Your unseen gun violence tax.

[AndyS]

San Jose to make gun owners carry insurance, pay into public fund
https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-to-make-gun-owners-carry-insurance-pay-into-public-fund/


Oh noes! Gunners have their panties in a wad! Second amendment! God Given Right! My precious!

What could possibly drive government to do such a thing???? Might it be . . .

Gun violence in San José costs taxpayers $442 million. That’s $2.2 million in taxes *per gun violence victim*. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to own guns but doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership.

Sam Liccardo (@sliccardo), mayor, San Jose

Because of that considerable expense San Jose requires gun owners to have liability insurance on their guns and to pay into a fund to offset costs of gun violence. Of course gunners are apoplectic.

According to the GAO guns cost the US treasury roughly a $Billion a year. Every year. Why is it that all of you have to pay that tax even if you don't own a gun?

I own guns. I'm happy to carry my fair share of costs. My insurance will be relatively low because my guns are almost 100 years old, stored in a safe and ammunition stored separately. I think it would be more expensive if I owned a similar number of AR 15/AK 47s and Glocks but that's the nature of insurance underwriting. Probably be less if they were all smart guns with electronic safety features.

Why won't gun owners step up and take responsibility?

[SYFROYH]

1. Gun owners are a part of the same tax paying public. We all share in paying for misdeeds.

It's not the owning that is the problem. It's the misuse of guns that is the problem.

And I'm fine with holding people liable for misusing firearms.

So there you go, if you sue gun owners who misuse firearms you can make them take responsibility.

You're welcome.

[AndyS]

3. Okay, so you're saying that the people who aren't part of the problem should shoulder the

bulk of the cost? Mighty big of you.

[SYFROYH]

48. That's how we solve most of our problems in this country - general taxes.

You can like it or not.

[AndyS]

51. Most but not all.

Highways are funded largely by gas taxes. SS is funded by it's own tax and some have the option to use another retirement fund instead.

Because guns are used by only a minority of us perhaps an ammunition tax to support the cost to society would be in order. Either a federal tax which I would prefer a the nation as a whole is assailed with the cost of violence or perhaps a combination Fed/State/Local tax so each locality could recover the cost inflicted on them by a bunch of fetishists.

[hunter]

19. The second amendment is bullshit. Just as the 3/5 person clause was bullshit.

Most U.S. Americans don't care enough about guns to bother owning one.

Some of us, maybe the majority of us now, are tired of the gun fetishists, just as we are tired of the racists and LGBQT hating religious freaks.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[SYFROYH]

49. I think Americans have a complicated relationship with guns and the RKBA.

Gun fetishism is an interesting term of art, but I think I understand it.

It's true that there are some people who think guns will save them from any sort of problem, but most people who own them have a practical and realistic view of gun ownership (based on my experience).

The I'll-never-give-up-my-guns crowd is a direct reaction to attempts to restrict ownership or ban some guns.

[hunter]

50. I'm not gonna cry for the gun fetishists...

... any more than I'd cry for the racists or pedophiles.

They can all go fuck themselves.

[Dial H For Hero]

2. I will be quite surprised if this survives the court challenge.

[AndyS]

4. I know, you're always surprised when responsible gun owners are asked to be . . .

responsible.

[Dial H For Hero]

5. Actually, I'm not at all suprised when those in favor of more gun control pass such laws.

Some survive court challenges, some don't.

[AndyS]

7. And I'm not at all surprised when 'law abiding gun owners' refuse to obey laws. nt

[Dial H For Hero]

8. And how likely do you think it that this law will survive the court challenge?

[AndyS]

9. Just as likely as a gunner is to obey a law . . .

[Dial H For Hero]

10. I'm happy to discuss this issue calmy and rationally, but this doesn't appear to be the thread

in which to do so. I wish you the best.

[AndyS]

11. Really? Now I'm not being calm while you go pout in the corner? Ha!

[LiberatedUSA]

25. I can help you both.

One of you is taking about whether or not the law will withstand a challenge.

The other is talking about whether the law will be obeyed.

And that is where the conversation has ended.

The law is supposed to be obeyed, if it passes a court challenge.

The law can’t be obeyed, if it doesn’t pass a challenge, since it would not exist anymore.

[AndyS]

36. Thanks for trying to clarify but I really am talking about gunners not obeying any

law they don't personally agree with. I was a frequent visitor to the Gungeon for years and that was the response to any number of laws passed. Just recently I commented on the Australian gun ban and was informed that it only had a 20% compliance because, well, guns.

Then, when the state takes the only reasonable action and seizes a gun that is not in compliance they all scream CONFISCATION! THEY WANT TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS AWAY!

So, thanks again for the input but I've had way too much experience in my 40 odd years 'discussing' guns to overlook the real meaning behind 'it won't pass the courts'. The soto voce is saying 'and who cares anyway . . .'

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. How likely do you think I enjoy basking in...

...a certain members ignore list?

[keithbvadu2]

6. "God Given Right!" - Must be a weak God if they are so worried that it can be taken away so easily

"God Given Right!" -

Must be a weak God if they are so worried that it can be taken away so easily.

[pandr32]

12. I think this is a good approach

Liability insurance would discourage some (hopefully many).
Also, hammering the point home that without it everyone's taxes go up is a good strategy. It reframes the issue as one of raising taxes.

[GoodRaisin]

13. Great idea. nt

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Risk management

Quietly runs the world as much as money, ever since the formation of Lloyd's of London.

No idea where this is going but once liability enters the fray it's to be taken seriously.

2A doesn't say "no liability ever" or "tax free".

[AndyS]

16. Where in the 2nd do you find an absolute right? nt

[AndyS]

22. You mean like having to get a permit to exercise your first amendment right to free speech

and assembly? Or a requirement to hire security at such events for the protection of the public?

Or laws about libel, slander and the like? Shouting fire in a theater? Public endangerment?

There are NO absolute rights.

May I suggest you find out who authored the 2nd and what that author thought about what a militia is and what well regulated means? Just some light reading . . .

[AndyS]

27. Hmmm, disturbing the peace?

Subjugated for ALL guns? Like submitting to a background check to buy a gun? Being restricted on where and when you can carry it? Like across state lines? Buying and shipping across state lines? Permit requirements?

How is being required to have insurance more intrusive than any of the above?

You're not very good at this are you?

[11 Bravo]

47. That was about as comprehensive an internet ass-kicking as I have ever witnessed.

OUCH!

[mountain grammy]

28. No, AndyS is not putting words in your mouth

He's putting ideas in your head so your words make sense. Maybe you should listen.

[CaptainTruth]

17. While we're at it, limit kinetic energy of bullets.

"Assault rifles" are so deadly because their rounds have so much kinetic energy (basically, high velocity) they pulverize any organs they hit. Limit total kinetic energy (limit muzzle velocity of the rounds) to be similar to a handgun & they will be far less deadly.

The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, it doesn't say you have the absolute right to any & all ammunition.

[sarisataka]

29. Velocity and KE are related

But different. Mass also is a factor.

If you look at rifle cartridges overall, "assault rifles" then towards the low end of the KE range because the light weight of the projectile offsets the velocity.

Two rifles I own, both bolt action. One is in .223, the same as an AR fires and a 416 Remington magnum
The 223 travels about 3300 ft/s and has energy of about 1300 ft lbs ar the muzzle.
The 416 travels at 2600 ft/s with energy of over 5400 ft lbs.

Higher energy is neccessary for hunting to humanely bring down game. In many areas 223 is prohibited for deer hunting because the energy is too low.

[hack89]

45. So basically ban all rifles?

Ok.

Btw, a typical .30 caliber deer hunting round has two and a half times the KE of an assault weapon bullet - a greater distance.

[Roy Rolling]

18. AK-47 owners:

Join a well-regulated militia if you want to fire big weapons.

The Army needs tough guys (and women) to join.

Otherwise, peaceful society is not a place to play army.

[twodogsbarking]

21. Hope y'all don't get shot today.

Really.

[mitch96]

24. "gun owners carry insurance," I don't see a problem with that..

First thing that pops to mind is Automobiles.. You want to drive? Pass a TEST to prove you can drive. Should be the same for guns as other countries do.
I'm sure the insurance companies would love this idea.. YMMV
m

[sarisataka]

26. How insurance works-

There are two parts to gun insurance, value and liability. They will be (usually) on separate policies and both are currently optional.

Insuring the value of the gun is exactly what it sounds like. The cost to replace it should it be lost/stolen/ destroyed. How a gun is secured may affect the premium for this coverage but the value of the gun is what will determine the premium.

Liability is the other coverage and what most are speaking of when they call for "gun insurance". It has two sub-coverages, payments for damages to other's person or property and payments for legal defense.

Payments to others falls first under your homeowners, then under an umbrella policy if you have one. There are additional policies available for gun owners that are specific to gun related liability and would coordinate with other insurance. Anyone who has homeowners insurance (the term includes condominium and renters policies) likely has at least $100k of liability coverage. Umbrella policies usually start at $1M, gun specific policies are usually at least $500k.

Liability insurance does not take into account if you have a Glock, AK, original Winchester 1873 or a full on Class III automatic weapon. They are insuring the potential action of the person. If the person has had accidents of any sort, not just guns, they will pay more; if they are responsible the coverage is rather inexpensive.

The most common exclusion for liability coverage is "intentional acts". If a person takes their gun out and shoots a random person the insurance is not going to pay the victim, the person who fired the gun will be responsible for paying. Some companies remove this exclusion is a gun is fired in self defense but others do not.

Coverage of legal cost is typically only available on gun specific policies and may or may not come with liability coverage. Some will pay legal defense upfront, others will reimburse you only after a not guilty verdict is returned.

[NickB79]

30. When the court cases are over, San Jose will be millions of dollars poorer

Because this doesn't stand a chance before an appeals court, much less the USSC.

[AndyS]

34. That's what I heard about:

background checks (I've been at this a loooong time)
assault weapons bans
armor piercing ammunition
silencers
bumpstocks

Why don't ya' take a wait n see position. It's easier on the ego to say, I didn't think that would happen than damn, I was wrong!

[NickB79]

39. All those things were appealed to a much more liberal USSC in a different generation

But please, tell me you think Trump's Supreme Court justices would let this stand.

[AndyS]

46. I don't know. They've surprised us a few times. I'm not confident enough

to make flat out statements as some seem to be.

[YoshidaYui]

31. About fucking time

About fucking time Someone is doing something about gun violence.

[Marcus Pullarius]

33. At best, this only a half step,

albeit in the right direction. A gun has but one single purpose. A gun is designed to kill! Not to wound, intimidate or impress but KILL. It doesn't care who or what, on purpose or by accident. It doesn't care if you're going to eat what you kill or not. It is made to kill. Why is it even allowed in a civilized culture? If we can't immediately fix this psychotic society, we have to remove such weapons from it's irresponsible hands as we would any irresponsible toddler.
Guns and civil society are incompatible.

[ShazzieB]

44. If only if it were that simple. 😕

I'm with you on a lot of this, but a lot of people in this country aren't. In the meantime, we're stuck with this thing called the Second Amendment, which the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution for reasons that arguably haven't been relevant for a very, very long time. Those same Founding Fathers also made it extremely hard to add or remove anything from the Constitution (understandably, since making it too easy could be a recipe for chaos).

As long as that (not inalterable but very difficult to alter) provision is in the Constitution, governments at every level can make all the gun control laws they want, but such laws WILL be challenged in court, and whether they are allowed to stand or are declared "unconstitutional" will be decided by judges, based on their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment. A lot of us are not happy with that, but it's the reality we live in.

[fescuerescue]

35. The NRA supports this law btw. Since the NRA is the largest seller of gun insurance

This will be a big revenue boost for them.

[AndyS]

37. The NRA insurance isn't for liability against damage caused by gun violence but

to offer legal support for any gun owner charged with a crime involving the use of his gun. Particularly in 'stand your ground' type cases.

Liability for damage caused by the gun is a whole different thing.

[fescuerescue]

40. How long do you think will take before they will underwrite a plan?

And capture that huge revenue stream?

SOMEONE is going to have to offer these insurance plans. If the plans aren't available and cannot be purchased, the law will won't make it far into the appeals process, and may be struck down immediately.

Naturally companies that already offer gun insurance will be the 1st to step up to the plate to offer a San-Jose compliant policy.

I'm sure that draft plans are already being circulated internally at the various gun insurance companies. Complete with profit and loss forecasts, and how best to utilize these new profit streams.

Even if the NRA decided to not offer this insurance (which would be strange since they are already the biggest player), the other smaller gun insurance companies are quite ready to cash in.

[NickB79]

41. No insurance can be compelling to pay out for illegal acts by the policy holder

There literally aren't any insurance policies that could be used in this situation.

This would be a clear example of an "intentional act" exclusion. No insurance company would pay for it.

The only gun insurance policies available are for unintentional acts, and for legal claims of self defense.

[AndyS]

42. That is what gun owners should have to protect against damage to others.

The fund for gun violence is to cover the other instances of intentional use.

[NickB79]

43. Which insurance companies can't be compelled to pay out for

A fund isn't the same as insurance. Gun owners pay an extra tax with every firearm and ammo purchase to fund wildlife conservation. That's how something like this could legally work. Add a "violence tax" to every gun and bullet sold within city limits, or at every gun range in town.

Using insurance policies for this purpose isn't legally feasible though. That's not how insurance works for these situations.