San Jose Mayor Wants to Require That Gun Owners Have Liability Insurance

San Jose Mayor Sam Licdardo

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

This isn’t the first time someone’s opined that all gun owners should have to carry a murder liability insurance policy if they choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights. But the San Jose Mayor’s proposed ordinance has a good chance of passing, which would set up an interesting court battle.

“A mayor doesn’t have the luxury of just offering ‘thoughts and prayers’—we have to solve problems. While this is far from a complete solution, it is something we can do to reduce the harms of firearms, without waiting for Congress to take action,” [San Jose, Calif., Mayor Sam] Liccardo said in a statement announcing the proposal.

“Under current Supreme Court rulings, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. 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.”

– Justin Wise in San Jose mayor proposes mandatory liability insurance for gun owners

comments

  1. avatar OBOB says:

    “”” 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.””””

    So if one of “our” guns kills one of those criminals you let out under prop or AB 109, 47, 57 and dozens of others can we charge you for doing your job or will you give us the money we saved you by ending the creep?

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      His quote also sounds like a great argument for me not to pay (NY’s confiscatory) school taxes, what with me not having kids and all.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        That’s what I was thinking. He should think about where we end up if we start to apply that thinking to all government services that provide benefits unequally. Maybe welfare should only be paid-for by the poor.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Just flood his office with calls regarding this:

          Citizens should then not have to pay for medical welfare for Illegal aliens.
          Citizens should then not have to pay for city employee pension funds (they can pay into a 401k).
          Citizens should then not have to pay for any abortions (the woman can foot the bill).

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          quote——————-Maybe welfare should only be paid-for by the poor.————–quote

          How many times do we have to try and pound knowledge into the head of the uneducated Far Right. Corporate Welfare dwarfs welfare to the poor by billions. How in the hell do you think much smaller European Countries get the money necessary to fund their Social Programs and before you go mouthing off its because we spend money to protect them they had many of these programs long before we were occupying Europe with our troops. Yes it does give them extra money but no where hear the funds that it takes to run a civilized country with humane social programs that care for their own people.

        3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          quote==============Citizens should then not have to pay for medical welfare for Illegal aliens.=========quote

          Illegals do not get welfare. Move your indolent, racist fingers, and touch your keyboard and look up the welfare site rules and regulations. Quite making a fool of yourself on the world wide internet.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Vlad Tepes,

          How in the hell do you think much smaller European Countries get the money necessary to fund their Social Programs and before you go mouthing off its because we spend money to protect them they had many of these programs long before we were occupying Europe with our troops.

          Foreign nation/s steamrolled all of those European nations because their military forces were severely lacking — and tens of millions of people paid for that foolish policy with their lives. And countless millions more people who survived foreign occupation still paid for that foolish policy with their liberty which those invading foreign nations suppressed.

          Anyone who trivializes the price that Europeans have paid (in both lost lives and lost liberty) to achieve their “social safety nets” is a fool of the first order.

          Equally important, those generous social safety nets did not exist in Europe prior to World War II. Neither did those generous social safety nets exist after World War II — I know because family on my mom’s side fled Europe and legally emigrated to the United States in the mid 1950s for lack of both employment opportunity and social safety nets. That’s right: 10 years after World War II the economy in Europe was in shambles, the future was bleak, there were no social safety nets, and family on my mom’s side qualified as war refugees to emigrate into the United States. Thus, not only are you a fool of the first rate for ignoring the cost that people of Europe paid with their lives and liberty, you are a baldfaced liar.

          Note: off the top of my head World War II caused major loss of life and liberty to all but four countries in Europe, those countries being Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and Greece.

        5. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to uncommon sense

          quote————————–Equally important, those generous social safety nets did not exist in Europe prior to World War II. Neither did those generous social safety nets exist after World War II — I know ————–quote

          Your only partially right. Social programs were started in Germany in 1896 under Bismark and in Norway in 1900. Yes its true they were not as extensive back then and they were increased as the years rolled on. But workers rights to form unions, compensation for workers hurt on the job, retirement benefits and aid to the unemployed were all being implemented way back then, its just that they were not as extensive as they are today.

          The point I was making was that when small European Countries including other countries like Canada and Japan can implement and afford vast social programs that we do not have to this very day it shows that it is pure bullshit that we too cannot afford these civilized programs for our own people. We squander 54 cents of every dollar on wars and occupation for rape, pillage and conquest for the benefit of the military industrial complex and their prostitutes the war mongering Republicans. Its interesting to note that of all people a Republican President which was Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex way back in the 1950’s which was even pre-Vietnam.

          And today in Europe most have nuclear weapons so in their way of thinking large military forces are not as necessary as they once were. Even Russia and their nut case dictator Putin knows he can only go so far with threats against them.

          Its a simple basic fact that they tax corporations far higher than we do. Robert Reich today stated the U.S. comes in almost dead last in taxing the filthy rich corporation as compared to civilized countries that are very prosperous and still tax heavily the greed monger corporations to help finance social programs. Reich stated the situation now has become totally obscene with Trumps Tax Rape bill that plunged the U.S. 3 trillion dollars into debt when formerly the criminal Republicans before they passed the tax rape bill were screaming they could not afford social programs. They though nothing of shoving 3 trillion in their own greedy pockets while 100,000 American died from lack of health care last year and 5 million went bankrupt. Try and guess how many Europeans went bankrupt over health care or died because of a lack of it , the answer of course is a big fat Zero.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Vlad Tepes,

          Once again, you portray alleged benefits of socialism and attendant social safety nets without addressing the massive costs.

          So the tens of millions of Europeans who lost their lives, liberty, and wealth from World War I and World War II are an acceptable price for European socialism? After all, if their governments had put their tax dollars into formidable militaries instead of social safety nets, they would not have had social safety nets.

          And how about the cost that Europeans pay today for their social safety nets? Healthcare quality is sorely lacking in Europe. I am aware of countless examples where people received no health care or inadequate health care for their conditions that would have been promptly treated with outstanding health care in the United States. And how about European’s reduced take-home pay and disposable income? Most Europeans cannot conceive of the prosperity in the U.S. since it is simply unachievable for them. And when I say prosperity, I mean things like having your own home, or a pickup truck, or a camper, or 10 acres of land, or a garage to park your cars, or a recreational speed boat, or a recreational airplane. (The United States owns more private airplanes than the rest of the world combined.)

          How do I know these facts? Simple: I have close contact with people from several European countries. Their prosperity and standard of living come nowhere close to ours, even when you compare the same vocations/professions.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote===============His quote also sounds like a great argument for me not to pay (NY’s confiscatory) school taxes, what with me not having kids and all.==============quote

        A well educated younger generation guarantees the future prosperity of a country. Everyone, even including people who try to dodged their tax responsibility to the community suffer in the long run. But I am sure that’s way over your head. Saving a penny today to go bankrupt tomorrow is a Right Wing credo much worshiped by the uneducated and those to tight with their money to see the reality of the future.

        1. avatar MLee says:

          You’re here again? *sigh*

        2. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          But look! Vlad has discovered the “=” key!
          Next up: “~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~”??????
          Only Vlad’s handler knows for sure……

        3. avatar MLee says:

          You know Vlad, you’re like this street preacher guy who stands at a busy intersection near me with his loud-speaker mega-phone set up and preaches with his stupid signs. The problem with it is he makes a lot of noise and if I wanted to listen to to someone preach, I’d go to church or buy the talking bible AS SEEN ON TV.
          Basically it’s an annoyance that I roll up my window and ignore, other than my middle finger! So just like your long winded BS you churn out, here’s my finger pal!

        4. avatar Napresto says:

          But Vlad, if I pay to educate the children, how will I get them to work my land for pennies when they grow old enough to wield a shovel? Serious question.

          (It’s not a serious question, you ignorant, ill-educated, arrogant troll)

        5. avatar M1Lou says:

          This is all I can think of when I see another Vlad Tetanus post.

          https://youtu.be/jWq9PZ_PB-0

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think he has a point, we need to get behind this!! I mean, the public’s “right to healthcare” is completely made-up in the first place, yet we have 20 presidential candidates who have already translated that into it has to be free, and provided by government. RKBA is very clearly spelled out, shouldn’t that mean it is at least as imperative that guns should be free, and provided by government? We want many, many outlets, too, otherwise the lines will be too long to be convenient, and our snowflakes might melt.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        Love it! We’ll just insure those Chicago drug gangs right out of business!

  2. avatar DerryM says:

    So, mandatory insurance for gun owners becomes the straw man for firearms registration and a gun owner registry…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Don’t give this a second thought. You can’t require insurance for a natural/Constitutional right. It’ll never pass judicial muster. Dead out of the gate.

      Only sounds good to the ears of Lefty snowflakes.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “You can’t require insurance for a natural/Constitutional right. It’ll never pass judicial muster.”

        Currently, correct.

        But imagine an America in the not-distant future where the demographics have changed and only Democrats win national elections. Meaning, only Democrats seat justices on SCOTUS, and Heller, et. all is overturned.

        If you want to know when Civil War Two breaks out, it will be shortly after when our side can no longer win national elections…

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I hear you, though I think “our side” will continue to pursue Constitutionally driven options as long as possible. If/when Trump wins again in 2020, and we see gains across the country again (Fed House, State Governorships, etc.), the Left will go ape-crap. Young adults who were only 16 when Trump won the first time will be in their early 20s during his second term, and the most unstable and emotionally driven of them will lash out in more destructive ways. Might even see an assassination of a high official at some point. I mean, the mass shootings are bad enough…the two are not dissimilar, in that a perpetrator commits murder as a way of seeking satisfaction for some personal shortfall.

          An uptick in Active Shooter Events (a loose term, I know, but you know what I mean), perhaps a high-profile assassination, and we’ll see attempts to “tighten security” by Gov’t through draconian means that conservatives won’t accept. Then both sides will be frustrated, with no end in sight.

          Scary, really.

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          quote—————-But imagine an America in the not-distant future where the demographics have changed and only Democrats win national elections. Meaning, only Democrats seat justices on SCOTUS, and Heller, et. all is overturned.————–quote

          I suggest you try reading the Heller decision in its entirety, it was anything but pro-gun and as Scalia himself said “That the courts reserve the right to regulate firearms”, translation, we can and will ban guns when ever we want and there is not a damn thing you can do about it because we are a dictatorship appointed for life and beholding to no one except the enhancement of our power of you the people. And remember very few times has even a Conservative Court ever been pro gun because it threatens their absolute power over the people.

        3. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Vladskie, here’s your Scooby Snack. It’s time for your nap.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Vlad, nobody is that stupid. The entire SC could be retired in a single day. They are a very long way from anything like capable of dictatorship.

      2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        We used to think that about car insurance. Illinois requires every one to be insured. I wonder if the illegals driving without a license have insurance. Sure. Another good intention missing the mark.

  3. avatar Woody from NY says:

    Great, stop charging me thousands a year in school taxes. I dont have any kids. Is public education a constitutional right? Stop taxing me for all of the unfunded mandates NY is being drowned under. This is total bs, individual rights are just that. Perhaps we could tax speech because apparently scary ideas are causing people to kill groups of people. I mean obviously if we want 4th amendment protections we should pay a tax because if the police could search your car or home without a warrant it would be less expensive for the govt because they would catch more criminal activity. This entire line of thinking is antithetical to American individual freedoms. These aren’t minor things, these are things that separate us from the Europeans and asians culturally. These are things worth fighting for and keeping (politically and at the ballot box, violence will destroy these principals and encourage a more statist society)

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      Heh, should have read your comment before posting mine above! Great minds…

      1. avatar Bamaman says:

        Idiot minds. Last time you checked we’re you in America? Were you counting on services to be there if you need them? Who do you think staffs those services? Oh yeah, other people’s kids.

        Learn how America works before you go trashing it.

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          The price of the education of the people involved with services rendered should be paid indirectly by the people using those services and in proportion to their use, not paid by everyone based on unrelated factors like how expensive the property they live on is.

        2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          What Nighthorse said.

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      These are things worth fighting for and keeping (politically and at the ballot box, violence will destroy these principals and encourage a more statist society)

      Good thing John Adams, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and their fellows never read your post.

    3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      “Is public education a constitutional right? ”

      Under many state constitutions, it is. State constitutions are just as important as the US Constitution.
      Plus you have the SCOTUS ruling: Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)). The nice ruling that says taxpayers have to pay to educate illegal aliens.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Article XI, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution establishes that: “the legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.”

        1. avatar Napresto says:

          It might say that, but educated the children of NY are not. I know. I teach them when they reach college, and they’re ignorant as hell.

          True story: I showed a photo of the house chamber in one of my mid-level computer science courses (for various reasons, not important here). I asked the students what it was. No one knew. Finally one kid hazards a guess: “is it some government?”

          Yes, buddy, it’s a government. (An aside: the point of the discussion was not supposed to be identification of the photo. I chose the photo because I assumed the students would know what it was. I WANTED to discuss bigger issues related to our government and lawmaking, framing these as examples of designed information systems).

          Anyway, “yes,” I say, “it’s a government. Which One?”

          My soul dies a little as another kid guesses: “Germany.”

          Germany??? There’s a giant American flag hanging over the house chamber, taking up one quarter of the image! Are you kidding me? Forget teaching the actual material. It’s civics lesson time, not that it did more than one or two of the mush-brains any good at all.

          So Vlad and Bamaman, shut up with your moralizing about the value of public education and how I’m shirking my duty or whatever because I’m exercising my first amendment right to complain about the taxes I pay. The money I surrender (unwillingly but in accordance with the law) in exorbitant school taxes is completely and totally wasted by the NY government. Adding salt to the wound, I have to undo the damage on my time and in my own classroom during lessons that should be focused on something else entirely. I’m doing my part. Maybe the two of YOU should do something useful as well.

    4. avatar Miner49er says:

      So who paid for your education from kindergarten through high school?

      So your attitude is that the taxpayer should pay for your education, but once you receive it you can say screw everybody? Now that you’re on the lifeboat it’s time to pull the rope up?

      Obviously, you don’t understand how society works.

      1. avatar Mantitude says:

        Well, I was homeschooled.
        In Germany.
        So, no, I at least am not being hypocritical when I agree that it should be proportionate to use thereof.
        Or at least provide a service worth the cost.
        Some of these public schools are worse than atrocious.

    5. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      I think the school thing is. When land was divided, a section of the township (there are 36 sections per township) was for schools. I think parcels of it was sold, money going to run rural schools. Not sure, but I do remember a little of history class.

  4. avatar Ajohnson says:

    More non-news..

    Headline should read.. “Another Cali Commie dreams up anti constitution scheme….”.., in other news…

    Cali = failed 3rd world state..

    Time to move on..

    1. avatar enuf says:

      There is nothing communist about his proposal. He is simply wrong, which is quite sufficient on multiple grounds. Exaggeration obscures the reality of this threat to a natural right stated and protetced by the Constitution

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Totalitarian, then.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote————————-There is nothing communist about his proposal. He is simply wrong, which is quite sufficient on multiple grounds. Exaggeration obscures the reality of this threat to a natural right stated and protetced by the Constitution—————–quote

        You live in a fantasy world. The Constitution never has given you any rights. The Legislature and the Courts grant you rights and many times completely ignore and even trash what the Constitution says and means. The Courts down through time have consistently voted with public opinion as far back as the Dred Scott decision. Try reading it some time or just review the former legality of banning minorities from voting or drinking out of whites only drinking fountains. By now you should understand how worthless the Constitution has always been.

        In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”

        Now tell me that the Supreme Court has and still does not vote with public opinion and the Constitution be damned.

        1. avatar Dave G. says:

          @ Vlad Tepes:
          “In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people ‘are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.’
          Now tell me that the Supreme Court has and still does not vote with public opinion and the Constitution be damned.”

          First off: don’t get me wrong; I am diametrically opposed to slavery in all of its forms. I think it is an unspeakable evil.

          However, I ask you to recall that the Constitution, as originally written, made provisions for slavery. Article 4, Section 2 as originally written stated in part that: “No Person held to Service or Labour (sic) in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

          Of course, this provision of the Constitution, along with all existing enabling legislation, was repealed by the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

          The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865 and ratified on December 6, 1865. However, Article 4, Section 2 was still the law of the land in 1857, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was correct (from a legal if not a moral vantage point) in his opinion, public opinion notwithstanding.

          I’m not a lawyer, but even I know that.

      3. avatar Ajohnson says:

        “The goal of Socialism.. is Communism”..
        -Vladimir Lenin

        And for that matter…

        “A right delayed… is a right denied”
        Martin L King

        Wake up.. the Cali politicians know exactly what then are doing.. Neither the constitution nor government, have the ability to grant rights.. the constitution only acknowleges that God has created us WITH rights.. if the government can take away rights.., its only because citizens have given them that ability. As such, the citizens also have the right to revoke the governments ability..

        One day… maybe sooner that later..

        .. the sleeping bear will awake… again..

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Insurance won’t pay out for criminal acts.
    Is he proposing to require insurance companies to pay out for criminal acts?

    1. avatar CTstooge says:

      From a Sanctuary City no less. Where all the illegals just saved $400 switching to GEICO.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        (Smile)

    2. avatar A Deplorable says:

      From the last paragraph, last sentence of his quoted remark, apparently that is what this Mayor thinks would/ should happen.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        People who know nothing about insurance should keep their mouths shut and not write laws about mandatory insurance that provides no coverage for intentional acts, as doing so would violate State law. Insurance, contrary to what the Demoncrats were mumbling on about a few years ago, will not cover the cost of “gun violence.” Moreover, simply because I own a gun doesn’t mean I am somehow vicariously responsible for someone else’s criminal act.

    3. avatar Miner49er says:

      You think entrance doesn’t pay out for criminal acts? Are you seriously that dense?

      So if someone is speeding and hits you your car their insurance won’t pay for the damages because it was a criminal act?

      Or someone smashes the window of your car and steals your laptop, that’s a criminal act, and you don’t expect insurance to pay for that?

      You may be somewhat surprised when you meet the real world, prepare yourself.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Insurance, not entrance.

      2. avatar Mike B in WI says:

        Nice try. YOUR insurance does not cover YOU for intentional criminal acts (like shooting someone who is attacking you) that YOU commit.

        Insurance companies do not even have liability insurance for those types of things. The city could pass the law, but they would also need a law that requires insurance companies to offer that type of insurance .

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “US. & Texas LawShield® is America’s original legal defense for self-defense membership program. We are the ideal choice for legal defense should you ever need to use a firearm or other lawful weapon to defend your life, family, or property. Being part of the U.S. & Texas LawShield family gives you access to exclusive benefits, such as:

          24/7/365 access to Attorney-Answered Emergency Hotline
          Member perks with special offers and discounts on LTC classes, firearms, optics, gunsmithing services, tactical training classes, range time, and more!
          You pay zero attorneys’ fees for covered events
          There are no caps, no hourly limits, and no deductibles
          Legal representation for both Criminal and Civil proceedings
          Member seminars with face-to-face time with experienced attorneys, instructors, and experts in self-defense law”

        2. avatar Shire-man says:

          @Miner

          Neither U.S. Law Shield, nor any of U.S. Law Shield’s Independent Contracting Attorneys will have an obligation under this contract to provide coverage to defend a Legal Service Contract Holder if at the time the Legal Service Contract Holder uses his or her firearm or other lawful weapon, the Legal Service Contract Holder was not in lawful possession of the firearm or other lawful weapon, or was in a location, without legal justification, where possession of a firearm or other lawful weapon is illegal under state, federal, or local law.

          This Legal Service Contract specifically excludes legal representation in any criminal or civil actions for conduct that is not directly and specifically related to the Legal Contract Holder’s use of a firearm or other lawful weapon for which justification is available as a defense.

          This Legal Service Contract specifically excludes legal representation for the Legal Service Contract Holder’s use of a firearm or other lawful weapon, if at the time of the use of the firearm or other lawful weapon; Legal Service Contract Holder was in the commission of any crime for which justification under state law is inapplicable.

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        Another someone who doesn’t know jack about insurance. If I buy a liability insurance policy that protects me from lawsuits from persons I injure, that policy will have some form of an intentional acts/criminal acts exclusion, the upshot of which is that it provides no liability coverage when I murder someone, but will if I act in self-defense. Third party liability coverage does not protect me or my property from injuries I suffer.

        If I have a first party policy protecting me and my property, that policy will pay out as long as I do not intentionally damage my own property (e.g. burn down my own house).

        Obviously, this is a very generic explanation of a complex subject, giving you only the gist of the subject.

    4. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

      So violent criminals using guns in their crimes will have insurance to pay for the damage they do? Will the mandated insurance cover defense lawyers’ fees?

      This is a great idea.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        In your dreams. To say nothing of the fact that gang bangers will not be buying this insurance anyway.

  6. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Shades of Obamacare all over again…

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      to Ranger Rick

      quote===================Shades of Obamacare all over again…===============quote

      You should be getting down on your knees and kissing Obama’s behind for passing the Affordable Health Care Act. Before it was passed your insurance was totally worthless. The crooks in the Insurance companies had caps that simply allowed them to say “fk you” we are only giving you a few pennies to pay your million dollar hospital bill and if you had pre-existing conditions they told you to leave and not let the door hit you in the ass.

      Now how could any sane and educated person condemn these Obama care protections unless he happened to be you.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        That’s me and I didn’t ask for, solicit or desire the care. Nor did I seek the “tax” that compels me to have Obamacare or other insurance if I don’t want it. The government medical insurances is what started the hyperinflation of medical expenses in the first place.

      2. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

        Funny how my insurance paid less and charged more after Obama care. The company I work for could not afford the extra tax on the plan we had and had to seek out another insurance program. Affordable Care Act was a farce.

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        Obama Care did nothing for me. Although I avoid the penalty, I do not qualify for “low cost” insurance, and the only non-group insurer in my area charges nearly $1000 a month for a bare bones policy with a high deductible. Even if I had it, I see doctors rarely enough that I would never satisfy the deductible. Meaning $12,000 a year out of pocket for no benefit.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          And just remember one thing Obama never wanted Obama care he wanted a Medicare for all plan with provisions like Germany has where if you were dumb enough (read that Conservative) you could opt out of it all together and get raped by your favorite rapist insurance company. Also their was to be a plan to have both, Medicare and supplementary insurance for say the ability to have a private room at a hospital that was paid for by your supplementary insurance. The point I am trying to make is that it was the Republicans being prostitutes of the Insurance Companies that fought it tooth nail and claw and yesterday announce they are going to destroy it all and go back to the insurance rape of yesteryear if fake 45 is re-elected.

          And you complained about this cost being more or that cost being more. I am not arguing that Obama care was panacea nor am I arguing some people paid more but what was the alternative for God’s sake, going bankrupt because your crooked insurance company only paid 10 per cent of your medical bills. Come on even paying more for your insurance was a hell of a good trade off for cancelling pre-existing conditions and banning insurance caps and not everyone is paying more, I am not paying more and so are millions of other Americans.

  7. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    always fun to see pols take time out from showing they don’t know/understand anything about guns to demonstrate they don’t know how insurance works either

  8. avatar tdiinva says:

    If the insurance were priced by risk than it should cost “pennies per day” since the number of legal gun owners that commit crimes with their firearms is tiny compared to the number to the number of gun owners.

  9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The Liberals and Liberal gun owners opened the door. Liberal gun owners supported the Obama health care requirement for everyone. Forcing people to buy health insurance. This is no different. Now the government wants to force you to buy insurance because you own a firearm.

    De facto registration or real registration of firearms will follow.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Once again, You should be getting down on your knees and kissing Obama’s behind for passing the Affordable Health Care Act. Before it was passed your insurance was totally worthless. The crooks in the Insurance companies had caps that simply allowed them to say “fk you” we are only giving you a few pennies to pay your million dollar hospital bill and if you had pre-existing conditions they told you to leave and not let the door hit you in the ass.

      Now how could any sane and educated person condemn these Obama care protections unless he happened to be you.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        Copy, meet paste.

        1. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

          But Vlad mad $4135 last week, working from home, doing so!

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Vlad, after condensing all your excrement, I gather you spend most of each day on your knees kissing Obama’s ass. Correct?

  10. avatar AlanInFL says:

    When I was stuck in the Bay area for work reasons, he always had grandeur for leftists ideology. Then again, alot of Bay area politicians loves to one up each other.

  11. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

    Although they can’t require an insurance company to pay out for illegal acts. Someone should ask him if he would support taking this to it’s logical conclusion. In that case, that young man in OK who ended those three perps should be paid all the money he saved the government for their trial and incarceration. Use an AR, win a jackpot!

    If every time someone ends a career criminal, they got paid for the money the government would have had to pay for their trial and incarceration, then society would benefit from the reduced crime and from criminals finding other endeavors. You could even compensate them further by paying more based on a statistical determination of the cost of future crime prevented by ending them.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

      “Although they can’t require an insurance company to pay out for illegal acts”

      It happens all the time, doesn’t it?

      Driving drunk is a criminal act. Does your insurance company refuse to fix your car if you wreck it while driving drunk?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Getting drunk is an intentional act, but unless you intend to run people over and/or smash into other vehicles, your infliction of injuries on others is (usually) only negligent or grossly negligent, but not intentional, since you did not intend to cause injury. Any punitive damages awarded are not covered by insurance.

  12. avatar Larry says:

    Daily I am reminded that I oh so happy that I moved from CA in 2005 to the great state of MO.

    Yeah the humidity sucks in the summer but I got out at the peak housing bubble, making a nice bit of coin on my house and now I live in a open carry state.

    I visited LA during spring break, to take my kids to Disney Land. What a complete cesspool that city is now.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      I grew up going to Disneyland. The classic park back in the ’80s, when you parked in a normal open parking lot, remembered your spot (“okay, we’re in Donald Duck ‘E'”), and walked directly to the vintage Disneyland sign overhead of the turnstiles. No metal detectors, no uniformed security, a simple hand stamp allowed you to go back to your car and re-enter. Space Mountain was the big thing at the time.

      Then I took my almost-adult son there for his birthday some years ago. They screwed up and literally locked us out of the park by mistake when we needed to get our jackets from the lockers located outside the front entrance (always a stupid place to have them), after we had already spent a few hundred dollars there and had our ticket stubs as proof. It took so long to convince someone that we were allowed to go back inside, that we missed the evening parade our son wanted to see. Complaints to management went nowhere, and a letter to Disney Corporate resulted in only a form letter thanking us for patronizing the park. No apologies and no offers of a concession (partial refund, tickets for another day, food vouchers), no nothing.

      So you know what I did (heh, heh)? At the time, I was involved with a contractor who supplied the Park, and I just happened to be involved with the pricing. I simply increased the prices the Park paid so much that they ended up “paying” for their mistake many times over. Not to me directly, of course, but I was employed by the company that did benefit, and I in turn got a raise.

      Haven’t been to Disneyland in a decade. Everyone I know who’s gone there recently complains that there are too many people and the childhood magic is long gone. Oh, and several friends were aghast at the open displays of PDA during their Gay Pride days. Do what you want in the bedroom, but parents don’t want their young kids to see certain things up close.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “At the time, I was involved with a contractor who supplied the Park, and I just happened to be involved with the pricing.”

        Guesty, if you keep leaking details like that out, pg2 might finally realize you and I aren’t the same person after all!

        He might freak out and snap like a rubber band! 😉

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          It’s okay. He’s apparently not here today. Probably sleeping in after working the night shift as the corner gas station janitor. Poor guy needs his nitey-nite after scrubbing piss and splatter off of those porcelain bowls.

          (egad, I meant that as a joke at first, but now I just *know* that’s exactly what I’ll be thinking the next time I visit a public restroom – “here ya go, Pg1.5, this one’s for you!”)

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote——————-Oh, and several friends were aghast at the open displays of PDA during their Gay Pride days. Do what you want in the bedroom, but parents don’t want their young kids to see certain things up close.————quote

        The Conservative minds are really warped because of the Christian paranoia over sex. You see nothing wrong with letting your children play video games showing people killing each other (its great fun and entertainment) but are as you said aghast when two people show love and affection to each other. Now you know why I do not belong to the Christian crowd as hypocrisy has no place in my life. And by the way I am not gay, just human, you should try being a real human being some time. Is also called being civilized. I might add in ancient Rome the Romans when first observing Christianity and their warped sexual beliefs labeled it as a depraved cult of mentally ill people. I dare say what they said back then is still very true today.

        1. avatar Scott says:

          Human? No one here accused you of being human, troll. You’re sub-human leftwing scum.

          Now sit down and shut up, the humans are trying to chat here.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          One often wonders just what some people find uncomfortable about seeing public displays of affection or same-sex couples expressing love by kissing or hugging.

          Just what objection could there be to other people expressing their love for one another? Would someone who finds it repulsive or disgusting please explain why seeing this behavior causes them to have feelings of annoyance, disgust or anger?

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Miner,

          Um, perhaps because it’s biologically incompatible? By it’s very definition, it’s self-extincting, so whether you look at the topic from a faith-based standpoint, or a purely secular (evolutionary) one, it’s completely illogical.

          Which means, then, that it’s a behavior. And some parents don’t wish to have their young children exposed to sexually centered adult themes at a family park.

          The question of morality is fodder for a big discussion that’s not for this gun-related site. If you want to kiss a dude, nobody’s stopping you, but if you purposefully go to a park known to have families with young children to do it, you’re engaging in it for selfish shock value. Same as if any hetero couple makes out in the front row of a movie theater for everyone to see. Allowed, but selfish.

        4. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Dear Vladskie,

          See Haz’s answer above.

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “San Jose Mayor Wants to Require That Gun Owners Have Liability Insurance”

    Another overreaching liberal, trying to act beyond the scope of his authority…

    1. avatar Herb Allen says:

      Just how will Comrade Mayor identify gun owners in his city? By informants ratting out neighbors? By the gun list said to be made up of 4473’s illegally entered into a Federal database? By spies in WalMart at the gun counter? By spies lurking outside gun shops?

      Isn’t this prohibited by the preemption law, assuming CA has one? I didn’t think city governments have their own legislatures.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Remember what the Cuban general said to his minions after invading Colorado in the original ‘Red Dawn’?

        “Go to the local gun and pawn shops. Get all their Forms 4473. Find out which residents here have guns.”

        And that was back in the mid-’80s, well before digital databases and the Interwebz. My friends are split into two camps…the 2A supporters who prefer privacy, and the classic Fudds who just want to please their CADOJ masters.

  14. avatar dlj83544 says:

    …I am SO glad I moved out of that f#cking city and state last year.

  15. avatar JP Ruiz says:

    Let’s bring POLL TAXES back for Voting. Gun Owner Liability Insurance is of the same concept, and I’m sure that the DNC would agree with me.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Takes me off topic but my view is the inverse of a “Poll Tax”. I’d charge people a penalty for failing to vote. Then share the bulk of the money with those who did vote. This is to give shame and pain to the non-participants in the duty of every citizen to do their part for the Republic. Be active in your nation’s democracy or pay those who are!

      Also a lesser part of it would go towards improving voter participation, security of voting machines, etc.

      On the other hand, where help is needed to protect a Constitutionally enumerated Right, taxpayer funds should be spent. Thus schools should teach safe gun handling, type of action identification, sponsor shooting clubs and competitions. Taxpayer money should support shooting ranges of low to no usage costs to users.

      Stuff like that.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “I’d charge people a penalty for failing to vote.”

        ****
        Sure, run for office on that platform.

        Troll.

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        ” I’d charge people a penalty for failing to vote.”

        *BAD* idea. Out of spite for being forced to vote, assholes will vote for nutjobs, just to fuck the system up…

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Ain’t that what the Democratic base is already doing?

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Aw, crap. It’s always those pesky details that trip me up… 😉

        3. avatar billy-bob says:

          Yep. That’s how you end up with a Yeet Cannon.

      3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        WTF? There is nothing in the constitution that gives the government that power. It is also an enumeration of powers, not rights. You keep thinking up ways to rob people for the things you want though.

      4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        “””””””””””””quote””””””””””””””””Takes me off topic but my view is the inverse of a “Poll Tax”. I’d charge people a penalty for failing to vote. Then share the bulk of the money with those who did vote. This is to give shame and pain to the non-participants in the duty of every citizen to do their part for the Republic. Be active in your nation’s democracy or pay those who are”””””””””””””quote””””””””””””

        I suggest you try and study how the U.S. Government really works. I do vote but sympathize with the ever growing crowd who does not vote because I do agree with them and that is that we never have had any democracy in the country. The process is so corrupt the people in power only make decisions in their own self interest to increase their own wealth at the expense of the health safety and well being of the common man.

        We really missed the boat when we did not turn in Washington and watch the British hang the corrupt incompetent bastard which would have eventually given us a parliamentary government with true democracy. Canada went the correct route and history has proven it.

        The question remains does it really matter who you vote for when nothing ever gets done because of political infighting at the expense of the welfare of the population. Now you can begin to see why more and more people have resigned themselves to the reality of being nothing more than worker slaves being exploited by a country that was only founded for the rich and the powerful.

        Ever wonder why there are becoming more and more socialists especially among the young. The answer is a plain as the corruption in Washington.

  16. avatar 2aguy says:

    Murdock v Pennsylvania states you can’t charge a fee for the exercise of a Right……forcing people to pay for liability insurance would violate this Supreme Court ruling, not to mention the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment……the democrats used Poll Taxes to keep Blacks from voting, this is no different….

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    This is the history of San Jose during the last election cycle. The future is very dark there and in California in general.

    “Under Cover San Jose Officer #1: […] Throughout the afternoon and evening I watched several individuals wearing “Trump” articles of clothing getting punched, kicked and pushed.”

    “San Jose Police Chief Garcia admitted his officers were instructed not to stop violent protesters from beating the Trump rally attendees. In addition the San Jose Mayor has openly admitted to approving the San Jose police departments plans, and blamed Donald Trump for having the audacity to have a rally in “his city“.”

    Oathkeepers: Police Action Outside Trump Rally Proves [Armed] “Patriots Must Step Up”

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/401581/

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      btw
      The white mayor of San Jose is just like the white mayors in the south in the 1950s and 60s. They blamed Martin Luther King and those niggers, causing trouble, for having the audacity to have a rally in their cities.

  18. avatar Vlad Tepes aka nazisco kid says:

    Everybody should be mandated to purchase liability insurance when going to a theater, in case they shout fire and cause a stampede.

    Also, rape liability insurance for all males older than 3 months.

    1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      I see someone else has discovered the banning of the words “Zisco kid”, if the “Z” is a “C” instead.

    2. avatar Geoff "Born with wood" PR says:

      “Also, rape liability insurance for all males older than 3 months.”

      So, just the late bloomers, then? 😉

    3. avatar I Hazmat A Question says:

      Hey Vlad, your example of the theater is actually an excellent one. You’re clearly capable of intelligent conversation, judging by some of the other things you’ve said as well. Why muck it up by being a troll? Just join in the discussion…

  19. avatar GS650G says:

    Would we be able to own full auto guns on down to the .50bmg in California if we had the special insurance? No more ammo background checks? No permission requirements of any kind?

    Didn’t think so.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Of course not. The Democrats’ solutions always include loss of your freedom to some degree. They NEVER provide more liberty.

  20. avatar DerryM says:

    …and you haz a good answer. Thanks! I agree. This “Mayor’s” idea and remarks are only an attempt to generate another false meme for the idiots who elected him to swallow and parrot back as if absolute truth. It’s completely undoable, but sounds good to those more clueless than he is.

  21. avatar sue says:

    Oh brother, another bill for law-abiding citizens to fork over. Just heard in a sermon (at sermonaudio.com) “the honest man always pays the crooked man’s bill – always.” That certain preacher, btw, is a midwestern farmer, and gun-owner.

  22. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    Mike B in WI has an excellent point, NO insurance company has a liability policy for firearm-related incidents.

    I’d like to know how unfortunate collateral damages are handled now. Who do victims sue? How successful are they at collecting damages.

    Personally, I would like the option for this type of liability insurance…Of course, as long as the premiums were reasonable.

    Most shots fired are misses. My youngest daughter has a friend who is permanently disabled by a stray bullet. This was gang-related violence, though.

    I would think there would already be policies offered, if there was enough demand. Since it apparently isn’t too common I guess it’s a non-issue.

  23. avatar El Duderino says:

    Insurance agent here.

    No insurance company will pay out for a criminal act and the government can’t make them do so. So…this is just for victims/victims families/anyone else to have an easy-to-grab stack of cash available after a LEGAL use of a firearm.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      As an insurance agent, you shoud also know that a liability policy pays only if the insured is found to be at fault. By definition, is the shooting was legal, there is no fault attributable to the insured gunman. But the legal fees of the insured defending against a frivolous law suit will be covered. The only thing such a policy would cover are negligent discharges that injure others. And the mayor should know that there are fewer than 5000 such shootings annually nationwide, with fewer than 1000 deaths. And in such a case, homeowner’s or renters liability coverage might pay.

  24. avatar Brewski says:

    Give us the same insurance and protections that the police have. Even the playing field.

  25. avatar Mark N. says:

    Doesn’t this idiot know that there is a bill pending in the California Legislature that would ban “murder” insurance? If that were to pass, his little ordinance would be invalidated.

  26. avatar SpecialEd says:

    Yep, can see it now, all the little gang bangers consulting their insurance professionals to be compliant with yet another law.

  27. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    I believe it’s illegal to insure against a criminal act in most states. So you would be insuring against accidental shootings which are extremely rare or the fun being stolen and used in a murder, also super rare.

    The insurance admin costs would be many times the premiums , but gun manufactures could offer life time policies when they sold the gun.

  28. avatar Anymouse says:

    I don’t see why government should subsidize someone’s right to vote. There’s lots of expenses for voting machines, polling places, election workers, mailing ballots, etc. I think there should be a fee paid by people wanting to exercise their right to vote. If we can ignore 2A, why not 24A?

  29. avatar Derfel Cadarn says:

    If I am going to acquire a firearm to murder numerous people, let’s note that murder is against the law at present, what makes this dim bulb think that I would purchase his required insurance ?

  30. avatar David Tupper says:

    If this law is passed, and passes SCOTUS review, then they will deny any company the ability to offer the required insurance, always on some technicality. If you can’t buy the required insurance, and you won’t be able to, you won’t be allowed to own firearms. In this way they will be able to ban firearms ownership without banning a single gun.

  31. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    As Leftardism is a mental disease they along with the mayor should be required to carry liability insurance just to exist in society,as they have proven time and time again they are a threat to that society.

  32. avatar Burnie says:

    Its a poll tax, you cant be taxed or required to “insure” your rights.

    If they do it, we need to counter with a voting tax, 25 dollars to vote and 100 to register to vote.

  33. avatar Tom says:

    Backdoor registration is what this is.

    Note that the Lefties are adept at claiming to solve one problem, or address one issue, when their actual goals are entirely different.

    Insurance companies will require models and serial numbers. They will not be required to keep that information confidential, and will likely voluntarily hand it over to government without requiring a search warrant.

    Then consider auto-red flag status as insurance companies cross-reference with health care claims for, e.g., not just mental health treatment, but mere counseling.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email