San Jose Mayor Brags about Insane New Anti-Gun Laws: ‘Better Than Waiting on Congress’

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo is set to pass some of the strictest “gun control” laws in the country. (Photo: Facebook)

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times this week to explain how his city’s slate of new anti-gun ordinances, set to become law at a January 25 city council meeting, will reduce violence.

“My city’s new gun control laws will help more than waiting on Congress to do something,” he proclaims in the title of the editorial.

Those new laws include requiring gun owners in the city to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee to fund “violence-reduction initiatives.” No other jurisdiction has passed such measures.

“Requiring every gun owner in my city to carry liability insurance will better compensate unintentional shooting victims and their families for medical and related expenses. More importantly, insurance can also incentivize safer gun ownership,” Liccardo claims. “Risk-adjusted premiums will encourage owners to take gun-safety courses, use gun safes or install child-safe trigger locks to reduce the annual toll of accidental gun harm.”

Will the criminals responsible for the city’s rising rates of violent crime purchase insurance and pay a fee? Liccardo admits that they won’t, but he believes his city’s new laws will still help.

SEE ALSO: San Jose City Leaders Disclose How They Will Punish Uninsured Gun Owners 

“These ordinances create a legal mandate that gives police the means for at least the temporary forfeiture of guns from dangerous law-breakers,” he says. “Giving the police the ability to distinguish the scofflaws from the law-abiding among gun owners will have tremendous public safety benefits.”

It’s unclear how either of these new ordinances will give police this supposedly new ability, and Liccardo does not elaborate.

As for the annual gun owner fee, Liccardo dismissed the idea that such a fee infringes on Second Amendment rights.

“To be sure, the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens to own guns, but it doesn’t require the public to subsidize gun ownership,” he says. “Every day, taxpayers bear the financial burden of police officers, ambulances and trauma surgeons responding to gun violence. These direct costs of gun violence total $40 million annually for San Jose taxpayers, and $1.4 billion for taxpayers statewide.”

Liccardo assumes, of course, that guns—rather than criminals—are responsible for this violence. Otherwise, presumably, he’d force those criminals to pay an annual “crime fee” rather than law-abiding gun owners.

SEE ALSO: San Jose City Leaders Approve Gun Control Agenda: Video-Recorded Gun Sales, Liability Insurance, Buyers’ Fees & More

Technically, the city council still has to vote to pass these new ordinances. But the council unanimously approved Liccardo’s proposals last June, so it’s almost a foregone conclusion that the measures will pass.

Still, the NRA-ILA is calling on San Jose residents to push back.

“This is an attempt to punish law-abiding gun owners for owning a lawful product, by making them pay for the activities of criminals,” the gun rights organization points out on its website. “Taxing lawful ownership and requiring insurance will do nothing to reduce gun violence, which is often committed by repeat criminals who will not be paying the fees or obtaining insurance. It simply increases the cost for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right.”

Click here to contact the San Jose city council.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over six years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Tyler. Got a hot tip? Send him an email at jordan@gunsamerica.com.

{ 22 comments… add one }
  • Mike P January 25, 2022, 1:36 pm

    How does this not run afoul of California’s preemption law?

  • SEABEETOM January 23, 2022, 1:52 am

    Time to get rid of this clown.

  • DIYinSTL January 22, 2022, 6:26 pm

    So where are the statistics showing the number of “unintentional shootings” in San Jose over the past several years?

  • Hondo January 21, 2022, 1:57 pm

    More douchebagery from the idiots in commiefornia, give it to Mexico and be done with them already.

    • D.J. January 24, 2022, 1:55 pm

      I suggested prior to this , that we sell it to
      the Chicoms . Hell , they probably already
      have their hooks into most of it anyway .

      They dammed sure act like them .

  • Stephen January 21, 2022, 1:53 pm

    Excuse me…

    Why should a law abiding citizen have to pay for a criminal’s stupidity? Also why in hell should I have to pay to exercise my Constitutional rights? The liberal states are the ones not locking up criminals, hell, they don’t even go to trial anymore. It’s a wonder there isn’t more crime being as you are only slapping criminals on the wrist and asking them to please not do that any more! WTF do you honestly expect? You tie the hands of law enforcement and all but close the court system and you expect sunshine and roses? Also this is all tied into Soros’ money. Why is that? Why is this man allowed to buy positions in our political system?

  • Daniel G Hoffman January 21, 2022, 1:36 pm

    I think it would be better if instead everyone in town was issued a firearm, Anyone using it in a criminal matter would be confronted with an armed citizen. I think Mr, mayor just wanted his name in the press so he came up with one of the dumbest proposals yet.

  • Stephen January 21, 2022, 1:36 pm

    …And how pray tell do you expect to carry out this stupidity on the criminals who don’t give a rat’s ass about your new law. Being as they are a criminal, they will laugh their asses off, shoot you in the face, and tell you to take your new law and stick it! Yeah, they are really quaking in their boots on this one. The only one you are going to hurt is the legal gun owner who would not hurt a fly in the first place. Liberal politicians… Because even God can’t fix effing stupid!

  • Sorzy January 21, 2022, 12:58 pm

    This is why I despise the creation and pushing of these so called gun insurance crap! Because I saw this happening. I see them, hell, they’ve already tried to include it in a bill to make everyone get it. What about those who simply can’t afford it? But who cares, lets make criminals out of anyone who can’t and won’t.

    When are we going to take our cities, states, and country back?!?!?!?!!!!!!

  • TERRY January 21, 2022, 11:04 am

    I doubt it if criminals will carry this insurance. They rule the streets of California anyway. The citizens are being penalized for exercising a right.

  • Nate January 21, 2022, 11:01 am

    So, this will immediately result in a court challenge. Do you ever get the impression this jerk is only doing this to enrich a bunch of lawyers?

    • Brian January 22, 2022, 11:31 am

      Want to bet this scumbag politician will be getting a kickback from the insurance companies?

  • EasyEddie January 21, 2022, 10:34 am

    In general, most, if not all, Homeowner’s policies provide liability coverage that extends outside your home and anywhere in the world. Any lawsuits against you, medical and property claims made against you are covered under your liability insurance. It’s usually Coverage E – Personal Liability Coverage. Thus if your errant projectile injures someone or damages property, the policy would apply. Both Homeowner’s and Renters policies have a Coverage E section. But…have the conversation with your agent to be sure.

    There is no policy on earth that will provide coverage for an ‘intentional act’. So if you must shoot someone in defense of your life, your families’ life, etc., that potentially bleeds into (no pun intended) a gray area focusing on ‘intent’. There may never be criminal charges made, but you can be sued by family members of the deceased bad actor. Everybody looks for a pot of gold these days.

    There are also third-party policies that may be available thru certain 2A organizations.

  • Big Al 45 January 21, 2022, 10:03 am

    Are Insurance companies even OFFERING such a plan???
    What a moron, going after the SMALLEST issue with firearms related deaths and injuries and touting it as a big deal.

  • Stephen Graham January 21, 2022, 9:49 am

    What moronic thought processes. Does he actually believe that a significant percentage of violent firearms crimes are perpetrated by legal gun owners? He is an absolute socialist communist.

  • Mark K January 21, 2022, 9:17 am

    So he wants to give the police a way to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and “scofflaws”? Mr. Mayor, I have a much easier way to do that than passing all this stuff and charging “law abiding gun owners” for the actions of “scofflaws”. It’s actually quite simple. A “scofflaw” — also known in most places (maybe not California) as a “criminal” — is one who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. A “Law abiding gun owner” is everybody else.

    Criminals should be prosecuted and removed from society in a little thing most of us call “prison”. If they use a gun, it should be for a long time. And oh, by the way, there need be no “temporary” removal of guns from criminals; what? Does San Jose give them back their guns when their prison terms are done??

    But, I guess that San Jose voters get what San Jose voters voted for. I’m just glad I don’t live anywhere close to that place!

  • The Ghostman January 21, 2022, 9:05 am

    This “tax by any other name” should be challenged and eliminated the same as the old “poll tax” where you had to pay to exercise your right to vote.
    What would happen if the gun owner is a family living off social security as their only income?
    How about a single Mom living in a bad area of town and has very little, or no disposable income?
    Would he have the police go in and seize their firearms?

  • Dr Manarii Tane January 21, 2022, 8:25 am

    This just shows how ignorant these paid-off politicians are. Obviously being paid-off by Soros type individuals. Take guns away from law abiding taxpaying American citizens – sure, this will prevent crimes. Ignorant fools. California just keeps voting them in and wonder what happened.

  • Wiliam January 21, 2022, 8:09 am

    All this will do is embolden criminals who will now see a payout if a victim defends themselves when being assaulted or robbed. This rewards thugs and punishes citizens.

  • Dr Motown January 21, 2022, 7:55 am

    Sounds like this libtard mayor has a brother in the insurance business….

  • Shawn January 21, 2022, 7:04 am

    Its Cali….who cares?? They will all drown in their rhetoric bullshit someday. Live in a red state or live in a blue state…its your choice. Free country still. You will not see this shit in one of those colored states…fig it out!!

  • Mark N. January 20, 2022, 11:10 pm

    Totally idiotic. Just how many uncompensated negligent shootings are there in San Jose annually? Since your average every day homeowner’s or renter’s policy will cover negligently inflicted injuries, even those caused by firearms, and since I cannot imagine that San Jose has any more that a couple of negligent shootings each year, this law will do noting to reduce the expense to the city caused by “gun violence.” We already know that it is illegal to insure against intentionally inflicted injuries. So the OBVIOUS purpose of this bill is to increase the cost of gun ownership for lawful gun owners. Licardo, from what I have read, is an avid gun banner, so this crap is hardly surprising. I anticipate a lawsuit is in the offing..

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend