Yes, you keep harping on the fact that no one has done it before; I don’t find it persuasive.
Do you have cite for the assertion that Tort and Common law prevent an insurance company from offering this coverage?
As I say, there must be a misunderstanding — or a lie — somewhere. Because not only did the mayor say this insurance can exist, he said it already DOES exist. So either he’s wrong, or the interpretation of the law in this thread is wrong. I’m not sure which.
It’s very simple. I am not responsible for the accidents or negligence of someone who criminally steals my gun. Not liable at all. So if I ask Allstate or Geico for a policy that protects me from such things, there response will be, “We have no such policy and we would not offer such a policy because it would be considered larceny on our part to do so. As the common law states that you are not responsible for these types of acts, for us to sell you a policy insuring you against loss from a non-existent threat of liability would be criminal in and of itself.”
Or, he- as a politician who supports this law- is lying. So yes, there is a lie somewhere. From a career politician.
I note that SJ wrote the law more carefully than I originally thought. It isn’t that the law makes you responsible, it is that if you don’t get the impossible insurance covering you from being responsible, your gun is forfeit.
That applies to me, you, and everyone else in the country. Why am I uniquely responsible for funding this non-existent, non profit that does…something…to train people how to safely handle their guns or…something…mental illness. And the law is not specific. Are free training classes for all available with the money from this fund? Free mental health exams?
And I would venture a guess that someone who is out to murder me or you would disregard that part of training about not pointing your guns at people.
Because you are a member of the gun owner class and share responsibility for the associated costs.
People keep repeating this but haven’t said why. Pretend there are two of me, one owns a deer rifle, the other doesn’t. Why is one of me now responsible for the social ill of domestic violence? Because others, many who don’t own guns at all, beat their wives? Explain the connection.
The connection is the society of which they are all members.
Non gun owners are members of the same society. Why do they not pay $25 per year for these programs?
They already do. There are many spill over costs that result from allowing unfettered gun ownership in the society. Most of this cost is funded by general taxation and by loss of services.
Members of the weapon owning class have a choice. They can work to control the social costs of weapon ownership or they can begin to remove that cost from the non-owning members of society and fund it themselves.
Using your argument - why should I pay the spill over cost of your unfettered access to weapons?
You just keep restating this assertion without showing how because I own a deer rifle I am in the same meaningful class as someone who shoots up a crowded marketplace or does non gun owning criminal activity like beating a spouse. That is certainly not part of “unfettered access to weapons” but is part of the $25 gun tax if this non existent non profit chooses to make it so.
Further, weapon possession is a constitutional right. You have the same access to weapons as everyone else, so you should equally pay the cost.
ETA: Just because you don’t own a gun now does not mean you couldn’t become mentally ill, buy one, and cause the harm we are discussing. Why shouldn’t you be a part of the solution by paying a $25 fee?
Seems obvious. You both are members of the ‘weapon possession class’. Perhaps not both in the ‘shoots up the marketplace class’. What’s so difficult to understand?
The Constitutional Right has never been satisfactorily defined, although you and I agreed that the Steven’s dissent was a good start. In any case it’s irrelevant. The FCC places analogous restrictions on freedom of speech to weapons restrictions that would result from rational gun control. Restrictions that allow citizens weapons access appropriate to context. ie When you have a hunting license, in deer season at a location where deer are known to exist, and hunting is allowed, you may carry a deer rifle. Don’t carry it in the marketplace, you can’t use it there.
The point is that our population is not voluntarily managing it’s unfettered access to weapons. That places a cost burden on society. I willingly pay some of that burden but gun owners can be expected to pay the bulk in the form of taxes, insurance and license fees.
So, as a weapon owner, you are the expert. If not the San Jose law then what?
And we are all three in the “eligible to possess weapons” class, so we should all pay. What I am saying is that you have not made the case that your particular class definition means anything, and I contend it does not when the harm we are trying to prevent is shooting up a marketplace and neither you nor I belong in that class.
We do not have “unfettered” access to weapons. Many weapons are illegal to own and many people are ineligible to buy guns—and those people are the ones causing the harm we are trying to prevent anyways. You simply then restate that “gun owners can be expected to pay the bulk” of what you just said were burdens on the entirety of society without saying why when those social costs have nothing to do with ownership and possession of guns.
Further, you speak so highly of the San Jose law, but do you really think the problem with guns in society is that criminals lack proper safety training? You know, if that Vegas shooter had just had a class that said “do not point your gun at other people, even if you think it is unloaded” that would have helped? I’m sure you don’t, so what is the point of this?
Where in this entire thread has anyone asserted such a thing?
Anyone who has supported the San Jose law. The law requires gun owners to pay a $25 fee per year to a non-profit to provide, in part, firearm safety classes, and this is justified because gun violence is part of the societal problem.
If it is confusing to follow, it isn’t my fault, but the fault of the logic of the San Jose lawmakers and those in this thread supporting the law.
It makes sense if you take gun violence to include accidental shootings.
So you’re basically a socialist with respect to gun ownership? That’s fine if you’re a socialist, but something tells me you may be more in favor of “everyone pays for everyone else’s right to own a firearm” than “everyone pays for everyone else’s access to lifesaving and liberty enhancing healthcare.” Please let me know if I’m wrong on that, I’m just curious to know how/why you might parse these various socially-subsidized activities from others.
Except…society does pay in light of how gun toting killers tend to be judgment proof, and gun manufacturers have neatly crafted (and gotten passed via lobbying) laws to insulate themselves from liability.
Somebody always pays, it’s just a question of who can bear the cost and who should bear the cost. It would be nice if we could make the narrow class of injurers alone pay the cost. But they can’t/won’t. As it stands, that means either victims, their family, or society must bear the cost. What this San Jose law seems to be suggesting is… maybe they shouldn’t have to subsidize the cost of the “gun-owning” classes freedom to bear arms? Maybe… the guns-owners should, being more proximate to the gun-injurer class?
Surely there’s a “start” date for the legislation to be in effect, and California insurance companies will be able to offer policies that meet the minimum legally required limits by that date.
Otherwise you’re right- it’s basically a way to outlaw guns without actually outlawing guns. And will likely fail legal challenges as a result.
That said, I’m not at all against licensing and insurance for guns. I tend to think that a few minor hurdles like that would dissuade a lot of the idiots and morons from owning guns and keep it in the hands of people who are motivated enough to pay for insurance/licensing to own them. I don’t like the idea of gun registration; just a license to own that has nothing to do with how many guns you have. Same with the liability insurance; it should be a “by owner” kind of thing that adheres to the person, not the gun.
It goes against all common and tort law. And CA has a pretty strong Insurance commissioner.
Also why would some insurance company do this just for a moderately sized city? What’s the market?
I figure that at first, it’ll be small local companies.
The big question I have is how would anyone actually figure out what the premium is on such a policy? It’s almost certainly not within the existing actuarial body of work that would be used to determine such a thing for property or health insurance.