San Jose to require liability insurance for gun owners

From the article:

The San Jose City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to draft an ordinance that would order gun owners in the city to obtain insurance and pay an annual fee to subsidize police responses, ambulances, medical treatment and other municipal expenses related to shootings, injuries and deaths.
Click to expand...

So they are going to tax an entire group for a harm they assert is perpetrated by a small percentage of that group?

Who could possibly misuse such a wise proposal?

You know what costs taxpayers a lot? Stupid voting choices. So if we tax voting, taxpayers won't have to subsidize voting. This fixes everything.
 
So they are going to tax an entire group for a harm they assert is perpetrated by a small percentage of that group?
Click to expand...

Why not? Its a long established principle. Don't they tax property owners to pay for schools, when "only a small percentage" of them have children in school??

Its a simple idea, you tax people with money, to pay for whatever, because taxing people who don't have money doesn't pay for much.

And, the system reaches peak efficiency when you can tax the people who do not get or use any of the benefits they are paying for!

Like taxing an entire state to pay for a ferry system or a rail system or a sports stadium that is only used in one place....

And why just stop with guns? Why not tax every knife owner in the city (or state or whatever) to pay for people who get stabbed?

Everybody has a knife in their kitchen, some people have..gasp...dozens!! I can't think of a broader tax base than that! :rolleyes:
 
How will the government know who the gun owners are? You can easily buy a gun and give it away for free, for example.
 
How will the government know who the gun owners are?
Click to expand...

Well, there you go, that's why they need full and complete registration!!!

and, not just new purchases, either!!

In their minds, if there's a gun in the house, even if its 100yrs old and broken, its still a gun and the owners are responsible for paying "their fair share of the cost burden to society that guns create..."

Its BS, but they are the elected authority, so they can do whatever they want...right????

(intentional sarcasm)
 
"Well, there you go, that's why they need full and complete registration!!!"

So, this government scheme seems to be to take almost all your guns but leave you one or two so you can be charged an excessive tax to fund some stupid pet project.

Edit: added quotes to first paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Hm...seems like a tax to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

...I suppose they looked at poll taxes as an inspiration...
 
So, they tax law abiding citizens to compensate the government for cost of crimes committed by illegal gun possessors. Here is an idea why don't we lock up violent criminals for progressively longer amounts of time. Oh wait criminals are actually the victims here, so again, lets punish the folks who actually follow the law. Wish I could just roll my eyes and say, "Oh those wacky Californians" but this is a growing mindset nationwide.
 
…so does that mean that the city has the authority to force insurance companies to sell such a policy? Will the policy cover the actions of the gun or the owner? Policy sold covering gun liability. Owner shoots gun. Gun not liable, shooter is. Insurance company not liable for owner; only gun! What idiots failed to think this through? I bet more folks are killed in that city by booze, drugs and ladders than guns.
 
TXAZ welcomes and suggest all lawful San Jose gun owners move to Texas, where most of our BS comes from actual bulls and not politicians.
 
I bet every liberal city, county, and state will be watching how this one plays out. I think it is almost a given it will pass the 9th court. So I guess the big question is will this scotus take it up?
 
The citizens who support this bill are being duped if they think it will make them "safer". Just the government coming up with a creative way to siphon money from citizens while not addressing the multiple causes of death by firearm misuse.
I'm doubtful of our justice system upholding the constitution. Look what happened to U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII.
 
Last edited:
s3779m:
I bet every liberal city, county, and state will be watching how this one plays out. I think it is almost a given it will pass the 9th court. So I guess the big question is will this scotus take it up?
Click to expand...

This is every anti-gunner's wet dream. The mayor could hardly contain himself during his televised announcement. I love how he specifically stated that this ordinance was protective of the 2A -- NOT! From this thread alone, on a quick read, there's at least 4 solid reasons why this ordinance won't survive. When GOA solicits for funds on this one, I'll kick in some more $$. This should burn up some of the antis money defending this. I bet this mayor is one of Bloomberg's guys. Keep it up anti-2A dorks :).
 
Yeah, San Jose is off the rails.

While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be "a couple dozen dollars," and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.
Click to expand...

Do you think it will be a couple dozen dollars per gun owner or per gun?

But this will undoubtedly help stop crime and shootings, because...

"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."
Click to expand...

Or, you know, police could arrest crooks for being crooks and being in possesion of a firearm which is already illegal.

I was impressed with how much information is revealed in this really short news clip about the San Jose madness, they even address how it's going to be enforced. (Pretty much hit and miss.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...oncompliance/ar-AALDNur?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
 
I don't see this surviving in the courts. SCOTUS came down pretty hard on taxing rights in the Minneapolis Star case.

There are differences in the nuances, but I just don't see the current majority of the court finding this constitutional.
 
"Crooks aren’t going to follow this law," Liccardo told reporters. "When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun."
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that....

First point is that it is long established law that criminals (felons and any other prohibited persons) are NOT legally required to register a gun they have. And, I would think that includes paying any LOCAL tax on it.

A prohibited person doesn't need to register or pay tax on a gun they cannot legally possess. Doing so would be a violation of their constitutional right against self incrimination. They can be charged with illegally possessing the gun, but cannot be charged with failing to register or pay tax on it.

Second point is the actual legality of requiring the tax OR the insurance.

Next point is simply, who's gonna get the tax money? (until a court strikes it down?) The CITY???? No doubt the fine people who are running this mess could do with MORE money!! :rolleyes:
 
Next point is simply, who's gonna get the tax money? (until a court strikes it down?) The CITY?
Click to expand...

And that's the salt in the wound.

In the 1990s, the tobacco industry reached a multi-billion dollar settlement with the federal government. They agreed to pay out tens of millions of dollars per year to be sent to the states for the purpose of smoking education and harm prevention.

States like New York and Connecticut spend less than 1% of it on anything related to its purpose. In New York, they've spent it on things like new buildings and offices for unrelated agencies, and they have so much of it spent ahead of time, they've issued bonds against future payments.
 
One thing it might do is encourage departure of residents prosperous enough to buy guns. Bye bye gun tax, bye bye ALL taxes from those sensible people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top