San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance

[Donald H]

Yep. It is his. He should have it back to do with as he pleases. This keeping guns thing by law enforcement is pretty common and about the only way to get them back, once cleared is to lawsuit, but at what cost in legal fees. Not right.
I know a guy that was licensed to carry, but drank liquor after the bar he was bouncing for closed for the night, then got nabbed on the way to his truck. He was arrested. Did not blow higher than legal limit, but he was carrying. He paid a fine, and lost his permit to carry. OK. Fine. He can't carry, even in a state that has constitutional carry, due to the weapons charge. There was nothing in the court judgement about forfeiture of the weapon, nor was he in any way barred from owning one or many, if he chose. Still, if he wanted it back, he would have to bring suit. Unless you are loaded, and it is a matter of principle, the cost of a lawsuit far exceeds the $700 plus price of his weapon, and they know this. I just have a problem with that crap.

That doesn't seem right to me. I don't know if the police are doing that in Canada but it also depends on the details of each case.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.

Where are your rights guaranteed? It looks to me like your Constitution can be amended at will by your government.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If they write it into law, it would.

No because the insurance companies would write the policies to exclude paying out for illegal conduct. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not to pay out claims.

 

[Rogue AI]

I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.

No you don't have rights, every privilege you have can be taken away by decree or a simple vote. Rubes like you are sad, but funny.

 

[martybegan]

That is not necessarily true.

Whether liability can be imputed to a vehicle owner for injuries caused by a thief is based on questions of foreseeability. States approach this differently, but most states note several factors that may lead a jury to impose a legal duty on the owner, including whether the vehicle is one that may attract those who lacked the skill and knowledge to operate it safely, whether the vehicle is one that would inflict more injury and damage than an ordinary vehicle, and whether prior occurrences should have indicated that additional security measures were required to prevent theft.

Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles

A vehicle slams into a group of vehicles stopped at a red light, only to quickly drive away from the scene. This fact scenario almost always involves

www.claimsjournal.com

Most of the times that is a pretty big stretch.

 

[martybegan]

Well you are currently required to have automobile insurance. How is it any different? I am personally not for it but don't think they are going to get rid of it from a constitutional basis.

Because the whole concept of mandatory auto insurance is to prevent every single accident from becoming a court case and overwhelming our legal system. I doubt the number of gun cases would ever approach the level seen in auto cases.

Driving also isn't a right.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

The Silicon Valley city's council split the vote into two parts: the first approving the bulk of the proposal, including the insurance provisions, and the second approving the fee provisions. The insurance vote passed 10-1, while the fees vote passed 8-3.

The ordinance must be approved next month at its final reading in order to take effect in August. Gun rights supporters have threatened to sue to block the measures if they become law.

Ahead of the vote, Democratic Mayor Sam Liccardo estimated that San Jose residents incur about $442 million in gun-related costs each year. "Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right," Liccardo said Monday at a news conference.

San Jose mayor proposes gun owners carry insurance and pay annual fee in wake of mass shooting
Mass shootings impelled Liccardo to push the fee and insurance initiatives -- first after the 2019 slayings at a festival in nearby Gilroy, California, then following last year's deadly siege at public transit facility in his city. The mayor has compared the plan to car insurance mandates, which he credits with dramatically reducing traffic fatalities.

San Jose's city council after the June mass shooting unanimously approved drafting the ordinance, mayoral spokesperson Rachel Davis said Monday in a news release.

Just 52% of Americans polled in late 2021 said "laws covering the sales of firearms" should be stricter, the lowest number Gallup has measured on the question since 2014. Meanwhile, there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings, a study released Thursday by Everytown for Gun Safety found.

This Silicon Valley city just voted to institute first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements | CNN

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden...

www.cnn.com

The council just passed the measure into law.

Besides insurance, there is also a fee.

The argument seems to be, guns cost the public lots of money. Let's make the gun owners pay for it.

I wonder what the courts are going to say. It's going to be challenged.

 

[BackAgain]

California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.

San Jose is first U.S. city to mandate gun owners carry insurance and pay a fee — The Mercury News

"The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we're not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook," said Mayor Sam Liccardo.

apple.news

My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.

it is one thing to require licensed drivers and car owners to have insurance, since under the law driving is a privilege and not a right. The privilege is conditioned on insurance in order to register a car.

Having a gun is a guaranteed Constitutional RIGHT. For that reason, I can foresee a very interesting legal dispute over the validity of this new California law.

 

[sealybobo]

California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.

San Jose is first U.S. city to mandate gun owners carry insurance and pay a fee — The Mercury News

"The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we're not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook," said Mayor Sam Liccardo.

apple.news

My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.

it is one thing to require licensed drivers and car owners to have insurance, since under the law driving is a privilege and not a right. The privilege is conditioned on insurance in order to register a car.

Having a gun is a guaranteed Constitutional RIGHT. For that reason, I can foresee a very interesting legal dispute over the validity of this new California law.

Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Absolutely not. The bill also includes a fee to own a firearm. Blatantly unconstitutional

 

[Ringel05]

Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?

State Constitutions can not violate Federal Supremacy which means they must adhere to the US Constitution at minimum. Each State has the authority to expand upon civil rights but not take any away.

 

[okfine]

California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.

San Jose is first U.S. city to mandate gun owners carry insurance and pay a fee — The Mercury News

"The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we're not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook," said Mayor Sam Liccardo.

apple.news

My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.

it is one thing to require licensed drivers and car owners to have insurance, since under the law driving is a privilege and not a right. The privilege is conditioned on insurance in order to register a car.

Having a gun is a guaranteed Constitutional RIGHT. For that reason, I can foresee a very interesting legal dispute over the validity of this new California law.

It's not a California law.

 

[marvin martian]

Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?

No. Self-defense is a civil right the government is constitutionally banned from infringing. Abortion isn't.

 

[BackAgain]

Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?

Because the Constitution says word one about “abortion rights?”

 

[BackAgain]

It's not a California law.

Good point. It is a law in one city in California. Your correction is noted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.

San Jose is first U.S. city to mandate gun owners carry insurance and pay a fee — The Mercury News

"The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we're not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook," said Mayor Sam Liccardo.

apple.news

My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.

it is one thing to require licensed drivers and car owners to have insurance, since under the law driving is a privilege and not a right. The privilege is conditioned on insurance in order to register a car.

Having a gun is a guaranteed Constitutional RIGHT. For that reason, I can foresee a very interesting legal dispute over the validity of this new California law.

The thread premise is a lie.

One city is not the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good point. It is a law in one city in California. Your correction is noted.

As is your dishonesty.

 

[marvin martian]

The thread premise is a lie.

One city is not the state.

Cities aren't allowed to violate constitutionally-protected civil rights, either. No matter how badly you want them to.

 

[evenflow1969]

California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.

San Jose is first U.S. city to mandate gun owners carry insurance and pay a fee — The Mercury News

"The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we're not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook," said Mayor Sam Liccardo.

apple.news

My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.

it is one thing to require licensed drivers and car owners to have insurance, since under the law driving is a privilege and not a right. The privilege is conditioned on insurance in order to register a car.

Having a gun is a guaranteed Constitutional RIGHT. For that reason, I can foresee a very interesting legal dispute over the validity of this new California law.

Yep it will survive. Since the insurance company will fill the coffer of republican s and Democrats alike with impunity. After all corps are people to so they can spread unlimited campaign contributions.

 

[BackAgain]

The thread premise is a lie.

One city is not the state.

No, shit-for-brains. It was a mistake. Already corrected, by the way.

Why can’t you odious scumbag troll motherfuckers learn to distinguish between a mistake and a lie? Maybe it’s because you’re too stupid or lazy or maybe you are just the liar?

In any case, you imbecile, it is a California law since the city ain’t in Kansas. It is not a California STATE law. That’s why I noted the earlier correction by okfine.