Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on June 30, 2021, 05:15:19 PM
-
San Jose passed an ordinance requiring all gun owners to get firearm liability insurance. Also, they will be required to pay a fee (tax) to cover city emergency services. It seems you would have to have a full registry of gun owners to carry out such an ordinance.
Sounds kinda illegal to me, but then I live in America, not San Jose, so what do I know?
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2021/06/30/san-jose-passes-ordinance-requiring-gun-owners-to-compensate-taxpayers-for-gun-violence/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Jose-to-require-gun-owners-to-compensate-16283422.php
-
I'd say it's illegal and unconstitutional, but it's going to take years of court cases to resolve that.
-
Also, they will be required to pay a fee (tax) to cover city emergency services.
Forward the tax bill to known criminal's families
-
Forward the tax bill to known criminal's families
But only to the families of those who were not turning their lives around.
-
Believe it or not, CA has gun law preemption... this may actually be struck down.
-
Believe it or not, CA has gun law preemption... this may actually be struck down.
I wouldn't bet the farm on it knowing CA
-
The legislature will probably inflict that great idea on the whole state so San Jose has nothing to worry about.
-
So as a risk manager, I know a fair amount about liability insurance, but I am unfamiliar with the concept of a stand-alone firearms liability insurance policy. There are some self-defense policies that provide legal defense, and there are some policies that provide coverage for lost or stolen firearms used to commit a crime. Your homeowner's insurance provides some liability coverage for accidents involving a firearm. There is no coverage for intentional acts, such as deliberately shooting someone or liability incurred in the context of criminal acts.
So I did some research, and I am not finding a bunch of available policies that would provide the type of coverage that San Jose is looking for.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/vargas-a-call-for-mandatory-liability-insurance-on-firearms/
https://www.insure.com/home-insurance/gun-owners-insurance.html
https://www.iii.org/article/background-on-gun-liability
https://shamiehlaw.com/the-status-of-gun-liability-in-the-u-s/
I will be interested to see if the insurance industry comes out with policies designed to satisfy the liability requirements.
-
I will be interested to see if the insurance industry comes out with policies designed to satisfy the liability requirements.
Were I a betting man, I might wager that the "liability insurance" will have a connection to the local gov there, in that it will be some expensive, nonsensical "insurance" in which the carrier will be required to give the local gov a 25% cut of the premiums.
-
It doesn't sound like the self defense help many gun owners get. This is liability insurance to pay the victim who doesn't deserve anything if it was self defense.
People always talk about gun control not working. They often don't mention that a consistent view of gun control people is to hate the victim of crime and empathize with the criminal.
-
[snip]
So I did some research, and I am not finding a bunch of available policies that would provide the type of coverage that San Jose is looking for.
[links snipped]
I will be interested to see if the insurance industry comes out with policies designed to satisfy the liability requirements.
Were I a betting man, I would say that is exactly what the city is hoping for. They do not want insurance companies to develop liability policies for gun owners. If insurance is not available, then gun owners will have to give up their firearms or move out of the city.
Not confiscation, but the effect is similar.
-
Were I a betting man, I would say that is exactly what the city is hoping for. They do not want insurance companies to develop liability policies for gun owners. If insurance is not available, then gun owners will have to give up their firearms or move out of the city.
Not confiscation, but the effect is similar.
That was the point of poll taxes, it's hard to see how this law is any different.
-
Not confiscation, but the effect is similar.
I believe one of the articles I read said that any gun owner who doesn't get the "insurance" will have their guns confiscated.
Hello, Kafka...
-
I believe one of the articles I read said that any gun owner who doesn't get the "insurance" will have their guns confiscated.
Hello, Kafka...
I can see that getting real ugly real fast
-
Were I a betting man, I would say that is exactly what the city is hoping for. They do not want insurance companies to develop liability policies for gun owners. If insurance is not available, then gun owners will have to give up their firearms or move out of the city.
Not confiscation, but the effect is similar.
It reminds me of California's earlier requirement that semi-auto handguns be equipped with "microstamping" technology before adding them to the "safe handgun" roster. No major manufacturer produces microstamped handguns, so ...
-
It doesn't sound like the self defense help many gun owners get. This is liability insurance to pay the victim who doesn't deserve anything if it was self defense.
People always talk about gun control not working. They often don't mention that a consistent view of gun control people is to hate the victim of crime and empathize with the criminal.
Exactly this. A constant common thread I see from pro gun people is “But how will I defend myself?” and “none of these measures will affect criminals, only law abiding citizens”
As if the anti’s give a *expletive deleted*it about you and your family.
The anti’s actively want you not able to defend yourself. They don’t care about the criminal having guns, they *expletive deleted*ing LOVE the criminal class (remember the deification of George Floyd) and hate normal productive citizens. It’s why cities become such perfect colonies for human cockroaches.