Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: City mandates gun insurance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,810

    Default City mandates gun insurance

    San Jose Approves Nation’s 1st Mandatory Gun Liabililty Insurance, Annual Fees
    June 30, 2021 at 10:04 amFiled Under:Gun Control, Gun Insurance, San Jose, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo

    SAN JOSE (CBS SF) — In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the San Jose City Council approved first-of-its-kind gun control measures.

    The first would requires every gun owner have liability insurance coverage for their firearms. The insurance could not legally cover intentional harm caused by a gun owner.

    The second requires gun owners to pay an annual fee to compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun-related injuries and death, including police and medical services.

    San Jose is the first city in the country to pass such measures. The new laws are part of a gun control plan Mayor Sam Liccardo unveiled earlier this month following the mass shooting by a disgruntled Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) employee at a light rail yard in San Jose.

    “It’s also the case that while the Second Amendment certainly protects the right to own a gun it does not mandate that we subsidize as taxpayers the possession of these guns,” said Liccardo during the virtual meeting.

    Liccardo said gun liability insurance is akin to car insurance insofar as it encourages responsible gun ownership, storage and use. He said the fees would be modest – potentially between $25-$30.

    “We know that crooks aren’t going to get insurance. Of course, they’re not,” Liccardo said. “So, when a police officer responds to a domestic violence call and asks the question that every officer asks which is ‘Are there any guns in the home?’ at that time the officer can determine if that individual has followed the law to get insurance.”

    Gun rights advocates said the measures punish law-abiding gun owners and will challenge the city’s decision in the courts.They doubt they will make much impact on gun violence and likely run afoul of the Second Amendment.

    “We feel it is clearly unconstitutional for the government at any level to charge some sort of a fee before somebody can exercise an enumerated, constitutional right,” said Sam Paredes with Gun Owners of California.

    Two weeks ago, the city council approved a law requiring retailers to video-record all firearm purchases, becoming the largest city in California with such a rule.

    https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...e-annual-fees/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Blythewood
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    cali gonna cali

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,189

    Default

    Hope that ain't where Ring King is.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    I see a lawsuit in the 9th circuit followed by an injunction in the near future.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Scumter
    Posts
    21,805

    Default

    I too see a trip to the Supreme Court on this one.

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Delta in a nutshell: Breeding grounds + small wetlands + big blocks of grass cover + predator removal + nesting structures + enough money to do the job= plenty of ducks to keep everyone smiling!

    "For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor the protected shall never know."
    -L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    "shall not be infringed"
    "I swear if I found you in a marsh I don't know that I could keep myself from mud stomping you" -Griffin

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Scumter
    Posts
    21,805

    Default

    This seems pretty dumb to me:

    “While the Second Amendment certainly protects the right to own a gun, it does not mandate that taxpayers subsidize the possession of those guns,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said during the City Council’s meeting Tuesday. “And we need a mechanism that will both compensate injured victims and take some of the burden off of taxpayers.”
    Aren't the taxpayers already picking up the tab for that? I mean, they pay the cops salaries and such. Now they're being asked to do double duty on picking up the tab for the criminals? If said criminals commit a gun crime, then by definition they're not a "law abiding gun owner", so the legal gun owners are being penalized for other people's crimes.

    Either way is a buncha BS. Sounds to me like some Democrat has a hand in this insurance cookie jar while waging his little vendetta on firearms. It's a double whammy. While raising taxes no less, so it hits the trifecta.

    This is how liberty is lost... one little thing at a time. Chipping away at 'em bit by bit.

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Delta in a nutshell: Breeding grounds + small wetlands + big blocks of grass cover + predator removal + nesting structures + enough money to do the job= plenty of ducks to keep everyone smiling!

    "For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor the protected shall never know."
    -L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Blythewood
    Posts
    2,088

    Default

    How they gonna know who has guns?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Petaluma CA / Moncks Corner SC
    Posts
    3,920

    Default

    Nope, not where I am! It's going on about 2 hours South of me. Up here we still have plenty of hunters and gun owners. I don't see that one lasting for long. It'll get overturned in my opinion.
    Living in Moncks Corner but looking forward to moving back to the West Coast in 2020 where there are more ducks and less duck hunters!! LOL

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •