San Jose to require liability insurance for gun owners

[Skwib]

More insanity. Can't wait to see how this plays in the courts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sa...cid=uxbndlbing

[zukiphile]

From the article:

The San Jose City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to draft an ordinance that would order gun owners in the city to obtain insurance and pay an annual fee to subsidize police responses, ambulances, medical treatment and other municipal expenses related to shootings, injuries and deaths.

So they are going to tax an entire group for a harm they assert is perpetrated by a small percentage of that group?

Who could possibly misuse such a wise proposal?

You know what costs taxpayers a lot? Stupid voting choices. So if we tax voting, taxpayers won't have to subsidize voting. This fixes everything.

[44 AMP]

So they are going to tax an entire group for a harm they assert is perpetrated by a small percentage of that group?

Why not? Its a long established principle. Don't they tax property owners to pay for schools, when "only a small percentage" of them have children in school??

Its a simple idea, you tax people with money, to pay for whatever, because taxing people who don't have money doesn't pay for much.

And, the system reaches peak efficiency when you can tax the people who do not get or use any of the benefits they are paying for!

Like taxing an entire state to pay for a ferry system or a rail system or a sports stadium that is only used in one place....

And why just stop with guns? Why not tax every knife owner in the city (or state or whatever) to pay for people who get stabbed?

Everybody has a knife in their kitchen, some people have..gasp...dozens!! I can't think of a broader tax base than that!

[ATN082268]

How will the government know who the gun owners are? You can easily buy a gun and give it away for free, for example.

[44 AMP]

How will the government know who the gun owners are?

Well, there you go, that's why they need full and complete registration!!!

and, not just new purchases, either!!

In their minds, if there's a gun in the house, even if its 100yrs old and broken, its still a gun and the owners are responsible for paying "their fair share of the cost burden to society that guns create..."

Its BS, but they are the elected authority, so they can do whatever they want...right????

(intentional sarcasm)

[ATN082268]

"Well, there you go, that's why they need full and complete registration!!!"

So, this government scheme seems to be to take almost all your guns but leave you one or two so you can be charged an excessive tax to fund some stupid pet project.

Edit: added quotes to first paragraph.

[raimius]

Hm...seems like a tax to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

...I suppose they looked at poll taxes as an inspiration...

[Aguila Blanca]

I wonder how it will fare against California's state firearms preemption law ...

[BarryLee]

So, they tax law abiding citizens to compensate the government for cost of crimes committed by illegal gun possessors. Here is an idea why don't we lock up violent criminals for progressively longer amounts of time. Oh wait criminals are actually the victims here, so again, lets punish the folks who actually follow the law. Wish I could just roll my eyes and say, "Oh those wacky Californians" but this is a growing mindset nationwide.

[STORM2]

…so does that mean that the city has the authority to force insurance companies to sell such a policy? Will the policy cover the actions of the gun or the owner? Policy sold covering gun liability. Owner shoots gun. Gun not liable, shooter is. Insurance company not liable for owner; only gun! What idiots failed to think this through? I bet more folks are killed in that city by booze, drugs and ladders than guns.

[TXAZ]

TXAZ welcomes and suggest all lawful San Jose gun owners move to Texas, where most of our BS comes from actual bulls and not politicians.

[s3779m]

I bet every liberal city, county, and state will be watching how this one plays out. I think it is almost a given it will pass the 9th court. So I guess the big question is will this scotus take it up?

[jdc606]

The citizens who support this bill are being duped if they think it will make them "safer". Just the government coming up with a creative way to siphon money from citizens while not addressing the multiple causes of death by firearm misuse.
I'm doubtful of our justice system upholding the constitution. Look what happened to U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII.

[Geezerbiker]

I hope it gets struck down in the courts. Otherwise that BS will likely be imported here to Oregon next year.

Tony

[seanc]

s3779m:

I bet every liberal city, county, and state will be watching how this one plays out. I think it is almost a given it will pass the 9th court. So I guess the big question is will this scotus take it up?

This is every anti-gunner's wet dream. The mayor could hardly contain himself during his televised announcement. I love how he specifically stated that this ordinance was protective of the 2A -- NOT! From this thread alone, on a quick read, there's at least 4 solid reasons why this ordinance won't survive. When GOA solicits for funds on this one, I'll kick in some more $$. This should burn up some of the antis money defending this. I bet this mayor is one of Bloomberg's guys. Keep it up anti-2A dorks .

[DaleA]

Yeah, San Jose is off the rails.

While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be "a couple dozen dollars," and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.

Do you think it will be a couple dozen dollars per gun owner or per gun?

But this will undoubtedly help stop crime and shootings, because...

"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."

Or, you know, police could arrest crooks for being crooks and being in possesion of a firearm which is already illegal.

I was impressed with how much information is revealed in this really short news clip about the San Jose madness, they even address how it's going to be enforced. (Pretty much hit and miss.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sa...edgdhp&pc=U531

[Tom Servo]

I don't see this surviving in the courts. SCOTUS came down pretty hard on taxing rights in the Minneapolis Star case.

There are differences in the nuances, but I just don't see the current majority of the court finding this constitutional.

[44 AMP]

"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."

I'm not so sure about that....

First point is that it is long established law that criminals (felons and any other prohibited persons) are NOT legally required to register a gun they have. And, I would think that includes paying any LOCAL tax on it.

A prohibited person doesn't need to register or pay tax on a gun they cannot legally possess. Doing so would be a violation of their constitutional right against self incrimination. They can be charged with illegally possessing the gun, but cannot be charged with failing to register or pay tax on it.

Second point is the actual legality of requiring the tax OR the insurance.

Next point is simply, who's gonna get the tax money? (until a court strikes it down?) The CITY???? No doubt the fine people who are running this mess could do with MORE money!!

[Tom Servo]

Next point is simply, who's gonna get the tax money? (until a court strikes it down?) The CITY?

And that's the salt in the wound.

In the 1990s, the tobacco industry reached a multi-billion dollar settlement with the federal government. They agreed to pay out tens of millions of dollars per year to be sent to the states for the purpose of smoking education and harm prevention.

States like New York and Connecticut spend less than 1% of it on anything related to its purpose. In New York, they've spent it on things like new buildings and offices for unrelated agencies, and they have so much of it spent ahead of time, they've issued bonds against future payments.

[Jim Watson]

One thing it might do is encourage departure of residents prosperous enough to buy guns. Bye bye gun tax, bye bye ALL taxes from those sensible people.

[ejfalvo]

Lived there (actually Campbell) but would frequent the closest LGS in San Jose. Always felt bad for his crew, all family members, as the restrictions put on firearm owners and LGS in general. Great store, did what they could to accommodate customers. One day, walked in and everything was on sale. Was told they gave up, moving to Texas. In my opinion, that's the end game for these states/cities, make it seriously difficult to run a LGS, they give up and bam, fewer places to buy firearms and ammo.

[cdoc42]

This just shows that some of the crap in the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles has infiltrated the brains of the San Jose Council.

[cjwils]

With all the responses, I am surprised that no one has mentioned car insurance. The vast majority of us are legally required to have liability insurance on our cars because a small percentage of car owners get into trouble that harms others. What is the difference?

[44 AMP]

The vast majority of us are legally required to have liability insurance on our cars because a small percentage of car owners get into trouble that harms others. What is the difference?

What's the difference? it may seem subtle, but its fundamental. You are not being taxed or required to buy insurance if you own a car.

Those fees are incurred as payment for operating that car on public highways. You have a Constitutional right to own property (the car, in this case), and you have a Constitutional right to travel, but you don't have a Constitutional right to operate a car on a public road. For that, you need a license, and everything else that goes with it. Car registration, taxes, fees, insurance of various kinds, etc.

You can own a car, on your own property and never need to pay the govt any fees or even have a license, PROVIDED you don't drive it on public roads or property.

This is not even CLOSE to taxing you and requiring special insurance because you OWN a gun. And that is what we are told they want to do.

Also I hear they want all gun sales video taped. Not sure what that's supposed to accomplish that the written records do not....

I expect their next move to be requiring gun owners to wear a yellow star or pink triangle or some other symbol so they can be readily identified on the street....

Waffenfrei isn't all that much different than Judenfrei, in principle... to me.....

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by cjwils

The vast majority of us are legally required to have liability insurance on our cars because a small percentage of car owners get into trouble that harms others. What is the difference?

Typically your car insurance will only cover unintentional injury and exclude injury flowing from intentional conduct. There is a public policy in most states that prohibits one from insuring against his own intentional behavior; the sense is that it could make injurious behavior more likely if the wrongdoer is insulated from the financial consequence. The behavior for which San Jose seeks restitution in the form of a firearms tax is nearly always intentional.

If you read your state's financial responsibility laws, you are likely to find that it requires that you have resources from which to pay a judgment up to a limit (I think Ohio is $25,000) or an insurance policy in that amount. It probably doesn't require you to enter a contract with an insurance company.