San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance

[Otis Mayfield]

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]

Wont stand for very long.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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]

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

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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

 

[White 6]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Not here RETARD.

 

[okfine]

$10.00 there is a fucking insurance lobbyist involved.

 

[TNHarley]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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]

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]

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]

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.