San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (By Anthony Quintano from Honolulu, HI, United States - This file has been extracted from another file: Facebook F8 2017 San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (33272015914).jpg, CC BY 2.0, Link)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the AP . . .

A California city voted Tuesday night to require gun owners to carry liability insurance in what’s believed to be the first measure of its kind in the United States.

The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the measure despite opposition from gun owners who said it would violate their Second Amendment rights and promised to sue.

The Silicon Valley city of about 1 million followed a trend of other Democratic-led cities that have sought to rein in violence through stricter rules. But while similar laws have been proposed, San Jose is the first city to pass one, according to Brady United, a national nonprofit that advocates against gun violence.

Council members, including several who had lost friends to gun violence, said it was a step toward dealing with gun violence that Councilman Sergio Jimenez called “a scourge on our society.”

Having liability insurance would encourage people in the 55,000 households in San Jose who legally own at least one registered gun to have gun safes, install trigger locks and take gun safety classes, Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

The liability insurance would cover losses or damages resulting from any accidental use of the firearm, including death, injury, or property damage, according to the ordinance. If a gun is stolen or lost, the owner of the firearm would be considered liable until the theft or loss is reported to authorities.

However, gun owners who don’t have insurance won’t lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said.

The council also voted to require gun owners to pay an estimated $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety education and training, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and mental health services.

The proposed ordinance is part of a broad gun control plan that Liccardo announced following the May 26 mass shooting at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority rail yard that left nine people dead, including the employee who opened fire on his colleagues then killed himself.

At an hours-long meeting, critics argued that the fee and liability requirements violated their right to bear arms and would do nothing to stop gun crimes, including the use of untraceable, build-it-yourself “ghost guns.”

“You cannot tax a constitutional right. This does nothing to reduce crime,” one speaker said.

The measure didn’t address the massive problem of illegally obtained weapons that are stolen or purchased without background checks.

Liccardo acknowledged those concerns.

“This won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime,” the mayor said, but added most gun deaths nationally are from suicide, accidental shootings or other causes and even many homicides stem from domestic violence.

Liccardo also said gun violence costs San Jose taxpayers $40 million a year in emergency response services.

Some speakers argued that the law would face costly and lengthy court challenges.

Before the vote, Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said his group would sue if the proposal takes effect, calling it “totally unconstitutional in any configuration.”

However, Liccardo said some attorneys had already offered to defend the city pro bono.

[ED: The Firearms Policy Coalition has issued the following statement:]

San Jose’s insurance requirement for law-abiding, firearm-owning citizens is burdensome, unconstitutional, and prohibited by California law. Insurance companies cannot issue policies to insure against one’s unlawful acts, and the Second Amendment prohibits local governments from imposing such requirements on gun owners. All states and local governments must comply with the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment, period. Since San Jose’s recalcitrant City Council members don’t believe that the United States Constitution applies to them or their citizens, Firearms Policy Coalition and our members are now committed to fight the City’s outrageous and offensive policies in federal litigation and take every possible action to block their enforcement.

Previous Post
Next Post

55 COMMENTS

  1. okay San Jose now do insurance for the 1st amd for butt hurt and hurt feelz and not using ‘pronouns’ on people that care about that shat

    as a city you are SO going to get sued for millions and loose big time!

    • Never mind a bunch San Jose Jim Crow Gun Control zealots scheming 24/7 for some “fresh” Gun Control what gets some on this forum “upset” is where a firearm is manufactured and one described it as, “crucial.” And just like his like minded ilk he used a Made In China device to display his “crucial” opinion. Either a product is good and has potential or it is rejected based on its performance. There is no silly bigoted based Lame Gray Area.

      One big source of power for Gun Control zealots like those in San Jose are Gun Owners who could not properly define Gun Control by its history in the presence of the San Jose City Council if their lives depended on it.

      And what do these Gun Owners do after the fact? They cut and run to a centuries old document for help because suddenly, “History Matters.” Well by the same token The Sick History of Gun Control should have mattered and been made the primary issue rather than Gun Owner incompetence allowing the San Jose Plantation Council to set the pace.

      Bottom Line…Politically inept, history illiterate silent Gun Owners have let themselves be mixed in with criminals by the pompous San Jose shitty council whose Gun Control Agenda has its Roots embedded in Racism and Genocide…The situation is now, “crucial.”

  2. So they pass a law to stop crime, supposedly, but then admit it won’t stop crime and the greater worry is suicide and accidents anyway. But liability insurance won’t do anything for those either, really. So, again … other than to burden and punish gun owners for owning gun, is there a point?

    Apart from all that … just what insurance companies provide this kind of insurance?

    I hope the city of San Jose, and the mayor personally, get hammered in court. Given Cali, it will take a few appeals at least, though, and justice delayed etc.

    • No, the purpose is supposedly to offset some of the costs to the City for dealing with the aftermath of shootings, because the mayor recognizes that criminals will not be out there buying insurance. The stupidity is that he is looking at national statistics of suicides and accidental shootings, not the number in San Jose. Just how many accidental shootings are there in San Jose annually? That question was left unanswered–intentionally I am sure since those minor numbers do not support the narrative. Moreover, the city is basically taxing legal gun owners for damages caused by the illegal use of firearms, as if gun violence is their fault as well.

      Anyway, insurance WILL cover accidental shootings, but not intentional shootings, even under an HO or renter’s policy providing general liability coverage. It is illegal under state law for an insurer to cover intentionally inflicted harms. So most owners will not have to go running around buying up SD coverage from USCCA or the like. The real pisser is the $25 per year tax for the privilege of owning firearms in city limits. It is bad enough paying the sales tax (7.25% state tax plus any local tax) and the DROS fee (Dealer Record of Sale) to the State at the time of purchase (now just over $37.00), plus the dealer transfer fee, and then have to pay this as well. So glad I don’t live there.

    • The point is a) collective punishment, b) to add additional burdens to legal firearm owners, c) with (b) to deter people from owning firearms, and d) something to use against firearm owners in the future.

      How about making criminals pay for crime impact insurance? But they may be an additional burden over ther “license to operate” fee (aka bribe) paid to police and/or political influence.

  3. However, gun owners who don’t have insurance won’t lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said.
    I can tell you right now what the compliance rate will be.

    • Bingo. Like the Seattle gun tax, the revenues generated will fall far below expectations.

      Since (I’m guessing) virtually none of these gun owners have permission from their overlords to carry their weapons in public, they’ll have to go door to door to collect. Oh, but there is that pesky registration, so they’ll know right where to go. They’ll just have to divert police resources from fighting violent crime to harassing law abiding gun owners. Makes me glad I was born in Iowa.

      • Pesky registration. Does Cali register guns? I know Illinois does, in effect – you have to ask permission to have a gun, and you are given an FOID card if you’re approved. What does California have that compares with the FOID?

        • EVERYONE has gat registration if they buy through a 4473. And ILLannoy is nowhere near as awful as Commiefornia(shall issue CCL,no magazine restrictions and I can own my pesky AR). It still sucks just not a much…

        • CalDOJ tracks every legal sale in the state, and has done for decades.

          They’re supposed to destroy records of those transactions after a short period, and not use them compile a list of gun owners. CalDOJ has been in violation of that bit of state law since about 1976.

  4. In addition, as San Jose doesn’t enforce other laws, such as ones outlawing burglary and speeding, it’s only fair this one carries no penalties.

  5. Yep, this is going to court. It will never pass SCOTUS, and if the lower federal courts look at it it should never pass their scrutiny either.

    • 9th circuit will approve. Anything anti-gun passes their approval, even when one of their members points out the unconstitutionality.

      • Well . . . a CTA9 panel recently held that various COVID-ordered closings of SoCal gun stores (while designating bike stores to be “essential businesses”) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

        This one won’t even survive rational basis scrutiny, much less intermediate or strict scrutiny. I suspect we’ll see an injunction in pretty short order.

        • I agree LKB.

          Actually I’m a little surprised it made it this far without at least one of the city attorneys going “hey, wait a second…”

          Maybe this is simply some sort of political grandstanding and they expect it to be beaten.

        • The decision you cite to was by a three judge panel. Since it goes against the anti-gun animus of the Ninth, everyone anticipates that the Court on its own motion will grant en banc review so as reverse it.

          And .40 cal, the City Attorneys for San Jose wrote the ordinance and approved it. Because they hate guns too.

        • @Mark N.

          It doesn’t matter if the city attorney wrote it or not. I’m still surprised one of them didn’t go “hey, wait a second…”

          The closings of SoCal gun stores was a little bit different.

          The fee thing to exercise a constitutional right has been a settled matter for many years in the federal courts. It should not pass the 9th if they pay attention to precedent and correct application of scrutiny, but if it does appeal is available and it wont pass SCOTUS.

        • You guys are missing the point. Legislators pass laws, they know are unconstitutional on their face, all the time. It’s a ruse to place a financial burden on the lawful, to undo what shouldn’t have been permissible in the first place. I think it’s great that these pro 2A organizations rally their legal departments and gin up more donations to fight this stuff, but there should be penalties for passing the unconstitutional. And monkeys might fly out my butt.

  6. how is this any different than the poll tax? It will also in up the same – unconstitutional for it puts a clamp on the 2nd Admendmant

  7. This would be a good opportunity for gun owners in the area to stand up and say “Fuck you!” to the government.

  8. How much cooperation will you get Mr. Mayor from the gang members, career criminals, human debris, illegal aliens who just happen to find a gun? You know, the 99.8% of your population who are very much inclined to kill each other. Just asking…

    • Remember it was a Democrat who coined the phrase ‘it all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is’.

  9. Seems like a good waste of taxpayer time and money for these pols to virtue signal to a bunch of emotionally stunted Karens. Government is as government does.

  10. No insurance will cover an intentional act should someone use a firearm in a malicious or willful manner.

    How about we do the same for voting, San Jose?

  11. mposing a fee or tax for the exercise of a constitutional right is unconstitutional.

    Lubin v. Panish (1974) 415 U.S. 709

    SCOTUS in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969) …

    “It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, [] 322. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”

    The meaning of LICENSE is permission to act. Charging a fee or tax for gun ownership or use is a license, you don’t pay the fee you don’t get to have or use the gun the same – you do pay the fee you have “permission to act”, that is to own and use the gun.

    Charging a fee or tax for exercise of the right is simply another way of gun licensing and registration to control who can or can not exercise a constitutional right by making it a privilege based upon fee or tax payment. We already went thorough this with the poll tax many years ago where SCOTUS said a fee or tax levied for the exercise of a constitutional right was unconstitutional.

    Like SCOTUS already said (see above) “And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”

    See also, Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944) (requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional)

    In a case involving fees for commercial filming in areas under the control of the National Park Service, the DC District Court has ruled that fees charged for exercising constitutional rights of the first order are unconstitutional, “This regime is difficult to square with the longstanding rule that the government may not ‘impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution,’ including the First Amendment right to free expression.”

    • Note for: “DC District Court has ruled that fees charged for exercising constitutional rights of the first order are unconstitutional”

      For those that do not know “constitutional rights of the first order is just another way to say the first 10 amendments in the Bill Of Rights in the Constitution. The second of which is the Second Amendment. “first order” constitutional rights are also known as “liberty rights”. “second order rights” are known as “claim rights”

      A person’s “liberty right” to ABC consists in his/her freedom to do or have ABC, while a person’s “claim right” to ABC consists in an obligation on others to allow or enable him/her to do or have ABC. Its complicated.

  12. Even in the 9th “Circus,” this virtue signaling won’t last. But when SJW lawyers and gun prohibitions organizations offer to cover the legal cost of the impending lawsuits, it’s no loss to the city government. It would be great if the plantiffs could supeona and obtain the communication between the city council and it’s financial backers so show how they thought they would avoid penalties to the city, only for a judge to rule that the councilmen could be sued individually do to their breech of public trust and attempt to escape responsibility. Not sure what kind of precedent could set for the country in the long run, but it would be funny at first.

    • Thank you for your perspective Mr. ‘Hitler was just misunderstood’ jwm. Now we’d like to hear from someone who * isn’t * an old beta male cuck and pretend patriot.

      • Oh, goody!! Our nameless, brainless troll is back (or took a break from his serial onanism)!!

        And your handle is funny as hell – you are many things, brainless troll, but an “alpha male” sure as hell isn’t one of them. Your cable awaits.

  13. Problems that I see coming up: 1. Where can such a policy be purchased 2. This most likely won’t pass the first court test on constitutionality 3. It won’t apply to the criminal use of firearms resulting in injury 4. It does apply to criminal’s owning firearms.

        • A lot of gun owners get off on complying with fees, taxes, licenses, etc…

          Asking the state for permission is fun to them and getting said permission makes them feel special and important.

          Must go back to some childhood development issues with parents or other “authorities” and how they were treated.

        • @Shire-man

          This looks an awful lot like anti-gun rethoric from those two. Its been done before, anti-gun people show up and start discussing various points in an attempt to make it seem like its not a big deal so go along with it. But dunno.

        • “anti-gun people show up and start discussing various points in an attempt to make it seem like its not a big deal so go along with it”

          oh this technique is very old. even has a word – “shill”.

        • Key words and phrases:
          – Problem
          – Impossible to get
          – Won’t pass the first court test
          – Won’t apply to criminal use

          Do these look supportive to you?

  14. Yep, who would have imagined. Promote that carry insurance until becomes mandatory.
    License Registration and Insurance please.

  15. Yet another Dog & Pony show to distract the ignorant masses, appearing to be very busy “doing something” while actually doing nothing, and endlessly win themselves reelection. Yes they know this law will never pass constitutional muster, and yes they know it is doomed to fail the first time it is challenged in any higher court. But also yes, everyone in media is now talking about this wildly unconstitutional doomed to fail law and the fictional concept of inanimate object violence, instead of talking about all of the many real problems that these leftist / Marxist “useful idiot” true believer clowns are bringing down upon themselves and upon us all.

    For example, we are talking about THIS FOOLISH LAW instead of about WHO defunded or at least wanted to defund the police, or which D.A.’s are continually dropping / refusing to press charges against habitually violent criminals and releasing them right back onto the streets, or about who exactly decided that minimum bail requirements had to be done away with so violent criminals of all sorts can easily make cheap / low bail and then get right back out to kill their victims and so forth. Stories like this are U.S. corporate media’s way of simply avoiding any mention of all the real causes for the disastrous spike in violent crime that these leftists are absolutely responsible for. And most especially, media can NEVER talk about how organized crime wants you disarmed, and therefore so do all the local corrupt politicians they own. I.E.- Hand in glove: Organized crime, the corrupt politicians they own, and so called “gun control” laws that only affect the law abiding and actually make life easier for the criminal class. (Victims who can shoot back are real occupational hazard.)

    Lots of things are NOT being talked about or reported on honestly in our media, whenever and as long as they can misdirect and sidetrack the “ignorant masses” they see us as with noisy propaganda media garbage like this instead. Just another example of why all we get is:

    No News At 11.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here