San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia,File)
Previous Post
Next Post

From Gun Owners of California . . .

Sam Paredes, Gun Owners of California’s Executive Director made the following statement on the City of San Jose’s mandate for gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay a fee to cover taxpayers’ costs associated with gun violence.

“There are so many things wrong with this that it’s tough to know where to begin,” said Paredes. “Can residents of San Jose expect a door-to-door check from city inspectors asking about guns in the home?  This sounds more like pre-World War II Poland than the United States.”

California’s preemption law prohibits local authorities from passing gun control ordinances and regulations, reserving that subject matter to the state, and preventing a disparate patchwork of laws throughout California.

“Requiring someone to carry liability insurance for participating in a Constitutionally guaranteed right such as the 2nd Amendment is no different than steamrolling the 1st Amendment by mandating the media carry such insurance,” said Paredes. “And, to expect lawful San Jose gun owners to pay a fee – to be held financially responsible to cover the damages caused by criminals is absolutely shameful.”

Constitutional attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. And Andrew M. Grossman wrote on the issue of firearm insurance mandates:

The courts, however, are no more likely to allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than to undermine the First. A state cannot circumvent the right to a free press by requiring that an unfriendly newspaper carry millions in libel insurance or pay a thousand-dollar tax on barrels of ink—the real motive, in either case, would be transparent and the regulation struck down. How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The comment by the “constitutional attorneys” is really cute. How stupid and out of touch with reality do you have to be to actually think this will be struck down? It doesn’t matter how flagrantly something violates 2A, all three branches of government have made it abundantly clear that the Second Amendment is a second class right not worthy of protection and is no longer wanted by their establishment.

    Those guys are living in effing fantasy land with that kind of nonsense. The only way to preserve 2A is to finally use it.

  2. Hmmm… It’s my understanding that most insurance simply doesn’t cover intentional, criminal acts. How does forcing law-abiding citizens to purchase gun liability insurance – if that insurance won’t pay for the results of what a criminal does?

    Are they trying to create a new kind of insurance? If so, I’m trying to figure out what kind of company would be interested writing policies that meet this law’s requirements.

    • True story- but you can insure against negligent discharges etc.. Remember the real reason for all this: to make it more expensive to own a gun.

      Fun fact, CA already has a rule that you have to have a gun safe before you can buy a gun. Also a “safety certificate.” Also pass a safe handling test. So you’re at least $500 in before you even take delivery of your first gun.

      Of course, you have to have ID, which we all know is racist because POC are less likely to have ID.

      • No, you do not have to own a safe. If you do not, you have to buy (unless one is included with your purchase) an approved safety device (e.g. cable lock).
        But yes, you do have to pass a written (multiple choice) test to get a firearms safety certificate. It costs $25 and is good for five years. The safe handling test is merely a demonstration that one knows how to load, safe, and safely unload a firearm. Most FFLs will do the demonstration to show you how it is done, and guide you step by step through the process, so any idiot can pass it.

      • To make it more expensive to own a gunm.
        So what’s a non wealthy do? Skips the B S and gets one off paper would be my guess.
        Gunm laws create criminality.

        • Non wealthy? The left are the party of the billionaires. bloomberg, gates, zuckerberg, etc.

          When did the 1% give a fuck about the poors?

      • CA gun law discriminates against the homeless. In a clear violation of their human and civil rights CA requires not only a valid ID, such as a drivers license, but they also require a separate document to prove you have a residence. No residence, no gun.

        Don’t hold your breath waiting for the aclu to take up the case.

    • They are not requiring insurance to cover intentional acts, which would be a violation of the California Insurance Code (and the laws of all other states as well), only accidental injuries. If you have homeowners/renters liability coverage, it will likely step in on a true accident. Given the few number of accidental shootings annually in the US (roughly 5000) I doubt there are that many that occur within San Jose city limits. The requirement is, as are the others, merely a way to make the cost of gun ownership too high for most and therefore practiced by fewer people in San Jose. The Mayor is a dyed in the wool banner.

    • Some of the Lefts best ideas come from pre WWII laws. They crave total control over other people to the point they want you dead if you disagree.

  3. That’s where they’re getting their game plan from! I sincerely believe most dems have well worn copies of Mein Kampf on the night stand!

    • Add George Orwell’s 1984, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and Karl Marx’s Das Kapital for economic theory.

  4. Gotta pay extra because of criminals. Easy enough, let us shoot the criminals when they do criminal things without johnny law punishment for doing it

    • California is also one of those states that tried the whole pay criminals money to stop committing crime thing. Obviously it backfired hilariously. Dane geld.

  5. The San Francisco Chronicle offers more details
    They’re trying to cover the $63M annual cost
    The Mayor says the fee will probably be “a couple dozen dollars”
    Doing the math, he figures there are 2,625,000 guns in San Jose

    The city’s 2019 population: 1,021,795
    Population 18 or older: 77.6% = 792,913
    Doing the math, the Mayor figures the average voter owns 3.31 guns

    Is His Honor so unconcerned about alienating his constituents, although he believes each of them to be a killer-in-waiting? He places a lot of trust in his personal San Jose Police Department protective detail!

    • Would love to see how ACCIDENTAL shootings is costing the CITY of San Jose 63M$.
      You can be damn sure that there are some outrageous assumptions.

      • He’s a Dem and can’t blame the real cause of the $64M, which is mainly minority gang bangers who can’t legally buy a gun because of age, citizenship, or prior convictions. Instead, he’ll blame peaceful gun owners and prevent low-income people who live in the neighborhoods with the gangs from being able to defend themselves. Yes, they had an incident where an angry white man contemplated for months to kill a dozen colleagues, but that’s rare, and he would have gladly paid a few dozen dollars if it would have helped him kill even more colleagues. However, it’s a rare occurrence and doesn’t really contribute to an annual expense.

  6. I thought “murder insurance” was deplorable! Remember, they want you to pay for “gun violence” but don’t want you to be able to insure yourselves to get a proper defense against their biased prosecutions.

  7. Would “carry insurance “ like what Ccw safe and Texas law shield offer suffice?
    These pay for your legal defense if you brandish or shoot your gun in self defense.
    This kind of insurance is actually a good thing to have.
    Costs about $300’to $400 per year

  8. So it goes to court, and obviously will be upheld, then on appeal it goes to the 9th Circuit, and will be upheld again. Finally, and maybe, it makes it’s way to SCOTUS by 2032 to 2042, and who knows what will be sitting on the bench by then. Obviously Unconstitutional, but when has the Commie Left ever cared about Constitutional Law?

    Best bet, move the hell out of there.

    • Problem is, this kind of Unconstitutional nonsense is hardly exclusive to the Socialist Republic of Kaliforniastan, so simply fleeing the state is not a long (or likely even medium) term solution anymore.

  9. You can bet that there’s a ‘progressive’ legislator in Sacramento who is already gleefully drafting a state-wide version of San Jose’s asinine initiative as I write this. Figure we’ll start hearing about this prospective legislation sometime in 2022. 🙄

  10. Wouldn’t it make more sense to mandate insurance for criminals to reimburse their victims or victims families? Surely that would more sense in this crazyland they’ve created.

Comments are closed.