http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/23/judge-upholds-seattle-gun-violence-tax-despite-challenge-from-gun-rights-groups.html
In other news http://www.kirotv.com/news/ap/washington/redmond-arms-importer-sues-atf-over-ammo-ban/npphF/. WAfags make sure to notify your local government to overturn the first and help the second. If they manage to successfully sue the ATF, the door opens a bit. Pic unrelated.
I'm still in awe as to how a judge could uphold that tax when the state's constitution specifically prohibits cities from taxing firearms and ammunition. This should have been the most clear cut case ever
And I thought the ban on 7n6 was going to be undone? A bill got passed saying the atf could not ban it anymore
What exactly will the money from this tax do?
>>28296729
welfare
>>28296729
usually be stolen or wasted for something entirely unrelated.
>>28296132
as a Pizza Hut employee, i approve of this picture.
>>28296132
First Colorado, then Washington, Oregon, and now Virginia?
California cancer knows no bounds.
>>28296653
the law just keeps the ATF from spending money specifically to enforce the ban on 7n6 imports.
so you could just drive it across the border by the truck load. the atf could not specifically stop you for the 7n6. though given how broad our laws are. I am sure they can find something to bust you for.
>>28296132
>The tax will be used to "offset the cost of gun violence"
What the fuck does that even mean?
>>28296763
as a former pizza hut employee fuck pizza hut. but yeah I know I always car carried and often mexican carried at shady apartment complexes.
>>28296729
Article does not give proof, and statements conflict, but from the article a direct quote
>The revenue would be used for gun safety research and gun violence prevention programs.
Liberals are realizing it's easier to just tax and nuke existing gun laws than it is to out right ban them
>>28296785
Welfare of it goes straight into a special interests or politicians pocket
That blatant lie at the end about guns killing more people in the us than automobiles...
>>28296782
That's not the important part of H.R. 2578, the firearm rights restoration program gets refunded.
>>28296796
>gun safety research and gun violence prevention programs
This is why you shouldn't trust a government with money, because it will use money it doesn't need and shouldn't have on things that don't need it and won't accomplish anything. Then once that money runs out it keeps spending anyway, borrowing from future generations.
Jesus Christ if I ever saw an exact checklist of the federal budget I bet I could scratch out over 2/3 the garbage it does.
It's Seattle. Are we really surprised? In the next few years of our polarizing country, conservatives will move out to the boons, and the small towns of their states, and the libs will move more to the main city, only to have them collapse and bankrupt just like every other major lib infested city has.
>>28296834
In the last few years the number of auto deaths in the US has edged lower than gun deaths (including suicides). If you're wearing your seat belt in a car made after 1995, it's pretty difficult to die in an accident.
>>28296873
Yeah, it isn't so much that gun deaths are going up (the implication they are pushing) it's that car related deaths are going down.
>>28296625
Here's how:
>Seattle judge
Yup.
>>28296132
Cars kill way more people than guns, why aren't they charging a vehicle violence tax as well?
>>28296923
Car Insurance. At least I assume that will be the excuse. This tax seems to be along the lines of that dumb ass gun violence insurance bill that was around a while ago. Basic premise is the same. Gun owners have to pay insurance just in case their gun gets up and kills someone all on its own.
>>28296873
The most recent statistics still show car deaths are much higher than gun deaths. You could split automobile deaths into categories based on motercylce, pedestrian, etc and it would still rank higher.
Actually about half of the top 10 causes of death are due to being a fat fuck.
>>28296132
The legal system in this country is beyond fucked.
It is time to start killing judges.
>>28296986
>I don't know how the legal system works the post
Keep it in your pants Jimbo, there's this thing called the appeals process which was made for times like this.
>"Guns now kill more people in the United States than automobiles," Seattle's mayor said.
That's an outright lie
>In 2013 33,804 people died from auto accidents according to the CDC
>In 2013 11,208 people died from firearm homicides according to the CDC
How can elected official actually say this and not be berated by factchecker news stations?
>>28296998
I guess you've failed to see the numerous occasions that this shit has been appeal up and the supreme court refuses to take it because shit like gay marriage is more important. So then the anti gun ruling of a freedom hating district court judge stands. Judges are just as corrupt and politically biased as congress, they care nothing for ruling according to the constitution.
>>28297016
if you add in gun suicides, those numbers start to look more alike.
>>28297016
As >>28297044 noted, when you toss in all the accidents, suicides, and other firearm related deaths that aren't murders, the numbers are damn near the same. I wouldn't be surprised if autos were a bit under firearms in that case. Though we are talking like less than 1k difference between the two.
Not surprised to see anti-gun types misrepresenting shit. It's their stock and trade. They wouldn't be able to get shit passed if they didn't.
>>28296729
maybe it'll pay for the tens of thousands of dollars our fucking government has spent on painting crosswalks in rainbow colors
FUCK THIS STATE
>>28297021
>>28297021
I was poking fun at you before, saying you don't know how the legal system works but you really don't do you?
>wah the Supreme Court won't hear the gun rights case I want
That's because they either agree with the lower courts and believe there is enough precedent to let it stand.
>The anti freedom district court judge ruling stands
It doesn't go, district court judge, then straight to the Supreme Court. There are several levels it goes through first, any one of which is going to look at this judge's ruling and smack it down. That's how the legal process works.
Jesus, you're the reason people think gun owners are inbred hicks.
Seattle gun shop employee
Fuck you too Tim Burgess,
Merry Christmas faggots
>>28297097
Do legitimately believe what you said or are you making excuses to ignore your responsibility to stand up to an oppressive government?
>>28296132
>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/23/judge-upholds-seattle-gun-violence-tax-despite-challenge-from-gun-rights-groups.html
"gun violence tax"
I think this might be a bit of a misnomer.
Anyone know the racial makeup of the violent criminals in Washington?
Granted they all use guns....but perhaps the tax should be named after a particular ethnic group in America that is only 13% of the population, but responsible for over 78% of the violent crime.
>>28296625
You think judges care? most of them impart their morals upon every judgment so its not about what is right or just it's about their feelings.
>>28296132
Here's the judge
>>28296132
And here's the guy who sponsored the law
>>28297583
Of course it's a woman.
>>28296729
Help pay for that stupid hole they dug in seattle
>>28296625
Bah. Califailia outlawed queer marriage by popular referendum some years back. It was overturned within the year by a faggot judge who then married his faggot boyfriend.
The court system in this country -- including the Supreme Court -- have been co-opted. They are no longer arbiters. They are part of the governing class, which only looks after its own power and privilege. Didn't you get the memo?
>>28297068
Didn't we actually see a decrease in automobile-related deaths?
A better comparison would be how many intentional homicides were committed by an automobile vs how many homicides were committed by a non criminal.
Lumping car accidents together and then comparing it to all self defense cases and street criminals is retarded
This pic is for constitutionality, but it also applies if you replace constitutionality with legality.
Turns out that being a good judge is incredibly easy job... All you have do is use the law as it is written.
Do you guys think an amendment requiring the death penalty for judges the deliberately ignore their duty is a good idea?
>The NRA and its allies always oppose these commonsense steps to shine light on the gun violence epidemic," said City Council President Tim Burgess, who sponsored the law. "Judge Robinson saw through the NRA's distorted efforts to put gun industry profits ahead of public safety
>gun industry profits
A tax that raises the price consumers have to pay for guns and ammo has nothing to do with gun industry profits, and just puts the burden on gun owners. So it is literally making a connection between a gun store shopper and gun violence. How the fuck did this law pass?
>>28297671
So what doo we do? What is the 2nd amen for? Is anyone going to do something? I'm tired of fearing of losing my rights. We gun owners are the new persecuted people. And it's our fucking right!!
>>28298000
Trips of truth
But who will enforce said penalty? I agree that the penalty should be death death, but the situation will just end up like the current situation of the police in the USA.
>>28297158
>oppressive government
Oh fuck off you fucking hillbilly. If it ever came to a shooting war between you and the government you'd piss yourself silly.
>>28297671
And if a mass vote in California tomorrow outlawed guns and a judge later overturned it would you be okay with that?
Or would you be bitching and moaning about judges being part of the governing class?
>>28298000
>lets execute judges who don't rule the way I think they should rule
That sounds like a great system of governing.
Also the whole point of having a judges rule on these laws is because there are legal gray areas in even the most well written of laws.
For example, should it be legal for the cops to tail somebody with a drone without a warrant? It's legal for cops to tail somebody without a warrant? So why not a drone? On the other hand it's illegal for cops to affix a GPS tracker on somebody's property without a warrant, so there's a case to be made that electronic monitoring should be limited. Also there's no mention of this anywhere in the constitution.
Based off your chart they shouldn't take the case, which would be fucking retarded. Which is why we have whole schools, lawyers, and judges to interpret what the law says, and how it should be applied. Saying "it's simple just look at the constitution" is so mindnumbingly stupid it borders on purposeful stupidity.
>>28298113
>purposeful stupidity
did you expect anything else from Phil?
>>28298113
>And if a mass vote in California tomorrow outlawed guns
Wait until Newsom becomes governor.
>and a judge later overturned it would you be okay with that?
Not going to happen. Not here, anyway.
>>28298161
>I can't think hypothetically in the interest of outlining a coherent political ideology
Well, we always knew you were a fucktard
>>28298113
>Based off your chart they shouldn't take the case, which would be fucking retarded. Which is why we have whole schools, lawyers, and judges to interpret what the law says, and how it should be applied. Saying "it's simple just look at the constitution" is so mindnumbingly stupid it borders on purposeful stupidity.
It's a foolproof system. If the law produces an undesirable outcome then it warrants the people raising awareness to their representatives and producing a more desirable outcome. Pretending the law says more than it does it a bad idea.
>>28298113
>lets execute judges who don't rule the way I think they should rule
Are you aware of how the country was founded? People got together and used illegal violence against those they disagreed with. Those people are hailed as national heroes, yet here you are denouncing their methods.
>>28298113
>Oh fuck off you fucking hillbilly. If it ever came to a shooting war between you and the government you'd piss yourself silly.
You can say what you want, but it's hard to accuse other people of cowardice when you are literally arguing for slavery at the hands of an unchecked court system. And yes, it is ok to kill a judge that doesn't rule the way I want when what I want is freedom and their rulings are taking it away.
>>28298194
Well yeah, the more you examine the American Revolution, the more you realize how wrong the mythology surrounding it is
>>28298194
>Those people are hailed as national heroes, yet here you are denouncing their methods.
Legislators refused to take into account the will of the people. That's not the same thing as judges refusing to use the law...
>>28298161
It's a hypothetical.
If Californians outlawed guns tomorrow and a judged overruled them on constitutional grounds would you be okay with that?
Because based off your earlier statements you wouldn't be, you think it's wrong for judges to overturn the popular vote based off the consitution.
Either that or you're a hypocritical douchebag who only dislikes judges when they make rulings you don't like.
So which is it?
>>28298216
Personally I would rather win and lose playing by the rules than win by cheating.
The problem is that the opposition can only win by cheating... And they have no problem with that either due to ignorance, an inability to use logic, or hatred of america/american values.
>>28298185
It's not hyopthetical, angryfaggot. Sunnyvale and LA's mag bans violate state law *and* the Constitution, and both have stood up in court. So has the lead ammo hunting ban. So will the entire menu of bullshit that Newsom will unleash upon us. The blue-state fascists own the cities and they own the courts. And they understand the value of incrementalism.
>>28298216
No, it's a moot point. As well you know. The Constitution doesn't exactly give the government the authority to determine the nature of the nuclear family after 2500 years, either.
>>28298216
>Phil
>thinking
>>28298200
No, the more you realize just how applicable the principles of the revolution are today, and how strong the doublethink is.
>>28298203
>law that infringes on the 2nd Amendment
>takes into account the will of the people
Apply yourself.
>>28298187
No it's not, what happens when you can't get enough political will power to change the law to clarify? What if you change the law and there are still grey areas? What happens in the months or even years between the issue arising and the laws going into effect?
You can't just write a law and leave it out there hoping everyone applies it correctly, you need a robust judicial system with checks and balances to interpret it, and make sure it's enforced correctly. Which surprise surprise, our system does- for the most part, it's not perfect but it's a damn better then what's being advocated here.
>>28298194
You're comparing apples and oranges mate. Americans had no say in the legislator that was ruling over them and passing laws. Americans actually have quite a bit of say in how our legal system works- be it through local elections of judges and law enforcement personnel, or on the national level with legislatures who write the laws and a president who appoints justices.
>>28298195
>the court system is unchecked and we're all slaves
>Also I'm okay with killing judges I don't like
Let me know how well the 2nd American Revolution goes for you then.
>>28298255
It's not cheating though, the government was designed to work like this. It's the reason we're a republic and have a judicial branch. The opinion of the majority should not come at the rights of the minority.
>>28298258
Stop dodging the question, it's a pretty simple hypothetical.
>>28297097
>>wah the Supreme Court won't hear the gun rights case I want
>>28297097
>That's because they either agree with the lower courts and believe there is enough precedent to let it stand.
Not that guy but..
You're wrong though. They don't want to touch gun rights cases with a 10 foot pole, because out of all issues, this is one that would plunge the US into Civil War 2.0 should they make the wrong decision. It is corrupt because they are refusing to decide on something that is an urgent Constitutional Issue, while taking up cases of non-importance.
>>28298258
You're still dodging the question. It's simple: "yes," "no," or "I don't know"
>>28298113
>>lets execute judges who don't rule the way I think they should rule
That's kind of how governments get formed and overthrown. You know? Government officials used to either represent the countries/peoples values or be removed from office/executed. No guns please.
>>28298113
>Which is why we have whole schools, lawyers, and judges to interpret what the law says
Hey dumbfuck, the State law in WA literally says nobody but the State can impose taxes and regulations on firearms. Any judge ruling otherwise is treasonous and supporting his policitcal causes and not the law he sworn to uphold. There is no grey areas sometimes, and that's where we have problems.
>>28298284
>No it's not, what happens when you can't get enough political will power to change the law to clarify?
Then the situation sucks. The same occurs in the bastardized system we have now. The 14th amendment in essence says, "no really guys, we meant the 13th amendment" but was poorly phrased. As a result anchor babies exist and the courts get a legal blank check whose current qualifications for use are "do you feel different than someone else?".
>What if you change the law and there are still grey areas?
Then you fucked up and that is why its important to be careful when writing a law. Because laws are meant to be used literally.
>What happens in the months or even years between the issue arising and the laws going into effect?
The situation sucks. It's better than the courts flip floping with the political wind, because they don't bother to use the words of the law.
>You can't just write a law and leave it out there hoping everyone applies it correctly.
You can if you don't haphazardly write laws.
>you need a robust judicial system with checks and balances to interpret it,
The checks and balances on the courts are:
- presidential nominations/appointments
- the police enforcing the law
They are by far the weakest checks in the system. Because the court can, have, and do rule that whatever they do is legal.
> Which surprise surprise, our system does- for the most part, it's not perfect but it's a damn better then what's being advocated here.
I am advocating for a system that does away with implied powers, judicial abuse, and poorly written laws.
>>28298303
>It's not cheating though
I was referring to ignoring the constitution/laws for a politically favorable ruling. That is undoubtedly cheating.
>>28298372
And that's why we have a system of checks and balances called the appeals system.
>>28298407
And what happens when all the judges refuse to do their job?
>>28298407
Yeah, and what happens when the liberals own that too and make their decisions once again based on politics and not law? Because that's what has been consistently happening. A law that says Shall Not Be Infringed seems pretty clear to me.
>>28298407
>All lower courts rule on gun cases with their political views and not what the law says
>All appeals courts do the same
>The Supreme Court refuses to hear cases to stop that bullshit
>Somehow not corrupt
I have never met one person until you who has had so much faith in the legal system.
>>28298422
Then people elect new judges at the local level. Or elect new officials to appoint new justices.
>>28298424
Go look up "Strict Scrutiny"
>>28298435
I'm starting to suspect that he's an FBI agent trying to convince us everything's fine.
>>28298463
>Strict Scrutiny
One of the rules/conditions that the courts established for the courts to make their wanton rulings seem legitimate.
>>28298435
And you seem willing to flush the whole system based off the sinful a ruling if a district judge that hasn't even gone to appeal yet.
>>28298482
>implying this is the first time...
>>28298482
No point, because we already know what the results will be. We've seen this enough already.
>>28298467
>FBI
>knowing the constitution
Pick one.
>>28298284
>Americans had no say in the legislator that was ruling over them and passing laws.
What is the difference between being subject to an unjust law you have no say in, and being subject to an unjust law you theoretically have a say in but is imposed on you anyway? In either case, you the same unjust law in imposed on you. Do you suppose that the men who took part in the American Revolution, being so driven by the idea of freedom that they were willing to stake their lives on it, would just sit meekly if their circumstances were that of the latter category?
A democratic government can most certainly be tyrannical.
>>28298482
And what do you do when the law is clear cut yet your judicial officials choose to represent their political views time and time again and disregard the law? Because that's been the case.
>>28298526
May I point you to my proposed required death penalty amendment : >>28298000
>Do you guys think an amendment requiring the death penalty for judges that deliberately ignore their duty is a good idea?
>>28296796
Almost certainly in the form of payments to anti-gun activist groups. Usually this is done obliquely, via research grants and overpaying for make-work "community outreach" programs.
DoJ's latest tactics is this. Accuse a company of criminally violating some ambiguous and vague regulation. Gear up to prosecute them or their senior management. Then offer them a deal: as part of a consent agreement, agree to pay a penalty but avoid prosecution and no need to admit guilt. Then require that some of the money be donated to "charity", aka nonprofit activist groups. Originally these were groups that supposedly represent the "victims", but lately they've dropped the pretense and simply picked any group they can claim supports social justice.
Rest assured, politicians will get a cut of this eventually.
>>28298495
The Romans had universal sufferage for everyone in the city. In theory.
Go read how they conducted those elections and you'll see what's wrong with only paying attention to the forms of democracy.
(The old Soviet Union is the easy mode example.)
>>28298556
Fine idea
>law-abiding gun owners literally have to pay a tax because of some nigger gang-bangers
That's retarded
>>28296729
Nothing.
No, really, they won't collect a dime, because the few gun stores left in town will move before it takes effect.
>>28298985
That isn't the reason. The reason is to fuck conservatives over, because firearms are now firmly identified with conservatism. To be for gun control is to strike a blow at the Evil Other. Full stop.
Or maybe you think everybody from Hillary to WaPo to the New York Times blaming the slaughter in San Bernardino on hasfunz -- not the foreign religious fascists who murdered the people who gave them a baby shower -- but us, you and ma, maybe you think that was all some kind of well-intentioned ignorance on their part. It is not. It is ideologically engineered malice. No matter how much dick you suck or bongs you smoke or how good a socially-liberal game you talk, YOU ARE HATED. Get that through your fucking head.
>>28296132
Isn't this unconstitutional? It's basically a poll tax
>>28299152
No, liberal logic only applies to them and not us. It's only bad for the poor if it involves messing with their votes.
>>28296132
>Seattle
Seriously fuck those faggots, how do they manage to make a living? I'm guessing all the skilled people are politically apathetic
>>28299152
It also violates state law. But if it's for a PC reason -- as with medicinal mary jane, sanctuary cities, etc. -- our ruling class will simply smirk and let things slide. Because they hate you. And their press will crow and applaud.
I'm going to keep pointing that out until I'm certain it sticks.
>>28299152
>it's basically a poll tax
You have no clue what a poll tax is do you? You just heard somebody say it once and decided now would be a great time to whip it out.
It is however unconstitutional at the state level due to Washingtons presumption laws for firearms. Expect to see this overturned on appeals.
>>28299179
If you don't know what a poll tax is don't post about it.
>>28299216
>Expect to see this overturned on appeals.
Which court are they appealing it to, and which judge sits on it? And what's their record? Because dimes to doughnuts it's another suburbanite libtard judge who will let it stand.
>>28299227
I do know faggot. You obviously missed the point, Liberals say a poll tax disenfranchises poor voters. But a gun tax doesn't disenfranchise poor gun owners. That's liberal logic. Only applying to them.
>>28299215
Phil, you're not even from Washington so don't shitpost about our state politics.
>>28299238
He's right though. The government class of citizens exists solely to serve it's own interests at this point.
>>28299038
>and bombs
>and knives
>and regular tools
>and cars
>and bikes
>and PLANES
>and poison gas
>and SHOES
what can't you use in a terrorist attack?
