: Three Percenters”. Political Research Associates. Retrieved February 11, 2016.] [ “Oath Keepers militia will attend Portland ‘free speech’ rally, says leader”. The Guardian. June 4, 2017.]

    For example the Texas laws state this:

    “State of Texas

    From 1846–1903, the Texas Militia was legally empowered by the United States Militia Acts of 1792, and Article 6 of the Constitution of the State of Texas to “TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, AND TO REPEL INVASIONS.”[19]

    From 1903 to present, following the Militia Act of 1903, the Texas Militia is legally empowered by Title 32 of the United States Code and Article 4, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Texas to “EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, AND TO REPEL INVASIONS”. Operations are conducted under command of the Texas Military Department by the Texas Adjutant General.

    From 1903 to present, some Texas Militia units are also subject to Title 10 of the United States Code, which legally empowers the United States government to mobilize them when more resources are needed than available in the United States Armed Forces for war, national emergency, or national security. Operations are conducted under command of the United States Department of Defense by the Secretary of Defense.”

    So have all gun owners registered their oath and explicitly stated they will perform as a militia under the laws? I doubt it, and that is TEXAS!!!

    Nevada requires this:

    “NRS 412.126 Voluntary military organization: Licensing by Governor; muster roll; inspection; oaths of members.

    1. The Governor is authorized to issue licenses to bodies of persons to organize, drill and bear arms as volunteer military companies or volunteer military organizations.

    2. Whenever any such body of persons associate themselves as a volunteer military company or volunteer military organization and drill with arms under the license of the Governor, the volunteer military company or volunteer military organization:

    (a) Shall file with the Adjutant General annually, or at such time as the Governor or Adjutant General may designate, a muster roll of such volunteer military company or volunteer military organization certified by the oath of the commanding officer thereof. The muster roll shall contain the names, ages, occupations and places of residence of all members thereof, and the number and character of all arms in the possession of such organization.

    (b) Is subject to inspection by the Adjutant General upon his or her request within such time as the Adjutant General shall designate.

    3. EACH MEMBER OF SUCH VOLUNTEER MILITARY COMPANY OR VOLUNTEER MILITARY ORGANIZATION SHALL TAKE AND SUBSCRIBE TO AN OATH BEFORE A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER IT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AND WILL OBEY AND MAINTAIN ALL LAWS AND OBEY ALL OFFICERS EMPLOYED IN ADMINISTERING THOSE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS.

    (Added to NRS by 1967, 1302; A 1979, 240; 2013, 1109)”

    In effect it looks like to be recognized as a legal militia there is a handcuff regarding both what the Militia can or cannot do. In this case they all swear to uphold the laws and the constitution, which makes any one even filing a lawsuit opposing a law officially not a member of a legal militia.

    I can imagine all states have laws regulating militias, even an UNORGANIZED one. You wrote:

    “And even if it weren’t it wouldn’t have any impact on gun crime. Hard to believe the person who posted that link has passed a bar exam. Can he even read? Insurance doesn’t cover intentional criminal action. That’s why the title of the page at the link is LAWFUL PERSONAL DEFENSE INSURANCE.”

    But a CRIMINAL must get the gun from someone who “lawfully” had the right to get one, in at least the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of the weapon. THAT is why this policy must apply, because no criminal can get a gun solely through an illegal means. And having an insurance database is not a “state” database, thus you cannot claim it is forced gun registration on the part of the state. Yes the state can subpoena the insurance company once the gun is identified. But if the gun is properly insured prior to the criminal act, then that insurance policy must apply. So yes this will deter gun crimes because most are going to be traced to irresponsible acts by the previous owners. They may likely be prosecuted for an illegal gun sale.

  49. SEBASTIAN you wrote:

    “The requirement for insurance is unconstitutional because it converts a right to a privilege.”

    “You should read the book titled “READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS” written by Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, it will tell you that any Constitution with any provisions separated by commas, requires ALL CLAUSES TO BE SATISFIED. You cannot pick and choose the one part and have it override the others:

    “12. Conjunctive/Disjunctive Canon

    And joins a conjunctive list, or a disjunctive list—but with negatives, plurals, and various specific wordings there are nuances.

    The conjunctions AND and OR are two of the elemental words in the English language. Under the conjunctive/disjunctive canon, AND COMBINES ITEMS WHILE OR CREATES ALTERNATIVES. Competent users of the language rarely hesitate over their meaning. But a close look at the authoritative language of legal instruments—as well as the litigation that has arisen over them—shows that these little words can cause subtle interpretive problems. Although these conjunctions can appear in countless constructions, we have identified six types of sentences in which they most frequently appear in legal instruments.

    #1: The Basic Requirement

    WITH THE CONJUNCTIVE LIST, ALL THREE THINGS ARE REQUIRED—WHILE WITH THE DISJUNCTIVE LIST, AT LEAST ONE OF THE THREE IS REQUIRED, BUT ANY ONE (OR MORE) OF THE THREE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT. HENCE IN THE WELL-KNOWN CONSTITUTIONAL PHRASE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS,1 THE AND SIGNALS THAT CRUELTY OR UNUSUALNESS ALONE DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF THE CLAUSE: THE PUNISHMENT MUST MEET BOTH STANDARDS TO FALL WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION.2 THE SAME POINT HOLDS TRUE FOR THE PHRASE NECESSARY AND PROPER3 IN ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION.

    A common interpretive issue involves the conjunction and, which (if there are two elements in the construction) entails an express or implied both before the first element. Here it is implied: “Service shall be made upon the District of Columbia by delivering . . . or mailing . . . a copy of the summons, complaint and initial order to [both] the Mayor of the District of Columbia (or designee) and the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia (or designee).”4 A plaintiff sued the District for injuries suffered when a fire truck struck her car, but her complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the rule just quoted because she had not served the mayor.5 She contended that the purpose of the statute was substantially satisfied by service on the corporation counsel; since that officer was a statutory agent of the mayor, service on him or her was, in legal effect, service on the mayor. The D.C. Superior Court correctly held that what the rule says, it says (see § 2 [supremacy-of-text principle]), and the and means that service must be effected on both corporation counsel and the mayor.6

    Sometimes huge amounts of money can depend on these little words. In OfficeMax, Inc. v. United States,7 the federal tax code imposed certain taxes on “toll telephone service,” including “a telephonic quality communication for which . . . there is a toll charge which varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time of each individual communication.”8 In 1965, when Congress enacted the relevant provision, AT&T was the only telephone-service provider in the United States that offered long-distance calling, and it imposed a toll on long-distance calls based on variations in both the time and distance of the call. In the 1990s, other operators started charging long-distance rates based on time only, and AT&T adopted this approach in 1997. If the tax code required variation based on both time and distance, then no telephone-service consumers would be subject to the tax. THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THE TAX APPLIED WHENEVER TOLL CHARGES VARIED IN AMOUNT BASED ON EITHER TIME OR DISTANCE. OFFICEMAX ARGUED THAT THE TAX APPLIED ONLY WHEN TOLL CHARGES VARIED IN AMOUNT BASED ON BOTH TIME AND DISTANCE. RELYING IN PART ON DICTIONARIES AND USAGE GUIDES, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY HELD THAT AND IS CONJUNCTIVE AND THAT THE TOLL MUST THEREFORE VARY ON BOTH BASES.9

    When there is a multi-element construction with an and between the last two elements only, the rhetorical term for the construction is syndeton. Some drafters, perhaps through abundant caution, put a conjunction between all the enumerated items, as here:

    The seller shall provide:

    (a) a survey of the property; and

    (b) the surveyor’s sworn certificate that the survey is authentic and, to the best of the surveyor’s knowledge, accurate; and

    (c) a policy of title insurance showing the boundaries of the property; and

    (d) a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property.

    THIS TECHNIQUE IS CALLED POLYSYNDETON. IT IS A RHETORICAL TECHNIQUE MERELY; IT DOES NOT CONVEY A MEANING DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE IDENTICAL PHRASING MINUS THE ANDS AT THE END OF (A) AND (B). AND IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED BY LEGAL DRAFTERS LEST, OVER TIME, IT CAST DOUBT ON THE MEANING CONVEYED BY THE USE OF SYNDETON.

    Sometimes drafters will omit conjunctions altogether between the enumerated items, as here:

    The seller shall provide:

    (a) a survey of the property;

    (b) the surveyor’s sworn certificate that the survey is authentic and, to the best of the surveyor’s knowledge, accurate;

    (c) a policy of title insurance showing the boundaries of the property;

    (d) a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property.

    THIS TECHNIQUE IS TERMED ASYNDETON, AND IT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO CONVEY THE SAME MEANING AS THE SYNDETIC OR POLYSYNDETIC FORMULATION: IT IS AS THOUGH AND WERE INSERTED BETWEEN THE ITEMS. BUT BECAUSE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION COULD BE READ AS A DISJUNCTIVE FORMULATION, MOST DRAFTERS AVOID IT.”

    In effect if you are trying to say take the 2nd Amendment written this way”

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    WAS INSTEAD WRITTEN LIKE THIS:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, OR the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    You would be correct under Scalia’s legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Please understand too many people assume the incorrect interpretation. This demonstrates your legal reasoning is WRONG.

    In effect the 2nd Amendment ALWAYS HAD REGULATIONS AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF HAVING A GUN.

  50. Sebastian:

    All states have laws degerming that they are only allowed to exist for the purposes of having a lawfully recognized Militia:

    You seem to have an incomplete idea of the idea of a militia, you correctly indicated WHAT a MILITIA can be comprised of BUT NOT THE REGULATIONS THAT THE MILITIA MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH.

    HOWEVER, IF ANY MILITIA IS FOUND TO VIOLATE ANY STATE LAW REGULATING THE TERMS OF SERVICE OF A MILITIA, THEN THEY ARE A GANG AND NOT A LEGAL MILITIA You should read:

    “Many individual states have additional statutes describing their residents as part of the state militia; for example Washington law specifies all able-bodied citizens or intended citizens over the age of eighteen as members of the state militia, as explicitly distinct from the National Guard and Washington State Guard.[ Revised Code of Washington 38.04.030. Accessed via http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030%5D In states such as Texas, the state constitution classifies male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 to belong to the “Unorganized Reserve Militia”.[ http://constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm%5D The Texas constitution also grants the county sheriff and the governor of the state the authority to call upon the unorganized reserve militia to uphold the peace, repel invasion, and suppress rebellion, similar to the early “Texas Rangers”.

    Private militias & the modern citizen-militia movement

    Laws authorizing the state governments to officially make privately-organized militias part of the state’s official military force vary; Nevada, for example, allows the governor to “issue licenses to bodies of persons to organize, drill and bear arms as volunteer military companies or volunteer military organizations,”[ “Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 412, section 126”. State of Nevada. Retrieved February 22, 2021.] whereas South Carolina prohibits any group from being enlisted into its state guard. “South Carolina Code of Laws Title 25 – Military, Civil Defense and Veterans Affairs, Chapter 3 – South Carolina State Guard, Section 25-3-50. Civil organization, society or club enlisted as unit”. justia.com. State of South Carolina. Retrieved 25 February 2021. ] States with military histories that date back to the American revolution may officially recognize militias from that era that continue to exist and operate independently; Massachusetts law explicitly makes the National Lancers part of its organized militia and protects the right of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts to exist and operate as a private organization,[ General Laws, Part I, Title V, Chapter 33, Section 4A”. The 188th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State of Massachusetts. Retrieved 22 February 2021.][ “General Laws, Part I, Title V, Chapter 33, Section 132”. The 188th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State of Massachusetts. Retrieved 22 February 2021.] while Rhode Island recognizes a number of independent chartered militias as a separate part of its overall military force.[ “Rhode Island General Laws Title 30 – Military Affairs and Defense, Chapter 30-4 Independent Military Organizations”. Justia. 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2021.] [“Rhode Island General Laws Title 30 – Military Affairs and Defense Chapter 30-1 Militia Section 30-1-4 Classes of militia”. Justia. 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2021.] During World War II, Hawaii authorized several private paramilitary militias to operate, including the Businessmen’s Military Training Corps and the Hawaii Air Depot Volunteer Corps.[ Stentiford, Barry M. (2002). The American Home Guard: The State Militia in the Twentieth Century. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 147–150. ISBN 1585441813. Retrieved 13 July 2014.]

    Since approximately 1992, there have been a number of state- and regional-level private organizations in the United States that call themselves militia or unorganized militia, some of which have been tied to domestic terrorism and extremist views, which operate without any official sanctioning or licensing by their state governments.[ Mulloy, Darren. American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement, Routledge, 2004.] The 2000’s and 2010’s also saw the formation of several national-level private militia organizations, the largest of which being the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters.[ Sunshine, Spencer (January 5, 2016). “Profiles on the Right: Three Percenters”. Political Research Associates. Retrieved February 11, 2016.] [ “Oath Keepers militia will attend Portland ‘free speech’ rally, says leader”. The Guardian. June 4, 2017.]

    For example the Texas laws state this:

    “State of Texas

    From 1846–1903, the Texas Militia was legally empowered by the United States Militia Acts of 1792, and Article 6 of the Constitution of the State of Texas to “TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, AND TO REPEL INVASIONS.”[19]

    From 1903 to present, following the Militia Act of 1903, the Texas Militia is legally empowered by Title 32 of the United States Code and Article 4, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Texas to “EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, AND TO REPEL INVASIONS”. Operations are conducted under command of the Texas Military Department by the Texas Adjutant General.

    From 1903 to present, some Texas Militia units are also subject to Title 10 of the United States Code, which legally empowers the United States government to mobilize them when more resources are needed than available in the United States Armed Forces for war, national emergency, or national security. Operations are conducted under command of the United States Department of Defense by the Secretary of Defense.”

    So have all gun owners registered their oath and explicitly stated they will perform as a militia under the laws? I doubt it, and that is TEXAS!!!

    Nevada requires this:

    “NRS 412.126 Voluntary military organization: Licensing by Governor; muster roll; inspection; oaths of members.

    1. The Governor is authorized to issue licenses to bodies of persons to organize, drill and bear arms as volunteer military companies or volunteer military organizations.

    2. Whenever any such body of persons associate themselves as a volunteer military company or volunteer military organization and drill with arms under the license of the Governor, the volunteer military company or volunteer military organization:

    (a) Shall file with the Adjutant General annually, or at such time as the Governor or Adjutant General may designate, a muster roll of such volunteer military company or volunteer military organization certified by the oath of the commanding officer thereof. The muster roll shall contain the names, ages, occupations and places of residence of all members thereof, and the number and character of all arms in the possession of such organization.

    (b) Is subject to inspection by the Adjutant General upon his or her request within such time as the Adjutant General shall designate.

    3. EACH MEMBER OF SUCH VOLUNTEER MILITARY COMPANY OR VOLUNTEER MILITARY ORGANIZATION SHALL TAKE AND SUBSCRIBE TO AN OATH BEFORE A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER IT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AND WILL OBEY AND MAINTAIN ALL LAWS AND OBEY ALL OFFICERS EMPLOYED IN ADMINISTERING THOSE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS.

    (Added to NRS by 1967, 1302; A 1979, 240; 2013, 1109)”

    In effect it looks like to be recognized as a legal militia there is a handcuff regarding both what the Militia can or cannot do. In this case they all swear to uphold the laws and the constitution, which makes any one even filing a lawsuit opposing a law officially not a member of a legal militia.

    I can imagine all states have laws regulating militias, even an UNORGANIZED one. You wrote:

    “And even if it weren’t it wouldn’t have any impact on gun crime. Hard to believe the person who posted that link has passed a bar exam. Can he even read? Insurance doesn’t cover intentional criminal action. That’s why the title of the page at the link is LAWFUL PERSONAL DEFENSE INSURANCE.”

    But a CRIMINAL must get the gun from someone who “lawfully” had the right to get one, in at least the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of the weapon. THAT is why this policy must apply, because no criminal can get a gun solely through an illegal means. And having an insurance database is not a “state” database, thus you cannot claim it is forced gun registration on the part of the state. Yes the state can subpoena the insurance company once the gun is identified. But if the gun is properly insured prior to the criminal act, then that insurance policy must apply. So yes this will deter gun crimes because most are going to be traced to irresponsible acts by the previous owners. They may likely be prosecuted for an illegal gun sale.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *