Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

1
Mayor Renews Gun Insurance Proposal in Wake of VTA Shooting
To that end, Liccardo said, he hoped the San Jose City Council would approve, by the end of the year, a first-in-the-nation requirement that gun owners in the city insure their weapons or pay fees to keep them. The idea, he explained, is that guns are contributing to a public health crisis — and it’s expensive.
Of course, gun laws at every level have faced intense and sustained legal challenges. Liccardo told me he’s “not delusional” about the fact that a gun regulation ordinance would require a vigorous legal defense. But he said that city-level policy changes could provide ideas that Congress and even the state legislature would not be nimble enough to enact.

“No one would say that it would be ideal for each city to come up with its own policies,” he said. “But we recognize that cities can be laboratories for policy innovation.”
More detail from the last time Liccardo tried this:
San Jose Mayor Unveils First-of-Its-Kind Policy Proposal to Combat Gun Violence
The initiative unveiled this morning, which city officials are calling a first-of-its-kind in the nation, would require firearm owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons. Those unable to acquire such insurance would instead pay a fee to compensate the public for the “cost of firearm violence in America’s 10th largest city,” according to a press release from the mayor’s office.

The insurance would cover accidental discharges, as well as the intentional acts of someone who stole, borrowed or acquired the gun. However, it wouldn't cover the liability of the gun owner for their own “intentional conduct.”

“Under current Supreme Court rulings, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms,” the mayor said. “However, the Constitution does not require taxpayers to subsidize that individual choice. The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers.”

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

2
Political stunts like this are more rampant in the local politics. Lots of illegal local ordinances are quashed in courts every year.

To answer the city mayor’s argument, the moment something becomes a Constitutional Right here in America, the expense of maintaining that right for the people is automatically born by taxpayers, as represented by the government.
Civics 101.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

4
I'm pretty sure I could make the case that meat-eaters must get colo-rectal cancer insurance. The vegetarians don't want to pay for their foolishness.

See how it's not going to get through? Well, let's hope: I don't want to pay double insurance rates because I'm a beer drinker. There are limits.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
If I had a gun for every ace I've drawn
I could arm a town the size of Zhytomyr

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

7
Despite concerns about a spate of fatal shootings in California, a bill to create new taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for gun-violence prevention programs failed to get the two-thirds vote needed for passage Thursday in the state Assembly.

The bill by Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael) fell eight votes short of the 54 needed for approval. It would have created a 10% excise tax on retailers for the sale of new handguns and an 11% tax for long guns and ammunition, and raised more than $100 million annually for a gun violence prevention program to mediate disputes in the community, including those involving gang members.
Although Thursday was the deadline for the bill to move out of the Assembly, Levine said he is not giving up on having his proposal considered this year, which would require a different legislative procedure.

Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-Carson) gave an emotional appeal for the tax, citing a shooting last year that injured his 32-year-old son and two others, and left one man dead.

Gipson used an expletive to describe the drive-by shooter and said the crime shook him up.

“To get that phone call, my world was turned upside down,” Gipson said.

But supporters acknowledged that it was a tough vote for many legislators to support a tax increase. Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who supported the bill, called the subjects of guns and taxes “radioactive” politically.

Some moderate Democrats, including Assemblymen Adam Gray of Merced and Jim Cooper of Elk Grove, withheld a vote on the legislation, while Republicans voted en masse against the measure.

Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R-Visalia) said he has sympathy for the families of shooting victims but noted that he believes the tax hike will not address the root causes of gun violence, including poverty and mental illness. Instead, he said it would burden law-abiding gun owners.

“What this bill does is create a tax, which is going to drive up the cost,” Mathis said during the floor debate. “People who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be killed or injured in a crime, so with this bill are you taking away [that] ability by driving up the cost of ammunition?”


The measure was also opposed by groups advocating for gun owners including the National Rifle Assn., which called the bill an unconstitutional attempt to limit the ability of citizens to buy firearms.

They cited existing levies on guns, including an 11% federal excise tax on firearm and ammunition purchases to help fund conservation and wildlife efforts, a $31 fee for the “dealer record of sale” transaction and a $5 firearm safety and enforcement fee.
https://sports.yahoo.com/california-law ... 51271.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

8
Liccardo has been getting media support.
San Jose Mayor Outlines New Gun Control Ordinance to Help Curb Gun Violence
The plan also includes everything from bans on ghost guns and assault style weapons to gun buyback programs and required video recording of all gun sales -- something that’s sure to see legal challenges.

It also calls for an unspecified fee on every gun to help offset the public costs associated with gun violence, a $1.4 billion expense statewide last year.
The mayor plans to submit the proposals to the council Thursday and wants passage by September.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo Renews Calls For Mandatory Insurance, Annual Fees For Gun Owners Following VTA Shooting
“With council approval San Jose would become the first city in the United States to require every gun owner to have liability insurance coverage for their firearms. Second, San Jose would become the first U.S. city to require gun owners to pay a fee to compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun violence,” Liccardo at the makeshift memorial at City Hall that honors the nine fallen VTA workers who were shot and killed at the light rail yard on May 26.
“And that way we can ensure that victims are compensated where there’s an insurable event. And of course, insurance companies will help us make gun possession safer,” said Liccardo.
Ghost Guns: San Jose would implement an ordinance to tighten loopholes in state law

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

10
I would assume that this sets the stage for mostly poorer, poc, folks not only getting in more trouble with the law, but also having their private property confiscated. Does Sam realize that roughly 1 in 5 Democrat households own guns, 1 in 7 in California? What are the costs to track all of this information? Where will the names of gun owners, their addresses, gun info, be securely stored? It's unfortunate, but this is nothing more than a cynical stunt by Sam to feather his bed for his run for governor or President...... and alienate a segment of his own party members in the process. We have over 25,000,000 guns in California and 2020 saw an increase in first time gun owners, women, poc folks and liberals buying them.

Seems like quite a few angles of attack for a court case. ...speculation and hypothetical outcome modeling is encouraged. Curious if the LGC is planning to issue a statement directed towards this plan by the Mayor of San Jose? ...like "doing something"?

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

11
San Jose becomes 1st city in CA to pass sweeping gun reforms
Mayor Sam Liccardo says the research will be used to help determine the fee the city will require gun owners to pay.

The new ordinances are expected to be challenged in court by gun advocates including the firearms policy coalition.

Some city leaders however are confident they’ll withstand the opposition.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

15
For the political party that portrays themselves as the defender of the poor, this financially impacts poor people who own guns. They have a greater need for a gun because they usually live in high crime areas, in contrast to the wealthy who live in homes with alarms that are supervised and call the police automatically. I assume the mayor is running for reelection and this will bolster it among wealthy anti-gun donors.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

16
Are they going to have a different fee for handguns and various long guns? I can see it now like auto tags in Texas different vehicles pay a different fee. Let see for the Assault look alike rifles a fee of $500 -$1,000 depending on how evil it looks. A Ruger Ranch Rile California compliant $25. Handguns Revolvers $10 Semi Auto Glocks $500. No real reason but a way to get your guns.

As for the insurance I can't see very many insurance companies writing a liability policy for those requirements.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

18
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:30 pm Insurance is just another form of a Ponzi scheme.
It’s also a way to prevent people of limited means to own guns. That is ultimately not a right anymore if you are required to have insurance to practice it. That’s driving a car, driving is a privilege.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

19
Let's take it the next level. Look at the damage alcohol does to society particularly cheap booze consumed by the poor/ Lets have a $100 tax on cheap 6 packs and a similar tax on cheap fifths and bottles of wine. The tax would be reduced as the price goes up so your Governor and friends would not be troubled. Sarcasm aside isn't a tax on a right like a pole tax?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin
Beto in wisconsin

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

20
beto wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:03 pm Let's take it the next level. Look at the damage alcohol does to society particularly cheap booze consumed by the poor/ Lets have a $100 tax on cheap 6 packs and a similar tax on cheap fifths and bottles of wine. The tax would be reduced as the price goes up so your Governor and friends would not be troubled. Sarcasm aside isn't a tax on a right like a pole tax?
Yes, it is.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

21
beto wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:03 pm Let's take it the next level. Look at the damage alcohol does to society particularly cheap booze consumed by the poor/ Lets have a $100 tax on cheap 6 packs and a similar tax on cheap fifths and bottles of wine. The tax would be reduced as the price goes up so your Governor and friends would not be troubled. Sarcasm aside isn't a tax on a right like a pole tax?
Well you can't out right kill another person with a six pack least you beat them up against the head with it. Drinking one won't kill ya.
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
- Emerson

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

22
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:21 pm
beto wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:03 pm Let's take it the next level. Look at the damage alcohol does to society particularly cheap booze consumed by the poor/ Lets have a $100 tax on cheap 6 packs and a similar tax on cheap fifths and bottles of wine. The tax would be reduced as the price goes up so your Governor and friends would not be troubled. Sarcasm aside isn't a tax on a right like a pole tax?
Well you can't out right kill another person with a six pack least you beat them up against the head with it. Drinking one won't kill ya.
And your point is? I get it, you're a bloomie dem anti second type that thinks only certain people should have a right to own weapons. You're not liberal on that point. Educate and train, don't deny adults the right to decide for themselves. People under 21 are already restricted from attaining handguns by federal law.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

23
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:50 pm
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:21 pm
beto wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:03 pm Let's take it the next level. Look at the damage alcohol does to society particularly cheap booze consumed by the poor/ Lets have a $100 tax on cheap 6 packs and a similar tax on cheap fifths and bottles of wine. The tax would be reduced as the price goes up so your Governor and friends would not be troubled. Sarcasm aside isn't a tax on a right like a pole tax?
Well you can't out right kill another person with a six pack least you beat them up against the head with it. Drinking one won't kill ya.
And your point is? I get it, you're a bloomie dem anti second type that thinks only certain people should have a right to own weapons. You're not liberal on that point. Educate and train, don't deny adults the right to decide for themselves. People under 21 are already restricted from attaining handguns by federal law.
Oh right, I'm anti 2nd lol In your dreams. Keep on making false accusations if it makes you feel better about yourself.
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
- Emerson

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

24
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:21 pm
beto wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:03 pm Let's take it the next level. Look at the damage alcohol does to society particularly cheap booze consumed by the poor/ Lets have a $100 tax on cheap 6 packs and a similar tax on cheap fifths and bottles of wine. The tax would be reduced as the price goes up so your Governor and friends would not be troubled. Sarcasm aside isn't a tax on a right like a pole tax?
Well you can't out right kill another person with a six pack least you beat them up against the head with it. Drinking one won't kill ya.
It might if you drink a six pack and then go drive your car.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Democratic San Jose Mayor renews effort to impose firearm insurance requirement or possession fee

25
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:55 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:50 pm
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:21 pm
beto wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:03 pm Let's take it the next level. Look at the damage alcohol does to society particularly cheap booze consumed by the poor/ Lets have a $100 tax on cheap 6 packs and a similar tax on cheap fifths and bottles of wine. The tax would be reduced as the price goes up so your Governor and friends would not be troubled. Sarcasm aside isn't a tax on a right like a pole tax?
Well you can't out right kill another person with a six pack least you beat them up against the head with it. Drinking one won't kill ya.
And your point is? I get it, you're a bloomie dem anti second type that thinks only certain people should have a right to own weapons. You're not liberal on that point. Educate and train, don't deny adults the right to decide for themselves. People under 21 are already restricted from attaining handguns by federal law.
Oh right, I'm anti 2nd lol In your dreams. Keep on making false accusations if it makes you feel better about yourself.
You sure seem to imply gun ownership is a privilege. I feel perfectly good about myself. You on the other hand seem to have a need to protect everyone else because you think you know what is best for everyone. That is not how rights work. You do not determine someone else’s need or how they practice a right. Do what you like and let adults decide for themselves how to practice a right.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sikacz and 0 guests

cron