San Jose gun owners to be fined up to $1,000 for breaking new firearm law
BY PGF
2 years ago
“A $1,000 fine for simply exercising your God-given right to keep and bear arms unless you bow down, buy insurance, and kiss their ring is simply atrocious,” said one opponent about the city’s new rules.
There are better ways to frame the argument both to TPB and as a way to educate CCW holders. We’ll warn you one more time; carry insurance will lead to registration of at least the firearms you intend to carry.
San Jose’s new gun control law just got a bit stricter.
Gun owners in the nation’s 10th largest city who disobey a requirement to carry liability insurance and pay a yearly fee will have to fork over up to $1,000 in fines as part of San Jose’s unique and controversial push to combat gun violence — a novel legislative approach that has triggered a challenge in federal court and has 2nd Amendment supporters up in arms.
This is akin to saying; we’ll stop hit-and-run, uninsured Mexican drivers by requiring law-abiding drivers to carry extra insurance. Oh, wait, that’s already the law in TN and other states.
The insurance and fee requirements — first approved by council members in January — make San Jose the first city in America to impose such rules against gun owners.
Proponents of the new mandate, championed by Mayor Sam Liccardo since 2019, argue that it will motivate safer gun handling and help counter the public cost of gun violence, which health officials found in a May report amounts to $72 million a year for Santa Clara County.
But opponents, who filed a lawsuit against the requirements moments after the council passed them in January, argue that the rules are unconstitutional, burdensome and that the city hasn’t proven they will prevent gun violence. Plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit are the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights, the state’s Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and San Jose resident Mark Sikes.
And if we visit, *checks notes*; never mind, we don’t go to communist California. But what if somebody did want to visit San Jose; do they need insurance?
This is surely illegal:
The ordinance also mandates that gun owners pay a $25 fee every year to a nonprofit that will distribute funds to mental health and suicide prevention services for those who own a firearm or live with someone who does. The nonprofit is being set up by local health officials and academics will provide a bi-annual report on its work.
How do they know who has guns and who pays? King Charles, to his credit, was at least straightforward about his intent.
Via WoG
|
|
On October 20, 2022 at 10:45 pm, Chris Mallory said:
What insurance company is going to cover a deliberate criminal act by the insured? Accidents might already be covered under your Home Owner’s policy.
From an insurance info site, your policy might be different:
Firearms and Liability Insurance
The homeowners policy provides limited coverage for firearms liability. Accidental losses are generally covered. For example, if you are cleaning a handgun, do not realize it’s loaded and the gun accidentally discharges and injures someone, there would be coverage.
The homeowners policy, however, excludes criminal acts and intentional injury. If a person uses a gun in a crime and shoots someone, even in self-defense, it’s not covered. Similarly, liability for intentional injury or property damage is excluded, even if the injury or property damage is different from what the person expected or intended.
On October 20, 2022 at 11:23 pm, Kevin said:
Given this exempts CCW license holders, I see a couple of unintended consequences of this law:
If CCW is easier and cheaper than the fee and insurance, more people will opt to get their carry license.
If CCW is difficult and expensive, that’s an impetus to sue to change that post-Bruen
On October 21, 2022 at 7:31 am, Bob in NC said:
The USCCA offers personal liability insurance as part of it’s packages- rates are affordable. And they don’t ask what kind of firearms you have.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/membership/
On October 21, 2022 at 8:45 am, PGF said:
@Bob in NC, this isn’t about voluntary liability insurance. I was going to mention that I also carry insurance. Government mandates come with strings, those strings are power over you by control of your choices while extracting your wealth.
Insurance is primarily a wealth preservation tool. Insurance, in all cases, is a minor cost to cover what would be a major cost if an infrequent, yet very expensive, particular event were to happen. If you have something to lose, the cost of insurance may be a wise choice. This applies to all types of insurance. You know that but we’re setting a level basis.
But when it comes to mandated insurance for carry, think of cars; registration, licenses, serial numbers, control over fuel (ammo types and amounts), on and on. Government is in the process of mandating EV. Do you want a chipped gun with finger print recognition? Ever get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? That’s federal law enforcement at the behest of insurance companies. That’s the danger in government control of your personal choices for you and your family.
I can think of dozens of potential despicable rules and laws sorounding gun insurance. Government could even decide that you’re covered for accident, but NOT civil liability, which is exactly what your insurance now covers, and rightly so.
Mandated insurance is a major back door to gun control both by outright decree and by chilling effect.
On October 21, 2022 at 4:01 pm, Biff said:
Another case of Taxation without representation. In this case, did the council members put this up to a vote? NO? So it was a tax imposed without input from the citizens. Wait a sec, when was the last time any politico has asked those they represent what they thought?
On October 22, 2022 at 1:20 am, Dan said:
Eventually this will be overturned, it’s a blatant violation of 2A rights and the recent Bruen decision dooms such violations. Of course it will take YEARS for the court cases to wend their way through the system. In the meantime San Jose will abuse as many citizens as possible via this blatant violation of Rights and the Constitution….and feel justified in doing so.
On October 22, 2022 at 5:29 am, Bob in NC said:
@PGF – I see the point now- thanks for clarifying.
And yes, I cannot think of one government mandate that does not restrict our liberties in some way.
“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty.” –James Monroe
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” — Harry S. Truman