San Jose, CA to require gun liability insurance and annual fee.

[Wheeler]

I'm curious to see how this parses out in court.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/california-city-approves-1st-us-insurance-law-gun-82479307

[TheRoland]

The Ninth Circuit will find that this is fine under intermediate scrutiny.

[0ddl0t]

Definitely will not have a disparate impact on BIPOC

[Savage Hands]

FPC will be coming after them!

[Caballoflaco]

From the article:


However, gun owners who don't have insurance won't lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said.

So will they face fines? That part isn’t made clear in the article.

[schneiderguy]

This is the best article I've found so far (unfortunately I live in San Jose :rolleyes:)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/26/qa-what-you-need-to-know-about-san-joses-new-gun-law-and-its-legal-challenges/


How will it be enforced?

Failure to comply with the ordinance would be treated as a civil violation rather than a criminal offense. Those who opt not get insurance or pay the fee could have their firearms temporarily confiscated or receive a civil fine.

The San Jose Police Department will be tasked with enforcing the ordinance, but officers will not be going door-to-door to ensure that every gun owner in the city is in compliance.

[JohnO]

Have any owners of illegal or stolen guns come forward to pay the tax and set an example?

[RJ]

Why do I get the feeling this will spread like wildfire?

It seems like a no brainer: City governments that don't want to address skyrocketing violent crime (oh, I don't know, say by prosecuting criminals) can be seen to Do Something by taxing those evillll gun owners to pay for "violence prevention programs".

Want to own a gun legally? Pay up. Or else.

But Dudes in da hood? Nah man, they not gone do that.

[mtnbkr]

I wonder what will cost more, the civil fine or insurance.

Chris

[RoyGBiv]

I'll consider it only after CNN and NY times have to buy similar insurance for broadcasting their opinions.

[Stephanie B]

So will they face fines? That part isn’t made clear in the article.

Only if they legally own the guns. If the guns aren't legal, they can't be fined for not complying with the licensing ordinance.

I'm pretty sure that there is a Supreme Court opinion on point, but I'm too lazy to go look for it.

[JohnO]

Only if they legally own the guns. If the guns aren't legal, they can't be fined for not complying with the licensing ordinance.

I'm pretty sure that there is a Supreme Court opinion on point, but I'm too lazy to go look for it.

5th Amendment. <- That Constitutionally protected Right offers better protection to the lawbreakers than to the legal owners. :rolleyes:

[rdtompki]

How frequently do lawful gun owners commit and act for which civil liability is attached? Other than the obvious "we just want to make owning guns more expensive" this would seem to be directed at mass shootings where the owner failed to maintain custody. Does liability attach to a gun owner who has previously report theft/loss of a firearm? I'll see what the wider interweb has to offer. Fortunately, I no long live in CA and never lived in San Jose.

[Borderland]

Do you know the way to San Jose? Must a been a nice place in 68.

[Shoresy]

Only if they legally own the guns. If the guns aren't legal, they can't be fined for not complying with the licensing ordinance.

I'm pretty sure that there is a Supreme Court opinion on point, but I'm too lazy to go look for it.

Haynes v. US.

[Lex Luthier]

Do you know the way to San Jose? Must a been a nice place in 68.

It was more apricot and orange orchards than houses in 1968.

[luckyman]

Do you know the way to San Jose? Must a been a nice place in 68.

Even in ‘80 it was pretty darn good.

[Flamingo]

<S> Hey, I have an idea! Let's charge people to vote! It will keep the wrong kind of people from voting! <S>