The government of San Jose has concocted a brilliant plan to fight crime: It intends to target the people who don’t commit it. Once its new rule has been finalized later this year, the city will become the first jurisdiction in America that requires gun owners to pay an annual fee before they can exercise their right to own a firearm. Henceforth, it seems, San Jose hopes to be heavy on the bill, light on the rights.
Reporting on the policy, the San Francisco Chronicle submits that the measure will force “firearms owners to pay back taxpayers for gun violence.” But “pay back” isn’t really the right phrase, is it? One “pays back” something one has borrowed, something one owes, or something that will compensate another for one’s actions. Most gun owners — in San Jose and elsewhere — have nothing to “pay back.” Per the Chronicle, San Jose spends $63 million each year dealing with violence that involves guns. How much of that violence was caused by the sort of legal gun owner who pays personal-property taxes and takes out insurance? The answer is close to none.
Comments