Gun Owners in San Jose Now Need Liability Insurance

SFC13557

NES Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
4,229
Likes
5,436
Location
Central Ma.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0

Ordinance is a U.S. first and part of a broader movement by gun-control activists​

From Today's WSJ.
Hmm, another potential SCOTUS Case? Just more harassment from the left directed at us.

"Dave Truslow, a San Jose, Calif,. tech-industry retiree and firearms instructor, recently started storing his collection of more than 100 guns out of town because he wanted to get ahead of a new city law requiring him to carry liability insurance for them.

“I decided I did not want to be required to comply with this,” Mr. Truslow said of the law, which went into effect Jan. 1.

San Jose’s law, the first of its type in the nation, mandates that gun owners in the city of nearly one million have insurance covering costs related to accidental gunshot injuries or deaths. The law doesn’t require policies to cover criminal misuse of firearms.
The law was pushed by former Mayor Sam Liccardo after a series of mass shootings in the area. Mr. Liccardo, a Democrat who recently stepped down due to term limits, said he thinks the law ultimately will result in insurers offering lower premiums to gun owners who safely store and handle their firearms, much like auto insurers give discounts for good driving.

“Just as insurance was a mechanism to dramatically improve road safety . . . insurance with guns could similarly have that effect,” Mr. Liccardo said.

Gunowners who object to the law, including Mr. Truslow, said they already took safety measures such as keeping their firearms in safes. City officials should spend more time focusing on fighting gun violence, he said.

Gun-rights groups filed lawsuits in response to the ordinance last year before it went into effect. A federal judge tossed out the suits but said that some of the claims could be refiled because the complaints had been drafted before the U.S. Supreme Court decided an important Second Amendment case last summer known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the Supreme Court threw out New York’s restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in public, a decision that since has been invoked by judges in striking down several firearm restrictions.

In response, gun-control advocates in state and local governments have looked toward new approaches that could hold up in court. California last year passed a law allowing individuals to sue gun makers over violations of the state’s gun restrictions, basing on a Texas law allowing private individuals to sue to enforce abortion restrictions.

New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in December signed a law akin San Jose’s insurance law, which requires at least $300,000 in insurance coverage related to injury, death, or property damage for people with permits to carry guns in public.

The San Jose law applies to all gun owners, regardless of whether they carry them in public.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said his organization is preparing new legal challenges to San Jose on Second Amendment grounds. “This is just a way to make it too costly to own a gun,” Mr. Michel said.

A city spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Advocates on both sides of America’s gun-rights debate say they are watching the San Jose law closely. The measure’s success or failure could determine whether such laws are adopted elsewhere.

A California state lawmaker has proposed a bill to require gun-liability insurance statewide.

Obtaining the insurance required by San Jose likely won’t be difficult for most people, said Janet Ruiz, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade group. Most homeowners- and renters-insurance policies cover the type of liability described in the new law, she said.

A few insurers offer stand-alone gun-liability policies, but most don’t, according to the institute.

Mr. Liccardo said the law doesn’t call for San Jose’s police department to proactively check whether people with firearms have insurance. But gun owners will be required to carry proof of insurance with their firearms much as drivers do, he said.

As one example, he said officers could check if they responded to a domestic violence call and a gun was present. Those not in compliance face fines of up to $1,000.

Accidental shootings accounted for 1% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of accidental shooting deaths ticked up in 2020, but in general has been falling for decades, according to the CDC."

Write to Zusha Elinson at [email protected]
 
WTF ? So requirement comes from crimal misuse but only for accidents?

"

San Jose’s law, the first of its type in the nation, mandates that gun owners in the city of nearly one million have insurance covering costs related to accidental gunshot injuries or deaths. The law doesn’t require policies to cover criminal misuse of firearms.

The law was pushed by former Mayor Sam Liccardo after a series of mass shootings in the area"
 
San Jose gun owners deciding on a proper response:

cbb42cacda79c56e10ac15451920ad5026087326.gif
 
The ordinance exempts law enforcement, owners holding a California concealed carry license, and households for whom the cost would be a financial burden:
10.32.225 said:
The provisions of this Part shall not apply to any of the following:
A. Those persons designated as peace officers pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Title 3 of Part 2 of the California Penal Code (§830 et seq.), including sworn peace officers, active reserve peace officers and retired peace officers.​
B. Those persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155, for as long as these statutes are legally enforceable.​
C. Those persons for which compliance with this Part would create a financial hardship​
As California is now a shall-issue state, only Fudds and all but the poorest of gun-owning lefties are impacted.
 
So, what's the threshold for being a "financial hardship"? Coming soon to a church near you: You need to have insurance (i.e. pay a tax) to worship, since someone could be attacked over religion. Coming soon: you need to have insurance to speak in public (i.e. pay a tax) since someone could be offended by what you say and cause violence. :rolleyes:
 
Their lawsuit seems to have been decided.

San Jose liability insurance

IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to
dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 1 is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 2 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 3 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Second Amendment claim, and it is
dismissed WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First Amendment claim;
4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 4 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;
5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 5 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;
6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 6 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and
7. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 7 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.


San Jose was the defendant in this case. Not what I was expecting in reality.

Clearly the Bruen decision is being ignored. More Red Coat nonsense from a district court.
 
Last edited:
Their lawsuit seems to have been decided.

San Jose liability insurance
saw that, I will be curious to see if failure to pay eventually leads to confiscation of an offenders firearms and loss of 2a rights. Seems to me that the only reason it was ruled constitutional was because this couldnt happen, but we all know how liberals love to take guns away so i doubt they will refrain from doing so.
 
Next it will be home insurance
This has been in the works for a while
This is just another progressive chess move on the board to checkmate


 
Ignoring the gun grabbing nature for a moment, how much increased liability does owning guns really create from an actuarial perspective? Doubt very much, since I haven't been asked about guns for my policies. Also, you can't insure for illegal or negligent acts.
 
A well regulated (insured) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Got it...
 
What stops someone from forming an insurance company, selling the insurance for $1.00 and just not paying and then going bankrupt when sued?
Presumably CA requires a bond and such in order to qualify as an "admitted insurer or insurer as defined by the California Insurance Code". . That said, The ordinance does not stipulate minimum policy limits for the coverage, so you could just sell $1 in liability coverage for a $1 premium and make it up in volume.

Do cops need it also?
Exemptions include cops, LTC holders, and the poor.

I wonder how many San Jose gunowners have newly minted (shall issue) CCW licenses to qualify for the exemption written into the ordinance?
 
Last edited:
Ignoring the gun grabbing nature for a moment, how much increased liability does owning guns really create from an actuarial perspective? Doubt very much, since I haven't been asked about guns for my policies. Also, you can't insure for illegal or negligent acts.
I’m going with zero increased liability. I also haven’t seen an exclusion in any homeowner policy that would limit coverage in the case of an “accidental gunshot injury or death”.
 
Back
Top Bottom