San Jose Mayor: require all gun owners to have liability insurance

Rockrivr1

NES Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
20,791
Likes
20,820
Location
South Central Mass
Feedback: 66 / 0 / 0
First of it's kind proposed ordinance for all gun owners. Liability insurance or Tax/Fee us into submission is basically the design. When did Mass start considering this????

In the wake of mass shootings around the country, the mayor of one California city wants to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons — or pay a fee to help shoulder the public costs of gun violence.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo proposed the local ordinance on Monday, and if passed by the city council, it could become the nation’s first such requirement. Similar state legislation is also being considered in Massachusetts and New York.

San Jose mayor wants to require all gun owners to have liability insurance
 
First of it's kind proposed ordinance for all gun owners.

Lol no its not, or at least the attempt at passing it isn't new.

Liability insurance or Tax/Fee us into submission is basically the design. When did Mass start considering this????

A long time ago, Linsky (linstain) and Creem have had bills like this. They tried that in MA several different times and the last time they did this, the MA insurance industry basically came right out and said to them "no, f*** you, we will not underwite this, ever. get lost. scram. " [rofl] so the last attempt in MA went over like a fart in church. It never went any further than that because they know it would turn into a
direct 100% gun ban, which in turn would get crushed.

-Mike
 
In addition to the insurance requirement, Liccardo proposed a gun and ammunition sales tax to fund gun safety classes, violence prevention programs, and additional victim assistance services for survivors of gun violence.

Working with the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office, Liccardo plans to come up with a consent-to-search program for juveniles. This would allow parents to consent to have local law enforcement search their homes for any weapons owned by their dependents. It would also allow police to “seize those weapons, in exchange for an agreement not to prosecute the dependent for unlawful possession of the firearm or weapon,” the press release says
.

How about "no"?
 
Looks like they passed it (in San Jose). These anti-gun clowns aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the San Jose City Council passed ordinances to require every gun owner to buy liability insurance coverage for their firearms. Gun owners would also be required to pay a fee to compensate taxpayers for the emergency medical and police responses to gun-related injuries and deaths.

Blatant infringement...molon labe.

San Jose liability insurance
 
So, legal possessors of guns are going to compensate the city for services provided to gun shot victims?

How nice. I already pay taxes in the municipalities/states I live in to provide services. I have health insurance, (which my employer provides and which I pay part of the cost of). So, criminals who potentially don't legally own the firearms and who use them in criminal acts are going to be held fiscally responsible HOW?

Oh that's right. This isn't about owning the problem, it's about f***ing the legal gun owners again.
 
I don’t think even the hardcore leftist 9th circuit would rule this constitutional. It’s a tax to exercise a right.
Moreover, until recently, there didn't exist a single insurance company that will cover firearms liability. Unless that changes, and in a big way, what do they expect people to do?
 
Dupe.
 
Dupe.
Passing the liability insurance is new. It was discussed in the last article from June 17th.

It was passed last night.

So I credited the original article from 2019...carry on.
 
Moreover, until recently, there didn't exist a single insurance company that will cover firearms liability. Unless that changes, and in a big way, what do they expect people to do?
No insurance company will cover liability stemming from a criminal act by the insured.

So are they going to start arresting gang bangers and prosecuting them for not having insurance for their illegally possessed firearms? /oh we know the answer
 
What do you think permit fee's are and those are still standing.

I don’t know how that was ever allowed to stand.
But this is from a Supreme Court decision

“4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.”
-

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)​

I mean going off this, an annual tax or your guns are seized, I can’t see how this stands. Then again like you said permitting fees and all that. Who knows. I hope this is struck down, because Massachusetts will try this if it stands. That clown from Natick is probably typing up a bill as we speak.
 
This is no different than a "Poll or Head Tax" That was used to prevent people from voting who the government didn't want to vote. Geeee! Guess which party came up with that plan??
 
show me any insurance company who offers such a policy. I'll wait.

I think the NRA tried to do this with their CarryGuard thing, but NY shut them down, so...
NY, WA and I think maybe NJ banned such plans on the theory that the legal fees were part of the punishment, and would allow funded defenses that would provide effective legal representation and leave the person unpunished if they were not convicted. Numerous such plans exist in other states.

What killed Carry Guard was it was a bad policy. It required the customer to pay for his/her defense up front, and obtain reimbursement only after a not guilty finding. Presumably this also meant not copping a plea to another charge, so the couple in St Louis would not have been reimbursed since they pled to a misdemeanor charge to make their issue go away. If it were a decent plan it could have easily been offered in most other states.
 
Back
Top Bottom