San Jose to tax gun owners force them to carry insurance, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

Status
Not open for further replies.
California. Sigh. Whattaya gonna do?

In the words of the famed songwriter Warren Zevon, "when California falls into the ocean, like the mystics and statistics say it will, I predict this hotel will still be standing, until I pay my bill."
 
I have a silly dream where "lawmakers" are held accountable for the laws they pass. Author, co-sponsor, or sponsors of bills that become laws that are later found unconstitutional and struck down would be held accountable to a similar penalty for violating NFA. Would up to 10 years and a $250,000 fine cause legislators to act within the confines of our existing rules and laws?

Maybe if they truly had skin in the game these so called "constitutional scholars" would stop ram rodding the silly bills through to become laws that they know will never pass legal scrutiny. Of course this would also have it's own myriad of issues that come with it, such as it probably not being constitutional itself. It would just be easier for everyone if we lived in a world where legislators serve for true love of their friends, neighbors, and country and not to seek fame, notoriety, and wealth.
 
Last edited:
daverich4 said:
To be honest, it’s not clear to me if you’re disagreeing with me and, if so, which part? Because if a right is “granted” by the government, it can be taken away.
Click to expand...
My point is that the source and nature of "rights" is not as simple as it seems. You seem to be saying that there are two kinds of rights -- "granted" rights (those granted by the government) and "innate" rights (those based on God or Nature). I say that this is a false dichotomy. In a state of nature, the law of the jungle prevails, and the strong eat the weak. The "right of self defense" is therefore moot, if you happen to be weaker or slower than your predator. As to government grants of rights, throughout human history, no government has ever granted rights voluntarily. They have only done so when forced by the people.

Bottom line: we will have gun rights only as long as we, as a people, demand them. If public support for gun rights falls below a certain minimum level, neither God nor Nature will save them.
 
jobu07 said:
I have a silly dream where "lawmakers" are held accountable for the laws they pass. Author, co-sponsor, or sponsors of bills that become laws that are later found unconstitutional and struck down would be held accountable to a similar penalty for violating NFA. Would up to 10 years and a $250,000 fine cause legislators to act within the confines of our existing rules and laws?
Click to expand...
That's exactly contrary to the Constitution. Article 1, section 6 provides:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.​

This is called "legislative immunity." And there are equivalent provisions at the state and local level.

When you stop and think about it, the system simply would not work if legislators could be hauled into court based on their votes and debates. For one thing, nobody would be willing to run for office. (And it would work both ways -- pro-gun legislators could be sued just as easily as antigun legislators. Harassment knows no limits)
 
Last edited:
It was only a matter of time before this approach was attempted (again). With criminal justice reform and defunding the police, the cash stream is going to be taking a significant hit. Since criminals, even if convicted, can't be relied upon to pay their fines much less restitution, the money has to come from somewhere. Demonizing law abiding gun owners is just a built-in bonus. The BGC on ammo in the same state is less about keeping ammo out and more about bringing money in, to replenish the coffers. They know that people are going to exercise their 2A rights, no matter how many obstacles are thrown at them.
 
AlexanderA said:
That's exactly contrary to the Constitution. Article 1, section 6 provides:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.​

This is called "legislative immunity." And there are equivalent provisions at the state and local level.

When you stop and think about it, the system simply would not work if legislators could be hauled into court based on their votes and debates. For one thing, nobody would be willing to run for office. (And it would work both ways -- pro-gun legislators could be sued just as easily as antigun legislators. Harassment knows no limits)
Click to expand...

Would the legislative deadlock and lack of action really be that much worse than what we have now? And my thoughts were premised on if a law was stricken down by the court, not allowing cart blanche law suits to be brought, but six one way half a dozen another I suppose.

I guess that's why I called it a silly dream. I wonder why qualified immunity for legislators isn't hated on as much as qualified immunity for police officers today? I know who I think causes more problems in our nation.
 
Last edited:
What happens when a San Jose resident stores the guns outside the city limits? It would seem that the situs of the property would place it outside the reach of the city ordinance.

Suppose they require gun liability insurance, but no insurer would underwrite such policies. What then?

The people proposing this thing don't even know how it would work. They're farming it out to a "study" to flesh out the details.
 
tark said:
It will go nowhere. California has a pre-emptive clause when it comes to gun laws. Cities cannot make their own laws which are more restrictive or conflict with state laws. I was living in the Bay Area when Feinstein was Mayor of SFO. She tried to outlaw pistols in the SFO city limits. The first judge to see the new law slapped it down.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this one falls under Ca govt code 53071 because it’s not banning or restricting possession or ownership, nor is it imposing a legal burden on people passing through the city, it is only requiring “gun insurance” for a resident who resides in the city itself.

It’s still utter BS. It should be fought as a racist tax on low income people who are exercising their constitutional rights enshrined in the 2nd. “Only the wealthy can afford to use their rights”, etc. :fire:

I hope it loses badly in Court ASAP.

Stay safe.
 
brewer12345 said:
it is time for a poll tax.
Click to expand...
  • Regressive by definition
  • Analogous to poll taxes and literacy tests
  • Very much “Jim Crow” as being screamed about currently
  • Very ripe for litigation of “deprivation of rights under the color of law”
  • For giggles - change the “right” in question to any other - speech, assembly, religion, etc. - and hear how it sounds and guess the resultant court case….
 
I agree with the consensus that this will not withstand judicial review. There are just too many angles from which this can be attacked legally.

Maybe the city council knows this, and is merely "virtue signalling"?
 
Fyrstyk said:
I don't think you can tax a right granted by the second amendment of the constitution. If that is the case, then tax and require liability insurance for politicians and clergy. Words and religion have killed more people over the years than guns. To go further, why not tax people who have kids in school. Why should seniors and people who chose not to have kids have to pay for education?
Click to expand...
I've always said that, having never been blessed :confused: with kids.
 
AlexanderA said:
I agree with the consensus that this will not withstand judicial review. There are just too many angles from which this can be attacked legally.

Maybe the city council knows this, and is merely "virtue signalling"?
Click to expand...


This ^^^. The Council wasn't vetted enough by the voters (if voting was legitimate in the first place) and here is the result. Many other councils have done the same, proposing then actually approving city regulations contrary to the Constitution. And if they don't get pushback, it stands, forcing citizens to organize and oppose it in the courts.

Some of it still stands, which is a win in their column. It also consumes taxpayer resources while the Council consumes taxes on frivolous lawsuits. They are well funded, citizens aren't so much. The end result is to continue to come up with all sorts of stuff and beat down the conservatives.

It's only a small handful, their constituency doesn't really finance it, the taxpayers at large do. They have hijacked the local government and are using it for their own political agenda. In the meantime Good Citizens Who Won't Get Involved With Dirty Politics assist them in their winning. Their mindset is that they are too highly principled to stoop so low as to engage in ANY response as it would sully their reputation. They avoid any pretense of acting like a Patriot while wrapping themselves in the flag and yelling I'm A Patriot! Look How Clean I Am!

One of the unfortunate results of this long term campaign on their part is to infiltrate our own party with non actors who do nothing to oppose them, while also benefitting from the profitable exercise of your tax dollars. They are in on it from the git go. They even work behind the scenes opposing our views and turning our efforts on our heads which gives them more support. As seen in certain electoral inconsistencies recently. They deliberatel subvert our will.

Until each and every poster here gets involved in LOCAL government it's going to be a hard road ahead. Get involved, know what is on your city council agenda, understand who is doing what. Otherwise you are just another villager in the rice paddy waiting for the next indoctrination session when the ReEducators come to beat you and take your crops. Oh wait, they already are - taking your tax dollars to fund their agenda and to use them to oppose YOU in court doesn't do that?

Welcome to the rice paddies.

45% of America still doesn't see it happening. We have finally tilted the playing field after 5 years. There is still a ways to go yet.
 
Insurance doesn't cover intentional acts. What they're really talking about is insurance coverage for negligent acts. How is that relevant to a mass shooting, like what happened in San Jose?

gunlaw said:
Looks like the insurance industry at work. Create a product and force everyone to buy it.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that the insurance industry wants to get involved in this mess.

No, the city council wants to create impossible-to-satisfy conditions. They would be happy if insurance ended up not being offered.
 
AlexanderA said:
Insurance doesn't cover intentional acts. What they're really talking about is insurance coverage for negligent acts. How is that relevant to a mass shooting, like what happened in San Jose?


I seriously doubt that the insurance industry wants to get involved in this mess.

No, the city council wants to create impossible-to-satisfy conditions. They would be happy if insurance ended up not being offered.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The article I posted over in legal stated it was "Insurance" and a fee (guess that is a tax) But they have no idea how much. What insurance company would underwrite a policy for gun owners liability and killing someone.

Then of course there are the wackos criminals who would not have insurance anyway. Just a form of gun control!.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...n=sfc_morningfix&sid=5b76f95595a7a134ea54c758

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — San Jose officials have passed the first law in the nation that requires gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay a fee to cover taxpayers’ costs associated with gun violence.

The new law was unanimously approved by the City Council on Tuesday, a month after a disgruntled San Jose rail yard employee fatally shot nine of his co-workers and then himself at the rail yard, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Mayor Sam Liccardo praised the measures and said gun owners who do not comply with the new rules shouldn’t have guns.

“We won’t magically end gun violence, but we stop paying for it,” Liccardo said in a statement.

The new law is part of a 10-point gun control plan that Liccardo unveiled following the May 26 mass shooting at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority rail yard.

Officials have not decided how much gun owners will be required to pay in fees. They would be used to cover the direct costs of gun violence to city taxpayers for services that include police response, ambulance transport and gunshot-related medical treatment for victims.

The fees would be determined upon completion of a gun harm study from the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation, a group that promotes individual and public health, welfare, and safety.

In a preliminary report released ahead of the vote, the institute estimated that gun-related homicides, suicides and other shootings cost San Jose around $63 million annually. A more thorough study is expected to be completed in the fall.

Jaime Bellemare of Brady United Against Gun Violence, the national nonprofit that advocates against gun violence, said there have been other similar laws proposed but San Jose is the first city in the country to have passed one.

One challenge to enforce the law will be in determining how to administer the new liability insurance and fee requirements.

City officials know how many guns were purchased in San Jose since 2001, Liccardo said, but the city has no gun registry and no way to track gun owners.

Earlier this month, city lawmakers passed a new law requiring all retailers to record video and audio of all firearm purchases. San Jose became the largest California city with such a rule.

https://apnews.com/article/ca-state...and-politics-14f56241774fb3fb277b1ec09e168481
 
The main effect this misbegotten plan would have would be to turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals. They should study history. What effect did alcohol Prohibition have back in the 1920's? (The people that proposed these sorts of things were well-meaning idealists back then, too. It's just that they were / are aiming at the wrong targets.)
 
AlexanderA said:
The main effect this misbegotten plan would have would be to turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals. They should study history. What effect did alcohol Prohibition have back in the 1920's? (The people that proposed these sorts of things were well-meaning idealists back then, too. It's just that they were / are aiming at the wrong targets.)
Click to expand...
That’s the whole idea. Check the cnn article where the mayor was basically quoted stating criminals don’t follow the law, so let’s make “dangerous people” criminals if they don’t follow it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...resting-california-citys-proposed-gun-tax.amp

That’s every gun owner the mayor just called “dangerous”.

This facist law is what’s dangerous, it’s crafted straight out of the pages of 1930’s Germany. Lets all hope it dies in court quickly before it infects another city near you. (Don’t kid yourself if you think this can’t happen in your state. There are PLENTY of liberal-run cities nationwide, not just in Ca.)

Stay safe.
 
tark said:
It will go nowhere. California has a pre-emptive clause when it comes to gun laws. Cities cannot make their own laws which are more restrictive or conflict with state laws. I was living in the Bay Area when Feinstein was Mayor of SFO. She tried to outlaw pistols in the SFO city limits. The first judge to see the new law slapped it down.
Click to expand...

In 2019, the City of San Diego wrote and passed a "safe" storage ordinance into the municipal code that goes well beyond what the state's own requires. In a nutshell, if you live within the city, firearms have to be kept locked up or disabled unless you are in immediate control of them (i.e. on your body). This local ordinance is still in effect. A lot of stuff that should go nowhere does.
 
bdickens said:
Because education is a public good from which an entire society benefits.
Click to expand...
Debatable.
bdickens said:
Education is a necessary prerequisite for an informed electorate and education benefits everyone, not just the recipients thereof.
Click to expand...
No longer even debatable. Even MY professors tried to indoctrinate me in the 90s, but at 38 they had their work cut out for them. Simple truth.
 
No, it's not debatable. You really think being full of uneducated, ignorant people is good for a country? Go take a look at the places where that is the case and then come back here and say that.

Also, you are conflating public education with college and education in general with indoctrination. Perhaps your professors were unsuccessful precisely because you were educated. Much harder to "indoctrinate" people who think for themselves.

Furthermore, the "public schools are nothing more than liberal brainwashing" trope you seem to have fallen for is pure hogwash. Not all public schools are like that and if yours are I suggest you might want to be more involved in what goes on there.

To pull this back on topic, when idiotic plans like this are struck down as unconstitutional, it is precisely because of that "informed electorate" thing I mentioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
San Jose approves gun owners liability insurance
2
Replies
35
Views
932
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
Rule3
  • Locked
San Jose to require gun owners to carry liability insurance
Replies
6
Views
659
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
A
  • Locked
More than 23M firearms sold, over 21M gun background checks conducted in 2020
Replies
6
Views
827
GAF
GAF
armoredman
  • Locked
San Jose decides gun owners should pay for the privilege
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
LiveLife
LiveLife
Blue Brick
  • Locked
Tacoma City Council postpones gun tax vote
Replies
15
Views
1K
Virginia Jim
Virginia Jim
Back
Top