Judge upholds San Jose's ordinance requiring gun owners to have liability insurance
SAN JOSE, Calif. (KGO) -- The City of San Jose is calling it a victory in the fight against gun violence a judge upholding the city's Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
@ BETH LABSON FREEMAN Your honor: the words in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution are: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Step 2: Require $500,000 in insurance so that no-one can afford to buy it. Step 2, part B: Regulate the sh!t out of gun insurance (impossible reporting requirements for suppliers, etc.) so that no insurance company can afford to provide it.
The Libs know liability insurance for legit gun owners not gonna stop gun violence. The reality is they're committed to poking legal gun owners in the eye because they're obsessed, neurotic bullies. Too bad the entire justice system has been infiltrated by America and constitution haters.
It's what they teach at Harvard Law. And most other schools of law, too.
The commie Dean of the University of California School of Law at Berkeley has just created a new 'Justice Center' and picked disgraced and recalled S.F. DA Chesa Boudin as its founding director. What sort of 'justice' do you suppose he'll be indoctrinating Berkeley law students with?
BTW, the dean of Berkeley's law school is paid over a half a million dollars of taxpayer money every year. Which political party do you suppose he supports with his contributions?
"Shall not be infringed?" This clearly requires resident citizens to pay money, directed by the local government, as a condition for exercising their 2A rights.
I would also argue that owning a firearm today is speech. Speech supporting our inalienable rights. The fee, therefore, is a toll citizens must pay to exercise their 1A rights.
My suspicion is that the SCOTUS will disallow this fee.
Again, I think "the process is the punishment." The point may be to bankrupt the anti-anti-gun control (2nd Amendment supporters) or just get them so tired that they're willing to give a micron (first step on the slippery slope) or just delay until they can get a POTUS who will appoint two or more uneducated, extremely far left non-US citizens (for diversity's sake) to SCOTUS
Law says everyone has to have car insurance, how's that working out? As in every new law pertaining to guns, there is absolutely no enforcement or penalties (unless its legal gun owners).
So for the gov this works, as I doubt anyone is going to find a carrier, which again makes everyone a criminal. Oh, well. As for the bad guys: "License and insurance for that weapon!" - "I got your insurance right here, cop!" Pow, pow!
As others have stated, they will pass these laws and then make it illegal to cover firearm owners. The WA Insurance Commissioner has already done that with coverage that was provided by membership in the USCCA. They called being (falsely) charged by anti-gun DAs for defending yourself, illegal activity. Never mind that the policy would not cover any shooting that was proven to be illegal. https://rb.gy/b71pr
October 21, 2019 OLYMPIA, Wash. – Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has fined United States Concealed Carry Association, Inc., (USCCA) for violating Washington state laws by selling unauthorized insurance that illegally covers defense costs for criminal shootings.
Poll taxes were required to vote in some states. They were ruled unconstitutional as infringing on the right of a citizen to vote. Requiring insurance functions the same way. Sue till she squeals and California has to pay damages.
Yep. Funny they mention gun violence when the criminal does not have the permit. Gun laws are now written for handicapping the law abiding.
ReplyDeleteA female judge with a Harvard law degree appointed by Barack Obama. Big surprise.
ReplyDeleteBut no worries. The City of San Jose is willing to spend the taxpayer money needed to see this case all the way to and through the Supreme Court.
@ BETH LABSON FREEMAN
ReplyDeleteYour honor:
the words in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution are:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If the amount of liability insurance is not specified, then you could get $10 worth.
ReplyDeleteEven one farthing is too much to *pay* to exercise a constitutionally recognized and protected right.
DeleteYou are compromising. See Lawdog's dwindling cake for reference.
Step 2: Require $500,000 in insurance so that no-one can afford to buy it. Step 2, part B: Regulate the sh!t out of gun insurance (impossible reporting requirements for suppliers, etc.) so that no insurance company can afford to provide it.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe Libs know liability insurance for legit gun owners not gonna stop gun violence. The reality is they're committed to poking legal gun owners in the eye because they're obsessed, neurotic bullies. Too bad the entire justice system has been infiltrated by America and constitution haters.
It's what they teach at Harvard Law. And most other schools of law, too.
DeleteThe commie Dean of the University of California School of Law at Berkeley has just created a new 'Justice Center' and picked disgraced and recalled S.F. DA Chesa Boudin as its founding director. What sort of 'justice' do you suppose he'll be indoctrinating Berkeley law students with?
BTW, the dean of Berkeley's law school is paid over a half a million dollars of taxpayer money every year. Which political party do you suppose he supports with his contributions?
"Shall not be infringed?" This clearly requires resident citizens to pay money, directed by the local government, as a condition for exercising their 2A rights.
ReplyDeleteI would also argue that owning a firearm today is speech. Speech supporting our inalienable rights. The fee, therefore, is a toll citizens must pay to exercise their 1A rights.
My suspicion is that the SCOTUS will disallow this fee.
Still worth it to shoot a p.o.s.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think "the process is the punishment."
ReplyDeleteThe point may be to bankrupt the anti-anti-gun control (2nd Amendment supporters) or
just get them so tired that they're willing to give a micron (first step on the slippery slope) or
just delay until they can get a POTUS who will appoint two or more uneducated, extremely far left non-US citizens (for diversity's sake) to SCOTUS
Law says everyone has to have car insurance, how's that working out? As in every new law pertaining to guns, there is absolutely no enforcement or penalties (unless its legal gun owners).
ReplyDeletedriving a car is not in the constitution. the right to bear arms is.
DeleteI left the shit hole of California 20 years ago and have never looked back.....
ReplyDeleteImagine still willingly choosing to live in California at this point
ReplyDeleteStep 1: "Gun owners gotta have insurance."
ReplyDeleteStep 2: "Gun owners can't get insurance."
Exactly
DeleteSo for the gov this works, as I doubt anyone is going to find a carrier, which again makes everyone a criminal. Oh, well. As for the bad guys: "License and insurance for that weapon!" - "I got your insurance right here, cop!" Pow, pow!
ReplyDeleteJudge Beth Ann Labson, another obama judge.... Think she has a gun for self defense???
ReplyDeleteYeah , well judge ..... Fuck You ! You fuckin ' Fuck . Enforce I it !
ReplyDeleteThis is a use tax on guns, something which historically never existed.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how the City would find out if you didn't comply? Are they going to inspect every house for guns? Where's your warrant, officer?
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated, they will pass these laws and then make it illegal to cover firearm owners. The WA Insurance Commissioner has already done that with coverage that was provided by membership in the USCCA. They called being (falsely) charged by anti-gun DAs for defending yourself, illegal activity. Never mind that the policy would not cover any shooting that was proven to be illegal.
ReplyDeletehttps://rb.gy/b71pr
October 21, 2019
OLYMPIA, Wash. – Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has fined United States Concealed Carry Association, Inc., (USCCA) for violating Washington state laws by selling unauthorized insurance that illegally covers defense costs for criminal shootings.
Poll taxes were required to vote in some states. They were ruled unconstitutional as infringing on the right of a citizen to vote. Requiring insurance functions the same way. Sue till she squeals and California has to pay damages.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "shall not be infringed" somehow comes to mind.
ReplyDelete