Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

San Jose Gun-Control Plans Spell Trouble for Gun Owners


Charlie T Waite

Recommended Posts

It used to be popular to say, “So goes California, so goes the nation.” These gun-control proposals out of San Jose, Calif., are examples of why people no longer use that saying.

The mayor of San Jose actually has a very long wish list of gun-control regulations he wants enacted, which includes requiring gun owners to buy liability insurance.

While the insurance mandate won’t be considered until this fall, the San Jose City Council did recently give Mayor Sam Liccardo (D) one item on his gun-control wish list that is very Orwellian: a mandate that all firearm purchases be video and audio recorded!

The new law requires gun retailers within city limits to record all firearms purchases with audio and video. It also requires that these records be kept for 30 days. As explained by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), “Licensed firearm dealers are already heavily regulated, with California having some of the most stringent laws, on top of existing federal laws and regulations.” They also stated, “The proposed ordinance will only add to the complexity and cost of operating a small business, which will, in turn, be passed on to consumers. Criminals will continue to bypass lawful channels and will benefit from California's soft-on-crime approach.”

While commenting on the mayor’s liability insurance proposal, NRA-ILA noted it “is an attempt to punish law-abiding gun owners for owning a lawful product by making them pay for the activities of criminals. Taxing lawful ownership and requiring insurance will do nothing to reduce violence, which is often committed by repeat criminals who will not be paying the fees or obtaining insurance. It simply increases the cost for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right.”

Mandating liability insurance for gun owners isn’t a new idea. It has been introduced about two dozen times in various state legislatures across the country, unsuccessfully. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), firearms liability insurance schemes have also made at least two appearances at the federal level, most recently in Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-Texas) H.R. 127, which was introduced earlier this year. A laundry list of gun-controller ideas meant to gut the Second Amendment, H.R. 127 includes a requirement that all gun owners would have to pay an $800 annual “tax” to the federal government as a form of liability insurance.

As the NSSF noted, gun-liability insurance proponents claim that their idea would “provide insurance for victims of ‘gun violence.’”

However, while accidents involving firearms are already covered under most people’s homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies, it is unlikely any insurance company is going to offer a policy to cover “gun violence.” And, even if such polices existed, does anyone seriously believe that criminals—the ones who would be preforming the “gun violence”—would be in the market for liability insurance?

Mandating liability insurance for law-abiding gun owners when liability policies do not exist and is not needed sure sounds like yet another backdoor form of gun control. Hopefully, the San Jose City Council will recognize this end run for what it is and reject Mayor Liccardo’s misguided notion.

Link to comment

Well, it looks like they double downed and are adding a tax, too.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/san-jose-will-force-gun-owners-to-cover-costs-of-gun-violence-after-mass-shooting

In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, San Jose’s city council approved a national first that will see gun owners being forced to compensate taxpayers for the spiraling costs of gun violence. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, gun owners in California’s third-largest city will be required to take out liability insurance for their firearms, and pay an annual tax that will help fund emergency responses to gun-related calls.

Link to comment

"Gun Violence" cost the city of San Jose $442 MILLION ever year???  :o

 

I'd say that's a testament to a) a severe failure of the city's "social programs,"  b) extremely poor management of their emergency services,  c) really poor math, or d) any combination of the above - the most likely option.

 

Smooth move, Mister Mayor - One knothead goes nuts and the only solution he can come up with is to video record all legitimate purchases, pass an annual tax on legitimate gun owners, and force them to buy insurance that doesn't exist? 

 

Wow.  :huh:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

I had to dig to find that 442 million bill:

 

847092286_ScreenShot2021-07-01at5_57_00PM.thumb.png.8de91059a54eedaa9ada8c506e3a776e.png

 

WTH is a "Quality of life" line item? Direct costs are less than 10% of the total.

 

And this quote LOL:

 

 

Quote

ABC7 reported that the Sacramento-based Firearms Policy Coalition already announced plans to sue the city, but Mayor Liccardo sounded optimistic that his proposals will stand. “I’m confident that we’re on the right side of the Constitution,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of smart attorneys that have been working with us, and a lot of organizations.”

 

I'm confident those smart attorneys will make a lot of money by the time the 9th calls the law constitutional despite pre-emption and SCOTUS ultimately overturns it. The total legal fees might approach that "quality of life" line item.

Link to comment

John, you're missing the big picture.

They've already passed the liability insurance ordinance and have just passed the tax one. They have yet to determine how much that tax will be, but let's see. Shall we?

San Jose has roughly 1 million people. The current popular thinking is that 40% of America is heeled. So we'll just call it 400,000 folk in San Jose just became super taxable.

So, rough math (that's all you'll get out of me) says that gun owners in San Jose are going to pay an annual tax of 1100 bucks on top of the 800 liability insurance.

I have not figured out if Levine's bill (1228?) gets passed if that will supersede the city overreach or be in addition to it. 

Link to comment

Maybe I'm just dense, but what insurance are they trying to require?

 

As the gun owner, you can buy property insurance, which protects you against the risk of loss to your own firearms due to fire, flood or other casualty - but offers no protection to anyone else.

 

You can also buy liability insurance, which will indemnify you against claims or verdicts due to your own negligence in owning or handling firearms - for example, negligent discharges or negligent failure to secure your firearms.  

But any such policy will specifically exclude intentional acts (like shooting your neighbor on purpose), and will not provide coverage for illegal acts or acts of third parties (like gun thieves, or others using your guns without your permission).  The law frowns on any attempt to insure against the risks of your own criminal behavior.

 

So how, exactly, will any commonly available liability policy provide coverage that will help injured innocent third parties IF you are not merely negligent, but rather acted intentionally or criminally?  Most legal gun owners already have, I am sure, some form of general liability coverage that will cover claims arising from their own negligence.  Beyond that, I'm not sure that there is anything that you can buy on the open market that will come into play for any injuries caused by intentional acts or criminal acts, which are the cause of the overwhelming majority of gun crimes and injuries, and excluded under general liability policies?

 

This sounds like a totally bogus ploy.

 

LL

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Hendo said:

John, you're missing the big picture.

They've already passed the liability insurance ordinance and have just passed the tax one. They have yet to determine how much that tax will be, but let's see. Shall we?

I think they only passed a resolution to draft an ordinance for liability insurance requirements...

 

I do agree they did pass the tax, but the amount is still to be determined. And will need to be approved, so also not yet a done deal.

 

The problem is that I'm trying to figure this out from MSM reports, and simple reporting of facts keeps getting confused with the agenda.

 

And the steps towards these actions do not yet constitute litigatable actions so I don't think the FPC can actually sue yet; the FPC is on record that it will challenge the actions when they actually do occur.

 

The big picture is the tax is a registry of gun owners, the tax is on exercising a right (should only those who vote pay for elections?), and no insurance I know of pays for either illegal or intentional acts.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.