This title and focus of this article is weird.
“California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places” and then it goes on about the tax.
I feel like the carry ban is a far larger story then the tax. Not just because its blatantly unconstitutional but it directly opposes very recent rulings from the highest court in America
Does the native Group VoIP mean voice rooms like Discord are possible now? That feature is pretty much all that’s keeping me on discord as of now.
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
Presented to the founding father’s in 1792 by its civilian inventor. 224 round capacity. Fully automatic.
The founding father’s not only KNEW about high cap autos, they are even confirmed to have seen in action this fully automatic ultra high capacity gun, and they had absolutely no problem with a civilian owning and making them.
deleted by creator
You’re right but, If you bought the bike years ago there’s a strong chance you no longer have the receipt/invoice.
Never said it was a bad system in general. But as a normal citizen not engaging in business I think paying taxes possibly 4 times (federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax when first bought new, sales tax when sold as used) on the same item is wrong.
I know that’s how it works. I’m complaining because the way it works is bullshit.
Yes? I’m against both of the parties in my comment. Maybe I made it sound like I’m in the scalpers side with my tax complaints, I’m not. I just don’t want this government overreach to be placed in a positive light just because its also affecting people we hate.
Fuck scalpers, but I refuse to look at the $600 tax rule as anything other than a way for the government to squeeze money from and spy more on the common people.
Edit: to clarify I’m not rooting for the scalpers, I just don’t want this governmental overreach to be put in a positive light just because its also affecting people we rightfully hate.
For those that don’t know. The $600 tax rule is a requirement that Zelle, Venmo, etc must report transactions over $600 to the government so they can be taxed. Get a $600 graduation gift from grandma? Taxed. Get $1000 from your roommates to pay rent? You now have to document and show that so its not taxed. Sell a bike (that you ALREADY paid sales tax on using money you ALREADY paid income tax on) for $800, would you look at that its going on the tax form.
10 out of 10 love it
So if an unpaid debt can’t affect your credit score, can you essentially just ignore it without significant impact to your life? Like the only recourse the hospital would have is to sue you I assume?
Billionaires are people too and dont deserve death just a bad comme… Pfffffff I’m just kidding sharpen the blade.
You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.
Ignoring the metaphor cause yeesh.
But “well regualted” means and always meant something to the tune of well trained and supplied. "The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ". And more importantly " Right of the people " and “Shall not be infringed” are clear and obvious.
CC/OC has always been legal in the US and only after the civil war did laws restricting carry start to pop up (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). NY recently used a law restricting the rights of Catholics and Native Americans as a historical justification for their CC restrictions. The state laws took awhile (and the fear of some groups carrying to subside) to become infringing enough before law suits began. Someone needed to sue and be able appeal enough times in order to be heard by the SCOTUS, which is difficult and time consuming. But the ruling SCOTUS made isn’t what makes CC legal, it is a firm statement that it always was legal and laws infringing on that have always been unconstitutional.
Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.
Being skeptical of data and their sources is a fundamental part of science.
Politicians like them know what they’re doing is unlawful, but they also know that it takes time for courts to strike them down.
Until there’s actual punishment for issuing blatantly illegal orders or laws (gun related or not) this will continue happening.
Why is this article’s tone written like its rooting for rents to rise?
“there should be far less supply going into 2026, giving rents a chance to make up some ground”
It almost sounds like they could be talking a stock price falling.
“But he acknowledged many of these laws might not survive legal challenges”
How is this not grounds for some form of punishment? Politicians shouldn’t be able to write laws even they acknowledge are illegal, gun law or otherwise?