Proposing ineffective and unconstitutional firearms restrictions following a mass murder has become a tradition in major American cities. This time, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo is proposing two draconian new measures following an attack in his city that left nine people dead.
Liccardo is planning to ask the city council to back a proposal that would require all gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee, and mandate that gun stores video record firearm purchases. The mayor believes gun-related violence and mass murders are the result of the “system that we have created,” and he aims to change that system in his city.
“What we are proposing are initiatives that have not been tried before in recognition that what has been tried and implemented hasn’t done enough,” Liccardo told The Mercury News. “People may believe that gun violence is unpredictable and irrational, but in fact, it is a result of the system that we have created and it will continue to be that result until we change that system.”
SEE ALSO: Biden Urges Congress to Take ‘Immediate Action’ Following San Jose Mass Killing
California gun rights groups have criticized the ruling as government overreach. Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, called the proposed ordinance a “knee jerk reaction” that will not solve the problem Liccardo is trying to address, adding that the mayor would “have his rear end handed to him in a basket by a judge.”
“We are genuinely startled that the mayor believes that he has the ability to implement laws that he doesn’t have authority to do and the courts will soon follow,” Paredes told Mercury News.
It’s unclear how Liccardo’s plan would stop future mass murders or any other type of gun-related crime. Liability insurance cannot legally cover the commission of a crime. It would only cover unintentional firearms-related deaths, injuries or property damage, but the mayor has not indicated that such costs are a major problem in his city.
The annual fee, which Liccardo described as “modest” but has not named yet, would help the city cover emergency responses to shootings, medical care, and related services.
SEE ALSO: San Jose Authorities Shut Down Gun Shop, It’s ‘Non-Essential’ Per Mayor
“Insurance can provide a useful mechanism for harm reduction,” Liccardo wrote in a 2019 op-ed. “Risk-adjusted premiums provide financial incentives that reward good driving and installing air bags, and discourage parents from handing the keys to their risk-taking teenagers. Similarly, insurers could use premium discounts to prod law-abiding gun owners to take gun-safety courses, purchase gun safes and install child-safety locks.”
“Insurers would also hike the premium on a 19-year-old looking to buy his first semiautomatic weapon,” Liccardo added.
Gun stores are already required to take strict safety measures to secure their inventory, but Liccardo wants to add to their regulatory burden. Under his plan, store owners would be required to video record every gun purchase to discourage straw buying.
Chicago enacted a similar law in 2014, but there is no evidence the policy reduced crime or violence.
Neither proposal would have stopped the most recent mass murder in San Jose. The suspect legally owned all three handguns he used in the crime, and he had no criminal record.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo may have good intentions, but as a person/politician I would think he would consult the City Lawyers to see if that proposal is sound and legal. If he is doing this on the fly/by himself as the Mayor he is nuts and incompetent. Reading and understanding the 2nd Amendment does not require a college education and proposing something which is so blatantly against the Amendment casts doubt upon his ability to lead if he can at all.
If this proposal were to become law in San Jose it would accomplish 2 things; 1. Not stop one criminal from getting a weapon ( Mr. Mayor how many criminals currently purchase weapons from an FFL in you City now?) and 2. Require the purchase of a liability policy before purchasing a weapon, which becomes a fee for exercising a Constitutional Right. I do not know anyone who would approve of that nor of this proposal.
Another unfunded mandate. Here we go again.
Can there be a reason that tar and feathering is not reintroduced?
Why is it that the majority of Guns and LEGAL GUN OWNERS, live in the suburbs. But 99% of all shootings happen within the inner cities? I grew up with Guns, my friends many of them had Guns in the house, some had family members with many many Guns. All LEGAL. But I can’t ever remember one of my friends or their family members saying hey let’s go shoot up the neighborhood. Hey let’s go do a drive by . Hey some guy was rude to my sister get the boys and let’s go cap some fools. The answer is NEVER EVER NEVER. It’s a cultural problem within our inner cities. How many of your friends have 10 kids with 10 different ladies. Or how many schools in the suburban areas have not a single student above 50% in basic math and English standards. Our inner cities are ruined PERIOD. The failed democrat policies by clowns like this guy are a big part of the destruction of generation after generation in our inner cities. Saying these things usually gets the same response by people on the left and that response is always your a racist, and you don’t understand. So the problems never get resolved. Instead of waisting our time with ridiculous ideas like Gun insurance, how about stopping the invasion of illegals who will be flooding the already wrecked inner cities. So Dems in charge don’t care about the massive homeless population, they don’t care that the amount of drugs now flowing are going to affect millions of Americans. Gun insurance? What a FN joke.
Hum, does that mean all non-gun owners will be required to buy uninsured gun owner insurance in case they are harmed by a criminal who will not have gun insurance? Why is it Democrats keep proving they are the dumbest of all????
Meant as harassment to dissuade people from exercising their Constitutional rights. when their tyrannical controls are shot down, they dream up more fraud, waste, and abuse to assuage their lust over us.
Instead of calling this “gun control”, how ’bout “gun-owner harassment”? Is a gun controlled by an insurance policy?
San Jose mayor can eat a bag of dicks.
NO INSURANCE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. NO VIDEO REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. THERE I JUST SAVED TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT! THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO POST A $1,000,000 CASH BOND, FOR ANY DAMAGE THAT THEY DO WHILE ON THE COUNCIL!
This mayor should be on trial for treason.
No liability policy on earth is going to respond to an intentional act, other than to issue the policyholder a declination letter. Other than that, in general, Section 2 of a homeowner’s or renter’s policy will provide coverage for accidental incidences, unless otherwise excluded, and I’m aware of no ‘accidental gun discharge’ type of exclusions. So good luck with this.
If your job is to slaughter sheep or chickens each day, likely you don’t worry too much about being killed by a mass animal attack. If you slaughter lions, your outlook might be different. Going after people who have no ill intent and further regulating them and taxing them, is pretty easy to do, Trying to tax the sale of street drugs, to help the city raise more money for emergency room costs, social welfare cost, would be pretty tough and result in zero revenue.
I’ll just throw this out there as a constructive suggestion, policies need to focus on people, not objects. California already has Health & Safety Code sec 5151, which allows for an involuntary psychiatric 72 hour hold. The police use this all the time to make sure a person doesn’t hurt themselves or others and it has saved countless lives and delivered help to people that need it.
After the 72 hours, you are either released or a court hearing is set to determine if you should be held for a longer period of time. Also, at that point, the state can ask for search warrants, property seizures, protection for minor children, etc. The person subject to the orders at this point in the process is represented by legal council.
Since most of these “Mass Shooters” have a history of either encounters with Police/FBI, Human Resources, co-workers, family members, post killing we seem to always hear, “Yeah we knew he had a problem, was crazy, etc.”, it seems that educating the public, police officers, social workers, business owners, HR departments and union officials might go a long way to preventing these folks from hurting others and themselves. That’s called caring for people.
The thing is, politicians can’t brag about, showcase or be lauded for things they prevent from happening. For these creatures, doing the right thing has to have some personal reward for themselves. Doing the right thing is hard and keeping yourself and your minions accountable takes work.
As long as we shift the focus off of people and place it onto objects, we will never make any progress towards preventing these needless deaths, suicides and getting people the help they need before they become criminals.
Yes, I know its hard to have these conversations, as I many times feel like the only “Adult” in the room. We can let the sound byte culture rule are lives.
Mauser, you need to rethink your 4th paragraph. It appears you are saying that co-workers, HR, family should more often report their concerns about a person’s mindset. Do you not see the unintended consequences of that? Potentially millions of people reporting on someone they believe is unstable, most of those reports made in the name of revenge for a perceived wrong. Then, what do you want LE to do…arrest the person? Take away their guns? How is that a solution? How are you going to feel when someone who doesn’t like you reports that you are unstable? Are you not aware that most murders are committed by people who have at least one felony arrest on their record? Maybe that should be a legitimate reason for acting upon a citizen report, but without that, I don’t want LE depriving me of my rights because my ex-wife found out that it’s an easy way to screw with someone’s life.
For years I have been going to this one Catholic Church and early on I had a truck with at least one NRA sticker and the USMC EGA.
There is a cantor there at church that would also sometimes do the readings and at one point he was calling for prayers for ‘our politicians to finally have the courage to support common sense gun laws.’ This “prayer” was wrong for so many reasons including violating the terms of the tax exempt status of a chuch. The cantor never once called for legislation against abortion or gay marriage yet he was trying to get a church full of diverse political opinions praying for a political agenda that has no basis in Catholic teaching.
Before I got around to calling the rectory he stopped using that specific language. Someone else made the call and I was happy. I almost forgot about the whole issue but one day I was leaving the church and happened to be going out the side where the cantor and pianist were chatting. The canto retreated from me in melodramatic horror. I stopped totally puzzled and said someting to try and reasuure someone who seemed to be flipping out. Later I figured out that this guy had profiled me long ago as dangerous and he also pegged me for the guy that made the phone call to the rectory. If this guy could get me sent to the Gulags he would have.
Anyway, at least a few people saw what took place and now those nice older church ladies make sure to always wave to me for the sign of peace. Now we have powerful people like Chipman and Biden who want to profile people based on certain non-violent profiles. Sounds like the former East Germany to me and the left will abuse any well intetioned safety laws.
I seem to recall the 2nd amendment doesn’t say “…..shall not be infringed. But……”
This is an example of why the left is so dangerous. They realize they can’t change the Constitution. So what they are now proposing is to make it too expensive or intrusive to own a firearm or purchase ammunition. Resulting in only the rich being able to afford to protect their families. We need to stop these leftists at every polling station. Think big picture vote often, vote locally to keep these small minded dolts at bay.
Stupid is as stupid proposes. There are some real stupid people in politics.
both are unConstitutional
If the insurance is mandatory, it’s premiums should be deducted from the city’s portion of all taxes paid by the insured. That would shift the mayor’s view a little.
Agreed. Guaranteed there are lobbyists in this as well.
Mandatory insurance fully cured under insured and uninsured motorists, right?
Go ahead good Mayor, reply as such while I’m at the podium, next Council meeting. I’ve a crushing rebuttal.
Mr Liccardo- please refer to Chicago as a blueprint for your next epic failure. Over 1600 people shot and /or killed in the first 5 months of this year. Illinois has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, but you would never know it if you read the daily news. The criminal element will forever laugh at people like you. Guns are inanimate objects and will ALWAYS be a part of our society. Good luck to your legal team.
Yes just all criminals and convicted felons should get the insurance for their illegal black market firearms and a video transaction when they buy guns off a street gang member.
The mayor is right about the system they created–no bail release, defund the police, calling a riot a protest, and on and on. ‘Nuf said
I’m sire all the criminals will step right up and comply.
“Do You Know the Way to San Jose?”
Yup, take a hard left, at the intersection of Constitutional Rights and Totalitarianism.
LOL!!!! Clever!! I love it.
How about requiring politicians to carry liability insurance to pay for the lawsuits their brilliant ideas generate instead of sticking the taxpayers for it? That could get support left, right, and center…
The Democrats want to impose punitive taxes and fees on firearms and ammunition. However, it must be remembered that poll taxes were declared unconstitutional because they effectively denied the vote to poor Americans, especially blacks. The same would be true for any taxes or fees that infringe upon anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.
This uneducated person needs to read the second ammendment and look up the word, “infringe” in a reliable dictionary.
This is the second time around for this proposal from Liccardo. It didn’t get very far before, so it wold be surprising if it got any further this time. As the article correctl points out, liability insurance (insurance that others have called “murder insurance”) doesn’t pay for criminal acts done with intent to commit harm, only for accidents, so these policies would hardly ever pay out. The licensing tax likely runs afoul of the (rather limited) California pre-emption law.
What Liccardo wants, as all gun banners do, is to run all gun stores out of town and severely restrict, through excessive taxation and licensing, the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. sorry dude, it won;t work.