San Jose plans to be first U.S. city
requiring firearms owners to pay back
taxpayers for gun violence
San Francisco Chronicle,
by
Bob Egelko
&
Nora Mishanec
Original Article
Posted By: konocti95,
7/1/2021 12:28:27 PM
A month after a gunman killed nine workers at a rail yard in San Jose, the city is taking steps to become the first in the nation to require firearms owners to buy insurance and pay fees to relieve taxpayers of the costs of responding to gun violence.
The San Jose City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to draft an ordinance that would order gun owners in the city to obtain insurance and pay an annual fee to subsidize police responses, ambulances, medical treatment and other municipal expenses related to shootings, injuries and deaths.
The amount of the fee hasn’t been determined, but Mayor Sam Liccardo said
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Axeman 7/1/2021 12:31:46 PM (No. 832581)
I seem to remember that plans like this have already been found to be unconstitutional.
41 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Quigley 7/1/2021 12:35:57 PM (No. 832586)
Seem like dimoKKKraps ought to be required to pay for all the injury from slavery and racism which they supported and created for power.
29 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
kono 7/1/2021 12:37:58 PM (No. 832588)
Somehow there seems to be a problem establishing liability in this. I wonder how long it will take for a non-woke judge to throw it out. (Then again, I wonder how long it will take to even find a non-woke judge in California...)
25 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
chance_232 7/1/2021 12:38:56 PM (No. 832589)
Poor Black Americans cant be forced to get voter ID....for free. But they will be forced to pay fees and insurance to exercise their rights. Using treasoncrat logic, this ordinance is RAAAAAACIST.
28 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Norway 7/1/2021 12:42:39 PM (No. 832591)
Exactly no one will comply with this. But even more tax-paying Californians are going to move out of state.
21 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Maggie2u 7/1/2021 12:43:32 PM (No. 832592)
Following this logic, then those who buy alcohol should also pay an extra tax to pay for the damage done by drunk drivers. Right?
This is fun.
44 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
MrDeplorable 7/1/2021 12:44:00 PM (No. 832593)
The "reasoning" behind these these gun-related laws is the same "reasoning" behind reparations for slavery and that is COLLECTIVE GUILT, a misguided concept rejected by all reasonable people. Slowly but surely, the liberals are FORCING the rest of us into positions that can only be resolved by FORCE, meaning civil war.
22 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
konocti95 7/1/2021 12:46:44 PM (No. 832596)
#7 - I was trying to think of a good parallel issue to illustrate the absurdity and you hit it on the head. Thanks
11 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
planetgeo 7/1/2021 12:47:21 PM (No. 832598)
OK, let's go with "proportional liability" on such taxes, namely prorating the amount to be paid based on the statistical incidence of such violence by the offending parties and the racial group they belong to. I'm totally on board with that. (Not really, but let's watch them squirm on that for a while.)
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
JackBurton 7/1/2021 12:47:31 PM (No. 832599)
Why not add big fines for committing gun crimes?
Want the police to be incentivized to go after gun criminals? Share those fines with them.
16 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
konocti95 7/1/2021 12:47:47 PM (No. 832600)
#6 rather
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
TXknitter 7/1/2021 12:54:44 PM (No. 832611)
Yes but #1, lots of unconstitutional things being done against citizens. The police will still enforce what they are told and judges continue to rule in favor of the left.
18 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 7/1/2021 12:59:10 PM (No. 832614)
Sadly, its completely constitutional according to Chief Just-Us Roberts. Remember Obambicare? The goobernment can tax anyone for not buying a product they don't want or need. Make up laws, deal with the lawlessness it creates.
12 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
earlybird 7/1/2021 1:01:45 PM (No. 832617)
Silicon Valley… mercifully it is now too expensive for anyone to live there.
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
stablemoney 7/1/2021 1:01:45 PM (No. 832618)
When will they pass a law requiring those that trash the city to pay the taxpayers back for picking up their trash?
8 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
udanja99 7/1/2021 1:02:16 PM (No. 832619)
Seems to me that they should be taxing the black community instead.
10 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Ribicon 7/1/2021 1:09:08 PM (No. 832625)
Using the same logic, WHITE people should be sent to prison because, according to Marxism, their privilege causes otherwise peaceful and ethical bLACK people to commit crimes.
4 people like this.
Unconstitutional. Even with the 9th Circuit shilling for them, this will be defeated and slapped down hard. The Mayor of San Jose is about as big of a woketard as you will find anywhere.
Demmunists know this will never pass constitutional muster, but they will try anyway. It's time to look into some real penalties for these commies that push things they know up front to be unconstitutional. They waste everyones' time and money defending against this stupidity, with no recourse against them.
7 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
jimincalif 7/1/2021 1:11:15 PM (No. 832627)
Let's assess a fee against all teachers, professors, educators and education administrators to help pay for the damage caused by teaching CRT.
14 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 7/1/2021 1:13:48 PM (No. 832632)
The City Council best be prepared to expend big bucks to try to defend such an ordinance against the law suits that will be filed.
"The San Jose City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to draft an ordinance that would order [SOME]** gun owners in the city to obtain insurance and pay an annual fee to subsidize police responses, ambulances, medical treatment and other municipal expenses related to shootings, injuries and deaths."
Comment: Requiring either insurance and/or tp pay fees to enjoy a Constitutional right is skating on very thin ice. The prospect of this ordinance being held to be constitutional by a court of law is slim or none. The issues in this case will probably require the city to retain EXPENSIVE outside legal counsel.
* * * * *
"The amount of the fee hasn’t been determined, but Mayor Sam Liccardo said Wednesday it would probably be “a couple dozen dollars” and [WOULD NOT BE CHARGED TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT AFFORD].** He said insurers have advised the city that including gun coverage on their policies would add little or nothing to typical premium costs."
** Capitalization added.
Comment: Famous last words! Adding "gun coverage" (whatever that might be) with no (or a tiny) increase in premium. Obtaining "gun coverage" will no doubt require a rider or a separate policy. Ether one will increase the insured's premium(s).
5 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 7/1/2021 1:14:08 PM (No. 832633)
What bulltwinkie. How about taxing silverware owners for health issues relating to obesity.
6 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
mc squared 7/1/2021 1:22:05 PM (No. 832640)
Gun registration would be needed to see who owns a gun, and require them to pay 'good-guy-with-a-gun' insurance. Another reason gun registration is a horrible idea.
Most people will do what homies do for car insurance: don't register the car so lack of insurance is never discovered.
4 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Mizz Fixxit 7/1/2021 1:28:03 PM (No. 832644)
Stupid law. Unenforceable. Essentially, this ordinance is a publicity stunt. A platitude that makes liberals feel good. Liberals specialize in unenforceable laws and taxes that fall well short of revenue projections, or reduce revenue. High taxes on ammunition won’t work, as gun owners will cross state lines to avoid the tax. Unfortunately, such laws can potentially bankrupt gun shops in blue states and cities.
8 people like this.
This gets even better. FOX Business is reporting that those that refuse to comply WILL HAVE THEIR GUNS CONFISCATED by the city. Mayor McCheese said right up front that this new ordinance will be ignored by criminals, but they can seize their guns since they won't comply.
He tried to make it sound like they wouldn't use it against law abiding gun owners, but we know that is an absolute lie.
Placing a financial burden on a constitutional right isn't going to fly, and confiscation will be the straw that breaks the back of this nonsense. This probably isn't a fight that the left wants the courts to adjudicate. It will not end well for them, and will set more precedence.
3 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
bad-hair 7/1/2021 1:35:00 PM (No. 832654)
Come knock on my door first. Send at least 10 social workers and a ambulance. or two.
3 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Heraclitus 7/1/2021 2:04:28 PM (No. 832689)
It seems that #1 is correct. I don't think you can tax any of our Enumerated Rights.
3 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
GardenGal 7/1/2021 2:30:33 PM (No. 832719)
A long time ago, when I got married in Chicago, We had to pay a tax for domestic violence costs. Then several years later, we got the money back because just because we got married, didn't mean we would use any domestic violence resources--- we haven't.
I think the same issue is here with charging gun owners for gun crimes they do not commit
1 person likes this.
I presume they will equate this to buying insurance for your car, but they don't confiscate your car if you don't have insurance though.
I suspect they want to use this ordinance to get around the 4th amendment and enable them to simply go into a home, or business, and confiscate guns if they don't prove they have insurance.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
0 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
snowoutlaw 7/1/2021 2:48:52 PM (No. 832756)
I suggest they tax anyone who speaks about doing violence for the same reason.
0 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
DVC 7/1/2021 2:57:51 PM (No. 832771)
And the criminals who do the violence are left to run free.
2 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
DVC 7/1/2021 3:48:51 PM (No. 832831)
Unconstitutional for the same reason that a poll tax is unconstitutional.
Can't charge to exercise a Constitutional right.
3 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
dwa 7/1/2021 7:12:48 PM (No. 833056)
Wonder what kind of insurance one can get to protect oneself from corrupt politicians -- especially those who can't control their spending.
1 person likes this.
It would make more sense for the immediate family members of the criminals to pay back the taxpayers.
2 people like this.
Crime? Crime? What Crime? Our Soros DA dismissed all charges within 24 hr after the so-called event.
2 people like this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 7/1/2021 8:36:24 PM (No. 833116)
They’re just so…virtuous.
0 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
Folsomguy 7/1/2021 8:39:11 PM (No. 833118)
Why would anyone live in san jose? Why would anyone tell them they have a gun?
1 person likes this.
The Wild West was never this stupid.
Yeppers. Looking more like South Africa. Only white people have registered guns, right ?
0 people like this.
Reply 38 - Posted by:
LaVallette 7/2/2021 5:26:56 AM (No. 833307)
See the wording of the second Amendment: The right to carry arms "SHALL NEVER BE INFRINGED". You cannot limit the right by using taxation to do it.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "konocti95"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)