San Jose CA gun tax law is a positive first step to rational gun ownership

Great Debates
421

Their intentions are to reduce the damage done to society by guns. What do you think their nefarious intentions truly are? Would it be fair for people who want to mitigate the damage to society by guns to look at your efforts to stymie them, and assume nefarious intents on your part? After all, it is your side that is putting these guns out there to cause harm to society, is there an ulterior motive to that? Should we be assuming that you want this harm to come to society? Should we be bugged by the dishonesty in someone who just says that they want “freedom” but actually secretly wants to see bloodshed in the news every night?

The dishonesty is entirely your putting on them the responsibility to be happy with the current state of affairs. Your imagination as to their motives, and your instance that they must agree to things that they never agree to is the only way that you can come to the conclusion that they are the ones being dishonest.

When they put seatbelts in cars, did you say, “Well, okay, but no more.” Then when they put airbags in, did you decry their dishonesty?

As one of the people in these groups, I personally get tired of being called dishonest all the time. When you assume bad faith from the outset, it’s hard to have a good faith discussion.

But, as I said, it is this attitude that is turning more and more people away from your cause. More and more people do want sensible gun control measures, registration, and some form of compensation for the victims of gun violence. Every time a gun advocate stamps their feet and insists that the only way of getting that is to repeal the second amendment and ban guns is another time they make a compelling argument to repeal the second amendment and ban guns. You are doing a great job of turning anyone who would be an ally against you.

If you keep it up, then your preferences won’t matter, and you will have no part of the conversation as those who are trying to mitigate the damage that guns do to society find that you have nothing to offer, and they have no reason to pay you the slightest bit of attention as they pass legislation.

I would think that you would want to work with us to find workable solutions to the gun violence in our country, rather than simply obstruct until it’s too late, and you no longer have any leverage to shape legislation in way you favor.

422

This example of incrementalism is a good one. At a BAC of .1, you are pretty impaired. Your chances of having an accident are significantly higher. At .08, you are still impaired, not as much as at .1, but you are still at a higher risk of accident. At .05, you are much less impaired, and at lower risk of an accident. Every step makes sense, and can demonstrably reduce the risk of accidents.

This is an example of paranoia. If .05 is deemed safe enough, that’s where they will stop. They won’t ever get down to .005, that doesn’t even make any sense. If taking a step reduces accidents and saves lives, it makes sense to do. If it doesn’t reduce accidents and save lives, it doesn’t. And each step can be debated on its own merits, rather than claiming that MADD is actually dishonest, and has nefarious and nebulous motives.

Same with guns. If something seems as though it will save lives, then it will be discussed on its merits. If you don’t think think it will, or that it won’t save enough to justify the inconvenience, you can make that argument. Making the argument a priori that you will have to have another debate about gun safety in the future if you have this one now is just a way of avoiding it, it’s not actually a reasonable argument. It makes as much sense as arguing against DUI laws because you don’t trust the people looking to reduce car accidents not.

And no, just because we find a way to mitigate the damage that guns do to society doesn’t mean that we will stop looking for other ways to limit the damage that guns do to society. That’s not something that makes any sense to ask for, and it’s not dishonest to do so.

423

I have no real issues with an assault weapon ban, as long as it is a ban on new sales, etc. It won’t do much, but it is fairly harmless.

No, neither would be effective in reducing violent crime.

That is a better idea. I am not sure how effective it would be, but I think it is something that needs to be tried on a larger scale.

You don’t think they can’t find a low level crook that will testify they bought the gun in exchange for a deal? That would be easy-peasy. And so yeah, with the evidence the guy has a pattern of guying dozens of guns every year, and half those are found in the hands of criminals or at crime scenes, and he has a half-dozen dudes willing to testify he is a known gun seller and they bought their gun from him?

As for your cite earlier, take a look at what you would get in CA:

The exclusions state that any injuries caused by anyone else other than the Named Insured or Family member is not covered.

Are you saying that a person who is a victim of burglary is not a victim?

Sure, and if CA hands out Unicorns that eat greenhouse gasses and poop soft-serve calorie free ice cream, that would be great also. But CA won’t. And the law will get tossed before it gets that far.

With some, yes. Others are simply scared of guns and want to get rid of them. Not everyone is honest in their motives.

Sure, So what are YOUR ideas on gun control that will save lives to a significant extent? You poo-poo mine. What are yours?

424

Would you support a plan that includes policies of repealing PLCAA, a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and investing in community violence intervention programs? Even if you believed they didn’t accomplish anything effective?

425

Not the first, the third certainly, and I am okay but not excited about the middle.

426

I see you are not aware of the Citizen’s Arrest Stop and Frisk!
:wink:

427

Update more than two years later: The 9th Circuit has dismissed the case against this new law, so it is coming closer to going into effect.

428

Kind of. It was dismissed since the fee has yet to be implemented. I suspect once it is, there will be an immediate injunction as it reworks its way back through the court system.

429

You are absolutely right.
There should be no laws whatsoever.

430

I gotta ask. Under this SCOTUS does anyone believe that paying any fee/tax to own a gun won’t be ruled unconstitutional?

431

“The power to tax is the power to destroy”. But you see, it is not the fees that are the big issue. It is the fact that there is no such insurance available, and with insurance companies bailing out of CA (and FLA, etc) it likely wont be. So, basically the law sez “you have to have X to own a gun, but you cant get x.” That is the main issue here. Still, let us see what happens when San Jose actually enforce the law.

Yep.

432

According to the San Jose police department, regular homeowners insurance could possibly satisfy the requirement:

“* How do I know whether my homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy satisfies the insurance requirement?

  • The Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance provides that gun owners may comply with the insurance requirement through a homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy that covers losses or damages resulting from accidental use of a firearm. (It’s also possible to comply with the insurance requirement through a specialized gun liability insurance policy, but this section focuses on how to determine whether your homeowner’s or renter’s policy meets the requirement.) When reviewing your insurance policy or talking with your insurance agent, there are two questions you can ask to determine whether your homeowner’s or renter’s policy provides the required coverage:
  1. Does your policy provide liability coverage for accidents that occur in the home? Liability coverage is a common component of homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. If your policy includes this coverage, then move on the question 2 below. If it doesn’t include this coverage, then your policy does not meet the requirements of the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
  2. Does your policy explicitly exclude accidents that involve firearms from the liability coverage? Most policies that provide liability coverage will also list certain types of incidents that are excluded from the liability coverage. For example, a homeowner’s insurance policy may exclude any harm caused by lead paint or asbestos exposure from its liability coverage. If there is no such exclusion accidents involving firearms, then your policy meets the requirements of the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance; if there is an exclusion, it does not.In summary, if the answer to the Question 1 is “yes” and the answer to Question 2 is “no,” then your policy satisfies the insurance requirement of the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.”
433

Most policies do. But the issue here is, the law said you had to have insurance that also covered a deliberate use of a gun in a killing etc. No policies cover such a thing.

434

Apparently that’s not true. The actual text of the law only requires insurance that covers accidental use of a firearm, not deliberate. Here’s the relevant part:

“specifically covering any accidental use of the firearm”

From page 8 of the actual ordinance:

435

Intentional shootings aren’t covered by homeowners insurance“All policies deny coverage for intentional injuries,” explains Thomas Simeone, with Simeone & Miller LLP. “So, if you shoot at and strike an intruder, there will likely be no coverage because you intended to injure them.
Does homeowners insurance cover guns?.

Yep. I was working from the proposed law, which got a LOT of feedback. You are right, I am wrong.

Si, yes I just rechecked the law, and yeah, they changed one section-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 accidental use of the Firearm, including but
not limited to death, injury or property damage.

So. no longer does it require liability insurance for deliberate shootings, as originally proposed. Good.

BUT-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.

No insurance covers that. Once the gun is stolen it is no longer the property of the insured. And the other issue is, fees and such are public knowledge- a burglar can go check to see who owns guns.

But maybe people are overreacting. Let us see how this actually gets enforced.

And once the fees are assessed or guns are confiscated due to fees not being paid or no insurance, let us see what SCOTUS says.