........................................................................
anon user #3The California city of San Jose is set to become the first in the United States to enforce an ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance.
In a statement on Tuesday night, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said the city's council had voted in favor of both measures, which are aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm and relieving taxpayers of the financial cost of gun violence.
The council overwhelmingly approved the measures despite opposition from gun owners who said it would violate their Second Amendment rights and promised to sue. The ordinance still needs approval at a final reading next month before it can take effect in the Silicon Valley city in August.
The funds generated from fees paid by gun owners will be funneled into "evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm," Liccardo said. The fee is expected to be around $25, according to NBC News San Diego.
Meanwhile, having liability insurance is meant to encourage gun owners in San Jose to take safety measures, including having gun safes, installing trigger locks and taking gun safety classes.
Gun owners who do not acquire insurance, however, will not lose their guns or face criminal charges under the new rules.
"Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation in our community," Liccardo said.
The new measures, he said, will help build a "constitutionally compliant path to mitigate the unnecessary suffering from gun harm in our community."
The San Jose mayor said he also hoped to support other cities "replicate these initiatives across the nation."
Liccardo had initially proposed the measures back in June, nearly two weeks after a gunman fatally shot nine coworkers at a San Jose light rail yard before killing himself in an incident that made national headlines.
As the San Jose mayor celebrated Tuesday's vote, not all were happy with the outcome.
Prior to the vote, Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said his group would sue if the proposal came into effect. He condemned it as “totally unconstitutional in any configuration," according to NBC San Diego.
Liccardo said attorneys had already volunteered to defend the city pro bono if legal action is taken in response to the new rules.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ca … -rcna13579
I love it! The fee is $25 and everyone should have some sort of liability insurance anyway so what is there to complain about?
........................................................................
Ron_Santo_Redux...this country needs retard insurance
........................................................................
Tom Leykisanon user #3 wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/californias-san-jose-institute-first-nation-gun-ownership-requirements-rcna13579
I love it! The fee is $25 and everyone should have some sort of liability insurance anyway so what is there to complain about?
OMG!!! This is doomed to failure. The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT, and you cannot charge a fee for that.
But, let's extend that to your voting right. Not only do you have to pre register and show ID, you also have to pay $25 at the polls. You OK with that, Buckwheat?
........................................................................
anon user #3Tom Leykis wrote:
OMG!!! This is doomed to failure. The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT, and you cannot charge a fee for that.
But, let's extend that to your voting right. Not only do you have to pre register and show ID, you also have to pay $25 at the polls. You OK with that, Buckwheat?
If they can require auto insurance or charge a fee to drive why not the same for guns?
They effectively already do require you to pre-register and pay $25 to vote here. A state ID is $25 and a driver's license is $50 in Florida and you basically need one of those to vote here.
........................................................................
anon user #3Lets be clear I am gun owner and a daily carrier. I'm in favor of these measures.
........................................................................
Ron_Santo_Reduxanon user #3 wrote:
Lets be clear I am gun owner and a daily carrier. I'm in favor of these measures.
no one gives a fuq
........................................................................
anon user #3I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory anger management courses for CCW permit holders or even gun owners in general. It's a great idea actually! We get so focused on the 1776 crap that we forget about common sense.
........................................................................
Suck it Liberals!anon user #3 wrote:
Lets be clear I am gun owner and a daily carrier. I'm in favor of these measures.
DAILY CARRIER OF AIDS!!!
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavityTom Leykis wrote:
OMG!!! This is doomed to failure. The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT, and you cannot charge a fee for that.
Well, there is definitely going to be a court battle over this.
But some rights are charged for -- a great example is the right to a trial. There is a trial tax -- someone who pleads guilty gets a lower sentence than someone who is convicted through a trial.
We also have road tolls, and airport landing fees, which are fees on your right to travel.
And make no mistake -- a firearm is a luxury item. Nobody forces someone to have one.
........................................................................
What kind of coverage does the insurance provide?
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavity wrote:
Well, there is definitely going to be a court battle over this.
But some rights are charged for -- a great example is the right to a trial. There is a trial tax -- someone who pleads guilty gets a lower sentence than someone who is convicted through a trial.
We also have road tolls, and airport landing fees, which are fees on your right to travel.
And make no mistake -- a firearm is a luxury item. Nobody forces someone to have one.
Wow where do you come up with your nonsense? A 'trial tax'?
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavitywrote:
Wow where do you come up with your nonsense? A 'trial tax'?
........................................................................
Unconstitutional
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavity wrote:
We also have road tolls, and airport landing fees, which are fees on your right to travel.
And make no mistake -- a firearm is a luxury item. Nobody forces someone to have one.
A right to travel and use roads and airports uninfringed is not guaranteed by the constitution.
And a firearm is not a luxury item, and it is specifically guaranteed in the constitution, but it does not force you to have one. But the government can force you to.
........................................................................
Suck it Liberals!anon user #3 wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/californias-san-jose-institute-first-nation-gun-ownership-requirements-rcna13579
I love it! The fee is $25 and everyone should have some sort of liability insurance anyway so what is there to complain about?
DO YOU HAVE INSURANCE???
SCOTUS WILL SHOOT THAT DOWN!!!
SORRY QUNT!!!
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavitywrote:
And a firearm is not a luxury item, and it is specifically guaranteed in the constitution, but it does not force you to have one. But the government can force you to.
Its a luxury, except in certain very remote areas (if you are in parts of Alaska, for instance).
People don't hunt for food anymore.
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavitywrote:
A right to travel and use roads and airports uninfringed is not guaranteed by the constitution.
Not the case, states are prohibited from interfering in interstate commerce, and although the federal government can regulate it, if it tried to inhibit the free movement it would not pass muster.
edit: some subtleties here, CA checks agricultural products brought in, and there are entry fees to some states collected as a toll (Mass Pike, for instance).
........................................................................
Suck it Liberals!Suck it Liberals! wrote:
DO YOU HAVE INSURANCE???
SCOTUS WILL SHOOT THAT DOWN!!!
SORRY QUNT!!!
........................................................................
When do the ghetto raids start happening to enforce this?
........................................................................
Previous | First | 1 | Last | Next