San Jose decides gun owners should pay for the privilege

[armoredman]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sa...sial-gun-owners-liability-insurance-residents

San Jose CA now requires both firearms "insurance" and an annual "fee" to exercise their rights.

The level of (censored) in this statement alone is incredible.

"While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms," Liccardo said, via the report, the "2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns."

Now, how can this be countered? Curious what gun rights group will pick this one up.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Isn't that just the sort of thing the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled against?

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/

 

[eb in oregon]

I'm just wondering how "taxpayers subsidize" gun owners in any way. People buy their firearms, pay for all the accessories, and are responsible for their security. Exactly where does taxpayer dollars come into play? Molon labe.

 

[rhodester]

Why not execute anyone who commits a crime with a gun? Gun crime should go waaaaaay down really quick.

 

[Spats McGee]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sa...sial-gun-owners-liability-insurance-residents

San Jose CA now requires both firearms "insurance" and an annual "fee" to exercise their rights.

The level of (censored) in this statement alone is incredible.


Now, how can this be countered? Curious what gun rights group will pick this one up.

Just off the top of my head, I would expect challenges under the A2, Due Process, and Equal Protection, in addition to any state law challenges. I wouldn't mind seeing a civil rights organization pick it up under disparate impact on economically challenged groups, either.

I'm just wondering how "taxpayers subsidize" gun owners in any way. People buy their firearms, pay for all the accessories, and are responsible for their security. Exactly where does taxpayer dollars come into play? Molon labe.

The argument that I would anticipate from the San Jose side goes something like this: (1) gun owners buy guns; (2) innocent people, in particular ones with no insurance, are injured by those guns; (3) the gov't has to pay extra $$$ to police, EMTs, etc., to deal with those injuries; thus (4) taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing gun owners. It ain't pretty, but that's what I suspect they'll argue.

 

[starnbar]

That argument also implies that any criminal who gets injured due to their actions is also subsidized by tax payers and anyone who has a drug overdose is too. Therefore all citizens must be included.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A number of off-topic posts were deleted. We don't do rants or "that's dumb" type one-liners. This is a place for substantive discussion.

 

[kmw1954]

Sorry but I see this as just another blatant attack on civil liberties and a lawful activity just as all the second hand smoke laws and Taxes. Yet now those same people are pushing the legalization of smoking Pot. Smoke is still smoke wherever it originates.

So my question then becomes when criminals are arrested and they are uninsured are they going to be charged as uninsured drivers are? Or are the penalties going to be more severe because it involves a firearm? Or will it be immediately plea bargained down as is the usual case?

 

[rust collector]

Oh my. Where to begin. Charging annual fees to exercise a constitutional right should warrant strict scrutiny. I would be amazed if the city had the data to connect the dots. I would expect the insurance to be rare and expensive, given the litigious nature of that venue. And how do we go about recovering the cost of litigation, both on the part of the city and gun owner groups, from those who apparently didn't stop to wonder why no other city had attempted it. Council members should get to feel the pain when crackpot schemes sail through.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Isn't that just the sort of thing the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled against?

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/

We're going to take a slight detour for some legal research tips. And I'm sorry, Mikhail Weiss, but I'll be using your error here for illustration.

The quotation attributed to the Supreme Court's decision in Murdock is not from the decision. It's from the syllabus:

....One final note about the syllabus. On the front of each one, the court notes that the syllabus “constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.” ...

So the syllabus is not really part of the decision and isn't necessarily completely accurate or comprehensive. One needs to always read the entire opinion. For example, by only reading the syllabus one had missed where the Court pointed out in Murdock, at 110:

… See for example Cox v. New Hampshire 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049, 133 A.L.R. 1396, and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031. But that merely illustrates that the rights with which we are dealing are not absolutes. …

Furthermore, a decent researcher would then look at both Cox v. New Hampshire and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Looking at those case, one finds:

1. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031(1942), at 571-572:

   …Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem …

   
   
2. In Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049, 133 A.L.R. 1396 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1941) the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a municipal ordinance which burdened the exercise of a right protected under the First Amendment by requiring a permit, for which a fee was charged, to hold a parade of procession on the streets was valid and enforceable, and the Court affirmed the conviction of a number of Jehovah's Witness who violated that ordinance.

 

[FAS1]

Can you even buy that type of insurance? Who offers it?

 

[herrwalther]

Can you even buy that type of insurance? Who offers it?

Plenty of companies offer carry insurance to pay for criminal or civil defense when involved in defensive gun use.

Has anyone been able to locate the full text of the proposed law or city ordinance? I haven't found it from the usual sources yet.

 

[plainsdrifter]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sa...sial-gun-owners-liability-insurance-residents

San Jose CA now requires both firearms "insurance" and an annual "fee" to exercise their rights.

The level of (censored) in this statement alone is incredible.


Now, how can this be countered? Curious what gun rights group will pick this one up.

This organization does all the time and win. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/about (It should be sticky'd IMO They do more than any gun club or org.

I have a post of them in this Legal sub-forum. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/firearms-policy-coalition-fpc.900653/

 

[JeffG]

I doubt that this will survive the first substantive legal challenge. The premise appears to me to be that the City feels legal gun ownership needs to be penalized, taxed and regulated for some perceived wrongdoing.

 

[Elkins45]

Plenty of companies offer carry insurance to pay for criminal or civil defense when involved in defensive gun use.

Has anyone been able to locate the full text of the proposed law or city ordinance? I haven't found it from the usual sources yet.

Interesting that one town in CA is requiring the purchase of such insurance while at the same time NY actively forbids it from being offered there.

 

[rust collector]

Interesting that one town in CA is requiring the purchase of such insurance while at the same time NY actively forbids it from being offered there.

Someone on this or another thread said they had coverage for $20 per month, but the city will likely define acceptable coverage. That and the fact that all gun owners will need to obtain coverage may affect the cost, at a time when everything is becoming more expensive anyway.

 

[FAS1]

Plenty of companies offer carry insurance to pay for criminal or civil defense when involved in defensive gun use.

Has anyone been able to locate the full text of the proposed law or city ordinance? I haven't found it from the usual sources yet.

This is from another article:

The new ordinance, which is set to take effect in August, requires that all San Jose residents who own a gun obtain a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy that specifically covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm.

I don’t think Carry Insurance covers those.

 

[rabid wombat]

I doubt that this will survive the first substantive legal challenge

I am sorry to bet against you. It will win locally, ultimately to be adjudicated by the Ninth, who will rule in favor to the 2nd!, only to be overturned en banc…then to the SCOTUS….Ok, I will go back to sleep

Analogous to a poll tax…contrary to a lot!

 

[FAS1]

Has anyone been able to locate the full text of the proposed law or city ordinance? I haven't found it from the usual sources yet.

I found this, but I haven’t read it yet.

https://sanjose.legistar.com/Legisl...-B937-451C-864C-85A0A98E77B2&Options=&Search=

 

[Navy87Guy]

The title of this post is inaccurate…they’re being required to pay for a right, not a privilege.

 

[danez71]

Harmeet K. Dhillon has filed Suit against San Jose.

She's good!

https://www.dhillonlaw.com/lawsuits/national-association-for-gun-rights-v-city-of-san-jose/

 

[Old Dog]

The title of this post is inaccurate…they’re being required to pay for a right, not a privilege.

Quoted for emphasis. Let's not concede anything (i.e., on a public forum, members referring to RKBA as "a privilege.")

This is part of a disturbing trend. Much like the "special" per-round tax levied on retail ammunition sales in a couple cities in my state. "Justified" by the proceeds going to research "gun violence." Yeah, just like the lottery proceeds go to fund our public schools....

 

[Spats McGee]

....Has anyone been able to locate the full text of the proposed law or city ordinance? I haven't found it from the usual sources yet.

I think I finally found it: https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097

For those who would rather download, I've attached a copy.

 

[danez71]

I think I finally found it: https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097

For those who would rather download, I've attached a copy.

Here's a link to the complaint filed by Harmeet K. Dhillon

https://2fxq9y25b9ub11b2g545smj0-wp...ads/2022/01/20220125_NAGR_Doc_1_Complaint.pdf

Harmeet K. Dhillon has filed Suit against San Jose.

She's good!

https://www.dhillonlaw.com/lawsuits/national-association-for-gun-rights-v-city-of-san-jose/

 

[armydog]

Someone on this or another thread said they had coverage for $20 per month, but the city will likely define acceptable coverage. That and the fact that all gun owners will need to obtain coverage may affect the cost, at a time when everything is becoming more expensive anyway.

You can bet this mandated coverage will depend on routine mental health screenings. And what happens when a company won't insure you?

Liberals.... they are so tiring.