OC for ME
Regular Member
Yes, California, but this could be mandated anywhere.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
San Francisco weighs requiring gun stores to videotape sales
- Thread starter OC for ME
- Start date
What protections are they placing on Personal Identifying Information? Will the press have access to these videos? What systems will be used to videotape, and why will other systems not be permitted/accepted? Will the city pay to purchase, install, and maintain and repair these systems? What happens if a gun store cannot get credit to pay for complying with the proposed requirement? Will the increase in sales tax receipts (you know they will increase because gun shops are going to have to raise prices to meet the expense of compliance) be escrowed for a designated purpose - if so, what is that designated purpose; if not, why not?
And those are just the questions I could come up without really thinking about the issue.
stay safe.
And those are just the questions I could come up without really thinking about the issue.
stay safe.
whom are you going to articulate those question(s) to? the FFL ~ they're stuck in the middle and must comply or go out of business...
uh...oh how bout the idiot savant who is married to this hairball scheme and pushing it through city/county/state channels?
ipse
Last edited:
Why would one even consider querying the FFL? It's not their idea.
And since I'm not a resident there so most unlikely to become entangled with the issue, I'd prefer to have those and other questions answered in a court than in the Board of Supervisors' Chamber.
stay safe.
shouldn't this be considered a protected thing under amendment 4? since the purchase is done on private property, and said purchase is part of a persons "effects?" you know right to be safe in the "person's property and effects?" not to mention would it violate property rights?
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
If all the elected officials would have to wear body cameras that live stream to a public internet site 24/7/365 live monitoring then their idea may be considered.
Last edited: