# San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 25, 2022)

San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.

The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.

Mayor Sam Liccardo, who introduced the two proposals last June after a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee killed nine of his co-workers and himself, likened the insurance requirement to motorists having car insurance.









						Tuesday Morning News Roundup
					

San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual...




					www.sfgate.com
				





The mass shooter who spawned this law was a well-paid, law-abiding employee up until the point he went apeshit and shot dead 9 of his coworkers. 

He would've just bought the insurance.

Or maybe that's what the law is for? To provide compensation to the victims?

Doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 25, 2022)

Wont stand for very long.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...



Blatantly unconstitutional.

No insurance can cover criminal acts done by the insured.

At most if you had your gun stolen it could cover you, but again, a person is not responsible for the acts done by their stolen property.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2022)

Name any other protected right we have to pay to exersize? Then explain why rights are not paid to have or use.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jan 25, 2022)

The Democrat Cult's criminals and terrorist hate it when their victims are armed


----------



## White 6 (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...


Won't happen here, and I wouldn't live there.  Annual fee is a nonstarter. Insurance is a good idea, but if you aren't a deadbeat and willing to stand for your own liability, it should be your choice.  If you do not account for, control and secure your weapons *in a reasonable manner*, you should be liable for their use in crimes. If you own a weapon, you should be responsible for it, *if you are actually negligent *in securing it. None of this proposal would ever pass here in Tennessee and shouldn't.


----------



## 1srelluc (Jan 25, 2022)

Elitist Dem CA lawyer....My surprised face.  😐 

Even his 'pedigree' smells of elitism.

*Sam Liccardo grew up in **Saratoga, California and graduated from Bellarmine College Preparatory in 1987. Liccardo received a bachelor's degree in government from Georgetown University, where he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. He later earned his Juris Doctor and Master of Public Policy at Harvard Law School and Harvard Kennedy School. Prior to his election to public office in 2006 he served as a criminal prosecutor in the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office.*


----------



## JGalt (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...



Apparently not much at all makes very much sense to you, Bro. 

Firearms-owner's insurance is to protect the owner from liability if he has an accident. It wouldn't honor the injured person's claims if the shooting was deliberate.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...


A possibility of negative blowback in that a law-abiding gun owner who intends to use his gun to kill, would purchase the insurance in case he was held liable for the damage he intends to cause with his gun(s).

Otherwise a positive move forward on some measures that could reduce the impact of gun crime!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> A possibility of negative blowback in that a law-abiding gun owner who intends to use his gun to kill, would purchase the insurance in case he was held liable for the damage he intends to cause with his gun(s).
> 
> Otherwise a positive move forward on some measures that could reduce the impact of gun crime!


Go back to Canada this will never stand, you can NOT make a person pay to exersize a right.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Go back to Canada this will never stand, you can NOT make a person pay to exersize a right.


In Canada it would be a right that's no different than the right to drive a car.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> In Canada it would be a right that's no different than the right to drive a car.


Not here RETARD.


----------



## okfine (Jan 25, 2022)

$10.00 there is a fucking insurance lobbyist involved.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> In Canada it would be a right that's no different than the right to drive a car.


Thats in Canada. 
Driving a car is a privilege here. Gun ownership is a inherent right.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> A possibility of negative blowback in that a law-abiding gun owner who intends to use his gun to kill, would purchase the insurance in case he was held liable for the damage he intends to cause with his gun(s).
> 
> Otherwise a positive move forward on some measures that could reduce the impact of gun crime!



You can't buy insurance to cover yourself in the case of illegal activity.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...



This douchebag mayor needs to have insurance to cover the dozens of people who are murdered in his shithole city every year.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> A possibility of negative blowback in that a law-abiding gun owner who intends to use his gun to kill, would purchase the insurance in case he was held liable for the damage he intends to cause with his gun(s)
> Otherwise a positive move forward on some measures that could reduce the impact of gun crime!.


Insurance does not cover damages related to criminal acts.
So....  No.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> In Canada it would be a right that's no different than the right to drive a car.


There is no right to drive a car - not here, and not in Canada.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> Thats in Canada.
> Driving a car is a privilege here. Gun ownership is a inherent right.


I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to  me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to  me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
> We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.


You can believe anything you want but Government action trumps your belief.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 25, 2022)

martybegan said:


> You can't buy insurance to cover yourself in the case of illegal activity.


Insurance can help in accidental negligence.  Negligence is often in the eye of the beholder now, with the right representation and a friendly court.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to  me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.


Anything you have because the government _gives _it to you is a privilege.
You can -call- it a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

martybegan said:


> You can't buy insurance to cover yourself in the case of illegal activity.


No, you can't and you're right to say so. But nobody would go buying insurance for the purpose of being insured to protect against the cost of committing a gun crime. They would be buying insurance to protect any accidental harm done by them with their gun. 

However,  you could have a valid point in that the insurance company would refuse to pay if the death or harm caused by the gun could be shown to not be accidental.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Anything you have because the government gives it to you is a privilege.
> You can -call- it a right, but to so so only indicates you do not know what rights are.


You should have italicized "_gives_" but otherwise pretty correct.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to  me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
> We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.


You have to take a test, follow many regulations and laws. If you dont do that, you lose your PRIVILEGE of driving a car.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> They would be buying insurance to protect any accidental harm done by them with their gun.


This is already covered by homeowner/renters insurance.


> But nobody would go buying insurance for the purpose of being insured to protect against the cost of committing a gun crime.


Why then do you believe this requirement "could reduce the impact of gun crime"?


----------



## martybegan (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, you can't and you're right to say so. But nobody would go buying insurance for the purpose of being insured to protect against the cost of committing a gun crime. They would be buying insurance to protect any accidental harm done by them with their gun.
> 
> However,  you could have a valid point in that the insurance company would refuse to pay if the death or harm caused by the gun could be shown to not be accidental.



Homeowner insurance already covers accidents in your own home with your own gun as long as nothing criminal happened.

This is just a way to make getting a gun harder and more expensive for law abiding people.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

White 6 said:


> You should have italicized "_gives_" but otherwise pretty correct.


Fixed


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

martybegan said:


> This is just a way to make getting a gun harder and more expensive for law abiding people.


As is the purpose for all "common sense" gun control law.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Insurance can help in accidental negligence.  Negligence is often in the eye of the beholder now, with the right representation and a friendly court.


Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.

And then that could possibly raise the issue of Rittenhouse claiming that he didn't intend to kill, thereby making the shootings accidental?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.


"Victims"     
Never mind the fact those people were legally killed in self-defense, thus eliminating any case for a wrongful death claim.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Anything you have because the government _gives _it to you is a privilege.
> You can -call- it a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.


You would have to refer to some specific right or privilege. Until you can do that I'm going to hold to my position of government not being authorized to grant me any privileges.

My government grants me the right to carry a gun if in fact any right is actually granted? It's more like government taking away some rights as punishment for unsuitable behaviour. Such as the illegal use of a gun or a car or a boat or a knife or a computer or ..........................


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.
> 
> And then that could possibly raise the issue of Rittenhouse claiming that he didn't intend to kill, thereby making the shootings accidental?



Rittenhouse was acquitted in court. It was self defense. Didn't you hear?


----------



## White 6 (Jan 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fixed


Yeah, a lot of people get that government _giving _thing all wrong.  I figure you and I have been doing the _giving_ to government, since we were kids.  I saw a headline where the government was going to _give _me 4 _free_ at home Covid tests and yes, I put them on order, but I know dang well it was *my *giving that paid for ours.  I am pretty sure I am going to _give _some more between now and April 15.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Victims"
> Never mind the fact those people were legally killed in self-defense, thus eliminating any case for a wrongful death claim.


Accidental is the question. I've raised the issue of that being claimed and how that bears on insurance.


----------



## Winston (Jan 25, 2022)

martybegan said:


> Blatantly unconstitutional.
> 
> No insurance can cover criminal acts done by the insured.
> 
> At most if you had your gun stolen it could cover you, but again, a person is not responsible for the acts done by their stolen property.


That is not necessarily true.

Whether liability can be imputed to a vehicle owner for injuries caused by a thief is based on questions of foreseeability. States approach this differently, but most states note several factors that may lead a jury to impose a legal duty on the owner, including whether the vehicle is one that may attract those who lacked the skill and knowledge to operate it safely, whether the vehicle is one that would inflict more injury and damage than an ordinary vehicle, and whether prior occurrences should have indicated that additional security measures were required to prevent theft.






						Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles
					

A vehicle slams into a group of vehicles stopped at a red light, only to quickly drive away from the scene. This fact scenario almost always involves




					www.claimsjournal.com


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> You would have to refer to some specific right or privilege.


Your state-paid health care system is a privilege.  You have it because your government created it.
The government can repeal the laes to that effect, and you would lose your privilege.
You may choose to call this system a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.      


Donald H said:


> My government grants me the right to carry a gun...


If you can only carry a gun because the law creates you ability to do so, then you don't have a right, you have a privilege.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Accidental is the question. I've raised the issue of that being claimed and how that bears on insurance.


Irrelevant to the point I made.
The fact those people were legally killed in self-defense eliminates any case for a wrongful death claim.       
Thus, the question of their accidental or purposeful death matters not.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.
> 
> And then that could possibly raise the issue of Rittenhouse claiming that he didn't intend to kill, thereby making the shootings accidental?


It is close to accidental.  It is a shitty deal if your stupidity gets you into something you have to shoot your way out of.  If truly stupid and naive, you can accidentally get yourself into something unexpected.  Once you are in it, if you want to come through unscathed, you do what you gotta do.  Kind of like the movie War Games, playing Global Thermo Nuclear War.  The computer finally learned the only winning move is not to play.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your state-paid health care system is a privilege.  You have it because your government created it.
> The government can repeal the laes to that effect, and you would lose your privilege.
> You may choose to call this system a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.
> 
> If you can only carry a gun because the law creates you ability to do so, then you don't have a right, you have a privilege.


Instead of debating any particular point, you've become a pest.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jan 25, 2022)

martybegan said:


> Blatantly unconstitutional.
> 
> No insurance can cover criminal acts done by the insured.
> 
> At most if you had your gun stolen it could cover you, but again, a person is not responsible for the acts done by their stolen property.


Well you are currently required to have automobile insurance. How is it any different? I am personally not for it but don't think they are going to get rid of it from a constitutional basis.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

White 6 said:


> It is close to accidental.  It is a shitty deal if your stupidity gets you into something you have to shoot your way out of.  If truly stupid and naive, you can accidentally get yourself into something unexpected.


As that pertains to Rittenhouse or some other shooters, it would be hard to believe that they accidentally got themselves into the situation. Some, not specifically one in particular, would have intentionally got themselves into the situation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Instead of debating any particular point, you've become a pest.


 
Thank you for proving, yet again, that you have no intention of discussing an issue beyond the point where your position is effectively challenged, you are challenged to support your claims with something other than your opinion, and/or you are not allowed to take the conversation past a point you know you cannot defend.

I, again, accept your concession.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> A possibility of negative blowback in that a law-abiding gun owner who intends to use his gun to kill, would purchase the insurance in case he was held liable for the damage he intends to cause with his gun(s).
> 
> Otherwise a positive move forward on some measures that could reduce the impact of gun crime!



Yeah, I can certainly see this guy strolling into his local Nationwide Insurance office to get liability insurance:


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, I can certainly see this guy strolling into his local Nationwide Insurance office to get liability insurance:


Insurance is sold based on the risk and the experience. He would get the gun insurance the same as he would get health care insurance. Very high cost in both cases according to the risk of a very high payout.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Insurance is sold based on the risk and the experience. He would get the gun insurance the same as he would get health care insurance.


Why do you refuse to understand insurance does not pay out for intentional criminal acts?
Why do you refuse to understand a person's homeowner's/renter's insurance covers accidents?
Why do you refuse to understand this insurance requirement is an unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the right to own a gun?


----------



## White 6 (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> As that pertains to Rittenhouse or some other shooters, it would be hard to believe that they accidentally got themselves into the situation. Some, not specifically one in particular, would have intentionally got themselves into the situation.


He was just young and dumb.  I didn't go there to shoot somebody any more than the man in the moon.  I think he now knows it was a mistake going there as an armed teenager.
He is still trying to get his weapon back, with intention to destroy it.  This too is a mistake.  I would not destroy that weapon.  It is just a tool, one that worked, one that worked and most likely save his little misguided butt.  If he feels strongly enough, sell it, donate to a worthy cause or museum for display, but destroying is senseless destruction that will benefit nobody.
Oh, by the way.  He was found not guilty in a court of law for his actions in self defense, no matter what anybody says.  I can totally guarantee the weapon did nothing wrong, he is now of legal age anywhere in the country and should have already had the weapon returned.  I got a big problem with the government keeping legal weapons, confiscated as evidence or at the scene of an event once charges have been cleared.  They'll do it every time they get a chance to get their hands on one and it is not right.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

White 6 said:


> He was just young and dumb.  I didn't go there to shoot somebody any more than the man in the moon.  I think he now knows it was a mistake going there as an armed teenager.


Interesting POV! You must have info I don't have.


White 6 said:


> He is still trying to get his weapon back, with intention to destroy it.  This too is a mistake.  I would not destroy that weapon.  It is just a tool, one that worked, one that worked and most likely save his little misguided butt.  If he feels strongly enough, sell it, donate to a worthy cause or museum for display, but destroying is senseless destruction that will benefit nobody.


I have no interest in his weapon or what he does with it. Is it even his?


----------



## White 6 (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Interesting POV! You must have info I don't have.
> 
> I have no interest in his weapon or what he does with it. Is it even his?


Yep.  It is his.  He should have it back to do with as he pleases.  This keeping guns thing by law enforcement is pretty common and about the only way to get them back, once cleared is to lawsuit, but at what cost in legal fees.  Not right.
I know a guy that was licensed to carry, but drank liquor after the bar he was bouncing for closed for the night, then got nabbed on the way to his truck.  He was arrested.  Did not blow higher than legal limit, but he was carrying.  He paid a fine, and lost his permit to carry.  OK.  Fine.  He can't carry, even in a state that has constitutional carry, due to the weapons charge.  There was nothing in the court judgement about forfeiture of the weapon, nor was he in any way barred from owning one or many, if he chose.  Still, if he wanted it back, he would have to bring suit.  Unless you are loaded, and it is a matter of principle, the cost of a lawsuit far exceeds the $700 plus price of his weapon, and they know this.  I just have a problem with that crap.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 25, 2022)

The way the insurance could work is that say someone kills 4 people. The families of the victims sue him. Guy's insured so his insurance pays out.

Poor people can afford insurance, or they aren't savvy enough to get it, so if they're caught with a gun, they'll be uninsured and face a fine.

I'm really not sure why the city government things this will affect anything.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Insurance is sold based on the risk and the experience. He would get the gun insurance the same as he would get health care insurance. Very high cost in both cases according to the risk of a very high payout.



Only a complete fucking retard would believe the guy in the photo I posted would bother to get insurance in the first place.

That was my point, and it seems to have sailed effortlessly over your head...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The way the insurance could work is that say someone kills 4 people. The families of the victims sue him. Guy's insured so his insurance pays out.



Not if the shooting was illegal. Insurance probably won't pay out then.

This is nothing more than another glaring example of anti-gun jerk-offs trying to make themselves feel good by passing legislation they will then convince their idiot constituency is needed to cut down on crime but, in actuality, will have almost no positive impact...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The way the insurance could work is that say someone kills 4 people. The families of the victims sue him. Guy's insured so his insurance pays out.
> 
> Poor people can afford insurance, or they aren't savvy enough to get it, so if they're caught with a gun, they'll be uninsured and face a fine.
> 
> I'm really not sure why the city government things this will affect anything.


Are you TRYING to prove you are stupid? Insurance does not pay for CRIMINAL acts by the insured.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...




The purpose of the law is to hassle law abiding gun owners so they will abandon the idea of defending themselves.

Not to collect fees, or make sure the the injured are covered.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 25, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you TRYING to prove you are stupid? Insurance does not pay for CRIMINAL acts by the insured.



If they write it into law, it would.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> If they write it into law, it would.


If insurance companies decided to write polices for it.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> As that pertains to Rittenhouse or some other shooters, it would be hard to believe that they accidentally got themselves into the situation. Some, not specifically one in particular, would have intentionally got themselves into the situation.



Rittenhouse was acquitted in court. It was self defense. I'm shocked you haven't heard this yet.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Rittenhouse was acquitted in court. It was self defense. I'm shocked you haven't heard this yet.


He has.
He chooses to ignore it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> If they write it into law, it would.


No it wouldnt it would take a Federal law to force Insurers to foolishly pay for illegal acts no city can do it.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.



I have a better idea:

Charge $10,000 to all criminals or likely criminals for the harm they have done or might do in the future committing crimes.  Then deduct a few dollars for every year they remain crime free.
​​​Makes about as much sense or more than charging lawful people for something they are likely never to do.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 25, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Yep.  It is his.  He should have it back to do with as he pleases.  This keeping guns thing by law enforcement is pretty common and about the only way to get them back, once cleared is to lawsuit, but at what cost in legal fees.  Not right.
> I know a guy that was licensed to carry, but drank liquor after the bar he was bouncing for closed for the night, then got nabbed on the way to his truck.  He was arrested.  Did not blow higher than legal limit, but he was carrying.  He paid a fine, and lost his permit to carry.  OK.  Fine.  He can't carry, even in a state that has constitutional carry, due to the weapons charge.  There was nothing in the court judgement about forfeiture of the weapon, nor was he in any way barred from owning one or many, if he chose.  Still, if he wanted it back, he would have to bring suit.  Unless you are loaded, and it is a matter of principle, the cost of a lawsuit far exceeds the $700 plus price of his weapon, and they know this.  I just have a problem with that crap.


That doesn't seem right to me. I don't know if the police are doing that in Canada but it also depends on the details of each case.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to  me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
> We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.


Where are your rights guaranteed?  It looks to me like your Constitution can be amended at will by your government.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 25, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> If they write it into law, it would.


No because the insurance companies would write the policies to exclude paying out for illegal conduct.  Insurance companies are in business to make money, not to pay out claims.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jan 25, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to  me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
> We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.


No you don't have rights, every privilege you have can be taken away by decree or a simple vote. Rubes like you are sad, but funny.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 26, 2022)

Winston said:


> That is not necessarily true.
> 
> Whether liability can be imputed to a vehicle owner for injuries caused by a thief is based on questions of foreseeability. States approach this differently, but most states note several factors that may lead a jury to impose a legal duty on the owner, including whether the vehicle is one that may attract those who lacked the skill and knowledge to operate it safely, whether the vehicle is one that would inflict more injury and damage than an ordinary vehicle, and whether prior occurrences should have indicated that additional security measures were required to prevent theft.
> 
> ...



Most of the times that is a pretty big stretch.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 26, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Well you are currently required to have automobile insurance. How is it any different? I am personally not for it but don't think they are going to get rid of it from a constitutional basis.



Because the whole concept of mandatory auto insurance is to prevent every single accident from becoming a court case and overwhelming our legal system. I doubt the number of gun cases would ever approach the level seen in auto cases.

Driving also isn't a right.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 26, 2022)

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

The Silicon Valley city's council split the vote into two parts: the first approving the bulk of the proposal, including the insurance provisions, and the second approving the fee provisions. The insurance vote passed 10-1, while the fees vote passed 8-3.

The ordinance must be approved next month at its final reading in order to take effect in August. Gun rights supporters have threatened to sue to block the measures if they become law.

Ahead of the vote, Democratic Mayor Sam Liccardo estimated that San Jose residents incur about $442 million in gun-related costs each year. *"Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,"* Liccardo said Monday at a news conference.

San Jose mayor proposes gun owners carry insurance and pay annual fee in wake of mass shooting
Mass shootings impelled Liccardo to push the fee and insurance initiatives -- first after the 2019 slayings at a festival in nearby Gilroy, California, then following last year's deadly siege at public transit facility in his city. The mayor has compared the plan to car insurance mandates, which he credits with dramatically reducing traffic fatalities.

San Jose's city council after the June mass shooting unanimously approved drafting the ordinance, mayoral spokesperson Rachel Davis said Monday in a news release.

Just 52% of Americans polled in late 2021 said "laws covering the sales of firearms" should be stricter, the lowest number Gallup has measured on the question since 2014. Meanwhile, there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings, a study released Thursday by Everytown for Gun Safety found.









						This Silicon Valley city just voted to institute first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements | CNN
					

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden...




					www.cnn.com
				





The council just passed the measure into law.

Besides insurance, there is also a fee.

The argument seems to be, guns cost the public lots of money. Let's make the gun owners pay for it.

I wonder what the courts are going to say. It's going to be challenged.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance. 









						San Jose is first U.S. city to mandate gun owners carry insurance and pay a fee — The Mercury News
					

"The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we're not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook," said Mayor Sam Liccardo.




					apple.news
				




My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.

it is one thing to require licensed drivers and car owners to have insurance, since under the law driving is a privilege and not a right. The *privilege* is conditioned on insurance in order to register a car.

Having a gun is a guaranteed Constitutional RIGHT.  For that reason, I can foresee a very interesting legal dispute over the validity of this new California law.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 26, 2022)

Absolutely not. The bill also includes a fee to own a firearm. Blatantly unconstitutional


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?


State Constitutions can not violate Federal Supremacy which means they must adhere to the US Constitution at minimum.  Each State has the authority to expand upon civil rights but not take any away.


----------



## okfine (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not a California law.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?



No. Self-defense is a civil right the government is constitutionally banned from infringing. Abortion isn't.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?


Because the Constitution says word one about “abortion rights?”


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

okfine said:


> It's not a California law.


Good point. It is a law in one city in California. Your correction is noted. 👍


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The thread premise is a lie.

One city is not the state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Good point. It is a law in one city in California. Your correction is noted. 👍


As is your dishonesty.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise is a lie.
> 
> One city is not the state.



Cities aren't allowed to violate constitutionally-protected civil rights, either. No matter how badly you want them to.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep it will survive. Since the insurance company will fill the coffer of republican s and Democrats alike with impunity. After all corps are people to so they can spread unlimited campaign contributions.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise is a lie.
> 
> One city is not the state.


No, shit-for-brains. It was a mistake.  Already corrected, by the way.

Why can’t you odious scumbag troll motherfuckers learn to distinguish between a mistake and a lie?  Maybe it’s because you’re too stupid or lazy or maybe you are just the liar?

In any case, you imbecile, it is a California law since the city ain’t in Kansas. It is not a California STATE law. That’s why I noted the earlier correction by okfine.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

evenflow1969 said:


> Yep it will survive. Since the insurance company will fill the coffer of republican s and Democrats alike with impunity. After all corps are people to so they can spread unlimited campaign contributions.


?? The test isn’t whether a local or state legislature will approve of it. The test will come in the courts.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jan 26, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Cities aren't allowed to violate constitutionally-protected civil rights, either. No matter how badly you want them to.


Like that matters. See the Patriot act. Unconstitutional and still here. The military industrial complex profits and shall remain.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 26, 2022)

> California anti gun right law: Constitutional?​


Without even looking at any content herein, I'm going with "no" it's not constitutional.  

How'd I do?


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As is your dishonesty.


Once again Adam_Clayton_Asshole;

You can’t even admit when you’re wrong. You are not just a liar and an asshole, but also a very unpersuasive little troll. You retard. You suck ass at your job.  Or maybe sucking ass is your job. Either way.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Without even looking at any content herein, I'm going with "no" it's not constitutional.
> 
> How'd I do?


I suspect you’re right. I don’t know how courts will rule.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
> My question is whether this new law will survive a Constitutional challenge.



It won't for all the reasons you named.  Criminals who abuse guns and create crime will not carry the liability insurance while every gun owner who collects guns sitting in a locked safe must?

I don't think so.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Why can’t you odious scumbag troll motherfuckers learn to distinguish between a mistake and a lie?



Because their whole being and existence is both a mistake and a lie.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> It won't for all the reasons you named.  Criminals who abuse guns and create crime will not carry the liability insurance while every gun owner who collects guns sitting in a locked safe must?
> 
> I don't think so.



^ a good and reasonable observation.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Good point. It is a law in one city in California. Your correction is noted. 👍



But it is a California city, so in essence, also a California law, that applies to one city.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What about the Mulford Act?


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> What about the Mulford Act?


I don’t know. Tell me all about it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 26, 2022)

Some states allow open carry some do not never been addressed as it does not deny a right to own or put a burden on ownership


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> What about the Mulford Act?


Nobody who supports the right to own and possess firearms will defend Reagan's racist California gun-grab.

The fact that you brought it up proves you are a partisan hack only interested in your team winning, and not policy.

How typical.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 26, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> It won't for all the reasons you named.  Criminals who abuse guns and create crime will not carry the liability insurance while every gun owner who collects guns sitting in a locked safe must?
> 
> I don't think so.



Left-wing cities like San Jose have ZERO interest in reducing crime. Quite the opposite, in fact. They LOVE crime, and actually need the sky-high rates of violence they invariably create in order to maintain their power. Safe, clean, prosperous cities are of no use to DemoKKKrats. They need violence, misery, and filth to justify their continued existence.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I don’t know. Tell me all about it.


You know about it...we've discussed it in the past.    But since your memory is going....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act


----------



## bodecea (Jan 26, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Left-wing cities like San Jose have ZERO interest in reducing crime. Quite the opposite, in fact. They LOVE crime, and actually need the sky-high rates of violence they invariably create in order to maintain their power. Safe, clean, prosperous cities are of no use to DemoKKKrats. They need violence, misery, and filth to justify their continued existence.


Happy to be talking about California again?


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> Happy to be talking about California again?



It does come up a lot when we discuss violence, civil rights abuses, and general filth, doesn't it?


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> You know about it...we've discussed it in the past.    But since your memory is going....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act


Uh huh. I don’t live here as you do.  

And your linky is stinky.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> You know about it...we've discussed it in the past.    But since your memory is going....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act


So, I copied the improperly formatted link and pasted it correctly. Wiki says, “The *Mulford Act* was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. ….”

Therefore, since boredtoseeya doesn’t bother to actually make coherent arguments, it has to be presumed that her “point” (for lack of a better word) is akin to this:

_If the Mulford act could put a restriction on the Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, then it must follow that government has a lawful right to impose restrictions on Gun Ownership.  _

If that is not a correct formulation of your contention, then the fault is all yours since all you asked was “what about” the Mulford Act?

We already know that the law appears to allow the imposition of even a license and permit requirement over the 2d Amendment right. So, the existence of the Mulford Act doesn’t reveal anything all that new. (Whether the law *should* impose a licensing restriction over a right is a different discussion.)

This is still not quite an apt analog however. Because it actually places us into the realm of the question about governmentally imposed mandates. It overlaps with a law which imposes such a condition on a right. And the fact that the Mulford act prohibits open carry doesn’t answer whether a new *condition can be imposed on ownership*, especially when it comes in the form of a mandate.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Uh huh. I don’t live here as you do.
> 
> And your linky is stinky.


I don't know why it's not working, tried twice....I suggest you google Mulford Act.


----------



## okfine (Jan 26, 2022)

FYI... San Jose is the 3rd biggest city in California, 10th biggest in the country with about 1 million people and diverse.
They still have gun stores, unlike San Francisco.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> I don't know why it's not working, tried twice....I suggest you google Mulford Act.


I believe it was formatting. No big deal. Already done. And in a prior post I’ve now tried to discuss what I think you’re asking.

Our usual hostility aside, I would welcome your correction to how I’ve tried to frame what I think you’re asking.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I believe it was formatting. No big deal. Already done. And in a prior post I’ve now tried to discuss what I think you’re asking.
> 
> Our usual hostility aside, I would welcome your correction to how I’ve tried to frame what I think you’re asking.


But what about the GOP under Reagan AND the NRA eliminating open carry in California?


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> But what about the GOP under Reagan AND the NRA eliminating open carry in California?


Ok. I’ll bite. Was that the “point” you were attempting to make?

You tell me. What about it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> But what about the GOP under Reagan AND the NRA eliminating open carry in California?


So what? some states have open carry some do not it is not an onus on ownership.


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

Since bode isn’t fond of explaining her mostly cryptic “what about” posts, I’ll engage in some more guesswork.

 I suppose she thinks that since the original impetus for disallowing open carry in CA was supposedly hostility toward the display of weapons by the Black Panthers, that Republicans and conservatives “must” necessarily consider the 2d Amendment right as being subject to restrictions over and above licensing and registrations and permits. But as the RetiredGySgt already noted, open carry vs concealed carry doesn’t put an onus on ownership and possession.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 26, 2022)

It probably will get thrown out by the courts at some point.

But that might take years.


----------



## marvin martian (Jan 26, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It probably will get thrown out by the courts at some point.
> 
> But that might take years.



In the meantime, the civil rights lawsuits against the city will pile up.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?



Show me where it says "abortion is a right" in the Constitution. I can show you where RKBA is explicitly listed and given to the people.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



100% unconstitutional. 

Is there even such an insurance in existence, and what is the cost of it on a monthly basis?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> But what about the GOP under Reagan AND the NRA eliminating open carry in California?


I already told your partisan hack ass that any freedom supporter does not like the Milford Act.  Support for the NRA is seriously waning in favor of the no-compromise Gun Owners of America.

Do you support the Milford Act, you gun-grabbing commie fuck?

Probably do.   Piece of shit.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 26, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I already told your partisan hack ass that any freedom supporter does not like the Milford Act. Support for the NRA is seriously waning in favor of the no-compromise Gun Owners of America


.

Yeah ... At 3 million plus Background Checks a month ... I don't think gun owners are playing around.
When it comes to the NRA ... Looks like some folks have found somewhere else to spend their money.

.​


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> But what about the GOP under Reagan AND the NRA eliminating open carry in California?


You still haven't answered. 

Do you support the Milford Act?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Once again Adam_Clayton_Asshole;
> 
> You can’t even admit when you’re wrong. You are not just a liar and an asshole, but also a very unpersuasive little troll. You retard. You suck ass at your job.  Or maybe sucking ass is your job. Either way.


your wasting your time....jones bad mouths people but doesnt have the balls to confront those he is bad mouthing...


----------



## hjmick (Jan 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> California just enacted a new law which requires gun owners to carry insurance.




One city in California passed a law... For now. 

I imagine the state is waiting to see how this plays out in the courts before they follow suit statewide...

Back in 2019 there were three states and Los Angeles trying to pass similar laws, in 2018 Carolyn Maloney introduced the Firearm Risk Protection Act, which required proof of liability insurance before someone was allowed to purchase a gun. This idea is nothing new... the fact that it was passed is. Then again, San Jose is a small municipality, relatively speaking, in the most liberal part of a very liberal state...

I wonder how the gang-bangers and other folks who illegally possess firearms will accept this plan... and will they face higher rates? Because we all know they will right there in line with the law abiding gun owners... that's how the new gun laws always work...


----------



## BackAgain (Jan 26, 2022)

martybegan said:


> 100% unconstitutional.
> 
> Is there even such an insurance in existence, and what is the cost of it on a monthly basis?


Marty!  How dare you ask legitimate questions!  I’m all shocked and aghast.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2022)

Ringel05 said:


> State Constitutions can not violate Federal Supremacy which means they must adhere to the US Constitution at minimum.  Each State has the authority to expand upon civil rights but not take any away.


So they can give you the right to an abortion but not take it away?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2022)

martybegan said:


> Show me where it says "abortion is a right" in the Constitution. I can show you where RKBA is explicitly listed and given to the people.


The pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> So they can give you the right to an abortion but not take it away?


We're talking what's Constitutional,  Last I checked abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The pursuit of happiness.


That's called interpretation.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2022)

Ringel05 said:


> We're talking what's Constitutional,  Last I checked abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.


Neither is dressing like a woman it still is a right.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2022)

Ringel05 said:


> That's called interpretation.


Interesting you say that.  Did you hear Sotomayor's interview yesterday?









						Sotomayor: It’s a mistake to believe ‘the law is clear’ in Supreme Court cases
					

Justice Sonia Sotomayor says “the biggest misconception people have” when Supreme Court rulings are weighed and handed down is that “the law is clear” to begin with.“Mo…




					thehill.com


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Neither is dressing like a woman it still is a right.


I'm not arguing pro or anti with either simply stating it's not in specifically written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  It's also not germane to the subject of the Constitutionality of firearms laws.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2022)

Ringel05 said:


> I'm not arguing pro or anti with either simply stating it's not in specifically written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  It's also not germane to the subject of the Constitutionality of firearms laws.


You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?  Can you own a nuclear weapon?  And Clinton signed an assault weapon ban.  Turns out it was constitutional because it happened.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Interesting you say that.  Did you hear Sotomayor's interview yesterday?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No but to me it looks to be the age old lawyer trick of obfuscation.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2022)

Ringel05 said:


> No but to me it looks to be the age old lawyer trick of obfuscation.


She's right though.  If the law was obvious, it wouldn't be constantly challenged.  What Ron Paul thinks is constitutional is not the same was what Hillary thinks.  Or Bush.  Or Trump. Or Obama.  They have all done unconstitutional things.  Just ask the other party.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> She's right though.  If the law was obvious, it wouldn't be constantly challenged.  What Ron Paul thinks is constitutional is not the same was what Hillary thinks.  Or Bush.  Or Trump. Or Obama.  They have all done unconstitutional things.  Just ask the other party.


That's due to individual or group interpretation that has been going on since the Constitution was ratified.  The problem is it's been over interpreted too often by too many people which has muddied up the key component of all Constitutional law, Original Intent.  I think what she was referring to is how narrow rulings can be seen by some as clear and all encompassing, they're more often not all encompassing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Without even looking at any content herein, I'm going with "no" it's not constitutional.
> 
> How'd I do?


Fail.

The courts have upheld as Constitutional licensing and permit fees, that they do not manifest as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right.

‘In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld portions of the New York City Administrative Code requiring New York City residents to pay a $340 fee to apply for a New York City “Premises Residence” handgun license, which allows the license holder to possess handguns within a specified dwelling. In the matter of _Kwong v. Bloomberg_, plaintiffs, a group of New York City handgun owners, challenged this fee on the grounds that it unconstitutionally burdened their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The Court, however, upheld the fee because it was designed to defray the administrative costs of the licensing scheme and the amount was not so excessive such that it would likely deter an individual from exercising his or her Second Amendment rights. The Court further found that the fee passed muster when subjected to a means-end scrutiny, determining that it was substantially related to promoting substantial or important governmental objectives: public safety and the prevention of gun violence.’





__





						Federal Court Upholds New York City Gun Licensing and Fee Regulations | Renzulli Law Firm
					






					renzullilaw.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 26, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It probably will get thrown out by the courts at some point.


Or not.

Other rights are subject to fees which are perfectly Constitutional:

“The government may require modest content-neutral fees for demonstration permits or charitable fundraising permits, at least if the fees are tailored to defraying the costs of administering constitutionally permissible regulatory regimes.
[…]
The same is true for marriage license fees and filing fees for political candidates…of costs involved in getting permits to build on your own property, a right protected by the Takings Clause….”





__





						Gun License Fees and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense - The Volokh Conspiracy
					

After McDonald, and the newly enacted Chicago handgun ordinance, people are again turning to whether and when gun license fees are unconstitutional. I’ve heard some argue that under existing constitutional rules applicable to other rights — especially the First Amendment — any fee for the...



					volokh.com
				




The issue therefore is not the cost of liability insurance and the annual fee _per se_ – but whether those costs are un-Constitutionally excessive.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 26, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The pursuit of happiness.



Nope, try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Fail.
> The courts have upheld as Constitutional licensing and permit fees, that they do not manifest as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right.


Imagine your pissing and moaning, should some jurisdiction place the same permit requirement on the right to have an abortion.

Tell us again why you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?  Can you own a nuclear weapon?  And Clinton signed an assault weapon ban.  Turns out it was constitutional because it happened.




No.,....it was never challenged in the Supreme Court....no one wanted to risk the chance a Republican squish on the court would rule the wrong way.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Imagine your pissing and moaning, should some jurisdiction place the same permit requirement on the right to have an abortion.
> 
> Tell us again why you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.




I think, according to their logic....that anyone who wants to be a journalist, a writer, a blogger, should have to pay a fee, and get a permit from the government.....otherwise, they won't be allowed to write anything........

They should also have liability insurance against Libel, and Slander before they can submit anything.......and to that....each time they write something, they should have to submit it to the government and be charged a fee .....based on the number of words or letters, to be worked out later...

You can write anything you want.....once you pay for an acquire the appropriate permit....

No one says you can't be a journalist, we just need to know you have a permit for it...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?


Indeed.   "Bearable arms"  -- those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
Where do you think that draws the line, and why?


sealybobo said:


> And Clinton signed an assault weapon ban.  Turns out it was constitutional because it happened.


Just like the abortion law in TX.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 27, 2022)

You can't give loaded firearms to 100% of the population.

We don't want little kids waving loaded pistols around.

We don't want maniacs to have guns.

There's a law against felons owning guns.

So, you can't take the Second Amendment literally, because a lot of people aren't allowed guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can't give loaded firearms to 100% of the population.
> We don't want little kids waving loaded pistols around.
> We don't want maniacs to have guns.
> There's a law against felons owning guns.
> So, you can't take the Second Amendment literally, because a lot of people aren't allowed guns.


Not everyone falls under "the people", just like not every weapon falls under "arms".
So, you -can- take it literally, you just have to understand the terms used.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Not everyone falls under "the people", just like not every weapon falls under "arms".
> So, you -can- take it literally, you just have to understand the terms used.



I won't argue that point with you.

But at one time, "everyone" would've been white males who owned property.

Now "everyone" includes blacks, women, etc.

true?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I won't argue that point with you.
> But at one time, "everyone" would've been white males who owned property.
> Now "everyone" includes blacks, women, etc.
> true?


Sure.   So?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Indeed.   "Bearable arms"  -- those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
> Where do you think that draws the line, and why?
> 
> Just like the abortion law in TX.


Any weapon the military has, you want.  Or else you are at a disadvantage.  Isn't that right?


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...






Unconstitutional and i would file a Civil RICO against the assholes who voted for it.  Bankrupt the pricks so the next jackasses think twice.


----------



## Flash (Jan 27, 2022)

When the lying Libtards tell you that they are "only for reasonable gun control laws" this is the kind of shit they really mean.

A liberal would not know what "reasonableness" was if it bit him in the ass. 

They sure as hell don't anything about the Bill of Rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Any weapon the military has, you want


You didn't answer my question.
"Bearable arms" = those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
Where do you think that draws the line, and why?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 27, 2022)

Donald H said:


> In Canada it would be a right that's no different than the right to drive a car.


/——-/ Owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. Big difference


----------



## Flash (Jan 27, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. Big difference




In Canada, where the dimwit is from, neither one is a right so his stupidity is explained.


----------



## Flash (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?  Can you own a nuclear weapon?  And Clinton signed an assault weapon ban.  Turns out it was constitutional because it happened.


You are confused Moon Bat.  It was never ruled on by the Supreme Court.

When the Republicans took over the House after two years of Slick Willy's failures the House voted to repeal the goddamn thing.

It went to the Senate where the Democrats had a narrow majority.  There was a tie in the Senate to repeal it but that sicko Al Gore came into break the tie so America was fucked for the next eight years until it expired.

One of the reasons the Supremes took up the _Heller_ and _McDonald_ cases were to put an end to the Liberals stomping all over the Bill of Rights.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> "Bearable arms" = those firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
> Where do you think that draws the line, and why?


IDK what's your point?  Ok I concede.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> IDK what's your point?  Ok I concede.


You said:
You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?       
I said
Yes - "bearable arms ".  Firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
I then asked:
Where - in terms of firearms protected by the 2nd - do you think this draws the line - and why?
Well?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said:
> You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?
> I said
> Yes - "bearable arms ".  Firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
> ...


IDK you're making my head hurt.  I want to talk about biking, fishing, hunting and the superbowl.  And boating.  And fucking.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> IDK you're making my head hurt.  I want to talk about biking, fishing, hunting and the superbowl.  And boating.  And fucking.


And yet, you said:
*You know there is a line on the 2nd amendment right?*
Where is that line and why?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...


It makes perfect sense.  It's a part of the plan to make gun ownership more difficult and to turn law abiding citizens into criminals.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 27, 2022)

Winston said:


> That is not necessarily true.
> 
> Whether liability can be imputed to a vehicle owner for injuries caused by a thief is based on questions of foreseeability. States approach this differently, but most states note several factors that may lead a jury to impose a legal duty on the owner, including whether the vehicle is one that may attract those who lacked the skill and knowledge to operate it safely, whether the vehicle is one that would inflict more injury and damage than an ordinary vehicle, and whether prior occurrences should have indicated that additional security measures were required to prevent theft.
> 
> ...


If a thief steals a machete, then uses the machete to kill another person.  Is the owner of the machete responsible for the murder?  The answer is "no".


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The way the insurance could work is that say someone kills 4 people. The families of the victims sue him. Guy's insured so his insurance pays out.
> 
> Poor people can afford insurance, or they aren't savvy enough to get it, so if they're caught with a gun, they'll be uninsured and face a fine.
> 
> I'm really not sure why the city government things this will affect anything.


What if they can't afford the insurance?  Will the government pay the premiums for them?


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Any weapon the military has, you want.  Or else you are at a disadvantage.  Isn't that right?





I think that's very much true. Look at this full auto grenade launcher.

How would you like to go up against something like that with your AR15?


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...


Never fly.  They can require it for the PRIVILEGE of driving a car.  Gun ownership is a RIGHT (not to be infringed).


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 27, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> What if they can't afford the insurance?  Will the government pay the premiums for them?


Doesn't matter it is an infringement on a right and will not meet constitutional muster.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...



the number of uninsured motorists in california is estimated to be 15%

and I’m sure most of them are in the hood and the barrio

precisely the same place where gun crime will continue to flourish in spite of any new gun  tax that the crazy libs impose


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> If they write it into law, it would.



Only if the insurance companies agree with it.

And none of them would be that stupid...


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I think that's very much true. Look at this full auto grenade launcher.
> 
> How would you like to go up against something like that with your AR15?


Wow, a single shot blooper is bad enough--never seen an auto before.


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 27, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> the number of uninsured motorists in california is estimated to be 15%


Driving is a PRIVILEGE.  Gun ownership is a RIGHT--guaranteed by the constitution.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 27, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Driving is a PRIVILEGE.  Gun ownership is a RIGHT--guaranteed by the constitution.




You can get by without a gun.

If you can't drive, there are some places in America where you'll die of starvation. And you might not be able to get to work and back.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jan 27, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Driving is a PRIVILEGE.  Gun ownership is a RIGHT--guaranteed by the constitution.


Thanks

I get that

my point was the ineffectiveness of gun taxes since the people causing the gun violence epidemic will ignore the law


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can get by without a gun.
> 
> If you can't drive, there are some places in America where you'll die of starvation. And you might not be able to get to work and back.


I don't really GAF how you "feel" about it.  The fact of the matter is, driving is a privilege and as such you have to pass a test, receive a license and have insurance.  Gun ownership is a RIGHT guaranteed by the second amendment of the constitution which states that the right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  Requiring insurance is an infringement.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 27, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Like abortion rights, shouldn't we let the state decide?


Federal law says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> You can get by without a gun.
> If you can't drive, there are some places in America where you'll die of starvation. And you might not be able to get to work and back.


Doesn't change the fact his statement is correct.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I think that's very much true. Look at this full auto grenade launcher.
> 
> How would you like to go up against something like that with your AR15?


Since he's firing from a static position and his field of fire is only about 45°, I'll flank his ass and take him out from 300 yards.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 12:27 PM)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Name any other protected right we have to pay to exersize? Then explain why rights are not paid to have or use.


Name any other protected right that can maim or kill you? Then explain how this is different from owning a car or other vehicles that can do the same.


----------



## TNHarley (Yesterday at 12:29 PM)

Magnus said:


> Name any other protected right that can maim or kill you? Then explain how this is different from owning a car or other vehicles that can do the same.


No rights maim or kill people, retard


----------



## sealybobo (Yesterday at 12:36 PM)

TNHarley said:


> No rights maim or kill people, retard


Republicans love to talk about being free and rights.

But don't say gay!  It's against the law.

Don't smoke pot or get an abortion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Yesterday at 12:48 PM)

Magnus said:


> Name any other protected right that can maim or kill you? Then explain how this is different from owning a car or other vehicles that can do the same.


cars are not a right retard.


----------



## dblack (Yesterday at 12:50 PM)

Mandated insurance is a terrible way to deal with public risk. It effectively outsources the job of government and makes our rights dependent on insurance company "sponsorship".


----------



## Failzero (Yesterday at 1:01 PM)

But but I thought Republicans were the real Gungrabbers ???


----------



## TNHarley (Yesterday at 1:03 PM)

sealybobo said:


> But don't say gay! It's against the law.


Of course, that is a load of shit. But I agree with your premise.
You always throw repubs in my face like idk how they are lolz


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 1:34 PM)

TNHarley said:


> No rights maim or kill people, retard


LOL In other words, you use guns to masturbate? In the real world, guns are used to kill and or maim.

Let me know if you are still confused, retard.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 1:36 PM)

RetiredGySgt said:


> cars are not a right retard.


But they can still kill or maim in the wrong hands. Hence, the need for insurance. 

So too, with guns. Let me know if you are still confused, retard.


----------



## AMart (Yesterday at 1:41 PM)

Besides being illegal this law would be impossible to enforce lol. Stupid dems.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 1:47 PM)

White 6 said:


> Won't happen here, and I wouldn't live there.  Annual fee is a nonstarter. Insurance is a good idea, but if you aren't a deadbeat and willing to stand for your own liability, it should be your choice.  If you do not account for, control and secure your weapons *in a reasonable manner*, you should be liable for their use in crimes. If you own a weapon, you should be responsible for it, *if you are actually negligent *in securing it. None of this proposal would ever pass here in Tennessee and shouldn't.


That makes no sense. You need liability insurance because you are liable if you were to hurt or kill someone. If you can't pay, then you get insurance.

Same with having auto insurance.

And before some nitwit jumps in with Second Amendment "freedumb", no one is taking away the guns. Under our constitution, you have every right to keep guns. But with rights comes responsibility.

The responsibility to pay if you were to discharge your gun by accident. And if you are not a billionaire, you get liability insurance. What part of that is so hard to understand?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Yesterday at 1:49 PM)

Magnus said:


> What part of that is so hard to understand?


The part where you think this requirement will pass the _Bruen _test.


----------



## TNHarley (Yesterday at 1:49 PM)

Magnus said:


> LOL In other words, you use guns to masturbate? In the real world, guns are used to kill and or maim.
> 
> Let me know if you are still confused, retard.


wtf? You are fuckin weird dude. And dumb.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 1:52 PM)

TNHarley said:


> wtf? You are fuckin weird dude. And dumb.


In other words, you couldn't respond? Not to worry, retard. I never expected you could.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 1:53 PM)

M14 Shooter said:


> The part where you think this requirement will pass the _Bruen _test.


Go back and re-read Bruen. Paying insurance has nothing to do with taking away guns.


----------



## TNHarley (Yesterday at 1:54 PM)

Magnus said:


> In other words, you couldn't respond? Not to worry, retard. I never expected you could.


How could anyone respond to that word salad? Good grief


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 1:56 PM)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Federal law says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


And how is paying insurance infringing on your rights?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Yesterday at 1:57 PM)

Magnus said:


> Go back and re-read Bruen. Paying insurance has nothing to do with taking away guns.


In other words, you couldn't respond? Not to worry, retard. I never expected you could.

Bruen:
"...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.  Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.  Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”"

Ownership of a firearm falls under the plain text of the 2nd amendemnt.
So...
Explain why you think the insurance requirement will pass the _Bruen _test.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 1:58 PM)

TNHarley said:


> How could anyone respond to that word salad? Good grief


 Awww... is reading/comprehension hard for you?  Thoughts and prayers.


----------



## White 6 (Yesterday at 2:00 PM)

Magnus said:


> That makes no sense. You need liability insurance because you are liable if you were to hurt or kill someone. If you can't pay, then you get insurance.
> 
> Same with having auto insurance.
> 
> ...


If you are an apartment dweller, you may very well have no insurance and not be able to pay damages for misuse, neglect, or negligence in connection to how you store or not store your weapons.  So, who becomes responsible or is it "tough luck when somebody's kid shoots paralyzing or killing another kid because guns were under every table and loaded inside every closet in the kid's home?


----------



## TNHarley (Yesterday at 2:01 PM)

Magnus said:


> Awww... is reading/comprehension hard for you?  Thoughts and prayers.


Nope. 
You brought up something about masturbating with guns, as if that is even possible. Then whine about inanimate objects killing people, which is also impossible.
Rights dont kill or maim, retard.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 2:04 PM)

M14 Shooter said:


> In other words, you couldn't respond? Not to worry, retard. I never expected you could.
> 
> Bruen:
> "...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.  Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.  Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”"
> ...


Bruen's law had to do with public carry. The court ruled it is a right. I may disagree, but I do see their point.

But how is this related to carrying liability insurance for your guns? Do you get your guns for free?  Does the government give you free guns since it is your right to carry arms? Not unless you are in the armed forces.

The rest of us pay for our right to have a firearm. Same with insurance. You are liable if your weapon was discharged by accident. Hence the need for liability insurance.

What part of the above is so hard for you guys to get?


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 2:06 PM)

TNHarley said:


> Nope.
> You brought up something about masturbating with guns, as if that is even possible. Then whine about inanimate objects killing people, which is also impossible.
> Rights dont kill or maim, retard.


Because you claimed that guns do not kill or maim. What else do you use your guns for? You look like one of those retards that like to wank off with weapons.  But hey, feel free to let us know what you use it for.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Yesterday at 2:09 PM)

Magnus said:


> Bruen's law had to do with public carry...


You avoid the issue put to you.

The USSC GVRd all the pending 2A cases and instructed the lower courts to re-issue their rulings with the test in Bruen in mind .
That is, the test quoted in post #183.

Explain why you think the insurance requirement will pass the _Bruen _test.


----------



## TNHarley (Yesterday at 2:09 PM)

Magnus said:


> Because you claimed that guns do not kill or maim. What else do you use your guns for? You look like one of those retards that like to wank off with weapons.  But hey, feel free to let us know what you use it for.


I said RIGHTS dont kill or maim, retard. Werent you just asking about comprehension?


----------



## Likkmee (Yesterday at 2:15 PM)

Do I get a doe~ita permit with that license ?


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 2:17 PM)

White 6 said:


> If you are an apartment dweller, you may very well have no insurance and not be able to pay damages for misuse, neglect, or negligence in connection to how you store or not store your weapons.  So, who becomes responsible or is it "tough luck when somebody's kid shoots paralyzing or killing another kid because guns were under every table and loaded inside every closet in the kid's home?


Some landlords do require renters to carry insurance. But that's neither here nor there since renting an apartment is not the same as carrying a weapon.

As to your second question... Who becomes responsible when a kid uses their father's gun to paralyze or kill another kid? Well, who becomes responsible when a kid uses their father's car and accidentally paralyzes or kills another kid?

 How is one situation different than the other? Our Constitution gives us the right to carry weapons. Not the right to hurt or maim someone by accident.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 2:19 PM)

TNHarley said:


> I said RIGHTS dont kill or maim, retard. Werent you just asking about comprehension?


Since that right involves a gun, guess what? That particular right does kill or maim. You're not too bright, are you?


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 2:21 PM)

M14 Shooter said:


> You avoid the issue put to you.
> 
> The USSC GVRd all the pending 2A cases and instructed the lower courts to re-issue their rulings with the test in Bruen in mind .
> That is, the test quoted in post #183.
> ...


I just did. Learn to read. Come back when you have a counterargument.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Yesterday at 2:26 PM)

Magnus said:


> I just did.


Ah.  You choose to lie yourself.
No wonder I had you on ignore.
Back into the pit.


----------



## TNHarley (Yesterday at 2:30 PM)

Magnus said:


> Since that right involves a gun, guess what? That particular right does kill or maim. You're not too bright, are you?


Rights cant kill or maim, you fucking retard. 
You are literally putting characteristics to inanimate objects. And whats sad is, you triple down on it. SMH


----------



## White 6 (Yesterday at 2:33 PM)

Magnus said:


> Some landlords do require renters to carry insurance. But that's neither here nor there since renting an apartment is not the same as carrying a weapon.
> 
> As to your second question... Who becomes responsible when a kid uses their father's gun to paralyze or kill another kid? Well, who becomes responsible when a kid uses their father's car and accidentally paralyzes or kills another kid?
> 
> How is one situation different than the other? Our Constitution gives us the right to carry weapons. Not the right to hurt or maim someone by accident.


State require auto insurance. I am a weapons carrier. I have no problem with held responsible.  If TN mandates more insurance than I carry, I will purchase more.


----------



## dblack (Yesterday at 2:35 PM)

All freedom represents some risk. Should all of our rights require insurance company sponsorship?


----------



## dblack (Yesterday at 2:37 PM)

White 6 said:


> State require auto insurance.


A practice I've always opposed. Because I knew it would lead to shit like this. Slippery slope my ass.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 2:38 PM)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  You choose to lie yourself.
> No wonder I had you on ignore.
> Back into the pit.


Awww.... retard puts me on ignore. How will I ever survive that?


----------



## White 6 (Yesterday at 2:39 PM)

dblack said:


> All freedom represents some risk. Should all of our rights require insurance company sponsorship?


If the risk is to you, no.  If the risk of your possible actions is to other people, why not?


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 2:41 PM)

White 6 said:


> State require auto insurance. I am a weapons carrier. I have no problem with held responsible.  If TN mandates more insurance than I carry, I will purchase more.


You are willing to pay if there is an accident either with your car or guns. Good for you.

But there are others who are not. Who then becomes responsible for their negligence?


----------



## Likkmee (Yesterday at 2:42 PM)

Likkmee said:


> Do I get a doe~ita permit with that license ?


----------



## White 6 (Yesterday at 2:46 PM)

Magnus said:


> You are willing to pay if there is an accident either with your car or guns. Good for you.
> 
> But there are others who are not. Who then becomes responsible for their negligence?


Society or the injured and their family.  I suspect the Teacher that was shot, is using her insurance as well as the school system's and state workman's compensation.  It is highly unlikely, the 6-year-old kid's mother will be picking up the tab.


----------



## dblack (Yesterday at 2:50 PM)

White 6 said:


> If the risk is to you, no.  If the risk of your possible actions is to other people, why not?


Because managing public risk is THE job of government. Turning to insurance companies, instead, places one of the most important responsibilities of government in the hands of for-profit corporations. It's as dumb as privatizing prisons, for many of the same reasons.

Exercising _any_ of our rights carries an element of risk. For example, we've seen the damage that can be done by exercising one's freedom of speech - especially in the age of the internet. Should websites, or anyone else for that matter, be required to have liability insurance before they're allowed on the internet?


----------



## White 6 (Yesterday at 2:55 PM)

dblack said:


> Because managing public risk is THE job of government. Turning to insurance companies, instead, places one of the most important responsibilities of government in the hands of for-profit corporations. It's as dumb as privatizing prisons, for many of the same reasons.
> 
> Exercising _any_ of our rights carries an element of risk. For example, we've seen the damage that can be done by exercising one's freedom of speech - especially in the age of the internet. Should websites, or anyone else for that matter, be required to have liability insurance before they're allowed on the internet?


Just where (which history book or enacted document) did you get that managing public risk was the governments job and we, BTW are not talking about public risk.  We are talking about risk to private citizens, by private citizens exercising their right, though sometime irresponsibly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Yesterday at 3:16 PM)

Magnus said:


> But they can still kill or maim in the wrong hands. Hence, the need for insurance.
> 
> So too, with guns. Let me know if you are still confused, retard.


Firearms are a right be specific and name any other right you have to pay to exercise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Yesterday at 3:18 PM)

Magnus said:


> And how is paying insurance infringing on your rights?


Be specific and list for us any other right the Government forces you to pay to exercise.


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 4:46 PM)

White 6 said:


> Society or the injured and their family.  I suspect the Teacher that was shot, is using her insurance as well as the school system's and state workman's compensation.  It is highly unlikely, the 6-year-old kid's mother will be picking up the tab.


Do you think that is fair? Isn't that socialism? Someone else paying for your mistake?

Isn't that what Conservatives dislike about socialists and communists?


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 4:59 PM)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Firearms are a right be specific and name any other right you have to pay to exercise.


LOL You still don't get it, do you? You are already paying for your right to have a gun.

Does the government give every citizen a free gun since they are given the right to hold arms? They don't, do they? You pay for your guns.

On top of that, you also pay to register your guns in many states. Even in the state of Texas, LTC requires a fee. 

So, I turn your question back on you. Name one other right where you have to pay to exercise that said right. Go.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Yesterday at 5:18 PM)

Magnus said:


> LOL You still don't get it, do you? You are already paying for your right to have a gun.
> 
> Does the government give every citizen a free gun since they are given the right to hold arms? They don't, do they? You pay for your guns.
> 
> ...


The government doesnt pay for your newspaper internet or tv either, the prohibition is not there rights still require that you buy material but what you cant do is provide where the Government mandated anyone pay anything to exercise any right and thus your ignorant demand will be overturned by the Courts. Further since criminal acts are not covered by ANY insurance EVER the requirement doesn't help anyone. It is purely an effort to limit ownership and coercive to boot.


----------



## dblack (Yesterday at 5:27 PM)

White 6 said:


> Just where (which history book or enacted document) did you get that managing public risk was the governments job


Just by thinking about it. That's essentially why we have government. So we can get along in society without constant risk of conflict or injury.


White 6 said:


> and we, BTW are not talking about public risk.  We are talking about risk to private citizens, by private citizens exercising their right, though sometime irresponsibly.


I don't follow, but you didn't answer my question. Should websites be required to have insurance before they're allowed to exercise their free speech rights?


----------



## BlackSand (Yesterday at 5:33 PM)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...


.

You don't have to care what California does ... 
Just ensure the Legislature in your State makes your State Constitution solid and invulnerable to that kind of junk.

Not that hard to stop ... Passed with more than 70% support by the People ... Who actually voted.
There won't be any Mandatory Liability Insurance for a Constitutionally Protected Right in our state.

.​


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 6:21 PM)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The government doesnt pay for your newspaper internet or tv either, the prohibition is not there rights still require that you buy material but what you cant do is provide where the Government mandated anyone pay anything to exercise any right and thus your ignorant demand will be overturned by the Courts. Further since criminal acts are not covered by ANY insurance EVER the requirement doesn't help anyone. It is purely an effort to limit ownership and coercive to boot.


The government guarantees me newspaper/internet/tv?     

Nope. The government guarantees you freedom of speech. They don't make you pay for it. They guarantee me the right to vote and the right to worship. None of these require a license fee. Heck, the government takes the right to worship so seriously that religious institutions don't have to pay taxes. Compare that with gun manufacturers. 

Sorry, bud. Brrrr... you lose. But don't give up. Keep trying to twist yourself into a pretzel. I am enjoying it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Yesterday at 6:42 PM)

Magnus said:


> The government guarantees me newspaper/internet/tv?
> 
> Nope. The government guarantees you freedom of speech. They don't make you pay for it. They guarantee me the right to vote and the right to worship. None of these require a license fee. Heck, the government takes the right to worship so seriously that religious institutions don't have to pay taxes. Compare that with gun manufacturers.
> 
> Sorry, bud. Brrrr... you lose. But don't give up. Keep trying to twist yourself into a pretzel. I am enjoying it.


LOL you are a moron keep proving it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Yesterday at 6:42 PM)

Otis Mayfield said:


> San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.
> 
> The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.
> 
> ...


….shall not be infringed


----------



## Magnus (Yesterday at 6:44 PM)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL you are a moron keep proving it.


----------



## White 6 (Yesterday at 6:47 PM)

dblack said:


> Just by thinking about it. That's essentially why we have government. So we can get along in society without constant risk of conflict or injury.
> 
> I don't follow, but you didn't answer my question. Should websites be required to have insurance before they're allowed to exercise their free speech rights?


I have never heard of anybody shot by a website in my life.  I have never been brought to harm by a website.  Try again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Yesterday at 6:50 PM)

White 6 said:


> I have never heard of anybody shot by a website in my life.  I have never been brought to harm by a website.  Try again.


words kill and hurt according to you liberals so answer the question.


----------



## White 6 (Yesterday at 6:55 PM)

RetiredGySgt said:


> words kill and hurt according to you liberals so answer the question.


I need to meet one of these liberals.  You pretty well have to physically assault me or mine or start an action to take my money.  I am fairly prepared for either.


----------



## dblack (Yesterday at 11:03 PM)

White 6 said:


> I have never heard of anybody shot by a website in my life.  I have never been brought to harm by a website.  Try again.


I don't need to try again. Freedom of speech comes with real risk and can do real harm - arguably more than the right to bear arms. The last few elections have made that clear. If government is going to get into the business of curtailing our rights because of how we might use them, why should it stop with guns?


----------



## White 6 (53 minutes ago)

dblack said:


> I don't need to try again. Freedom of speech comes with real risk and can do real harm - arguably more than the right to bear arms. The last few elections have made that clear. If government is going to get into the business of curtailing our rights because of how we might use them, why should it stop with guns?


Hmmmmmmmm. Interesting point.


----------

