Another 1st: Liability Insurance Required To Own A Gun
shailynn
They never tell you what you need to know.
In This City, a US First on Gun Ownership
http://newser.com/s316140
A $25 annual fee and liability insurance now required if you want to own a gun in this town. Which town? Well, let’s just say there’s a guy on here that hogs the internet at his local library and is starting an “organization”
http://newser.com/s316140
A $25 annual fee and liability insurance now required if you want to own a gun in this town. Which town? Well, let’s just say there’s a guy on here that hogs the internet at his local library and is starting an “organization”
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
194 comments
This sounds like an attention grabbing scheme.
Apparently it's not unconstitutional if the government isn't enforcing it?
Gavin Newsom proposed some right to sue your neighbors over "ghost guns" without serial numbers, but those are rare.
Shall not be infringed means what it says.
Sorry I think the requirement that you establish that you can carry out your responsibilities, and liability insurance would be the best way make this a reality and isn’t unreasonable nor infringement of your rights
The great Moses wouldn’t allow this on his NRA watch!
In all honesty, this seems reasonable. It’s not restricting gun ownership. It’s simply making gun owners bear the burden of insurance for the firearms they own. I don’t think the tax payers should bear the burden of this liability.
"actually it’s a way of protecting your rights,"
And would it cover the scenarios you described and prevent legal liability? Shit, I'd pay $150 a year, even if I'm already covered under my company's legal insurance and the US Concealed Carry Association.
It would have to be _insurance_ rather than a backdoor fine or tax. That means that $150 a year will only be borne by responsible law-abiding citizens, i.e. not the people who are doing damage with guns.
As such, it looks like a liberal politician wants attention.
Responsible behavior means just that it has no ideology other than be responsible
Super, so you can own a gun if you kick Bloomberg (ironic number!) $25 every year?
The people who cause damage with their guns are not the responsible ones.
Responsible drivers pay lower premiums, and aren't forced to kick money to anti-driving associations.
How can one justify a $25 annual fee to a "a nonprofit that will use the funds to help victims of gun violence and prevent other gun crimes," as the price to exercise a constitutional right?
If you want to indemnify me against any non-criminal misuse of my gun, sure. And show me the analysis that I'm not paying more than that (which would make it a backdoor fine).
I find the new breed conservatism to be bullshit and hypocrisy
BTW I favor girls having the right to defend themselves against pimps. Hope you do too.
Insurance for gun owners is a great idea
You can't keep guns away from hardened criminals like this, but you can keep law abiding people within the law.
SJG
Chaka Khan - Melody Still Lingers On (Live, 1981)
84,349 viewsSep 19, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyzrlndL…
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/dang…
I'm sure that made sense in your head.
Shall not be infringed.
How do you explain the fact that San Jose wants to REQUIRE insurance while NJ has BANNED it, punishable by a fine of $1,000,000 if an insurance company attempts to sell it? Just shows how fucked up everything is on the left.
It's pathetic watching dumb tricks pretend to get worked up over legislation in other states just so they have a soap box for their bigoted vitriol
Anything to the right of AOC to him is "Q" or "Nazi." He's established factual knowledge and moral turpitude repeatedly.
Lulz.
P.S. You know I'm no fan of Icee's
But you don't really care about this law. This thread is just another soap box for your twisted politics. Trolladon = Dave Andersons twin
Like others mentioned, this policy might not even be popular among the left. It has to be insurance, not a backdoor tax which has been struck down.
The question is whether or not liability insurance is an onerous burden on gun ownership as compared to the risk of harm to the public, and thus triggering 2nd Amendment protections or not. States require car insurance which is a precedent for requiring insurance on property that might harm (or kill) persons or property. And I know that the ardent 2nd Amendment guys like to yell "Shall not be infringed!" in response, but the reality is that the courts have carved out exceptions to Constitutional rights in several instances. So, it could happen here as well.
But I don't think it will ... this time. The NRA is a hot mess and far less effective than they used to be (and it's all their own fault).
Also, I own several guns, so this is relevant to me.
The fee that kicks money to an "anti gun violence" organization (which sounds like one that supports gun control) sounds punitive. And in my experience the left wants to punish gun ownership, not make it safe. I don't like that's proposition's odds.
This isn't an exception like shouting fire in a movie theater, or criminal background checks. There's no argument that this is going to prevent imminent harm or unlawful use.
I would easily pay $125 a year to indemnify myself from anything not explicitly criminal that might happen with my guns, though I store them in full accordance with Massachusetts law.
That's not wholly true. I know people and spend a fair amount of time in Vermont, which is sort of the poster child for blue states. Except that gun ownership in Vermont is off the charts (especially in comparison to the population density). That's why Bernie Sanders got pilloried by the Democratic Party when he was running against H. Clinton. His voting record is very gun friendly.
And there are similar cadres of "gun-friendly but left leaning" populations popping up in places like Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, where the politics are starting to skew purple, but a lot of people still love their guns.
All that being said, I don't believe that this San Jose law will stick.
Those states you mention are blue to purple, but all somewhat rural. A gun is a tool to them, not a penis extension or an object of fear.
This is influenced be a few things. That spree shooting at the Light Rail Office. That many cannot own guns because of a felony conviction, a Domestic Violence Conviction, or a psychiatric incident.
Mayor Liccardo has said before that he wants to find ways to restrict guns.
If courts let this stand, then there will be less guns.
We run about 35 homicides per year, low for our city size. Almost all are solved. But we have lots more shootings.
Most of these are cases where the registered gun owner might not be squeezing the trigger, but they many have some culpability. I suspect that this is part of the motivation, making lawful gun owners keep their guns out of the wrong hands.
And the public is paying the costs. This is true.
SJG
Clapton, Beware of Darkness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRoo0-hw…
And see above, if this sort of liability was described as "murder insurance," it might not be popular with either side.
There are ways to go after permitted gun owners who purchase for others, but that would involve prosecuting straw purchasers. And that's directly at loggerheads with the left's stated goal of "decarceration." Insurance would indemnify people whose guns are stolen.
The cost of the insurance remains unknown. And they may impose rules, like trigger locks, or even safes. They may have a reporting rule if the whereabouts of the weapon should ever become unknown, and they may require safety and legal training.
I don't know.
We had a Gilroy Chief of Police who brought his off duty gun when he was to attend his daughter's college graduation. He was told that he could not take the weapon in, so he locked it in the car.
It got stolen.
Some have said that police agencies need to provide car gun safes.
And some police agencies impose a fine in such situations. Guns locked in cars have proven to be a big safety problem. I think it is this type of stuff, the lawfully registered gun which is not being kept safely, which is motivating Liccardo. It is this and the public costs.
Need to wait until more info comes out about this move of the SJ Council.
And so of course we want this thread open as this will likely playout over many years.
SJG
But Skibum609, how far would you go, machine guns, dynamite, artillery?
SJG
That's ridiculous and there are many insurance companies writing all types of insurance policies for firearms including liability, if you can post you can go on Google and find this out for yourself, but you prefer to make up shit out of your ass
SJG
SJG
knuckle head.
I'm not going to waste my energy arguing with the likes of you any more it makes me feel stupid to think, that you believe anyone with a brain even cares what you think.
And how do you feel about the new law? Do you think people should be required to have such insurance to own a gun?
Does the insurance require any training or impose any rules?
SJG
My insurance requires my CCP be kept up to date, and that I abide by all laws and keep my firearms in an approved secure container when they are not on my person.
Does that answer your question ?
It said the cost of guns to the community is $125 per year. Add in some administrative costs, and it couldn't come out to much more than that per year.
I don't know CA laws but I imagine they're close to on par with MA which requires guns to be secured, reporting if a gun is lost or stolen, and safety and legal training to get a license. So that's already covered.
This insurance would need to provide something else. I have legal insurance through work, carry insurance through the US Concealed Carry Association, and have taken advanced classes in firearms law.
You know that it is often police who have not followed that secure container rule. Police off duty guns get stollen out of parked cars, and some have turned up in violent crimes.
Yes 25, your information is very informative.
Do you think the courts should let this stand and that other place should follow the example?
SJG
That sounds like a mandatory donation to Everytown or some other gun-ban (masquerading as "gun safety" organization).
I am sure that in principle Liccardo and the SJ Council would like to ban guns. San Francisco's administration has long promoted that.
SJG
If they wanted to reduce gun crime, they could enforce the laws on the books.
I'm all for federalism on the matter. Laws that make sense in one place might not make sense in another.
It's a different paradigm than insurance.
I am more educated on this topic than you. So is 25, and Skibum is an actual lawyer. I don't know SJG's creds, but he is holding a civil conversation.
Shut the fuck up when the adults are talking.
Or you can fuck off.
Of course, being incapable of independent thought, you have to reflexively take the leftist opinion and can't analyze an issue beyond that.
Still waiting for a single fact from you, rather than an assertion of your shallow worldview.
Nor has my kid's school ever gone into lock down cause another kid was caught with an abortion in the building. I suppose you think he's some kinda good guy?
Abortions don't hit innocent bystanders. EVER.
HAHAHA. I'm pro choice (because an abortion ban is virtually unforceable) but had a good laugh over that one. Thank you.
If you want to repeal the second amendment, come right out and say it. Until then, "shall not be infringed."
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
There's really nothing in the constitution that makes one amendment any more important than any other... So there's no reason other than political will preventing another amendment from doing what the 21st amendment did to the 18th but to the 2nd. So stop hiding behind this as if it is some greater power scribed to stone by some almighty fantasy passed on through 2000 years of history.
And for most of that political willpower, it's just a wedge issue used to divide people.
I agree with LecherousMonk
This NRA fantasy of the lone gun carrier is the basis of Republican Party populism.
SJG
Frampton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCWaWFm…
Have you ever heard of this little-known thing called the Bill of Rights? How about this... Go fuck yourself.
SJG
Year of the Tiger 2022
https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/….
Starts Tues Feb 1st
https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelgu…
CharmyNY
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=8227
Don't like it, overturn it. Wouldn't hold my breath.
The idea that the 2nd Amendment should allow arbitrary unrestricted gun ownership has long been over turned. There are all kinds of restrictions in place, and these have been for a long time.
Attitudes started to turn against guns after the murders of Jack, Bobby, and Martin.
For people who want to use guns in a revolutionary way, like the abolitionist John Brown, it makes no difference whether on not they are legal. They know they are sacrificing their lives.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/…
Sweden runs about 7 murders per year. But at that Dallas Parkland Hospital they are dealing with gun shot wounds in high volume every weekend. And they get more than 7 homicides committed by children under the age of 12 every month.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/04…
Remember when Bill Clinton came into office, the FDA considered regulating guns as a public health problem. I think it is out of this that Sam Liccardo's thinking comes. Early in his mayorship we had a San Jose PD officer gunned down. And then there was that Light Rail Office spree shooting. And a few years back we had a rampage shooter at a cement factory in Cupertino. The whole town spend a night in lock down until the killer was finally apprehended.
SJG
The well regulated militia today is our National Guard.
Gun fervor got going because of the fear of slave revolts like Nat Turner's.
SJG
Therefore when the 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", it's saying that an armed population ready to organize and fight is necessary for the security of the country.
It then goes on to say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Here, bear means to carry around and keep is obvious.
So, what the 2nd amendment actually says in modern tongue is something closer to, "The population being armed and in working order is necessary for the security of the country. The right of people to have and carry around guns shall not be restricted."
That is what it says and every law beneath it which exists in contradiction is not valid except that it is enforced by those in power. This is something people need to understand. It's the people not the armed services or national guard.
@ime has actually done some research on the matter, on what a "well-regulated militia" refers to.
Who here is honest enough to say they want to overturn the 2nd amendment? At least be honest about that.
To change the Constitution you need 75% of the states to ratify the change. Right now the Republicans dominate control at the state level controlling 60% of state senates and houses. Republicans usually support the 2A so any change would require a massive shift in attitude.
According to pewresearch only 53% favor stricter gun control laws.
I think the left is open and honest about their dislike of the constitution. They don't like the Senate, the electoral college, 2A, and now even the 1A is under their fire.
Everything they say has an expiration date. From "no one's trying to take your guns" to "hell yes we're going to take your AR-15s."
Or treating "gun violence" as a public health issue when the very name declares their conclusion.
Every win emboldens them to go for more. It would be honest for them to say "we want to repeal the second amendment and confiscate your guns at gunpoint."
They won't because that gives away the game.
Stop with the q anon bs and educate yourself
I never said _every_ regulation was unconstitutional. Stop tilting at strawmen.
And educate yourself on what "q anon" means.
You're just trying to force your misinformed dogmatism on here just like dixienormus et al. But at least he doesn't keep contradicting himself in every post. Unlike you.
Leave the stripper hoes alone for a bit and get your GED. You might embarrass yourself a _little_ less when speaking to more educated and intelligent people.
Now hurry and call me stupid so you feel smart and have the last word trolladon
And guns getting stolen, like out of parked cars, has been a serious problem. There might be some training requirement, as the insurance will be a requirement.
A lot of people walk around with guns, with a completely distorted view of the relevant laws.
SJG
Weather Report - Weather Report (1971) [FULL ALBUM]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF0CYhVu…
Rampage shootings are so common, and most all uses of guns are for bad.
SJG
Monalisa Twins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCprklY9…
if looks could kill
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=6926
I mean, if you think about it, they're not the kind of guys who regularly go to a range for practice. I'll bet the ONLY time most of these idiots ever pulled a trigger is when they were trying to shoot someone.
The idea of incrementally restricting _any_ amendment from the Bill of Rights scares the shit out of me. Because once "it's in the Constitution" becomes a suggestion rather than a law, it becomes precedent to neuter any other part of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, and the Press create discord in society. Rallies turn into riots. Disinformation gets promulgated. Religions promote a loyalty that supercedes the state. All those come with social and financial costs. Do we want to charge a tax to assemble, equal to the cost of the BLM and January 6th riots? That gets scary.
I don't buy the idea that going door to door confiscating guns is possible, let alone salutary. In a 2013 police survey, the great majority of police and sheriffs surveyed said that cause of gun violence is one of values, not one of the availability of guns, and that they would refuse confiscation orders. To say nothing of half a billion in civilian hands, the owners of which won't part with them easily. Ergo, that ship has sailed.
Personally, I own several arms for the purpose of recreational shooting, self and home defense. I went through the state permit process and didn't see it as onerous or restrictive. I store them in accordance with Massachusetts law, though I keep them ready just in case. I know guns are used in crimes, but mine are not. The right to self-defense pre-dates the Constitution, going back to the Magna Carta and English Common Law from which our legal system descends (and is still used as precedent). I will not forfeit that right.
Police have been found not-liable for failing to respond to home invasions and gruesome rapes, and during the BLM riots were even called away from a woman whose car was surrounded by rioters. They also average 20 minutes to respond to a distress call. Hiding in a closet and praying is not a viable strategy.
Good book about this:
https://www.amazon.com/God-vs-Gavel-Reli…
A well regulated militia means our state National Guards, and these cannot be released to a governor except by the President.
Other approaches to maintaining public safety
http://guardianangels.org/
SJG
Monalisa Twins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCprklY9…
Freedom of Speech means you're going to hear things you don't like. It has societal costs. Should those require "insurance" as well? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword (or gun)...
And SCOTUS as approved many gun ownership restrictions.
What Liccardo has done may or may not stand. But I am sure he has checked it out and has tried to write it so that it will stand.
Freedom of Speech does not give you any right to say anything you want anywhere. When the religious groups try to take over tax payer funded space they are usually saying that their religion puts them above the law, so they are protesting against the First Amendment.
Many times necessary to educate LE and officials. I have always suggested that if they think the religious groups are above the law that they let them use the Mayor's Office and the City Council Chamber.
We have SWAT officers with body armor and assault rifles, but they are still scared of bible brandishers.
I cannot speak to the specific BLM protest incident you have mentioned. But BLM was for he most part been entirely peaceful and non-violent protest. Here in San Jose what violence was perpetrated was perpetrated by police. Some of their officers came pretty close to a riot. Though Liccardo was no help here, the Chief did have to resign over it, and the Governor did denounce it.
SJG
Please Mr. Postman / Wipe Out - MonaLisa Twins (The Marvelettes Cover) // Live at the Cavern Club
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZZsg1JJ…
SCOTUS has set examples of laws it considered lawful, including prohibiting firearm possession by dangerous people, possession in schools and government buildings, conditions of sale, restrictions on automatic weapons and "destructive devices," storage, etc. This is right from Giffords.org.
It has also affirmed that 2A applies to state and local governments, and overturned complete handgun bans in DC and Chicago. It has affirmed that the right is one of individuals to use for lawful purposes including home defense.
Lots of laws get overturned, so that fact that Liccardo has written it in a certain way, means nothing to me.
Not sure where your obsession with religion came from, but if he's not hurting anyone, the crazy preacher on the corner handing out Chick pamphlets has a right to be there. And BLM protests caused north of $2 billion dollars in damage. To those that say 93% of the protests were peaceful, I say 99.9% of the days of their lives, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer weren't killing people and raping their corpses, yet they were still punished.
We will see if Liccardo's law stands. We require liability insurance to own and drive a car. $35,000 minimum coverage last time I checked. This is probably how Liccardo is thinking.
Many other cities and states have some gun restrictions.
Organized groups try to take over tax payer funded space, claiming in effect that their religion places them above the law.
https://ffrf.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjImD…
I think BLM is one of the best things which has developed in recent years and I completely stand with it. The effect they had on the governance and policing of San Jose has been salvific. And I love that Hands Up Don't Shoot salute.
SJG
Drive My Car
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCprklY9…
The car insurance paradigm is difficult to apply to the black-letter law of the Constitution. Driving a car might be more necessary in modern society, but it is not explicitly protected. And like I said elsewhere, to be ruled as insurance, it will need to provide insurance against something. And the left will be more up in arms than the right if it covers accidental discharge damage, negligence, theft, etc.
BLM is the newest cast of characters in the racial blackmail racket, just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They're effectively ambulance chasers who see profit opportunity in racial strife. Booker T Washington called them out over 100 years ago.
"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Hands Up Don't Shoot turned out to be a lie. The net effect of BLM has been to increase awareness of a tiny problem (police killing unarmed black civilians) and exacerbate a greater problem (urban homicide and chaos). BLM riots have disproportionately destroyed black-owned businesses and cities.
Go get your hoes addicted to something else.
The United States of America is not a historical nation, not an ethnicity. It is a political project.
The Civil Law countries are more progressive in a number of arenas.
Richard Rorty says that our criminal justice system is designed to destroy the identities of Afro-Americans. It shatters the stories of who they are that they tell to themselves. And everyone needs such identity stories.
https://www.amazon.com/Contingency-Irony…
This is why something like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was very important, just as Black Lives Matter is today. They give people a way to fight and gain back a new identity.
PANTHER ( 1995 ) Full Length Movie (really good!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PmnZ9h…
All Power to the People (also really good)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKvE6_s0…
SJG
Ayla
https://tuscl.net/member-photos.php?id=7…
Weather Report - Live at Montreux (1976) [Remastered]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvfXA2S…
M Davis Bitches Brew 1970Full Album] HD 1080p (1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50fB5L1v…
Bob Dylan - Like A Rolling Stone (Live at Newport 1965)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Kv0vF4…
Mick Jagger about Bob Dylan's voice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqHG1YYV…
All Along the Watchtower (1994)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd3iytj9…
Frampton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCWaWFm…
Steely Dan: "Live" St. Louis, MO, Sept. 4th, 2006, Full Concert, (HD)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXCCzoc3…
Steely Dan - Katy Lied (1975, Studio Album) 09 Any World (That I'm Welcome To)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7XQGB-k…
"Built to destroy the identity of African Americans" is an inflammatory opinion, not a fact. Therefore it doesn't mean anything to me.
And BLM is, like a lot of "civil rights organizations," a money making scheme for the higher ups. Lots of gangs and shakedown artists, around the world, started as "civil rights organizations" then degenerated. Their finances are not transparent. Even families of victims of police shootings say they don't care. Like urban Democratic machines and a lot of race hustlers, they make good money off the misery of black people.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/…
I know that nicespice had to ignore at least one of her own threads because it included the subject of 'neurodivergence' and some dick muppet sitting in the San Jose Public Library decided to hijack her thread rather than create his own on the same topic.
The usual conversation-derailing shitheads are dormant.
Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors on Abolition & Imagining a Society Based on Care
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/31/p…
SJG
Patrisse Cullors' is one of those grifters I mentioned above. The definition of "abolition" seems to be a bunch of airy aspirational statements that don't deal in reality. Created a new model in Los Angeles county? Does she mean the homeless camps full of plague and typhus? If that's her dream, it's a nightmare to everyone else. Like most leftist propositions, it would be great if we were angels. But betting on that is for fools.
But we've seen what happens without police or public order. It looks more like Lord of the Flies than Utopia. Look at CHAZ in Seattle, full of armed bands, sexual assault, and even murders. The silly thing is, those "abolitionists" tend to want gun control as well. Take away public order and self-defense, and we're all at the mercy of said armed bands.
Give me cops and prisons any day.
BLM and some related abolitionist movements want to roll back the criminal justice system, de-emphasize it. They say they want to abolish it, but that will not happen anytime soon.
There are homeless encampments in or around all of our large cities. Capitalism is an economic system which shuts many people out. It was like this by the year 1600. Now because of automation and the information economy it is more true. All the Work Ethic Squirrel cage does is make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It costs our society far more to maintain paying jobs than it would for UBI, Medicare for All, Public Housing, and Free College.
We can fix this with Universal Basic Income, Medicare for ALL, and a strong Public Housing Offering.
The UK has one of the most extensive single payer health care for all systems.
SJG
BLM owns their outcomes, not their intentions.
It is still responding to this, and I guess also to our over dependence on the criminal justice system.
And we need Medicare for all right now.
SJG
This doesn't exist. The number of unarmed black people killed by police is in the teens (and many of them still posed a threat). As far as what's killing young black males, it's waaaaaay down the list.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Inca…
And suspicious police killing of blacks and others is extreme
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada…
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi…
Lets look at the San Jose Insurance Ordinance
Here Mayor Liccardo states his view:
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/27/107604980…
https://ktla.com/news/california/san-jos…
Insurance requirement passed 10-1, $25 fee requirement passed 8-3
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jo…
SJG
SJG
The left systematically overestimates the number of black men killed by police. That is a fact.
https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/…
And we'll see that gun law in court.
Such a simple and straightforward statement. What it means is that ordinary people may be called upon to quickly organize into "a well regulated militia" if/when it becomes necessary to defend our freedom from tyranny by our own government.
Unfortunately, as technology progressed from black powder muskets to nuclear weapons that can fry entire cities, the right of "the people" has been eroded and infringed with every new advancement that became off-limits to the average citizen.
Am I saying that people should have the right to keep nukes and stinger missiles in their garage? No, of course not, but I'd rather have AR-15s than rakes and pitch forks. In my view ANY concession to the anti-gunners, no matter how seemingly small, is about a million times bigger when you consider how far behind the power curve we already are.
SJG
So a well regulated militia, not a bunch of vigilantes or hot heads with guns.
We might never get that restrictive, but what the 2nd Amendment gives is not that much.
Fauci
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=10023
SJG
Joni Mitchell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iixd7ifl…
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/02/01/8…
The law is very easy to enforce, just as it is easy to enforce gun registrations and the requirements for sale.
SJG
This is, like most gun regulations, a shot fired in the culture war--a way to burnish progressive credentials by finding an innovative way to burden lawful gun owners.
These below make sense:
"If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.
The city could focus its energy on enforcing existing gun laws—perhaps, for example, by disarming its share of the 23,000 Californians who state authorities know possess guns despite being prohibited persons.
It could make these unlawful gun owners and others who commit gun crimes pay by imposing fees and restitution to the state as part of criminal sentencing.
The city also could increase the size of its police force to deal with chronic understaffing and workload problems that inhibit officers’ ability to enforce the law."
Now if you talked to some people, they would say that it is a constitutional right to own a gun, so you can't do anything about it.
But others look and say no, there has to be something to do about it.
So in Clinton's Presidency there was talk about regulating guns as a public health problem.
I am sure that this is how SJ Mayor Liccardo looks at it, just a numbers game.
And he is a Harvard Law School Grad and former Federal Prosecutor. So I am sure that he got good consultation in drafting the ordinance.
A police officer gunned down, a spree shooter at the Light Rail Office.
And then the insurance, that is a financial barrier, but I don't think that is the real reason, or the idea that the public gets reimbursed.
I think it is the Approved Security Container that 25 has written about. Stolen guns are big problem, even sotlen police guns.
And 25 has voluntary insurance. The involuntary insurance might have a legal training requirement.
Lots of people carrying guns around that are completely misinformed about what constitutes lawful use.
SJG
As a percentage, even more people ranting on a strip club website are completely misinformed.
Read some case law.
I hear stories of thing people say they are going to do with guns, thinking it is lawful and prudent content, even though it often is not at all.
SJG
OMS Martinism 4 of 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaZ1Uqvd…
I didn't say "listen to Tetradon," I said "read some case law."
Liccardo is very pro-police.
SJG
SJG
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-stat…
Now we need to move to:
1. Universal Basic Income
2. Strong Public Housing Offering
3. Universal Health Care
4. Free College and College Loan Forgiveness
The Work Ethic Squirrel cage has been stopped!
SJG
If you want your org to be one-tenth of what you say it is, you better be putting 120 hour weeks towards it.
SJG
My home
My cars
My boat
Part of my dues to my local carving club goes to liability insurance, which is good only at three locations
So, why should anybody be pissed that somebody wants them to carry insurance on their guns?
Except spending the equivalent of a full time job on TUSCL. And having talked about it for 8 years with nothing to show.
I think this is how Liccardo is looking at gun regulations. It is just a numbers game, not a civil liberties issue. How do you craft rules which will stand constitutional scrutiny, and which will bring the casualty rate down. Other industrialized countries do not have anything like this kind of a gun violence problem. We don't get any benefit from this either. And it still seems to be racism which drives the gun lobby.
Other than the US, you only have a high gun violence rate in pre-industrialized countries, and these have a higher homicide rate across the board anyway.
“45K People Died from Gun
Violence on Your Watch”: Parkland Survivors Demand More Action from Biden
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/2/16/m…
A Brief History of the United States of America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYFRzf2…
SJG
70s Electric Miles Davis Mix (Jazz, Jazz Funk, Jazz Rock, Fusion..)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBTQzsxf…
Lol. Other than 40 hours a week fantasizing on an obscure strip club website. If my affairs sucked like that, I'd want them private too.
"Gun deaths" is a misleading term that conflates homicide, accident, and suicide and their very different causes. In fact, using that term is a good sign of a dissimulator.
How exactly does racism drive the gun lobby? If anything, gun control came about to stop black people from owning guns.
It is very mucha civil liberties issue. Read the Constitution.
Racism drives the gun lobby because that is what motivates the gun owners.
SCOTUS has let more severe gun restrictions stand. Just like you cannot yell 'fire' is a crowded theater, you cannot automatically have any kind of a gun anywhere.
Local public colleges have ordinances which do not allow guns on their campuses.
Try bringing a gun to an airport and TV news will show the helicopters and armored vehicles which are sent out.
I believe NYC is much more restrictive than San Jose.
The San Jose ordinance only applies to muni San Jose. So it is looser than these other restrictions.
A future City Council could repeal it. But the vote was 10-1, and I think SCOTUS will let it stand because of stare decisis. They don't want to overturn all of these other restrictions.
SJG
Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson were established precedent too. Ask NARAL how confident they are about it.
"Racism drives the gun lobby because that is what motivates the gun owners."
Incorrect. In fact, blacks, Asians, and women are some of the fastest-growing gun-owning demographics.
If you want to defund the police, you're going to have to defend yourself somehow.
Defund the police + gun control = You are at the mercy of criminals.
Did anyone else see that news article about the fire inspector who had a bottle of water thrown at his car and used that as cause to unleash a full clip while driving on the interstate? Imagine if you were just another motorist who happened to on the road at the same time as that road-raging asshole, and had your car or your person shot up by his carelessness and reckless behavior. His auto insurer is going to say it's not covered. I wish we did not have to consider whether it was necessary or not, but the assholes ruin it for everyone.
However, to keep your gun in your home? Nah. There will always be the ignoramuses who do not know that law about keeping a barrel lock on your weapon when there are children in the home, or having a hidden and/or biometrically coded gun safe to keep a loaded weapon ready. Pity the poor children, but don't tread on me.
The dominant image of the gun owner is a White person who is frightened of Blacks.
Brief History of the United States.
And Tetradon, my face 2 face life is private. I am involved in all sorts of things, but this is totally walled off from my online life.
gammanu95,
I think what SJ Mayor Sam Liccardo really wants are the insurance carriers rules. In FL 25 has voluntary insurance and it requires that anytime the gun is not on his person, that it be in an approved security container. Stolen guns are a big problem, even stolen police guns.
And then since the SJ Ordinance will mean mandatory insurance, that might go even further. Like a safety training and legal and rules of engagement training.
And after all, the NRA claims to represent "Responsible Gun Owners".
SJG
YOUR dominant image. Suggest you get out more.
"And Tetradon, my face 2 face life is private. I am involved in all sorts of things, but this is totally walled off from my online life."
OK, then let's never again hear about your org. I'll wait until it makes CNN. Or the 6 o'clock news.
You know, if you wanted to keep your life private, I suggest you be like most other members here and just shut up about it.
To be ruled as insurance, it will have to cover only the costs, not be some backdoor tax on the second amendment. Otherwise it isn't insurance.
The San Jose insurance ordinace is a very sensible way to reduce the amount of gun crime, but while still letting the central concepts of the 2nd Amendment stand. But it will be SCOTUS who make the final decision here. There are already more serious gun restrictions which they have let stand.
SJG
Thanks for the laugh, man. That was a good one. Instead of spending your waking hours here, telling us how we're having fun wrong, why don't you go recruit for your org? If you've been at it 8 years and we haven't heard of you, might be time to pack it in.
If the insurance part of the ordinance (not counting the odious part of donating to a Bloomberg-esque organization) stands, it will be only a minor imposition on gun owners, meaning it will not take guns out of many hands. And it won't be an impediment to illegal gun ownership, because they aren't declaring their ownership.
It's not whether it's a restriction, it's about whether it's honest.
Tetradon, you have gotten your blood and lymph fluid onto my privacy wall. This is what happens when you act like my privacy wall is not there. Now I am going to have to come out with a wire scrub brush and clean it up. And you probably have a concusion.
The insurance rule will cut down on the number of guns being stolen, and it might also force the lawful gun owners to go through some training.
Maybe the extra $25 is something SCOTUS will over turn. Maybe that is the reason for it. It only passed SJ council 8 to 3.
The SJ ordinace is 100% honest.
SJG
The problem is, liability insurance has to insure you against something. Someone above posted an example in New Jersey where liberals excoriated it as a "murder tax."
In my extensive discussions on the matter, the left could give a shit about making civilian gun ownership safer; it's all a waystation on the way to ending it.
LOL. I'm still here, reminding you that your "privacy wall" keeps you off the internet after 5:30 Pacific. Give me the address of your shelter, I'll buy you an HJ (Huffy Job), a BJ (Bicycle Job), and FS (Full Schwinn).
"The insurance rule will cut down on the number of guns being stolen, and it might also force the lawful gun owners to go through some training."
You mean training like the NRA provides? Or securing guns like is already the law?
https://metalgear.fandom.com/wiki/M18_Cl…
Approves secure containers, and maybe the NRA will be one of the parties which provides safety and legal training for the insurance ordinance.
SJG
@SJG, glad you're showing how well you differentiate reality from video games. Though the Metal Gear Solid series (the original Kojima stuff) was awesome.
Fly me out to one of your underground places. We can bend a hottie over your privacy wall and FR double team her.
You are beginning to sound like someone who is suicidal.
SJG
Could you and I high five while we're front-room-double-teaming her?
YES, MISTER SAN JOSE GUY! I'VE BEEN A BAD GIRL! BEND ME OVER YOUR PRIVACY WALL AND HAVE YOUR WICKED WAY WITH ME!
SJG
Does your privacy wall have a gloryhole through which a woman (or so you think!) can give you a blowie?
SJG
Man, all this misdirected anger. Get out of the library and get some pussy. Life is too short to live like that.
SJG
I'd let you join me on the siege scaffolding. Sounds like you'd like the chance to get medieval on a chick.
Oh Sir Lloyd! Giveth me thine fleshly sword upon thine privacy wall!
SJG
FSMOS (front scaffold makeout sessions) galore!
SJG
Until then, I shall ravish peasant girls on my siege scaffolding. Thanks for the privacy wall, it adds an aura of danger. Chicks dig that.
SJG
Sir Lloyd: "How dare you attempt to breach my privacy wall! Therefore I shall breach thing!"
Stripper who is definitely not P4P: "No, Sir Lloyd, think of my betrothed!"
Sir Lloyd enters her
Stripper who is definitely not P4P: "Ah! Yes! Give me that cordite and burning flesh!"
First of all, the insurance thing that was attempted here had almost nothing to do with concealed carry, because you can't obtain a carry permit unless you're a judge, senator, mayor, etc. But @twentyfive was correct that the proposed (now banned) insurance was to protect you for LAWFUL use of a firearm to defend yourself and family. That's why Murphy called it "murder insurance" and got rid of it - because assholes like him think self defense is murder.
In NJ, it doesn't matter how obviously clear that it was self defense, you're fucked. When the cops come, you could show them security video of the guy coming at you with a machete, have two priests and a rabbi as eye witnesses, your terrified grandma having a heart attack and drop dead right in front of them... and you will still be arrested. You will need a lawyer, and probably have to come up with a $10,000 retainer just to get the case started, plus your bail which will certainly be exorbitant. If it goes to trial it will be many times more than that.
So by banning this kind of insurance, Murphy and his left-wing thugs essentially tried to guarantee that if you are ever in the unfortunate situation of having to defend yourself, your life will be a living fucking hell for a very long time, and you'll probably go bankrupt. They want you to be so afraid of using your 2nd Amendment right that you'll just try to fight the guy off with a frying pan. If you die, you die.
Fortunately, a prominent gun-rights lawyer here in NJ partnered with a group called U.S. LawShield and found a loophole. Legally it is not insurance. It's more like paying membership dues, and when you need an attorney they provide one and also post your bail. No limit on the attorney's hours or the cost to defend you, all the way through a trial if necessary. And you get an attorney that specializes in NJ gun law.
So Phuck Phil Murphy!
Other places have regulations which are more restrictive, and SCOTUS lets that stand, I mean mostly NYC, as I know.
I think the Approved Security Container rule from the Insurance Carrier will make a big difference. And they might also require an approved training course on safety and the legalities of engagement. I think that would make a big difference. And yes, may be it would be the NRA which puts on this kind of training.
So even if SCOTUS lets this stand, more rural places and red states might not vote to do anything like this. San Jose is the 10th largest city in the country, over 1 million people. And quite blue in how we vote.
SJG