San Jose (CA) Council Set To Approve Requiring Gun Owners To Buy Liability Insurance, Pay Annual Fee

[ificandream]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Bay City News/CBS SF Bay Area

SAN JOSE (BCN) – San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.

The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.

Mayor Sam Liccardo, who introduced the two proposals last June after a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee killed nine of his co-workers and himself, likened the insurance requirement to motorists having car insurance.

“Gun liability insurance available today on the market can adjust premiums to encourage gun owners to purchase and use gun safes, install trigger locks and take gun safety classes,” he said Monday during a briefing to discuss the proposal.

Read more: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/01/24/san-jose-set-to-approve-gun-owner-liability-insurance-annual-fee/

---

I like this, but I'll betcha this will be in the courts very shortly ....

[madville]

1. Will be interesting if the insurance requirement stands

The largest seller of such insurance is the NRA, and yes, they are licensed to sell those insurance products in California. Looked at their website, a CA liability policy is $75 a year for $250,000 worth of coverage.

I don’t know the legalities of charging someone an annual fee just to own a gun in the city limits either. Seems to me it equates to a poll tax in order to vote, charging people for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity. It mainly prices out the poor and many minorities who are affected by poverty and a higher rate.

[Frasier Balzov]

4. Since shooting somebody is, in general, an intentional act

I'm curious to know the fine print exclusions in that policy-- i.e., what it DOES NOT cover.

[madville]

5. These policies usually just protect the legal owner

If the gun is lost or stolen and an incident happens. If the actual legal owner of the firearm committed a criminal act it would not be covered by any insurance available today.

That’s another thing, if they mandate an insurance product that doesn’t actually exist in that form, it’s a de facto ban and likely would be overturned as well.

[James48]

7. What is the difference

Between a handgun annual tax, and property tax on your home?

The Constitution says “well regulated militia, (snip) the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”.

Part of the regulation is a liability policy, and an administrative tax to pay to have the city verify you are keeping said policy current.

[madville]

11. The second amendment is currently recognized as a

An individual right not dependent on membership in a militia, see District of Columbia vs. Heller.

What’s the difference between an annual tax to simply possess a firearm in one’s house and an annual tax on voting or a free speech tax?

I read a little more, the measure, if passed, won’t actually be enacted and/or enforced until “all legal challenges are resolved”, that could be years, if ever.

There will be challenges to the measure of course, I think a big one is that a liability insurance product doesn’t exist that covers guns being used illegally. The closest thing in existence is liability for the lawful owner if the gun is lost or stolen and used in a crime by someone else. The law requiring liability insurance covering the gun being used illegally, even by the owner, won’t stand if it requires something that can’t be obtained.

[iluvtennis]

2. Love it! ( lived in San Jose for 25 years). n/t

[kimbutgar]

3. Never hurts to try and bring the subject up for discussion.

I’m sure in America a lot of people would be ok with this!

And the insurance companies might like the new revenue for these insurance policies.

[keithbvadu2]

6. Insurance... Protects the gun owners,the public,and makes profit for NRA and gun orgs.

Solution - NRA/gun orgs sell liability insurance…

"Guns: There's a "Free Market" Solution Every Republican Should Love"

Insurance lets the market decide. Profit for the NRA

Protects the gun owners,the public,and makes profit for NRA and gun orgs.

Surely the NRA/gun orgs would protect the rights and not take advantage of Americans.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/guns-theres-a-free-market-solution?r=nl8r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter

[JBGraves]

8. What if I can't afford the costs?

Seems like poor people will be hit the hardest. They often live in bad areas with lots of crime.

[SunSeeker]

9. With 7 hour waits, people can't afford to vote right now.

But SCOTUS had no proiblem with that impingement of a Constitutional right.

[LiberatedUSA]

10. This will never be allowed to stand in this Supreme Court.

This won’t ever happen in red states where there is no list of who owns what and how many they own.

Lawmaker: Get gun insurance.

Gun owner: What guns?

Supreme Court: Nope


Does anyone here honestly thing this court is going to rubber stamp this for the entire nation by letting this stand for one state?

Good luck with that.

[Crepuscular]

12. ...

This is tilting at windmills while squandering public funds which could be better allocated to some program that would actually benefit those who need it the most. How much in public tax dollars will San Jose spend in litigating this law all the way up to the S.C., only to then lose and have to pay the plaintiffs legal fees, as well. How about spending it on affordable housing or some other tangible benefit for the disadvantaged instead.

[marie999]

13. That would be making people register their weapons which I oppose.

[Omaha Steve]

14. After a review by forum hosts....LOCKING

This can be posted in LBN when it passes.