San Jose Wants to Force Gun Owners to Carry Insurance and Pay Fees

The fees would be used to reimburse the city for the public costs of gun violence.


On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council unanimously advanced a number of novel gun control proposals, including requirements that gun owners carry liability insurance and that they pay a fee to cover the public costs of gun violence.

"While the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership," said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo in a Tuesday press release. "We won't magically end gun violence, but we will stop paying for it."

These proposals come a month after a workplace shooting at a light rail facility in San Jose left 10 people dead, including the shooter.

The mayor describes San Jose's insurance mandate as a "first-of-its-kind" policy, although the idea has been floating around for a while. Following the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, a flurry of state lawmakers from Connecticut to California introduced bills mandating gun owners carry insurance. None of those proposals become law.

A House bill introduced this year by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–Texas) would create a federal insurance mandate in addition to requirements that gun owners get a license, pay an $800 licensing fee, and register their individual firearms.

Most of the details of San Jose's proposed gun laws have yet to be fleshed out, including the fee structure for gun ownership and how much insurance gun owners might be required to purchase.

The city is asking the Pacific Institute for Research Evaluation (PIRE), a nonprofit research group, to prepare a report on the costs to San Jose taxpayers of gun violence, which will then be used to calculate appropriate fees.

A preliminary report prepared by PIRE ahead of Tuesday's vote put the annual costs to federal, state, and local governments from gun violence in San Jose at $39.7 million. That figure includes all the costs stemming from murders and assaults as well as suicides and unintentional shootings.

Fee revenue would be split with Santa Clara County, which contains San Jose, to cover things like emergency room treatment, victim assistance, jail, criminal prosecution, and mental health services.

Because the city of San Jose doesn't have a register of firearm owners, it'd be up to individuals to proactively pay any required fees and get insurance coverage. Those who didn't would be at risk of fines or having their guns confiscated.

Anthony Mata, chief of the San Jose Police Department, said that officers wouldn't go door to door to enforce the coverage mandate, but would ask for proof of insurance should they find a gun during the course of other police work.

"Where there's an interaction, a lawful car stop or consensual search, that's the opportunity where the officer finds a gun, he can ask the question," Mata said at Tuesday's meeting.

San Jose's proposal is already attracting controversy from gun rights activists. The Sacramento-based Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights group, and Gun Owners of California have both said they intend to sue the city. "The mayor will have his rear end handed to him in a basket by the courts," said Sam Paderes, executive director of the Gun Owners of California, to the Guardian last week.

Liccardo himself was quite cavalier about the possibility that the city would end up in court, saying Tuesday that "when it comes to sensible gun control, no good deed goes unlitigated." The mayor also said that the city had consulted with a number of outside groups, including the Giffords Law Center, a gun control group, on the legality of its proposals.

George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming, says that San Jose's proposed gun control policies raise a number of constitutional issues.

It's highly questionable, he says, if insurers will actually write the kinds of policies that San Jose would require gun owners to purchase. If they don't, then they would be unable to comply with the city's mandate, and thus effectively would be prohibited from owning firearms.

"You can't intentionally ban something indirectly if you can't ban it directly," he says, adding that if gun owners were required to pay exorbitant fees or to purchase more insurance than what would be considered "actuarially fair," that would likely also be unconstitutional.

Mocsary also raises some practical concerns with requiring gun owners to carry insurance, arguing that it could increase the potential for more firearm injuries.

"The best way to incentivize more of an activity is to take away the financial consequences of that activity," he tells Reason. "If you are taking away from individuals the financial consequences of people being hurt by their guns because their insurance will pay for it, the natural behavior will be for people to take less care."

The memorandum that the San Jose City Council approved yesterday laid out only the broad strokes of its insurance mandate and gun ownership fees. It directs the city attorney to draft more detailed ordinances by September. Once complete, those ordinances will then go before the city council for another vote.

NEXT: Federal Law Enforcement Is Running Roughshod Over Facial Recognition Privacy, Says GAO

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Apart from reporting what others say, the article writer does not really give any clue as to his/her perspective on the issue

    1. I know it’s unusual these days, but reporters actually used to do that a lot. In News stories.

      Opinion pieces were in a whole different section of the newspaper entirely, to avoid confusion.

      1. Opinion pieces, I’ve heard of this. It’s a synonym of CNN articles stuck between the Amazon ads that have headlines like “We spent three weeks testing X, and here’s what we found”.

        It’s no longer Cable News Network but Circulator of Nabob Nonsense.

        1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. This isn’t a newspaper. It is supposedly the leading journal of opinion for libertarians

        1. Leading journal of opinion for libertarians?

          That explains the weekly launch of authoritarian right-wingers from Stewart Baker (and the rest of the clingerverse content from the “often libertarian” — just ask ’em! — Volokh Conspirators).

    2. I don’t think “Britches” is anti-gun, but other readers here will be more familiar with him than I am.

    3. And your comment gives us no clue as to whether you think that is a good or a bad thing.

  2. “Insurance mandate?” I wonder where they got that idea from.

    And of course law abiding gun owners, which 99+% of us are, are supposed to pay for those who engage in criminal activity.

    Just more political signaling that won’t stand up against legal challenges.

    1. “And of course law abiding gun owners, which 99+% of us are, are supposed to pay for those who engage in criminal activity.”

      What are the consequences of non-compliance?

      If it’s a fee, Roberts will rule it a “penaltax”.

      1. If the person is a known criminal there is no cost to not comply but for the law abiding person who is caught with a legal weapon the cost will be very high!

        1. You’re just saying that because of the 5th Amendment prohibits compelling self incrimination and getting such insurance would certainly self-incriminate a prohibited felon. Just like a gun registry would.

          Wait, if you’re mandated to get insurance on your guns, isn’t that just a private gun registry?

          Asking for a friend who didn’t lose all their guns in a boating accident.

    2. No No, the criminals will definitely carry liability.

      My favorite part is they are going to charge police/hospital/response costs to gun owners through a fee.

      1. But not the criminal that is committing crimes such as robbery or murder or any of the other crimes that criminals commit with a gun. I guess the good thing will be after the first offense the previous law abiding person is now a criminal and will not fall under the penalty of the law.

        1. The distance they will go to not blame the one’s behind the gun is amazing. Cops being the outlier.

          I saw the Mayor of Chicago claiming she needs federal help with gun violence. It reminded of The Simpson’s episode where there is a flashback to Flanders being an unruly child. The Dr. asks his beatnik dad what is doing about discipline and the dad replies, I’ve tried nothing and I’m all out of ideas.

      2. “My favorite part is they are going to charge police/hospital/response costs to gun owners through a fee.”

        Kinda like how JesseBahnFuhrer wants Facebook to pay and pay and PAY some more (’cause JesseBahnFuhrer has a punishment boner) for endless lawyers to parse every Facebook post for possible “conservaturd hurt Baby Feelings?”
        From the article:
        “Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it—corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity,” the president recently tweeted.
        There’s your “logic” from Der TrumpfenFuhrer, and MANY conservaTurd commenters on these pages.

        By the EXACT SAME logic, ANY laws shielding gun and ammo manufacturers and-or sellers (Remington for example) need to be held accountable for the shootings of crazy users of their products! Remington, exercise better editorial control of your bullets!

        Hey conservaTurd assholes-commenters! Ye moochers off of a “liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Guns and Ammo Tech’”…
        You ready to pay $90,000 per gun and $15 per ammo-round, or pay out the ass for insurance, for your guns? No? Then you are hypocrites ass usual!

        1. Told you you didn’t have me on mute sarcasmic.

          1. Hey JesseBahnFuhrer… You confuse different people a lot? Is THAT why you confuse your boyfriend with your dog, and end up fucking your dog?

            1. Definitely sarc.

              1. OK, I stand corrected then… When JesseBahnFuhrer gets confused (which is usually, not always), JesseBahnFuhrer will fuck JesseBahnFuhrer’s boyfriend (R Mac), confusing R Mac with JesseBahnFuhrer’s intended sex toy, which is the dog.

                1. Spaz flag X3

                  1. It’s a shame it won’t commit suicide.

              2. Why do you persist with this claim despite their entirely different tone and content in their comments? Is it really so hard to believe that there are two sort of goofy commenters who annoy you?

    3. As I was saying to Melvin Belli the other day,” you can put it in the hands of the attorneys but it’ll never stand up in court. “

    4. I’m still waiting for the racist argument against it. If one is going to buy into the idea that getting a free ID is racist because there might be a possibility that some black people are more likely than white people [lots of qualifiers there] to not be able to get one, then this should be the same case with black people paying $800 fees and for insurance to own a gun.

    5. As always, none of this is intended to prevent crime, or with this particular gem, to “save money”. It’s sole intention is to punish lawful gun owners, who the Kalifornia Kleptocracy perceives to be conservatives and therefore official enemies of the state. It wasn’t long ago that some Bay Area shit hole officially declared the NRA to be a terrorist organization (I think it was Bezerkley).

      There’s just no other choice but to leave CA if you support the 2A. It’s unfortunate that other states have to absorb all the political refugees, but what the hell other choice do lawful gun owners have in CA? Voting?

    6. Yes, better idea would be to hold the individuals who commit violence accountable for the violence they commit.

  3. Great! Another reason for pigs to be up in our business!
    “Do you have liability for your gun? This is a high “gun violence zone.”
    “Yes that’s why I’m protecting myself.”
    “No what I mean is you need full coverage in this part of town. Your policy only covers the west side of town…”

    1. Asshole flag

  4. What kind of insurance? I’ve never heard of insurance covering criminal acts.

    1. They’re just trying to make gun ownership so unaffordable that most people can’t afford to buy and own a weapon legally.

      1. Of course.

    2. I am not sure what the mayor of San Jose means by it, but I do, by choice, carry insurance [there are several options for this]; in the event that I use a firearm to defend myself, it provides for liability coverage including attorney’s fees and coverage in the even of a civil suit. If you are prosecuted for defending yourself [of course it would not cover a criminal act; it really isn’t “murder insurance”] it would be very good to have. I recommend everyone who has a concealed carry permit, or even keeps a gun in their home, to have it [but not by government mandate, thank you]

      1. Sure, and that makes sense.

        I don’t think that’s the kind they are thinking of. This is specifically a response to gun violence by law breakers and they want the non-lawbreakers to pay for it.

      2. But you’re carrying that insurance by choice, not force.

      3. We ought to strongly encourage every gun owner to carry this type of insurance.

        1. “We”?

          1. Yes, we. Why not?

            1. Your independent individualism facade is slipping.

            2. “Yes, we, […]?”

              Is that a turd in your pocket, slaver?

            3. You should come to the state of NY and protest loudly in that case. The NRA offered this type of insurance in NY just a few years ago. The state of NY then fined the NRA and their insurance carrier several million dollars for offering “murder insurance” in the state of NY.

  5. How about a pilot program where the city’s law enforcement are required to carry liability insurance. It won’t magically end police gun violence, but taxpayers will stop paying for it.

    1. A lot of them do – – – – – – – –

      1. Individual officers to carry personal liability insurance (à la medical malpractice insurance)?

        1. Theoretically the dept. could have a policy that covers their staff.

          My company has a medical malpractice policy that covers providers in our employment. The individual providers do not have their own.

          1. Governments are self insured. Why do they need to buy insurance when they can always raise taxes in the name of “law enforcement” which, like “the children” or “the schools,” instantly demonizes anyone who disagrees.

            1. Instantly huh? No legislation required?

              1. Pretty much, yes. They’re called property taxes.

        2. Yes. Some do. It is not required, but prudent.

          1. To be analogous to the article, the individual requirement is where I was going with that. Otherwise the taxpayer would be (is) on the hook for any damages awarded, rare as they may be.

            The idea, beyond saving taxpayers subsidizing their own abuse, is that risky individuals would have a difficult time finding coverage and therefore could no longer work as law enforcement.

      2. re: “A lot of them do”

        Evidence please? Or even a single anecdote? Because I am aware of no insurance carrier that writes liability insurance for illegal acts of bad cops. You can sometimes find municipalities that carry insurance which might cover the city’s indirect responsibility for the misdeeds of a crooked cop. But that’s not what Fist was talking about.

        1. I take it back. Thank you to JesseAz for the link below.

          Now go make that mandatory.

          1. Nope, sorry. I was wrong – and so is JesseAz. That is insurance available only to the police department. It is not individual liability insurance. And, like most insurance, it excludes intentional illegal acts. So that insurance will defend the city from a claim that the crooked cop was poorly trained or unsupervised but won’t do anything for the victims of the crooked cop.

            1. Here you go.


              Usually it is handled at the union or department level. Part of the union is paying for legal retainers generally.

          2. You are aware that right below this Jesse says “No insurer cover illegal acts”.

            If you think he’s saying that liability insurance covers said acts you are mistaken.

            1. The coverage covers civil liability but is removed for criminal acts like most insurance. For example insurance doesn’t cover you burning your house dow intentionally.

              1. Of course.

        2. No insurer covers illegal acts…

  6. Now do box cutters

    1. The hell with that — next do politicians. They do far more damage to communities than all the illegal guns in the world.

      1. They aren’t taxing the illegal guns.

        1. And the legal ones don’t cause any problems. What of it?

  7. Yay! Once we make gun-owners pay for the damages caused by guns, we can move on to make blacks pay for the damages caused by blacks and Muslims to pay for the damages caused by Muslims and Burger King to pay for the damages caused by Kaiser Wilhelm.

    1. “…pay for the damages caused by Kaiser Wilhelm.”

      Germany just finished paying off that one [for WWI] a couple of years ago.

  8. Using the coercive power of government to hold individuals responsible for the costs of things they didn’t do is fundamentally unjust.

    1. This is one of my fundamental problems with socialized medicine. (just one, but…)

      People often want to limit what others do. If medicine is socialized, or even now with Obamacare, there’s the “But it costs ALL of us when you…” argument. And it wins the day, even when it isn’t true, like smoking, or obesity, or motorcycle riding, or whatever where the lifetime cost of the sin is less than living to a ripe old age.

      That kind of argument goes everywhere you can make innocent people responsible for what unrelated lawbreakers do. I’m Ok being responsible for me, but I have no control over you.

      1. “”“But it costs ALL of us when you…” argument.””

        Annoys me too.

        Here’s the future.

      2. Moreover, the riders don’t attach selectively. Smoking is bad for you and shortens your life, hence it is “illegal”, smokers don’t get a say. Promiscuous gay sex, OTOH, is just a choice and despite the well documented fact that it unduly burdens the healthcare system, you’re a bigot for thinking you shouldn’t have to pay for it.

        1. Smoking isn’t illegal, it’s just not allowed in restaurants and bars. as far as I know promiscuous gay sex isn’t allowed there either. Unless we go to *really* different restaurants.

    2. Then you hate mandatory car insurance.

      1. Here to prove how stupid you can be?

    3. “of things they didn’t do”

      This is the point we REALLY need to hammer home with Marxists. They think my freedom to own a gun is the reason why criminals have guns. They use this logic for everything. Global warming, public health, etc. They are inherently anti freedom.

  9. Well that’s an easy one. Not gonna happen. Fuck off dem leftie shits.

    1. It might pass, but it has less chance of winning an appeal than Bill Crosby.

      1. You take the Rophinol. You put the Rophinol in the white lady’s drink. You take the white lady’s drink that you put the Rophinol in for the white lady and give the white lady’s drink to the white lady. – Cosby

        1. Is that before or after he offers the pudding pop.

          1. The chocolate pudding pop comes after.

        2. He used ludes too.

      2. Well, you had me thinking for a sec, but it’s definitely BING Crosby and Bill COSBY.

  10. As long as the same restrictions are placed on the rest of the bill of rights, I am good with this.
    We could scrap the contentious section 230, because all those assault posters on social media would be personally liable for any damages, since they would have to get fingerprinted and use their true names and pay all those fees. And think of all the fees for attending churches, synagogues, and mosques! Of course, to avoid church/state conflicts, everyone would have to register and pay fees for that one; we can assign atheist or agnostic as required for those who do not currently attend. Same with the fifth, crooks would have to have insurance in order to avoid truthfully testifying in court. By the time we get through adding up all those fees, the income tax could be eliminated completely and the IRS put out to pasture.

    1. The argument that the Constitution doesn’t say you don’t have a right to not pay for your right to own a gun is laughable on it’s face. Take out “own a gun” and replace that with voting, right to assemble, worship, or speech. The Constitution doesn’t say you have a right to not pay for that either. In fact the Constitution doesn’t say a lot of things, but to exclude them on that basis means it’s not a right.

  11. So gunowners there may have to obtain private insurance because the VTA, the sister and other government agencies ignored red flags.

  12. Another collectivist non-solution for an individual right.

    1. Indeed

  13. Now if only they could apply the same principles to law enforcement. About time the public stopped paying for damages caused by bad cops.

    1. Step out of the car please, sir.

    2. Ahh, so you support the liability measures as long as you can get cops to also carry it…

      Wait… cops do carry it through union liability coverage and state coverages.

      Weird how you can’t criticize the Democrats for trying to push this out, instead you want to attach your weird cop fetish thoughts to it.

    3. Politicians first. They can cause more damage with a single “aye” than any cop will in a lifetime.

  14. In some good news, for a change, Donald Rumsfeld is dead.

    So, we can celebrate that.

    If there’s a hell, Rumsfeld will be waterboarded there. I don’t think the guards in hell abide by the Geneva conventions either–not if you’re captured out of uniform.

    1. It’s too bad there isn’t a hell for him to go to.
      We can pretend though.
      He will have the company of LBJ and McNamara.

      1. You don’t know that for certain. Rumsfeld’s current location is an unknown unknown.

        1. There are known unknowns and unknown knowns and unknown unknowns and known ……………
          ahhhh forget it..

        2. Actually, it’s a known unknown.

          1. ^^ This guy Rumsfelds.

  15. On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council unanimously advanced a number of novel gun control proposals, including requirements that gun owners carry liability insurance and that they pay a fee to cover the public costs of gun violence.

    If the San Jose City Council wants to criminals to pay a fee to cover the cost of gun violence then let them start with the criminals that don’t have registered weapons nor are the the weapons they use legal in most cases. But it will not be those who use guns for crimes that the city council is targeting but those law abiding citizens that tries to get a gun legally even though it is not the legal guns that causes the expense.

    1. Guns have totemic powers that instantly turn their owners into murderous, wild-eyed psychopaths.

      Ask any prog. They’ll tell you.

  16. It’s no secret the numbers for shootings and homicides in every major city has risen by as much as 200%. It’s also no secret these cities are run by liberals.
    Last year, Chicago experienced one of the bloodiest in decades. Over 4100 people shot and 735 killed. This year expects even worse.
    778 victims were killed in Chicago in the past 12 months.
    Year to date: shot and killed:330
    Shot and wounded:1603
    Total shot:1933
    total homicides:350
    Not even Al Capone was that bad.
    Portland, Seattle, N.Y. City, Minneapolis, on and on are experiencing the only growth that now takes place: in shootings and homicides.
    Leave those cities if you can.
    So punish the law abiding citizens who own firearms for the actions of lawless,thugs like the ones who gunned down a mother who had just dropped her son off at the U.S. Naval Academy. This is liberal progressive thinking.
    I’m sure these street thugs/gangstas are going to register and insure their firearms for the sake of the community.
    Stay tuned for more insanity.

    1. It’s no secret the numbers for shootings and homicides in every major city has risen by as much as 200%.

      Not according the Chicago’s Mayor, Frogeyes Lightfoot:

      Crime is on the decline in Chicago.

      Yes, she actually said that.

      1. And she still won’t answer any questions from a white reporter.

      2. She meant since the weekend. It will spike again this weekend.

      3. Well, technically, if you don’t report the crimes and don’t prosecute the ones you do report, then crime is in decline. Right?

      4. beetlejuice, beetlejuice, beetlejuice

  17. I’m not certain, but that dude might be Maxwell Smart.

    1. The guy to his left identifies as 99.

    2. By God, that is Maxwell Smart!
      The dude on the left looks nothing like Agent 99.
      No way.

      1. Barbara Feldon. Hell, yeah!

      2. I didn’t say he looks like, I said he identifies as.

  18. Anthony Mata, chief of the San Jose Police Department, said that officers wouldn’t go door to door to enforce the coverage mandate, but would ask for proof of insurance should they find a gun during the course of other police work.

    I thought we were #defunding police?

    1. As in the UK, the left wants police to enforce ideological crimes, while real violent crime gets ignored.

  19. “If you are taking away from individuals the financial consequences of people being hurt by their guns because their insurance will pay for it, the natural behavior will be for people to take less care.”

    Sort of like “ending qualified immunity” by scratching the words “qualified immunity” off a form and then indemnifying officers against lawsuits.

  20. Good, then poor people can’t afford guns.

    1. Leaving them dependent on government for yet another aspect of their lives.

  21. I do suppose a registry wouldn’t restrict your right to bear arms which I find interesting for the 2A crowd.

    But any serious gun control won’t happen. If Sandy Hook didn’t change minds/the political climate enough then nothing will.

    1. “…If Sandy Hook didn’t change minds/the political climate enough then nothing will.”

      For which we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

    2. chicago has some of the most restrictive “gun control” laws in the nation, yet every weekend 50 people are shot and many are killed. how’s that “gun control” working for you? liberals cannot comprehend the simple fact that criminals don’t give a crap about gun laws. gun control laws only serve to restrict law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

    3. A gun registry is in clear violation of the 4th amendment. Any gun control whatsoever is illegal by the 2nd amendment. It says “shall not be infringed”, not “shall not be prohibited”. Any infringement, no matter how minor on the right to own and carry a gun is illegal.

    4. A felon could not be charged with failure to register a firearm, as this would be a 5th amendment violation. So the only people that could be charged with this are law abiding citizens. The ATF can’t keep track of the 182,000 legally transferable machine guns that are out there. You think they are up to the task of keeping tack of the 500 million (probably higher) firearms in circulation in the US currently?

  22. Now treat the right to vote the same way you do the right to bear arms.

    1. In 1777 Great Britain was very concerned about threats to its “right to tax.”

  23. Why not charge a fee to cover the cost of elections? A Booth Tax? To be paid before voting

    1. Or everyone who votes for the winning candidate gets to pay all the taxes until the next election.

      Maybe that’s the election reform we need. Make the government a la carte. You vote for what you want government to do and those who vote for a particular program or policy have to pay for it.

  24. So if it’s too high of a burden to require someone to show an ID to vote because it’s a constitutional right then why are high fees and insurance requirements on all guns not the same? I would think it would be considered too prohibitive given that it’s a constitutional right. It’s the government placing a barrier between a citizen and a constitutional right

    1. Because 2A is the red-headed stepchild constitutional right. Or, for short, FYTW.

    2. And voting isn’t even a real right. It’s a privilege of citizenship.

  25. Are there negative externalities to widespread gun ownership?

    1. Not really — at least nothing which remotely achieves correlation. Some States with high levels of firearms ownership have very high homicide rates, while others with high levels have very low homicide rates. There seems to be a closer relationship between population density and homicide rates than most other factors. But even then, there are outliers which make “correlation” a bit of a stretch.

      1. For a quick look (from a study based on the 2010 census):

    2. negative externalities

      External to what? I don’t think you know what this word means. It’s a financial term, not a moral one. Otherwise, it would seem that there are externalities to lite-rail projects that haven’t been adequately considered.

      1. “…I don’t think you know what this word means…”

        In jeff’s case, we can add this to a *very* long list.

    3. Increased gun ownership is correlated with increased gun accidents – just like increased pool ownership is correlated with increased swimming accidents and increased car ownership is correlated with increased car accidents. Though unlike cars and pools, the correlation is quite low because there are extensive safety programs marketed to legal gun owners.

      1. “Increased gun ownership is correlated with increased gun accidents”

        While that seems logical, it’s not true, at least as far as fatalities: in spite of a substantial increase in population, and increase in the number of firearms, and firearm owners, the numbers are decreasing, and have been for years:

        Firearm fatalities by year (CDC)
        1999 — 824
        2004 — 649
        2012 — 548
        2019 — 486

        1. “accidental fatalities”

    4. legal firearms ownership correlates to a safer community. anything negative is associated with criminality. as a legal owner of many firearms my family is safer and so is my surrounding community.

  26. Poll taxes didn’t fly, nor will this.

  27. quit using the left’s term “gun violence”. there is no such thing. inanimate objects don’t commit violence. criminals murder people and happen to use guns. we don’t have a “gun violence” problem, but rather a criminal problems. my firearms have never jumped up and killed anyone.

    1. Um… BOTH the fascist and international socialist halves of The Kleptocracy strive for fluency in Newspeak.

  28. Ok, we’re going down the rabbit hole of responsibility by group, not individual (this is California, they are commies after all). Alright, everybody who voted for a politician who enacted legislation that non essential businesses could not operate is personally responsible for an equal share to make all the business owners whole. Those who didn’t vote for them aren’t liable at all, no money is printed to cover the business owner’s losses and neither are taxes raised to raise the funds.
    It’s twisted logic, but less twisted than this backdoor gun control logic since you can clearly identify which gun owners did and didn’t inflict harm. God, I wish California would fall into the sea or get nuked by North Korea or something. I really do. Every horrible idea inflicted on the people of the US starts in California (remember the lockdowns?).

  29. Meaningless virtue signaling and wildly unconstitutional.

  30. Government overreach at its finest!

    Sorry Ron, I guess that the fancy private, all boys, catholic prep school FAILED to teach you much about the US Constitution and the rights of citizens.

  31. The earthquake can’t come soon enough.

  32. Totally unrealistic in practice without a gun registry, but not out of line with other insurance mandates. Every driver in California has to carry auto insurance. So the majority of us safe drivers must bear the cost of the dangerous drivers out there. But that’s how insurance works. And please don’t tell me that we’re all safer having these guns around to “protect” us. Having visited Canada, Europe, Australia, and Cuba, all of which have far fewer guns in private hands than we do, I’m impressed by how much safer their streets are. Just saying.

    1. Gieringer
      July.1.2021 at 4:28 pm
      “… Every driver in California has to carry auto insurance…”

      You don’t need insurance (or a licence) to drive around on your own property (in Calif or any other state), or on a trailer, or uncle Ernie’s farm… You don’t need insurance on an unregistered car parked on your property…

  33. It would have been nice to have some statistics to go along with the total cost of gun violence: how much is from illegal guns versus those who have guns legally? And how exactly are the cost of suicides, for example, actually paid for right now without insurance? Does the decedents estate get billed for clean-up fees by the county currently? Without having data my priors would be that most of the costs come from illegal guns, in contrast to vehicle insurance (there is an uninsured motorist surcharge, but it is possible to sue the uninsured motorist or add fines for the damage they cause to their criminal penalties). If the state merely charged those who buy black-market weapons, and the dealers that sold to the first person in the chain who wasn’t legally allowed to have a gun this cost, then the remaining cost would be what remains for insurance to cover. It is possible or perhaps even likely that a gun liability policy would, for the right calculation of costs (those actually caused by legal owners) be substantially lower than vehicle or homeowners.

  34. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
    Plain simple words everyone can understand. What they propose is infringement.

    1. They got infringement when Nixon (R-CA) signed the ABM treaty to encourage Soviet Socialism to exterminate These States.

  35. Thanks to the tax subsidies for looter campaigns Nixon got “both” parties in Congress to pass in 1971, politicians passing Kristallnacht and Soviet gun laws have nothing to fear… except Libertarian Party spoiler votes and the occasional retaliating citizen.

  36. Will the felons and criminals who commit most of this violence pay to??? The City council are a bunch of fucking retards and as usual barking up the wrong tree.

  37. Here we go again with the Poll Tax.

  38. What part of “shall not be infringed” do these morons not understand. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, not a privilege. We are not (yet) required to have a license, training and/or insurance to exercise our freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, redress of grievances, or the press. Will we be required to get insurance to make sure the state does not subject us to illegal search and seizure? How about voting? They used to call that a ‘poll tax.’ Charging law abiding citizens for the damage inflicted by criminals is unacceptable, unfair, and unconstitutional. Should people who obey the speed limit pay the fines of speeders? This will not pass constitutional muster.

  39. As so many have said..gun laws are like arresting sober people for drunk driving.

    There is no way this survives legally. The mayor is one of those Italian Americans (the minority that has lives up to meat head …New Jersey IROC types…have a few in my family..rational thought is beyond their ability. Traitor to his tribe

  40. If they are really concerned about costs they should also pay gun owners for the money they save the city by reducing crime. Every crime prevented saves policing costs and reduces victim losses. About 1 person in a 1000 uses a gun to prevent a crime annually. In addition, wide gun ownership deters crime because criminals don’t want to confront an armed victim. The cost researchers must examine the whole picture objectively. If they do then owning a gun could become profitable in San Jose.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.