San Jose to mandate gun liability insurance

[Lawnmower2021 153]

San Jose votes to be first U.S. city to mandate gun liability insurance:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/san-jose-votes-be-first-us-city-require-gun-liability-insurance-2022-01-26/

Quote

The measure would require city residents owning guns to obtain special liability insurance covering losses and damages stemming from negligent or accidental use of their weapons.

City gun owners also would have to pay a small annual fee earmarked for evidence-based "harm-reduction" programs aimed at reducing gun violence, suicide, domestic abuse and other firearm-related risks, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said in a statement.

So basically, a fine for being a gun owner. This particular article on it also has a picture of a railed AR for no apparent reason.

Quote

The bill's supporters cited a 2021 study by the nonprofit Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation finding that San Jose taxpayers subsidize private gun ownership by $151 annually per gun-owning household -or $40 million a year total - through costs of police and emergency response to firearm-related violence.

California's really getting creative, aren't they?

[1LtCAP 3,410]

wonder if that one's gonna get struck down...as it should.

[Old Glock guy 960]

The libs are all over the place on this one.  The USCCA had to cancel my membership, because our esteemed governor has decreed that liability insurance for gun owners is "Murder Insurance."  I don't have any links to this handy, but trust me, I'm not making this up. 

[voyager9 3,151]

50 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

The libs are all over the place on this one.

No they’re not.  It’s all planned out.   Step1 demonize and prohibit companies that provide firearm insurance.  Step2: require firearm owners to get the insurance companies cannot legally provide.  So step 1 and 2 in different regions to avoid a court challenge until it all comes together.  

[Lawnmower2021 153]

27 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

No they’re not.  It’s all planned out.   Step1 demonize and prohibit companies that provide firearm insurance.  Step2: require firearm owners to get the insurance companies cannot legally provide.  So step 1 and 2 in different regions to avoid a court challenge until it all comes together.  

Exactly. If this does happen...

• No company would pay out claims based on negligent discharge: it's your own fault
• Potential to deny gun owners home or car ownership, due to lack of coverage or rising premiums
• Credit and risk assessment impact on your ability to buy a house or rent
• Precedent to spill into other forms of insurance, like healthcare

Disgusting all around. If they can't get rid of guns, they're going to make life as annoying as possible to force people to give up.

[CMJeepster 1,848]

Hopefully the street thugs who obtain their guns illegally will be forced into this wacko program as well.

[Sniper 6,369]

2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

No they’re not.  It’s all planned out.   Step1 demonize and prohibit companies that provide firearm insurance.  Step2: require firearm owners to get the insurance companies cannot legally provide.  So step 1 and 2 in different regions to avoid a court challenge until it all comes together.  

There's a word for that: Incrementalism

That's SOP for the Liberals (if they can pull it off)

[Tom609 23]

Once you apply for this it would most likely be entered into a database and shared with all other insurers.  Would the fact that you own guns be used to rate other policies?  Probably.  Big dog?  Higher homeowners. 

[raz-0 1,099]

13 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

wonder if that one's gonna get struck down...as it should.

It's got to survive the fact CA has state preemption AND then pass constitutional challenges. Even the 9th would have a very hard time upholding the fee, but they are 97% scumbag by volume, so.... Likely it'll just be killed by state preemption.