San Jose decides gun owners should pay for the privilege

[HankB]

If a prohibited person - say, someone with a felony conviction - is arrested in possession of a firearm without the mandated insurance or proof of payment of a fee - can they actually be prosecuted? Wouldn't that mean that despite being a prohibited person, he would still be required by law to pay the fee and get the insurance, thus incriminating himself - admitting possession of something he's prohibited from having - which would seem to be a Fifth Amendment violation?

 

[reddog81]

I don’t think Carry Insurance covers those.

Yeah, I don't think they care much if someone uses a gun in a valid self defense and gets sued. They want people to have insurance to cover "negligence". If someone steals your gun because it wasn't locked in a safe with a trigger lock and then shoots someone they think your insurance should cover the expenses associated with those criminal actions.

 

[Gun4Fun90]

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

I mean why not just remove “gun” from that statement? “Why not execute anyone who commits a crime? crime should go waaaaaay down really quick.”

The reality is while there is clear correlation between having consequences and people not doing a thing. It gets more complicated when you stat talking about the severity of consequences. Harsher punishments don’t always have the affect you would expect. Sometimes they cause crime to go down…. But sometimes they also see to do the opposite and cause crime to go up.

the bigger issue is repeat offenders.

 

[Will Munny]

I mean why not just remove “gun” from that statement? “Why not execute anyone who commits a crime? crime should go waaaaaay down really quick.”

The reality is while there is clear correlation between having consequences and people not doing a thing. It gets more complicated when you stat talking about the severity of consequences. Harsher punishments don’t always have the affect you would expect. Sometimes they cause crime to go down…. But sometimes they also see to do the opposite and cause crime to go up.

the bigger issue is repeat offenders.

Harsher punishments causing crime to go up is basically a myth. Longer sentences might have some effect like that, but not harsher punishments.

 

[FAS1]

Yeah, I don't think they care much if someone uses a gun in a valid self defense and gets sued. They want people to have insurance to cover "negligence". If someone steals your gun because it wasn't locked in a safe with a trigger lock and then shoots someone they think your insurance should cover the expenses associated with those criminal actions.

Yep, I agree. I just want to know if what they are requiring is even something that can be purchased?

 

[Fyrstyk]

I would like to know how they plan to get existing gun owners to comply to this law? It seems to me to be a form of gun registration. Just check the insurance companies and tax records to see who has a gun then go and get it.

 

[reddog81]

I would like to know how they plan to get existing gun owners to comply to this law? It seems to me to be a form of gun registration. Just check the insurance companies and tax records to see who has a gun then go and get it.

In addition to the insurance, the law requires all firearm owners to register with the city. No need to check insurance records.

 

[DazedandConfuzed]

I read under the exemptions that LE officers and CCW are listed. This is interesting since the county sheriff determines who gets CCW in San Jose. She is currently under indictment for a "pay to play" scheme in regards to issuing CCWs.

 

[armoredman]

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

If you have to pay for it, is it a right? That's why I wrote it that way.

 

[danez71]

I would like to know how they plan to get existing gun owners to comply to this law? It seems to me to be a form of gun registration. Just check the insurance companies and tax records to see who has a gun then go and get it.

CA has ready had the DROS system (Dealer Record Of Sale aka registration) for decades

 

[Craig_AR]

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

Sorry, but nope, not so. There are two issues here.
1. All of the carry legal defense support groups (ACLDN, CCWSafe, USCCA, US Law Shield, Firearms Legal Protection, etc.) are very careful to explain they are legal defense support groups, not insurance. Among other aspects, this keeps them from being regulated by each state insurance commissioner. Branca explains this with regard to CCWSafe every time he advertises for them in his videos. One fly in the ointment is that ACLDN is in a legal battle in their home state where the Insurance Commissioner claims they are an insurance plan.
2. The purpose of those groups is to support the legal defense costs of the members. I cannot say for certain, but I do not think that they are to cover fines for criminal convictions or damages for civil judgements, which is what auto and homeowners insurance policies cover.

 

[AlexanderA]

No insurance would cover intentional acts.

 

[Spats McGee]

....1. All of the carry legal defense support groups (ACLDN, CCWSafe, USCCA, US Law Shield, Firearms Legal Protection, etc.) are very careful to explain they are legal defense support groups, not insurance. Among other aspects, this keeps them from being regulated by each state insurance commissioner....

To add to this: Insurance is a big, complex business. It's often regulated by a given State's insurance code, laws that only apply to insurance companies. This will seem a bit "water is wet," but the legal reality is that if you don't want your company regulated by the insurance code, then you can't sell insurance. What these companies do, however, is attempt to conduct their business in a way that avoids being "insurance."

 

[hk940]

I would like to know how they plan to get existing gun owners to comply to this law? It seems to me to be a form of gun registration. Just check the insurance companies and tax records to see who has a gun then go and get it.

I would think it's like car insurance,you don't need it until you get in an accident and/or caught.

 

[LiveLife]

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

And if you are low/no income persons, will there be low/no cost insurance and annual fee waiver as their right to self-defense should not be "discounted" just because they are in a different socioeconomic class?

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.

Let's see ... how about more fundamental arguments from the victims of criminals:

1. Parents of criminals have babies
2. Innocent people, in particular ones with no insurance, are injured/killed by those grown babies perhaps from lack of parenting or improper parenting
3. The government has to pay extra $$$ to police, EMTs, hospitals, correctional/parole staff, etc. to deal with those injuries and criminals
4. Tax payers are directly subsidizing incarceration of criminals

So if society wants to penalize gun owners for owning guns used for self-defense, what about parents of criminals who may have influenced/traumatized their children to commit crimes? If there is a family history of violence/criminal activity, aren't parents somewhat responsible for continuing to have babies?

And if knives, hammers, sticks and stones are used for self-defense, would they need to be insured too? Why are "minority" gun owners being singled out?

 

[Spats McGee]

....So if society wants to penalize gun owners for owning guns used for self-defense, what about parents of criminals who may have influenced/traumatized their children to commit crimes? If there is a family history of violence/criminal activity, aren't parents somewhat responsible for continuing to have babies?

And if knives, hammers, sticks and stones are used for self-defense, would they need to be insured too? Why are "minority" gun owners being singled out?

What about? What if? What about? What if? There are about eight bajillion different comparisons we could try to draw. It's pretty tough to use most of them in court, even when they make perfect sense in casual conversation. Courts are there to decide one case or controversy at a time.

 

[LiveLife]

Courts are there to decide one case or controversy at a time.

Believe me, I am following you ... just tired of being "discriminated against" only because I am a gun owner.

Reading through San Jose Ordinance pdf, there are all sorts of "red flags" going off in my head as they are using number of annual gun related deaths to justify the ordinance for one, but there are so many other causes of deaths that San Jose could be addressing.

Could a knife owner who got robbed/shot/injured have a case against San Jose to argue that because of required gun insurance/annual fee, knife owner unable to afford stopped carrying a gun, which could have prevented his injuries?

 

[Spats McGee]

Believe me, I am following you ... just tired of being "discriminated against" only because I am a gun owner.

And I don't blame you one bit.

Reading through San Jose Ordinance pdf, there are all sorts of "red flags" going off in my head....

As well there should be.

 

[LiveLife]

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

National Association for Gun Rights' legal arm – the National Foundation for Gun Rights - https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20220125_NAGR_Doc_1_Complaint.pdf

"San Jose’s imposition of a tax, fee, or other arbitrary cost on gun ownership is intended to suppress gun ownership without furthering any government interest. In fact, the penalties for nonpayment of the insurance and fees include seizure of the citizen’s gun. The Ordinance is, therefore, patently unconstitutional

Moreover, it is at home 'where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.' Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. Because California and the City of San Jose have already made it exceedingly difficult to lawfully carry a weapon outside the home, and the Ordinance only affects owners of lawfully owned guns, the Ordinance’s true impact is solely on guns kept in the home by law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to deter the scourge of unlawful ownership and use of guns by criminals or to recoup from them compensation for the injuries and damage they cause. If left intact, the City of San Jose’s Ordinance would strike at the very core of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and defend one’s home."

Dear NFGR Supporter,

We just filed a lawsuit against the San Jose, California gun grabbers!

Make no mistake, if this “first of its kind” gun tax and other mandates are allowed to stand in San Jose, the rabid gun control lobby will export it to cities and states everywhere. We must nip it in the bud now!

That’s why we need your generous TAX-DEDUCTIBLE contribution to our legal fund to fight this – if necessary – all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court TODAY!


For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
President
National Foundation for Gun Rights

https://action.gunrightsfoundation.org/1483_SanJoseGunTax-d.aspx?campaign=1483&iteration=NAGRwebsite​

 

[F-111 John]

"San Jose’s imposition of a tax, fee, or other arbitrary cost on gun ownership is intended to suppress gun ownership without furthering any government interest. In fact, the penalties for nonpayment of the insurance and fees include seizure of the citizen’s gun. The Ordinance is, therefore, patently unconstitutional

The National Firearms Act of 1934's ability to place a tax on certain firearms, firearm accessories, and other destructive items was upheld by the Supreme Court in Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937).

From the opinion:

We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed. As it is not attended by an offensive regulation, and since it operates as a tax, it is within the national taxing power. Alston v. United States, 274 U. S. 289, 274 U. S. 294; Nigro v. United States, supra, 276 U. S. 352-353; Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 276 U. S. 411-413.​

Why would the same not be true of any state or local tax? For example, nobody is calling Sales Tax collected on firearms sales an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.

 

[Pudge]

This issue bothers me. The debate is intentional about cleaving society into gun owners and non-gun owners, and then assigning fiscal responsibility for actions.

But that is entirely dishonest. That is not the issue at all. It is the government's job to preserve and protect our rights. The right to keep and bear arms needs to be preserved for all members of society, regardless of whether they own a firearm, and it is appropriate for taxpayers to financially support the government in that intention. To argue otherwise would be like saying that taxpayers should not fund the infrastructure of elections, as they're unfairly subsidizing the activities of voters. That's nonsense, that infrastructure provides the freedom and opportunity to exercise the right to vote to all citizens (even though history tells us that likely fewer than 50% will vote in this November's election).

As to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution giving Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," that's patently different than a community creating a charge for exercising a civil right.

 

[LiveLife]

This issue bothers me. The debate is intentional about cleaving society into gun owners and non-gun owners, and then assigning fiscal responsibility for actions.

And it should and I am glad that it's happening.

Why?

Because there was a time when the will of the majority was imposed on the constitutional rights of the minority based on color of skin, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc. Thankfully, society as a whole worked to ensure constitutional rights to all citizens, however small of a minority groups they belonged to.

Now in 2021, we again have a situation where the will of the majority is being imposed on the minority group of those who want to exercise their right to self-defense by owning firearms which have been in "common use" for decades and centuries. And the make up of this minority group is diverse representing citizens of all race, color, gender, religion, age and sexual orientation.

Will the society as a whole once again work to ensure the rights of this minority group against the will of the majority? I am hoping so.