San Jose to require liability insurance for gun owners

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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.

Indeed, if I remember correctly this was what torpedoed the NRA's Carry Guard CCW insurance program.


From the article linked in the opening post:

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.

I don't see how that can possibly survive a court challenge. It has to fail under the equal protection analysis. If MY guns don't shoot anyone, why do I have to pay a "fee" to subsidize first responders while my neighbors who don't own guns don't have to pay the fee?

[Prof Young]

The subtext here is the criminalization of gun ownership. Many people, even well educated people, see no good reason to own a gun. They believe that gun owners must be up to no good. It's like a phobia.

Makes me crazy.

Prof Young

[cdoc42]

If a criminal enters your home and in the commission of his intended theft, shoots and injures you, causing you to go to the hospital, where, in this country in the present time is a municipality responsible for your medical charges? Your medical insurance covers all the expenses they list, with the exception of police expenses, which is the bottom line in this aura of police defunding since they can't make it obvious they are moving back to the future.

This is a tax directed at a specific portion of the population that provides a benefit to community members as well, who don't own guns, the supposed benefit being it reduces a general tax on all community members for the same portion of the city's budgeted expenses.

I can't see how it would pass muster in court. But, then again, California is the land of fruits and nuts.

[44 AMP]

If MY guns don't shoot anyone, why do I have to pay a "fee" to subsidize first responders while my neighbors who don't own guns don't have to pay the fee?

that would seem a valid point, HOWEVER, again I refer to property ownership and school taxes. It varies a bit, but where I live, if I own property, I get assessed a tax (one of many) to pay for public school whether I have children who go or went to school, or NOT.

A neighbor who rents his home, has six kids, who ride the bus, eat school lunches, and often actually enter the school building doesn't pay a penny in school taxes under our system in many places.

I don't see how this is different in base principle, taxing someone who has "something" to pay for benefits and services for those who don't have that "something" and so, don't pay the tax.

And yet, its done all the time, all over the country. How is that fair, equal treatment, under the law???

[zukiphile]

I'm not a fan of government run schools, but I'll take a swing at this.

I don't see how this is different in base principle, taxing someone who has "something" to pay for benefits and services for those who don't have that "something" and so, don't pay the tax.

The way this works in my state, a school board is a governmental unit. It's limited in scope, but if you live with a school board's district (which are not always perfectly co-extensive with municipal limits), you are subject to its authority, including it's taxing authority. Real estate taxes are assessed against everyone who owns real estate in that district. There is no link conceptually between paying the school levy as part of your real estate tax bill and benefitting from government educational services; it isn't a payment for service. No voter in the district is required to own land, so it isn't the right that is taxed; it's the land.

The San Jose proposal is a direct taxation of the exercise of the right and the legislative history that follows this idea will include language suggesting that the council sees this as restitution for the costs of gun possession. The tax isn't imposed on everyone within the jurisdiction, only those who exercise their right.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The San Jose proposal is a direct taxation of the exercise of the right and the legislative history that follows this idea will include language suggesting that the council sees this as restitution for the costs of gun possession. The tax isn't imposed on everyone within the jurisdiction, only those who exercise their right.

Interesting theory.

So the .gov says, "Let's create a nightmare bureaucratic system that applies only to gun owners, 99 percent of whom are law abiding citizens and don't need any administration, and then we'll charge them an 'administrative fee' to cover the costs of administering the bureaucracy that doesn't accomplish anything because the 1 percent of gun owners who commit the crimes don't register their guns with the bureaucracy anyway."

Does that about sum it up?

[jdc606]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Does that about sum it up?

Yes...How about passing a law prohibiting murder and then apply a tax/fee to anyone who breaks this law?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jdc

Yes...How about passing a law prohibiting murder and then apply a tax/fee to anyone who breaks this law?

A more direct analog would be to tax everyone who owns a knife, because people are sometimes wounded or killed by knives and the police and medics usually respond to those incidents.

Oh ... wait. Don't we already pay taxes to pay for the police and the EMTs? Same applies to gun owners. They're already paying taxes to pay for first responders, so this new "fee" amounts to unequal double taxation. The county can't call it a "user fee," because law abiding gun owners typically don't create "gun crime" incidents, and don't call the police unless they have just shot an assailant -- in which case it should be the assailant who pays for the first responders, not the victim.

[cdoc42]

44AMP said: "A neighbor who rents his home, has six kids, who ride the bus, eat school lunches, and often actually enter the school building doesn't pay a penny in school taxes under our system in many places."

I think the owner of the rental property pays school tax on the basis of the property. That expense is reflected in the rent charge, so, in effect, renters are paying school taxes.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

So the .gov says, "Let's create a nightmare bureaucratic system that applies only to gun owners, 99 percent of whom are law abiding citizens and don't need any administration, and then we'll charge them an 'administrative fee' to cover the costs of administering the bureaucracy that doesn't accomplish anything because the 1 percent of gun owners who commit the crimes don't register their guns with the bureaucracy anyway."

Does that about sum it up?

I think that's the model for the firearms part of BATFE. I'm not an alcohol prohibitionist, but I understand that alcohol has some social and medical costs at the margins; yet I don't need a background check that would disqualify me from buying liquor if I had a DV conviction. Tobacco surely involves some very serious costs, but aside from the high price the greatest sanction against smokers involves treating them like lepers.

Forearms may be the most benign matter they regulate, but firearm purchasers are treated like taxable lab rats.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Right now with the Current Potus, I am worried about a whole lot more than San Jose gun taxes.

[44 AMP]

I think the owner of the rental property pays school tax on the basis of the property. That expense is reflected in the rent charge, so, in effect, renters are paying school taxes.

You can look at it that way, but the renter isn't directly paying the tax, he's paying the landlord. And that landlord is getting the same rent from a family with kids who go to school as he is from the retired couple or the single person with no kids.

i think the principle is the same, everyone who owns "A" is being taxed for the benefit of a group they may or may not belong to. Some situations may allow the taxpayer to pass along the cost, others do not.

The gun owner tax being proposed is different. San Jose govt is attempting to "double dip" into gun owner's wallets. Gun owners already pay for fire, medical and police services the same way everyone else does. Now, the San Jose govt wants to charge them extra to supposedly pay for those same services again, because somehow, they think the people who's guns shoot nobody are responsible for the actions of others, and should pay for the cost of their illegal acts.

Using that FLAWED logic shows a spectacular lack of judgement and common sense, to me, and people who think that way should not be the ones we elect to manage our govt.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The gun owner tax being proposed is different. San Jose govt is attempting to "double dip" into gun owner's wallets. Gun owners already pay for fire, medical and police services the same way everyone else does. Now, the San Jose govt wants to charge them extra to supposedly pay for those same services again, because somehow, they think the people who's guns shoot nobody are responsible for the actions of others, and should pay for the cost of their illegal acts.

Agreed. See post #33.

Double dipping is double dipping, regardless of how they try to "justify" it.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

The gun owner tax being proposed is different. San Jose govt is attempting to "double dip" into gun owner's wallets. Gun owners already pay for fire, medical and police services the same way everyone else does. Now, the San Jose govt wants to charge them extra to supposedly pay for those same services again, because somehow, they think the people who's guns shoot nobody are responsible for the actions of others, and should pay for the cost of their illegal acts.

That's why I stressed the restitution element in the council's reasoning. I don't know that it is an argument that surely disposes of this whole issue, but restitution is a judicial remedy. It involves the due process of evidence that you caused the damage for which you must pay. When a legislature does it, there is no such process. This is like taxing everyone who weighs over 200 pounds because obesity increases medical costs.

Originally Posted by 44AMP

Using that FLAWED logic shows a spectacular lack of judgement and common sense, to me, and people who think that way should not be the ones we elect to manage our govt.

I don't know who said this, but it reminds me of the line -- people who are too wise to enter government are doomed to be governed by those who aren't.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

That's why I stressed the restitution element in the council's reasoning. I don't know that it is an argument that surely disposes of this whole issue, but restitution is a judicial remedy. It involves the due process of evidence that you caused the damage for which you must pay. When a legislature does it, there is no such process. This is like taxing everyone who weighs over 200 pounds because obesity increases medical costs.

In this context, it's not even an oxymoron. From Merriam-Webster on-line:

Definition of restitution

1 : an act of restoring or a condition of being restored: such as
a : a restoration of something to its rightful owner
b : a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury

2 : a legal action serving to cause restoration of a previous state

"Restitution," in other words, is traditionally a requirement for someone to pay back some or all of an amount he or she gained through illicit means. The concept or requiring an entire class of people to pay "restitution" for acts which they not only didn't commit but which have not even been committed could only have come from the same minds that call asking (or forcing) people to sell to the government at a fraction of the real value guns which the government never sold, a "gun buy-back" program.

It really is time for someone to release a sequel to Edwin Newman's books, Strictly Speaking and A Civil Tongue.

[Long Beard]

With all the valid and well placed comments, there are three major issues which no one seems to have touched on. One, and most important not only in Fresno but nation wide, when individuals such as this are up for election and then get re-elected, those living there deserve what they get. They, not the officials, are responsible. Second, if the new law becomes upheld and a reality, do the non-fire arm owners get a reduction in tax paid to fund the law enforcement, EMS, ect as specified in the law? Likewise, do those with firearms continue to pay the same rate rate? Finally, this will do nothing at all for what it's claimed since, like all taxation, it goes into the general fund. Therefore, it will be spent on social programs as always.

[KyJim]

This is the rare case where the “tax” is not about increasing revenue. It’s about placing impediments in the way of those politically incorrect enough to exercise their 2A rights.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by KyJim

This is the rare case where the “tax” is not about increasing revenue. It’s about placing impediments in the way of those politically incorrect enough to exercise their 2A rights.

And that is, or should be, the reason the courts will find the law unconstitutional. I wish I had more confidence in the courts.

[cdoc42]

I thought about this today. Did San Jose defund their police?

I looked it up: https://sanjosespotlight.com/hundred...f-budget-vote/

Now, if they did vote to defund the police, then they will have a deficit in funds in that budget to manage the needs of the police force, which include salaries, benefits, including health care insurance, ambulance services and police department business administration.

Interestingly, the tax and fees on gun owners have been announced as necessary to fund "police responses (salaries?), ambulances, medical treatments, and other municipal expenses related to shootings, injuries and deaths."

If a crime perpetrator is injured during the course of the arrest, and taken to the hospital by ambulance, I sincerely doubt the miscreant has medical insurance, and so, the municipality may get the bill for the ambulance ride and hospital care. All of this requires police department/municipal business office intervention.

So by defunding the police department, the budget deficit is planned to be compensated by gun owners who have absolutely nothing to do with the crimes committed. A tax and fee mandate that may well violate the Constitution as I am under the impression that taxes have to be imposed on citizens equally. They cannot divert tax funds to other budgeted categories, then seek reimbursement from a selected population.

Cigarette smokers were not taxed to pay for the associated medical costs. The product abused was taxed. In this case, they can't tax the gun because it was not necessarily used by a law-abiding citizen to commit the crime that generated the expense.

Thoughts?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by s3779m

And that is, or should be, the reason the courts will find the law unconstitutional. I wish I had more confidence in the courts.

I lost faith in the courts years ago although once in a while I am pleasantly surprised like finding buried treasure

[Don P]

A neighbor who rents his home, has six kids, who ride the bus, eat school lunches, and often actually enter the school building doesn't pay a penny in school taxes under our system in many places.

In essence wouldn't the home owner be paying the school taxes via the rent collected? So in essence the renter is paying school tax. Here in FLA owners that rent out a home pay higher taxes because of not being able to homestead the property and most are smart enough to make sure the rent is high enough to cover the higher tax

[44 AMP]

In essence wouldn't the home owner be paying the school taxes via the rent collected? So in essence the renter is paying school tax.

That's the result, but consider this, the owner is going to be paying that tax whether he gets rent, or not. Now he may be using part of that rent money to cover the expense of the tax, but he's still paying that tax out of his income. The renter isn't paying the tax he's paying rent, and that rent is income to the property owner, and he pays the tax out of his income, just as he pays all his other bills and expenses out of his income.

So, as I see it the renter isn't paying the tax, even though the owner is using (Part) of that rent to pay the tax, its coming out of the property owner's income, and could even be paid from some other portion of his income that isn't derived from rent. The owner pays the tax, its their personal choice where the funds they use to do so, originate from.

OF course this is a somewhat simplistic view, I suppose, things in the real world are complex

[Don P]

Makes sense and point taken

[lll Otto lll]

So when a burglar steals a gun, he won't have to pay the fee or get insurance because technically he isn't the owner. Correct?

[44 AMP]

So when a burglar steals a gun, he won't have to pay the fee or get insurance because technically he isn't the owner. Correct?

Close. Technically he is the owner, it is in his possession, he controls its use, so he "owns" it, in that sense. However its stolen, so he's not the legal owner. And if he's a prohibited person, he can't legally own any gun.

SO, since paying the fee or getting the insurance is admitting he HAS a gun, he's not required to do so, since admitting he has an illegal gun is a violation of his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination.

If he gets caught with the gun, he will be charged with having an illegal gun, BUT he will NOT be charged with failing to register that gun, or not paying the tax or getting insurance because doing so would violate his Constitutional rights.