Summary of ANTI-GUN TAX UPHELD. Federal Judge Sitting in Big Tech land Upholds San Jose Gun Fees/Insurance Law

00:00:00 - 00:25:00

In this video, the speaker discusses a federal judge's ruling upholding San Jose's gun fees and insurance requirements. The speaker criticizes the judge for what they perceive as bias and lack of seriousness in the ruling, arguing that the laws are a clear infringement on gun rights. They highlight the involvement of plaintiff organizations and believe that ultimately the laws will be deemed unconstitutional. The speaker analyzes the specific provisions of the laws and argues that they do implicate the Second Amendment. They also question the relevancy of historical analogies used by the judge. Additionally, they discuss the potential consequences of requiring gun owners to have insurance and suggest that anti-gun individuals may influence insurance companies. The speaker mentions Supreme Court decisions that they believe would invalidate the laws and criticizes the judge for not referencing them. They also propose that the gun fee may potentially violate the First Amendment, citing a relevant Supreme Court case. Overall, the speaker expresses frustration with the judge's handling of the case.

• 00:00:00 In this section, the speaker discusses a recent ruling by a federal judge upholding the city of San Jose's gun fees and insurance requirements for gun owners. The judge, who is considered to be a partisan liberal, deemed the laws constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment. The speaker criticizes the judge for what they perceive as a lack of seriousness and bias in the ruling, arguing that the laws are made up and a clear infringement on gun rights. They highlight the involvement of the National Association for Gun Rights and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as major plaintiffs in the case. The speaker believes that ultimately the laws will be deemed unconstitutional, but not with this particular judge. They go on to analyze the specific provisions of the laws, including the insurance requirement and the annual fee, and argue that they do implicate the Second Amendment.
• 00:05:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the judge's ruling on a gun fee and insurance law in San Jose. The speaker criticizes the judge's reasoning, stating that the text of the Second Amendment is clearly implicated by the fee and insurance requirement. They argue that these requirements burden the right to possess firearms and therefore impact the text of the Second Amendment. The speaker also dismisses the judge's analogies, arguing that the Surety laws mentioned by the judge are not applicable in this case. Overall, the speaker believes that the judge's ruling is biased against the Second Amendment and expects the case to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• 00:10:00 In this section, the speaker questions the historical analogies used to uphold San Jose's gun fees and insurance law by stating that they do not align with the original purpose and implementation of such laws. The argument is made that Surety laws, which require a bond for individuals found to be a threat to others, are not comparable to a general insurance policy that applies to all gun owners, regardless of their behavior. The speaker also dismisses the notion of strict liability in tort law as an analogy, as it pertains to cases where gun owners allegedly act negligently, rather than a preemptive measure. Overall, the speaker argues that these historical analogies do not support the implementation of the gun fees and insurance law.
• 00:15:00 In this section, the speaker critiques the arguments made by Judge Freeman in upholding the gun fees/insurance law in San Jose. The speaker points out that the historical analogies used by Judge Freeman, such as Massachusetts court cases, do not align with the current law. Additionally, the speaker argues that relying on laws from the mid-1800s is irrelevant to understanding the Second Amendment of 1791. The speaker further argues that Judge Freeman's analysis fails to consider the concept of moral hazard and how insurance can create incentives for reckless behavior. Overall, the speaker suggests that the law in San Jose is intended to make gun ownership difficult and expensive, rather than promoting safety.
• 00:20:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the potential consequences of requiring gun owners to have insurance. He believes that the anti-gun finance individuals from big tech and Wall Street will use their influence to discourage insurance companies from writing these policies or drive up the insurance rates. The speaker also points to two Supreme Court decisions that he believes would invalidate the gun fees and insurance laws. He questions why these cases were not mentioned in the judge's decision and suggests that the judge may not have taken the case seriously. He also explains the difference between fees associated with covering the cost of services and taxes, emphasizing that excessive fees would be considered a tax and would be unconstitutional.
• 00:25:00 In this section, the speaker criticizes Judge Freeman for citing irrelevant cases and argues that the gun fee in San Jose may violate the First Amendment. They mention a Supreme Court case called National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which involved pro-life centers being required to provide pro-choice information, and how it was struck down as a violation of free speech. The speaker suggests that because the gun fee funds non-profits involved in gun control, it may be used for anti-gun purposes, which American gun owners would not support. They conclude by expressing their frustration with Judge Freeman's handling of the case.