San Jose votes for guns fee and liability insurance

[butters]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

The council in the Silicon Valley city split the vote into two parts: the first approving the bulk of the proposal, including the insurance provisions, and the second approving the fee provisions. The insurance vote passed 10-1, while the fees vote passed 8-3.

The ordinance must be approved next month at its final reading in order to take effect in August. Gun rights supporters have threatened to sue to block the measures if they become law.

Ahead of the vote, Democratic Mayor Sam Liccardo estimated that San Jose residents incur about $442 million in gun-related costs each year. "Certainly, the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right," Liccardo said Monday at a news conference.

 

[Rightguide]

Unconstitutional.

 

[butters]

 

[pecksniff]

Unconstitutional.

A requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance? Not even in its present formation is the SCOTUS going to rule that unconstitutional.

 

[butters]

A requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance? Not even in its present formation is the SCOTUS going to rule that unconstitutional.

i don't recall them adding car insurance, or the kind of insurances a bank will require a home-buyer to have in place before agreeing a mortgage either. I'd not be surprised if most farms trying to secure loans would need to prove they're covered for large animal liability, and any place of business seeking loans/funding/grants/permits would also need to show evidence of liability insurance covering potential harm to customers from accidents due to walkways, electrical systems, fires and so on.

 

[Counselor706]

Gun rights group sues San Jose over unprecedented liability insurance mandate

The National Association for Gun Rights and an individual plaintiff announced the lawsuit on Wednesday morning, a day after the city council in San Jose voted on the first-of-its-kind ordinance. The plaintiffs allege that the new provision is unconstitutional because it applies an undue financial burden for those wishing to express their Second Amendment rights. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

“San Jose’s imposition of a tax, fee, or other arbitrary cost on gun ownership is intended to suppress gun ownership without furthering any government interest,” the lawsuit reads. “In fact, the penalties for nonpayment of the insurance and fees include seizure of the citizen’s gun. The Ordinance is, therefore, patently unconstitutional.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who are being represented by the Dhillon Law Group, cited a Supreme Court ruling from 1943 that concluded that the government “may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution” and a 2008 ruling that guarantees the right to possess and carry guns for self-defense.

"Because California and the City of San Jose have already made it exceedingly difficult to lawfully carry a weapon outside the home, and the Ordinance only affects owners of lawfully owned guns, the Ordinance’s true impact is solely on guns kept in the home by law-abiding citizens,” the lawsuit reads. “It does nothing to deter the scourge of unlawful ownership and use of guns by criminals or to recoup from them compensation for the injuries and damage they cause.”

Source

 

[pecksniff]

The National Association for Gun Rights

An organization that actually calls itself the "conservative alternative" to the NRA.

 

[GothTalk]

A requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance? Not even in its present formation is the SCOTUS going to rule that unconstitutional.

LOL let's hope they don't and green light blue states total crackdown on gun rights.

 

[pecksniff]

LOL let's hope they don't and green light blue states total crackdown on gun rights.

You say that as if you expect it to provoke an electoral backlash. That ain't gonna happen.

 

[GothTalk]

You say that as if you expect it to provoke an electoral backlash. That ain't gonna happen.

Not an electoral one in the sense that the left will back out.

One in that polarization and consolidation will continue?? Absolutely.

I want California and New York to go full tilt "progressive".

Hell I think the FEDERAL Bill of Rights should only include the 8th and 10th amendments.

If California wants take all guns, strictly control speech, socialize and just Venezuela itself?? Have drag queens teaching kids in 2nd grade how to bate??? Yea....I think we should let them have it their way and they can show us all just how amazing life with 99% taxation and "free" shit for any and all who ask for it works out in the real world.

The WORST thing that could happen to the left is for them to be called on their shit and made to walk your own walk.

Look at you...living in Florida .... wouldn't DARE move to a blue state.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

A requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance? Not even in its present formation is the SCOTUS going to rule that unconstitutional.

He's right, it's a tax on a constitutional right. Unconstitutional.

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

Does that law for illegal gun owners too? Or do they not have to??

 

[phrodeau]

Does that law for illegal gun owners too? Or do they not have to??

I thought that there were no illegal gun owners. Whom do you mean?

 

[doubleover]

Does that law for illegal gun owners too? Or do they not have to??

No, as long as the gun was stolen and has a value of less
than 999.00, no harm no foul.

 

[Dribble]

Your gun...you are liable for it. Seems fair.

One step closer to the country breaking up.

 

[bellisarius]

Unconstitutional.

I don't think this would fly even in the 9th district.

 

[GothTalk]

Your gun...you are liable for it. Seems fair.

One step closer to the country breaking up.

"Fair" is subjective bullshit has fuck all to do with anything.

And yes, Democrat insurrection against the USA and it's values continue.

California along with everyone who's a "progressive" leftist, should leave the USA and quit dragging those of us who DON'T hate the USA and civil rights down.

 

[toeskr]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html

Great Britain has no guns, amirite?

You should go back. Try to mend fences with your children.

 

[ishtat]

I suspect that Liability insurance for gun owners would be much cheaper than most folks imagine. It would be massively profitable for insurers because they know that only the good guys will buy coverage. If say, 100 million gun owners bought liability insurance at $50 per annum that'd be $5 Billion which would pay a lot of claims.

The smart way to underwrite the risk however, would be to insist that all households and businesses carry TP liability cover for all risks excluding only things like earthquake, revolution, war, stuff like that - no need to mention guns at all. Most commercial covers currently issued are already broad enough

Of course it would be a huge pot of funds for lawyers to get stuck into.

 

[toeskr]

I suspect that Liability insurance for gun owners would be much cheaper than most folks imagine. It would be massively profitable for insurers because they know that only the good guys will buy coverage. If say, 100 million gun owners bought liability insurance at $50 per annum that'd be $5 Billion which would pay a lot of claims.

The smart way to underwrite the risk however, would be to insist that all households and businesses carry TP liability cover for all risks excluding only things like earthquake, revolution, war, stuff like that - no need to mention guns at all. Most commercial covers currently issued are already broad enough

Of course it would be a huge pot of funds for lawyers to get stuck into.

I suspect that liability insurance for hatchet owners should be instituted as well.

If you own a reciprocating saw you should have an additional waiver too.

 

[ishtat]

I suspect that liability insurance for hatchet owners should be instituted as well.

If you own a reciprocating saw you should have an additional waiver too.

You may be missing the point slightly. All General liability policies currently underwritten have very few exclusions. Hatchets, saws, all sorts of dangerous stuff would be covered. The only dangerous weapon routinely excluded from a General Liability policy is the motor vehicle and that is because it is specifically underwritten separately.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Another democrat plan to either keep poor people in their place, or turn them into criminals.

 

[LittleDixie]

This way, if the police find a black person with a gun that they haven't been paying taxes on, we can put them in prison for evading the taxes, even if they didn't commit a crime with the gun.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Most of the reporting on this story is misleading.

1. It is not a tax. It is classified as a “user fee” under CA state law. From a legal perspective there is a significant difference. Fees can only be imposed to collect revenues that benefit the people who pay the fee. In this case, gun owners would have access to suicide prevention services, safety training and things like that. This aspect of the law probably could be upheld.

2. The liability insurance mandate probably is unconstitutional. The Obamacare insurance mandate was only upheld because Roberts said it was a tax.

3. Here’s the dirty little secret about the insurance mandate. The only coverage required is liability in case of accidental death, injury, or property. This is already covered under standard homeowners policies. One of the reasons this provision of the law easily passed by the city council is because nearly all homeowners have homeowners insurance. It’s more of a problem for renters. Not all renters carry renters insurance and those policies are more limited in what they cover.

4. The law is unenforceable. The database that tracks gun ownership is maintained by the state DOJ and by law, it cannot be shared with the city. The state will mail notifications to gun owners informing them of their fee and insurance obligations on the city’s behalf, but the state will not enforce the law. Because the city won’t know who owns guns and who received the letters, it cannot enforce the law.

5. Because there is no enforcement mechanism (except during police encounters where gun owners are suspected of a gun crime), the city only expects a compliance rate of around 15%. Even that is probably wildly overestimated. A few ultra-law abiding residents will comply, but most won’t. Total revenues per year are projected to be $1.3 million. That’s peanuts. San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US with a million people and an annual budget of roughly a billion dollars.

The toothless law was a PR stunt by the politically ambitious mayor whose term expires at the end of the year and is expected to seek higher office. In CA, any form of gun control, no matter how stupid, is politically popular.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

This way, if the police find a black person with a gun that they haven't been paying taxes on, we can put them in prison for evading the taxes, even if they didn't commit a crime with the gun.

Wait, why would they have to put them in jail??