San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance

[BackAgain]

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.

?? The test isn’t whether a local or state legislature will approve of it. The test will come in the courts.

 

[evenflow1969]

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

Like that matters. See the Patriot act. Unconstitutional and still here. The military industrial complex profits and shall remain.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

California anti gun right law: Constitutional?​

Without even looking at any content herein, I'm going with "no" it's not constitutional.

How'd I do?

 

[BackAgain]

As is your dishonesty.

Once again Adam_Clayton_Asshole;

You can’t even admit when you’re wrong. You are not just a liar and an asshole, but also a very unpersuasive little troll. You retard. You suck ass at your job. Or maybe sucking ass is your job. Either way.

 

[BackAgain]

Without even looking at any content herein, I'm going with "no" it's not constitutional.

How'd I do?

I suspect you’re right. I don’t know how courts will rule.

 

[toobfreak]

California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.

It won't for all the reasons you named. Criminals who abuse guns and create crime will not carry the liability insurance while every gun owner who collects guns sitting in a locked safe must?

I don't think so.

 

[toobfreak]

Why can’t you odious scumbag troll motherfuckers learn to distinguish between a mistake and a lie?

Because their whole being and existence is both a mistake and a lie.

 

[BackAgain]

It won't for all the reasons you named. Criminals who abuse guns and create crime will not carry the liability insurance while every gun owner who collects guns sitting in a locked safe must?

I don't think so.

^ a good and reasonable observation.

 

[toobfreak]

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

But it is a California city, so in essence, also a California law, that applies to one city.

 

[bodecea]

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.

What about the Mulford Act?

 

[BackAgain]

What about the Mulford Act?

I don’t know. Tell me all about it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Some states allow open carry some do not never been addressed as it does not deny a right to own or put a burden on ownership

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What about the Mulford Act?

Nobody who supports the right to own and possess firearms will defend Reagan's racist California gun-grab.

The fact that you brought it up proves you are a partisan hack only interested in your team winning, and not policy.

How typical.

 

[marvin martian]

It won't for all the reasons you named. Criminals who abuse guns and create crime will not carry the liability insurance while every gun owner who collects guns sitting in a locked safe must?

I don't think so.

Left-wing cities like San Jose have ZERO interest in reducing crime. Quite the opposite, in fact. They LOVE crime, and actually need the sky-high rates of violence they invariably create in order to maintain their power. Safe, clean, prosperous cities are of no use to DemoKKKrats. They need violence, misery, and filth to justify their continued existence.

 

[bodecea]

I don’t know. Tell me all about it.

You know about it...we've discussed it in the past. But since your memory is going....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

 

[bodecea]

Left-wing cities like San Jose have ZERO interest in reducing crime. Quite the opposite, in fact. They LOVE crime, and actually need the sky-high rates of violence they invariably create in order to maintain their power. Safe, clean, prosperous cities are of no use to DemoKKKrats. They need violence, misery, and filth to justify their continued existence.

Happy to be talking about California again?

 

[marvin martian]

Happy to be talking about California again?

It does come up a lot when we discuss violence, civil rights abuses, and general filth, doesn't it?

 

[BackAgain]

You know about it...we've discussed it in the past. But since your memory is going....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Uh huh. I don’t live here as you do.

And your linky is stinky.

 

[BackAgain]

You know about it...we've discussed it in the past. But since your memory is going....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

So, I copied the improperly formatted link and pasted it correctly. Wiki says, “The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. ….”

Therefore, since boredtoseeya doesn’t bother to actually make coherent arguments, it has to be presumed that her “point” (for lack of a better word) is akin to this:

If the Mulford act could put a restriction on the Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, then it must follow that government has a lawful right to impose restrictions on Gun Ownership.

If that is not a correct formulation of your contention, then the fault is all yours since all you asked was “what about” the Mulford Act?

We already know that the law appears to allow the imposition of even a license and permit requirement over the 2d Amendment right. So, the existence of the Mulford Act doesn’t reveal anything all that new. (Whether the law should impose a licensing restriction over a right is a different discussion.)

This is still not quite an apt analog however. Because it actually places us into the realm of the question about governmentally imposed mandates. It overlaps with a law which imposes such a condition on a right. And the fact that the Mulford act prohibits open carry doesn’t answer whether a new condition can be imposed on ownership, especially when it comes in the form of a mandate.

 

[bodecea]

Uh huh. I don’t live here as you do.

And your linky is stinky.

I don't know why it's not working, tried twice....I suggest you google Mulford Act.