SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — A California city voted Tuesday night to require gun owners to carry liability insurance in what’s believed to be the first measure of its kind in the United States.
The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the measure despite opposition from gun owners who said it would violate their Second Amendment rights and promised to sue.
The Silicon Valley city of about 1 million followed a trend of other Democratic-led cities that have sought to rein in violence through stricter rules. But while similar laws have been proposed, San Jose is the first city to pass one, according to Brady United, a national nonprofit that advocates against gun violence.
Council members, including several who had lost friends to gun violence, said it was a step toward dealing with gun violence that Councilman Sergio Jimenez called “a scourge on our society.”
Having liability insurance would encourage people in the 55,000 households in San Jose who legally own at least one registered gun to have gun safes, install trigger locks and take gun safety classes, Mayor Sam Liccardo said.
The liability insurance would cover losses or damages resulting from any accidental use of the firearm, including death, injury, or property damage, according to the ordinance. If a gun is stolen or lost, the owner of the firearm would be considered liable until the theft or loss is reported to authorities.
However, gun owners who don’t have insurance won’t lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said.
The council also voted to require gun owners to pay an estimated $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety education and training, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and mental health services.
The proposed ordinance is part of a broad gun control plan that Liccardo announced following the May 26 mass shooting at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority rail yard that left nine people dead, including the employee who opened fire on his colleagues then killed himself.
At an hours-long meeting, critics argued that the fee and liability requirements violated their right to bear arms and would do nothing to stop gun crimes, including the use of untraceable, build-it-yourself “ghost guns.”
“You cannot tax a constitutional right. This does nothing to reduce crime,” one speaker said.
The measure didn’t address the massive problem of illegally obtained weapons that are stolen or purchased without background checks.
Liccardo acknowledged those concerns.
“This won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime,” the mayor said, but added most gun deaths nationally are from suicide, accidental shootings or other causes and even many homicides stem from domestic violence.
Liccardo also said gun violence costs San Jose taxpayers $40 million a year in emergency response services.
Some speakers argued that the law would face costly and lengthy court challenges.
Before the vote, Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said his group would sue if the proposal takes effect, calling it “totally unconstitutional in any configuration.”
However, Liccardo said some attorneys had already offered to defend the city pro bono.
Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Infringe Definition: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise, limit, curb. As in “his legal rights were being infringed”
Not only is this law Un-Constitutional, but actively discriminates against poor people of color who cannot afford the insurance, which is the usual excuse used by Democrats to keep Conservative laws from being passed. More importantly it will not affect the criminals who hold guns illegally, but just punish THE PEOPLE who always try to do the right thing. Another chuckleheaded idea that punishes the law abiding and lets the criminal off free who won’t even lose their gun if they laugh at the meaningless law, designed only to tax increase government Democrat party coffers, but will do nothing to punish the lawbreakers or lawbreaking which is the very reason people seek to own guns.
THIS is why for years, i hae been wanting to see it, THAT ANY POLITICIAN WHO KNOWINGLY and willingly crafts a law, THEY KNOW TO BE Against the constitution, should be IMMEDIATELY And irrevocably, stripped of their US citizenship, their Title/office, AND EXILED FROM OUR NATION permanently.
If you live in California or in a Democrat ruled State or city, buy your guns off the street or from an individual.
Don’t let the government know that you own a gun
and do not register it.
BETTER YET< just leave CA!
The problem with this is the MANDATE. Most gun owners I know who carry, concealed or openly, also carry liability insurance.
In this state you are pretty much clear if you shoot someone who has broken into your home, and less clear in your car, but you are still going to be dealing with a legal hassle, if not with the police at least with the criminal’s family.
You’ll really need insurance that will help you fight your legal battle if you have to shoot someone in self defense in another location.
When I lived in Illinois, the Chief of police advised me that if I shoot someone trying to crawl through the window to break into my home, if he doesn’t fall inside the house to run out and drag him in, otherwise it would be Me who would go to jail. In Texas I can scope out and drop a thief at 300 yards with my hunting rifle running away with my flatscreen TV,, no charges would be made. The difference between states like California, Illinois and states like Texas is that in the former it is the party of criminals running things who pass laws only that protect themselves and the power of their Democrat crime organizations. In states like Texas, people understand that when you steal a person’s personal property you in essence are stealing all the finite, irreplaceable life-force that person used up to earn it. Taking life force that takes yours is not unequal justice. It’s payback.
SINCE we already know millions of illegals drive, WITHOUT AUTO INSURANCE.. what makes these dolts in CA, think illegals and crooks WILL BOTHER FOLLOWING THIS LAW?!
If my automobile is stolen, my insurance will replace it. If I am in a wreck, my insurance protects me from liability. What coverage will this policy provide to firearm owners? Will it provide protection from unlawful prosecution for firearm related charges? Will it replace lost or stolen firearms?
RC
Yeah, that’s it!
Punish legal, law-abiding gun owners. That’ll “fix” the “gun problem”……
Inept fools. Morons.
SINCE the 70s, that’s been the left’s GO TO WAY of doing things. PUNISH THE INNOCENT for the crimes of the guilty.
I wonder how many criminals will be charged for not having guns insurance ?? Hahaha California is a joke.
Yu mean the same ones that DON’T get charged for crapping all over the place, robbing places blind etc?