San Jose Mayor Pushes Law Requiring People Pay Insurance For Right To Own Guns

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said that gun owners should pay for the costs associated with gun violence.

San Jose, CA – The mayor of the nation’s 10th largest city has proposed legislation that would require gun owners to either pay for liability insurance or be slapped with a fee to help pay for the costs of gun violence.

“Gun ownership is an inherently dangerous activity,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo declared during a recent press conference at City Hall, according to The Mercury News. “We have to protect our communities.”

“Under current Supreme Court rulings, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms,” Liccardo continued, according to The Hill. “However, the Constitution does not require taxpayers to subsidize that individual choice.”

“The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers,” he declared.

Liccardo said that under his plan, accidental discharges of firearms and “intentional acts” committed by people who steal or use someone else’s gun would be covered by the firearm owner’s liability insurance, The Mercury News reported.

The mayor admitted that insurance providers won’t cover “intentional conduct” committed by the actual gun owner.

“With this measure, we won’t suddenly end gun violence,” Liccardo told reporters, according to The Mercury News. “But we’re going to stop paying for it.”

He also pushed for sales tax increases on firearms and ammunition, and said that those funds could be used to pay for victims’ services, various gun violence prevention programs, and cash rewards for people who turn in citizens who have obtained firearms illegally.

Liccardo urged city leaders to find a way to create a program that would allow parents to have law enforcement search their property or their children, The Mercury News reported.

If gun owners are unable to afford liability insurance, they would be charged a fee, he suggested.

The requirement would not apply to sworn law enforcement officers, according to CNN.

The mayor claimed that his proposals are no different than liability insurance requirements for motorists, The Mercury News reported.

But driving a car is not a constitutionally-protected right.

He also likened his ideas to the taxes that are imposed on tobacco to help discourage use.

"We require motorists to carry automobile insurance, and the insurance industry appropriately encourages and rewards safe driver behavior,” Liccardo said, according to CNN. “We tax tobacco consumption both to discourage risky behavior and to make sure non-smokers are not forced to subsidize the substantial public health costs generated by smoking-related illnesses and deaths.”

"These successful public health models inspire a similar 'harm reduction' approach for firearms," the mayor added.

But supporters of the Second Amendment have vowed to sue the city if Liccardo’s proposals become law.

Attorney George Lee, who represents firearm groups, said that the mayor’s ideas are “really misguided,” The Mercury News reported.

Lee argued that Liccardo’s claim that insurance companies will cover “intentional acts” committed by people who steal or use someone else’s firearm is false, and said that such legislation would do nothing to bring an end to mass shootings.

The only people who would be punished would be legal gun owners.

“It’s yet another burden on gun owners,” Lee told The Mercury News.

Liccardo’s proposals are a long way off from becoming law, and would need to be approved by the City Council and voters before anything could be enacted.

“I would be lying if I said to you that the insurance companies are enthusiastic about this,” he told The New York Times.

The mayor also admitted that new technology would need to be developed in order to handle a fee system in order for the city to avoid creating a gun registry, which would be a violation of state law, The Mercury News reported.

“If we prove up this innovative solution and scale it across other cities and states, the history of ‘harm reduction’ efforts instructs that we can make a long-term impact,” he declared.

San Jose Vice Mayor Chappie Jones said he knows that “there is going to be a lot of strong opposition,” but that he supports Liccardo’s proposals, The Mercury News reported.

Assemblyman David Chiu said he is also backing the mayor’s efforts.

“Since Trump and his Republican allies have abdicated their responsibility to address our country’s gun violence crisis, cities and states must lead,” Chiu declared. “I applaud Mayor Liccardo and San Jose’s bold leadership on this innovative solution.”

Comments (84)
View Older Messages
rds40
rds40

Does he have the same opinion about the illegials that flock there?

Or about the drug addicts?

Anomie88
Anomie88

Is it me, or have Democratic leaders lost their minds? Rhetorical, I know, but really. Have they gone insane over guns? Maybe they should tax the homeless for cleaning up the sidewalks and streets in San Jose. Maybe they should tax the drug dealers for the disposal of all of the syringes and needles and baggies. Maybe they should tax the beer industry for all of the drunk driving accidents. Maybe they should just realize their policies aren't working. This utopia they dream of is just that: a fantasy. And another thing I hate is their unwillingness to call people who are trespassing in our country, criminals. They are. No matter what country they are coming from. Period. Calling illegal aliens undocumented immigrants is the same as calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.

Bobholly79
Bobholly79

Hey A hole it’s not the law abiding citizen that’s the problem!! It’s the criminal element in your city that’s the problem. Do your job , as you took an oath to do, and protect the residents of the city by locking up the criminals with guns.

It’s not rocket science here fella it’s common sense

AnnykaV
AnnykaV

Oh hell no am I going to continue a policy on something that's been stolen. You are out of your damn mind.

So Santa Clara County (San Jose) and San Francisco just filed suit against the Trump Administration for the reduced access to public benefit rules, meaning if you're here you have to be self-supportive or be rich enough that you wouldn't have gotten here swimming across the river). Their reasoning? THEY would have to pay more for welcoming all those people into their sanctuary cities and that will cost them more money! Surprise, bonehead, illegals cost money. Criminals cost money. You welcome them, you let them out of jail and prison early, they're going to cost you money. The closest San Jose has been to a mass shooting is the response they sent in mutual aid to Gilroy, and 30-odd years ago when a dude shot up a tech company in Sunnyvale -- back in the day enough that the conversation I had with one of my district sergeants I was dispatching for that night to declare he should swing by his house and pick up his vest.

Sit down and shut up.

JBo
JBo

"...has proposed legislation that would require gun owners to either pay for liability insurance or be slapped with a fee to help pay for the costs of gun violence."

Here's a thought: Make the people that are GUILTY of gun violence pay for their own actions instead of law abiding gun owners.

“We tax tobacco consumption both to discourage risky behavior and to make sure non-smokers are not forced to subsidize the substantial public health costs..."

No you don't. You tax so you can have a revenue stream to pay idiots like you to come up with "Feel Good" programs that accomplish nothing.

Skidoo
Skidoo

I think that right about now it would be a good idea to move out of Kommie Kalifornia.

Burgers Allday
Burgers Allday

Finally some good news. Hope the mayor gets the proposal passed into law! It is likely to save Blue Lives when people who don't want to pay for damages caused by their guns turn them into local law enforcement so that they can be melted down and turned into childrens' desks and the like. God bless America, my home, sweet home!

Dot200
Dot200

Did he wake up stupid one morning or did stupid come on him gradually?

JohnQPublic$
JohnQPublic$

Do you think the crips,bloods and ms 13 will get group discounts for this insurance ? 😜

Skycop
Skycop

Taking this mayors idea to it's logical conclusion, anyone who pays taxes should be exempt from services they do not use such as public schools, trash collection , water use (for those with wells) etc... How about a tax imposed on all prescriptions to pay for the costs of drug abuse? Higher taxes on gas and alcohol to cover costs associated with DUI's? Perhaps when that sinks in, the idea of paying a mayor who makes threats on law abiding citizens will be examined and a recall will proceed.

trainbuff
trainbuff

I, of my own free will, carry liability insurance and don't feel law enforcement should be exempt from carrying their own off duty particularly in the light of everyone being lawsuit happy.

Domestic goddess
Domestic goddess

This is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, for the right to bear arms WITHOUT BEING INFRINGED.

Sivaas_
Sivaas_

Tobacco taxes, motor vehicle insurance... aren't utilized out of tyranny to punish those who drive or smoke. It's out of touch with reality to punish the many for the actions of a few.

magnumforc
magnumforc

Another idiot. How will all the gang bangers and criminals get insurance. ROFL at this stupidity! Again, punish the law abiding citizens for the lack of adequate enforcement and judicial sanity in Kalifornia.

artw44
artw44

So how would it not be a gun registry? Would anybody who doesn't have a gun have insurance? At what point does it become a felony to not register, oh pardon me, "insure" your gun. And now you are a felon and can't own a gun. Nice One World Order attempt that might make it one day. Thank you obemmer and biden for destroying our country.

RetCanMilSpouse
RetCanMilSpouse

The only part of the proposal that makes any sense is the cash reward for reporting people obtaining guns illegally. The rest will lose in court.

TexasStrong
TexasStrong

This man is a fool. Most gun violence is caused by people who have guns illegally. And why should someone who's gun is stolen be held responsible for the criminal's actions? Again, I say this man is a fool. Just when we think California couldn't possibly get any stupider they go and let him speak.

Wish505
Wish505

They should require some people to have insurance for being stupid as well.

tfort
tfort

I would rather see a law the required cops to have personal liability insurance so the citizens do not have to payout $ millions and millions every year.

Markb4070
Markb4070

Why should the gun owner be responsible for someone else criminal behavior?? Wait this IS CA. THE CRIMINAL IS NEVER RESPONSIBLE!!

No. 26-43
asillyrabbit551
asillyrabbit551

how will you enforce this with the Bloods, Crips, MS13, the outlaw motorcycle gangs, organized crime such as the cartels? Or is it just the honest gun owners that you'll go after??

HAWAIIBLUE
HAWAIIBLUE

What next California? How about holding the criminals families accountable for what their imprisoned or dead “loved one” caused or damaged? They’ll definitely try and sue everyone and anything to get one last drop of money. Or how about worry about the mental health issues this nation is dealing with? You won’t mayor, because it doesn’t fit your agenda to your next stepping stone to where you want to get to. Is “gun right insurance” really a big issue here? Or is it a jump on the bandwagon to show the people that you seem as if you care?

Dmos1357
Dmos1357

More stupid and intrusive legislation, proposed by the state that leads the nation in stupid and intrusive legislation.

Jimmyd2
Jimmyd2

I don't own a firearm. Explain to me why my tax dollars should be used to pay for EMS and police responses to children using a firearm loaded and stored in a nightstand , stolen in a burglary and subsequently used to commit a violent crime, etc. The cost of firearm ownership to society at large should be borne by those who choose to possess firearms. I don't think it is any different than driving a car. There should be an exam administered to have a firearm owner demonstrate they understand how to safely store them, that they can competently use them and understand the hazards associated with owning them. Insurance and taxes shift the cost to from all of us to those who don't want to own guns. I drink alcohol. I drink responsibly. Yet I'm taxed significantly for alcohol when I purchases it for all the medical, drunk driver and other burdens that alcohol inflicts on society. Same with tobacco and many things that are legal. You have to man up and pay what it costs and not expect other to pick up the tab.

Jimmyd2
Jimmyd2

No, I'm arguing exactly the opposite. You should pay taxes, fees or whatever you want to call them that reflect the actual cost to society for you exercising your "right" to own a firearm. You are asking for welfare. "Let society deal with the unforeseen costs of my hobby". I pay ridiculous taxes to consume alcohol and pay insurance and other costs associated with my driving a motor vehicle. Stop asking the rest of us to carry the costs of you owning a firearm.