It’s relevant to what Wolfpup asked me; basically “Why don’t other countries have the gun violence problems the US does?”
For the record, I am against the San Jose tax and think it’s a stupid idea which sets a dangerous precedent.
You make a point so I got a link to the actual law, and wow. First of all it has more bullshit than a feedlot. Next it is one of the sneakiest damn laws I have read:
https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097
So yeah it doesn’t say what liability would arise, i guess that would be up to tort lawyers, suing people. OK. And there are no big fines or jail time for not having insurance or even not paying the $25 a year tax. Cool right?
Insurance required. A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a
Firearm in the City shall obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect
a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy from an admitted insurer
or insurer as defined by the California Insurance Code, specifically covering
losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the Firearm,
including but not limited to death, injury or property damage.
Not as bad- most renters or homeowners insurance will cover that, but it sucks to be poor or homeless as usual. You do have to carry a copy of your policy or a attestation anywhere you gun might be, hunting, gun store, shooting range.
But then this:For purposes of this Section, a person shall be deemed to be the owner of a
Firearm if such Firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the
police department or sheriff which has jurisdiction in which such Firearm owner
resides
But as we have shown no insurance will cover you for that.
However-no big fines or jail time, so no problemo, eh?
Here is the crux of the bill:
10.32.245 Impoundment
To the extent allowed by law, the Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in
compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.
“Pardon me, I see you have paid your annual gun tax, we need to see your insurance… Oh I am sorry, your insurance does not cover all activities after you gun is stolen, does it? Guess that means we have to confiscate all your guns.”
“Oh you didn’t pay your gun tax? No big deal, just hand them all over.”
So that is what the law is all about, hidden under 20000 tonnes of bullshit- they will confiscate every gun in San Jose (except those owned by Police, VIPs and generous political donors -police and CCW are excepted and that is the only way to get a CCW in San Jose).
What does that have to do with the San Jose Law? Nothing, since that law does not cover education.
No, because it’s literally the textbook example of one.
Look at what you are saying here, and explain how you don’t think that this is claiming that there is some inevitable progression, as that is exactly what you are claiming.
Who says it has to be in defiance of state and federal laws?
No, it’s not.
Those don’t really relate, at all, to a requirement to have insurance on your gun, but if those are things that concern you, then we could discuss them in more appropriate threads.
No rights are absolute, and I don’t see the city banning guns, just requiring insurance.
And you know that will never happen. Not only is it politically infeasible, but any FEDERAL law concerning guns will be fought tooth and nail by the 2A advocates in the courts. Absent a huge change in the makeup of SCOTUS, no federal law concerning guns is ever going to fly.
That’s not why I am in favor of it, no, but thanks for making assertions as to my motivations.
You mean having different laws in the city and outside the city? Sure. But you are getting a bit foamy repeating the words “constitutional rights” as though that is the relevant factor here, it’s not, it’s just an emotional plea on your part.
No, it would be because they are similar in that, if used by untrained, irresponsible, or mentally unbalanced individuals, they can cause great harm to others.
Just so we are on the same page, is it that you actually are not capable of understanding what an analogy is, or are you just pretending to not be capable of understanding what an analogy is. It will be useful to know how seriously to take such inane questions in the future.
Well, I disagree, and feel 180 away from that. When there is this much polarization, not being beholden to what other people who don’t live where you live want is preferable.
You want state and federal laws, which means that you want everyone to be treated the same, no matter what their culture, priorities, or needs are. That just doesn’t make any sense. Either the people in the cities get the laws passed that will help with public safety, and severely inconvenience the rural areas, or the rural areas will prevent those laws from being passed, putting their convenience over the safety of those living in cities.
They are different places with different needs and priorities, why should they be subject to the same laws? That just doesn’t make any sense.
Okay, here’s a simple one, do you agree with a law that says no discharging of your firearm within city limits? (Outside of an official gun range, and obviously if used legally for self defense.)
Because in order for you to have your easy access to a gun, others also get access to guns. Your desire to have guns prevalent in our society should come with a responsibility to help them be used properly.
Yes.
No, and every time gun advocates claim that any attempt at mitigating the harm done to our society by firearms is just a sneaky way of hurting gun owners, I am more convinced that what those gun advocates are actually projecting that what they want is to see more harm come to our society by firearms.
Do you actually know how the insurance works? My understanding is that it doesn’t sound like it will be third party insurance, but more of a tax that would be paid to the city, than an insurance that you have to go and get from Allstate or something.
Do you actually have more information on this, or are you just assuming here? Does it change your opinion at all if this goes from a tax that is impossible and doesn’t exist to something that does actually exit?
See, here’s the thing. In a society where guns are prevalent, everyone knowing about guns is better for society. And why are guns prevalent in our society, because of gun owners. So yes, the gun owners are not just contributing to, but are the direct cause of guns being prevalent in our society, so yes, it should be the gun owner’s responsibility to ensure that those guns are used safely and responsibly.
Nope, that’s not what the law is all about, that’s how you managed to twist the meanings of things well past the breaking point to get to where you wanted to go. You know, if the “gun grabbers” were half as sneaky and immoral as the gun advocates make them out to be, there’d be not a single gun left in the US. Instead, there are attempts at mitigating the damage done to society by the prevalence of guns, and all the paranoia and projection come out and start up with the hysteria of “They’re gonna take my guns!” all over again, like a old worn out play that everyone’s seen before and is tired of on this endless, pointless loop.
If they apply the law strictly as written, then yes, I agree with you. What they are requiring, if you parse the law, is an insurance policy that covers any injuries from “negligent or accidental use” of a gun, AFTER it is stolen but prior to being reported to the police.
There is no insurance policy which covers such a thing, and the reason that no policy covers such a thing is because I am in no way personally liable because a thief accidentally shoots himself or someone else after illegally stealing my gun. That’s why nobody sells such a policy because it covers nothing.
The bait and switch is pretty horrific here. The big “problems” that people point to when it comes to guns are the mass shootings, murders and so forth which make the headlines. San Jose is hooking people into this on that basis but enacting an impossible insurance scheme which covers none of those things.
And again, I say, just because I own a gun, why do I have to contribute $25/yr to an organization to stop the guy down the road from beating his wife? The two are not even remotely connected, and the law just specifies that some non-existent “non profit” will address these issues but does not say how.
To me the purpose of the law is to do what many people in this thread are advocating. It lumps a person who owns a rifle for deer hunting in the very same category with the Las Vegas shooter or some guy who murders his whole family. Once we are all in the same category, we can be treated the same, which is taking all of the guns away from everyone because we don’t want another Las Vegas do we?
Again, the analogy is inapt because although you can carefully craft a statement like this which is literally true, it ignores the vast differences. For example, deaths from cars are almost always accidental or negligent whereas very few gun deaths are. Most gun deaths are from intentional, criminal misuse whereas very few car deaths are intentional, but are sometimes criminal (such as a DUI accident).
Then we throw airplanes into the mix which are different from both guns and cars. Flying a plane is a highly specialized skill that very few have the ability to do, unlike operating guns and cars. It requires a person to be calm under pressure, overcome a natural fear of heights, and to be extremely detail oriented in following a complex series of rules. Near zero airplane deaths are intentional. None of which have anything to do with guns or cars.
Given these very large and meaningful differences, why do we even begin to look at the issues and say that the solution should be somewhat the same? Analogies are meaningful but only when things are truly analogous.
Sorry for the triple post, but I missed this.
This makes so very little sense. Yes, if I own a gun, I have a responsibility to use my gun properly, but how is it my particular problem if someone else uses his irresponsibly? It seems that this blame shifting is focused on the bad evil guns and that this is the ultimate goal.
Let’s look at it this way. Suppose neither you nor I own a gun. There are still people out there intentionally, criminally, or accidentally killing people with guns. Society has to deal with that somehow and will do so through general police and social welfare programs.
Now let’s suppose that you take an interest in deer hunting and go out and buy a deer rifle. This proposal now links you, without any real support, to those others who are intentionally, criminally, or accidentally killing people with guns, even if you have no mental illness and have properly trained yourself on how to use a gun. You and I are still in the same boat in that neither of us contributes to the “gun problems” that are needing to be solved, but this proposal makes you pay money for something that you have no part in but implies that you do have a part in it, all because of your ownership of a hunk of metal.
It is simply saying that guns=bad by putting all gun owners in the same group.
All gun owners are in the same group: gun owners.
Uh, the poster said that it applies in cases where the owner of the car is grossly negligent and does not bother to report that the car was stolen.
Someone is switching what others are actually saying here, but is not the other posters.
I’m not sure what your point is. The other poster is correct in that if the car registered to you is used in a crime, the police will believe that you are responsible. If you failed to report it stolen (and who fails to report stolen cars and guns–they are valuable pieces of property that you want the police to find and return to you) then the police will wonder why you didn’t report it and still think you are responsible. You will be in a real pickle. I don’t dispute that.
But if the truth is found out, that your car was stolen, but you failed to report it, and someone else did all of the hijinks with your stolen car, you are not responsible for that. Period. But some posters in this thread believe that it should be the standard that you are responsible for criminal misuses of your stolen gun.
As usual when making absolutist arguments, you are overreaching by assuming that some posters believe that.
When several here are saying things like “gun owners will be harassed”, the reality makes that a very silly argument. The ones that are irresponsible in their reporting of items being stolen are the ones that will be harassed (as you mention too BTW, as it should be), but the intention from some is to imply strongly that all gun owners will be harassed, very silly when you also mention that it is really hard to imagine a responsible gun or car owner to not report a car or a gun being stolen from them.
My take on it as it stands: At some point, a case happens involving the insurance requirement and the putative time between “last time you personally verified the gun was in your possesion” and time reported missing (more on that in the footnote*). The court will rule that there’s no such thing as insurance for such a circumstance, so that part of the ordinance is without effect, but the rest stands, including the fee and the requirement for regular insurance for fortuituous events.
That of course depending on whether then the argument is made that it’s the State alone who are the ones to make such laws.
(* Because that’s one of the questions that may arise: what about if you do not yet know it’s stolen or lost? We’ve had people in other threads make the argument in all sincere earnestness that not knowing with certainty that your gun is safely where you last put it, should be considered per se negligence.)
Well, since we’re getting back to ignoring the actual matter at hand rather than discussing the actual matter of the law, and why going it alone in defiance of state and federal law (despite k9’s handwaving that “it’s not the same”) is a bad idea for the nation, back to the same damn ruts, I’ll just take this chance to leave the thread.
It isn’t changing minds, it isn’t leading to productive discussion, and has precisely zero chance of doing so.
Because that person could shoot you, and you could die.
I posted the actual law. The first part refers to normal homeowners insurance. OK. But then the law insists that the insurance covers incidents after a gun is stolen. No insurance covers that. It is outside normal tort law.
Indeed, it is. Look the insurance and the yearly fee are no big deal, except they wrote that little extra paragraph that insures no one can get the proper insurance. So that means no one will be in compliance. Thus any guns in San Jose could be confiscated. Why esle throw that little codicil in?
However, the law will not fly. CA laws make it clear that gun control is the purview of the State, not cities or counties. So it won’t even get past CA Supreme Court.
However, some cities have tried taking the guns. Heller is based upon that. DC, Chicago and SF all tried banning handguns.
Proposition H was a local ordinance on the November 8, 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, which gained national attention for its banning of most firearms within the city. The measure passed with a yes vote of 123,033 to a no vote of 89,856. The proposition was later struck down in court.
So let us not pretend attempts have not been made.
As for …like a old worn out play that everyone’s seen before and is tired of on this endless, pointless loop That is what I am trying to prevent here in this thread. We have had endless, mostly pointless general USA gun control debates before. Can we not go down the road of the old worn out play that everyone’s seen before and is tired of on this endless, pointless loop in this thread?
Can we keep this thread focused on the San Jose law, not Denmark or suicides or pools, or car registration or whatever? Now if someone can show that some county or city or nation has successfully implemented such a gun liability insurance before, then great. But I find it telling that of all those Western European nations that have endlessly been paraded here as models of crime and gun prevention- none has even done that. I wonder why?
“If my car is stolen, I don’t report it, and subsequently it is used in a bank robbery then I should not be surprised if the police knock on (or down) my door.” that is the actual quote.
Yes, sometimes you do not notice your car is stolen before it is used in a crime. If someone stole my car at midnite, and robbed a liquor store or used to murder someone at 2AM, I would not have reported it to the police before the crime. First thing I would know about it is the Police calling me. Or if I was at work and it was stolen from the parking lot at 930, I wouldn’t realize it until time to go home, leaving the perps a good 8 hours for all sort of crime.
No you won’t be in a pickle. It is fairly common.
Yes, responsible owners will report, but will they know instantly?
And the San Jose law- that doesn’t make a difference, and that is the kicker. OK, let us assume I have a gun which is stolen and I immediately report it before anything bad happens. It does not matter. What the law says is that I have to have liability insurance that covers that- and there is no such insurance. The penalty for not having such impossible insurance is gun confiscation.
I have no opinion about this new law. But somewhere there must be some big misunderstandings about it. Because here’s a quote from today’s newspaper:
“The mayor’s team reached out to more than a dozen providers of homeowners and renters insurance and ‘found widespread availability’ in policies that cover gun ownership, according to [San Jose mayor] Liccardo.”
Even if there were no such insurance today, what precludes an insurance company from offering it once there is a market for it?
This is like expecting that no court on the USA or police force will not show discretion and apply the law properly, and investigate if that was the case or not. It is a kind of silly artument too.
Oh yes, sure, most homeowners insurance will cover for the usual stuff. But not after the gun/car/whatever is stolen.
I have met Liccardo and he is slipperier than a eel in a tub of vaseline. You think politicians aren’t masters of the half lie?
Tort and Common law, and the fact that an insurance company would have to be insane. But since there isn’t any such, that should be evidence itself. Also note no nation or other region has tried this shit before.