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.
A study published in November by the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation found that San Jose taxpayers pay an average of $151 per year for each household that owns a gun, supporting gun violence response by law enforcement and medical personnel, shooting investigations, court processing and other services that are publicly funded.
When combined with the private costs to residents as a result of gun violence and crime, the study found that San Jose residents collectively spend an average of $442 million per year due to gun violence.
Between 50,000 and 55,000 San Jose households own at least one gun, according to the study. The ordinance's fee would be charged per household and not per gun, Liccardo said.
"Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun," Liccardo said. "It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right."
The funding generated from the proposal's fees would support the work of a nonprofit that will seek to reduce domestic and gun violence.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Zero chance this survives court scrutiny, but I get the motivation.
Ultimately the bulk of people committing crimes with guns are not lawful or registered owners. Do you think gangs will be signing up to pay their $25? You're penalizing lawful owners for the act of the lawless.
Gun insurance seems like a great idea, and I can’t believe it’s taken this long.
You can’t drive a car without insurance, why should you be allowed to own/operate a boomstick of death without one.
Driving a car in the US is a privilege, not a right. The right to own a firearm is built into their constitution. I can see the SCOTUS smashing this down.
It's probably the belief that only criminals use guns in a violent way that leads to the majority of shootings in the States. If you don't 'like the look' of someone, and think that they are armed, the likelihood of a upstanding citizen defending themselves against a perceived threat, must be through the roof.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Driving a car in the US is a privilege, not a right. The right to own a firearm is built into their constitution. I can see the SCOTUS smashing this down.
I'd counter that with D.C., Massachusetts, New York (Hand guns), and Puerto Rico requiring licenses to own a gun. I would assume they stood up to court challenges.
Driving a car in the US is a privilege, not a right. The right to own a firearm is built into their constitution. I can see the SCOTUS smashing this down.
Right but why can’t you be sued for improper use or care of firearms?
Unless all firearm laws are inherently unconstitutional? But even Scalia didn’t think that.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
Zero chance this survives court scrutiny, but I get the motivation.
Ultimately the bulk of people committing crimes with guns are not lawful or registered owners. Do you think gangs will be signing up to pay their $25? You're penalizing lawful owners for the act of the lawless.
The vast majority of gun crimes committed in the US are committed by 'lawful' gun owners, drunken ex's threatening or shooting their ex's, angry neighbours waving their shotguns around over whether 10am is to early to cut the grass, in countries were gun ownership is restricted this isnt the case but in the US where any idiot can legally buy a gun there are vast numbers of idiots with legal guns.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
250 reported unintentional shootings by children in the first year of the pandemic too (an increase in part because of children staying home and I guess nothing better to do then find mommy's handgun in her purse).
100 people killed by children unintentionally in 2020.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
Zero chance this survives court scrutiny, but I get the motivation.
Ultimately the bulk of people committing crimes with guns are not lawful or registered owners. Do you think gangs will be signing up to pay their $25? You're penalizing lawful owners for the act of the lawless.
Yeah, care to back that up?
Considering only ~13 states require a permit to buy a handgun (fewer for long guns), and most states have very few restrictions on who can buy gun, it seems unlikely that they make up the bulk of gun crimes. When "registered" owner isn't a thing for 75% of the country, and lawful owner is essentially everyone, neither is a very useful qualifier.
Also I feel really bad for the Babylon Bee. It must have really killed them to have to use a cultural stereotype instead of the racial one I'm sure they would have preferred to use.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 01-25-2022 at 02:42 PM.
Right but why can’t you be sued for improper use or care of firearms?
Unless all firearm laws are inherently unconstitutional? But even Scalia didn’t think that.
You can be sued, absolutely, its just you don't need to be insured. By requiring insurance you are adding a layer of access which can be be determined to be against the constitution.
The licensing aspect is quite interesting. By requiring a license does that preclude everyone from access? Or is it perfunctory in nature?
While it will do little to deter criminals from criminaling it could have a possible effect of people deciding to own fewer guns legally.
Straight Arrow types would probably buy fewer guns if they needed to pay for a license and insurance. People who don't give a $#! will just not register all their guns to save money. Criminals will continue to not register or insure their guns.
So there may be a paper decrease of firearms in this scenario but it may only be a slight actual decrease (not including the normal number that get pitched into rivers or the ocean after use in the commission of a crime).
Yeah, care to back that up?
Considering only ~13 states require a permit to buy a handgun (fewer for long guns), and most states have very few restrictions on who can buy gun, it seems unlikely that they make up the bulk of gun crimes. When "registered" owner isn't a thing for 75% of the country, and lawful owner is essentially everyone, neither is a very useful qualifier.
I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to make, but I think I agree - ultimately the bulk of gun crimes (non-suicides) are with illegally obtained/stolen fireams. Sure there are tonnes and tonnes of cases of legally obtained and even registered firearms used for crimes & even the terrible mass shootings, but I'd suspect that pales in comparison to all the killings & gang violence committed on a daily/hourly basis with weapons that would never be in a million years be subject to the $25 fee.
Look, I agree with the goal of reducing the guns on the street in the States, but this is really isn't going to make any difference. When the gun culture runs so deep and is so pervasive in their DNA & constitution, it'll take something seismic to change anything. Punishing those lawful owners for the acts of unlawful ones does little to change anyone's tune but encourage people to not follow whatever rules are enacted and drive more division. It was like the long-gun registry in Canada - Making life a PITA for all the legit registered owners, meanwhile every gang shooting is done with black market USA purchased weapons, and no statistical decrease in crime or shootings as a result.
You can be sued, absolutely, its just you don't need to be insured. By requiring insurance you are adding a layer of access which can be be determined to be against the constitution.
The licensing aspect is quite interesting. By requiring a license does that preclude everyone from access? Or is it perfunctory in nature?
while I would agree the currant court would likely disallow it the phrase 'a well regulated militia' has traditionally allowed regulations like mandatory insurance
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to make, but I think I agree - ultimately the bulk of gun crimes (non-suicides) are with illegally obtained/stolen fireams. Sure there are tonnes and tonnes of cases of legally obtained and even registered firearms used for crimes & even the terrible mass shootings, but I'd suspect that pales in comparison to all the killings & gang violence committed on a daily/hourly basis with weapons that would never be in a million years be subject to the $25 fee.
In the 13 states with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership, 40 percent of inmates illegally obtained the gun they used, Webster said. Only about 13 percent purchased the gun from a store or pawn shop.
In the other 37 states, including New York state, 60 percent of inmates illegally procured the gun they used, Webster said.
"If you look at the most stringent standards for legal gun ownership, it’s more like 65 percent," Webster said.
...
About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show. Most states only require a background check if the purchase happens at a gun store, according to the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Forty percent of state prison inmates admitted they obtained the gun illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer, or by stealing it.
83 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and November 2021 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.
I think anything they can do that disincentivizes gun ownership is a good step. They have to do something. If charging an insurance fee means some people think twice on buying one, on it being part of their "culture", etc, it reduces demand. Reduce demand enough and supply will go down. Maybe you stigmatize it a bit more, too. Is it going to fix the disastrous gun problems they have? No, of course not. But it's a step.
I've been a proponent of firearm insurance for a while, I've talked about it in any post about firearms control.
But lets be honest, if can't be cheap, and the penalties for having an un insured far arm needs to be a felony and not some fine.
If you want firearms reform, force insurance companies to be involved. They're going to want to reduce exposure, or lawyers eagerly attacking them like they do any other kind of insured product.
A firearmby design is a harmful product, any insurance rate should reflect that, and the money should be made available to victims of firearm violence.
Using a uninsured fire arm in a crime should be an automatic life sentence with no parole for 20 years period.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
San Jose could be the first US city to require gun owners to have liability insurance
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
