This just looks to me like a method of getting every gun owner on a government administrated list.
14 Likes
Iām not surprised coming from CA.
All the more reason to move out of that state.
12 Likes
San Jose has identified a law firm that would represent the city on the issue at no charge, mayorās spokesperson said.
Who paid? Someone did.
10 Likes
This is so ill-founded as to be ludicrous. Thereās so much to pick apart here, and Iām sure we will as this thread builds. My first thought concerns the Constitutionality of such a law. How is this at all not infringing?
āCertainly the Second Amendment protects every citizenās right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that rightā¦ā
How is this any different from a poll tax, or instituting a law that requires people to pay a fee and carry libel (yes, I mean libel, not liability) insurance to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech, or to register with the government their religious denomination and what church they attend?
14 Likes
California voters deserve what they asked for. Govern me harder
13 Likes
So, make the law abiding pay, to somehow make criminals obey the laws. Yeah, that makes sense.
8 Likes
Iām not surprised. San Joseās mayor is a Newsom-wannabe.
Also, San Jose voters seem to love him to the moon and back.
5 Likes
Good guns nā gadgets vid on YouTube out today on this. Tax and insurance required as well to remainā¦erā¦legal.
One board member voting against proposal, and running for mayor.
2 Likes
ā¦and will lose. The incumbent has overwhelming support from the fine people of San Jose.
The challenge for the 2A crowd is in keeping this proposed law within city limits.
2 Likes
Let me guess, Second guess dooesnāt count. Bloomberg or one of his Minions
3 Likes
I wish this country had investigative journalists and real press. Something like this needs to see the light of day.
5 Likes
in the words of the virgin Mary, ācome againā?
The system is rigged against most people in california. I know because the results for the recall race were decided minutes after people were still walking out of the voting booths and there were boxes of mail in ballots no one was counting yet. So, how do you get the change you need when the system is rigged against the majority of the people left in the state? California has seen a surge in gun sales every year for the last 5+ years and our shelves are always empty of new firearms to buy. That means either there are a handful of people buying all the guns, or every non-gun owner is going out and buying their first/second weapon and learning how stupid the laws are in this state. Donāt lump us all together because there would never have been a recall attempt had we not had the numbers to push it to a vote. Now we just need to find a way to make sure the voting is legitimate and my dead family members donāt keep voting from the grave like they have been apparently through mail in ballots in their names.
6 Likes
They just passed it today. So starting my membership here today 
5 Likes
Welcome to our family Rog!
1 Like
Here is the size up for those who want to deep diveā¦
The ordinance is not in effect (yet) as it requires a āsecond readingā which will likely occur at the next city council meeting. Of course there is little belief that the council wonāt pass it on the second reading. They have clearly structured the language for what they believe will survive a constitutional test.
Even if/when it gets to SCOTUS, that is likely to take some time as it will have to go through the 9th Circuit (who will uphold the law and constitutional). There are several gun cases that are taking FOREVER for even a shot at SCOTUS to even consider taking them up for review (examples: CCW denials, āhi-capā magazine limits, handgun roster of āapprovedā guns that can be sold, etc)
Here are some interesting takeaways I see on the included language:
Gun owners will have to pay a $25 annual fee
Each gun owner will have to pay $25 per year to the City which they call a āGun Harm Reduction Feeā.
The city will give that money to a ādesignated nonprofit organizationā (DNO). The DNO will use this money for the following:
"providing services to residents of the City that own or possess a Firearm in the City or to members of their household. Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Suicide prevention services or programs; 2. Violence reduction or domestic violence services or programs; 3. Mental health services related to gun violence; 4. Firearms safety education or training.
B. No portion of the monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee shall be used for
litigation, political advocacy, or lobbying activities"
The services provided by the DNO seem to be broad, but really just up to the DNO to decide how to spend the money on those services as the law says the City canāt ādirectā how the monies are spent. Jeez, how could that go wrongā¦
This law will not apply to the following people
-
Peace officers, reserve peace officers, and retired peace officers
-
Persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon
-
Poor people (this is my oversimplification, but see California Government Code Ā§ 68632 for those whose financial status would exempt them)
OF COURSE they exclude CCW permit holders. San Jose is in Santa Clara County which is one of the most restrictive areas for CCW issuance and is part of the most extreme progressive areas of California. My guess is the well-connected and wealthy are those who get CCWs issued.
Also, doesnāt take much to be poor in California!
What kind of insurance do they have to have?
Gun owners will have to obtain and keep insurance as described below:
āa homeownerās, renterās or gun liability insurance policy from an admitted insurer or insurer as defined by the California Insurance Code, specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the Firearm, including but not limited to death, injury or property damage.ā
Oddly, it doesnāt mention coverage limits or any other details about the nature of the liability coverage. However there is no language about self-defense insurance, so it looks like they are referring to simple general liability.
What if the gun is stolen or lost and someone else does something bad with it?
Better report it fast before someone uses it and harms someone elseā¦
āFor purposes of this Section, a person shall be deemed to be the owner of a Firearm if such Firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff which has jurisdiction in which such Firearm owner resides.ā
Do people have to file their insurance papers?
Looks like no. Owners need to complete a āCity-designated attestation formā. The form "shall state both the name of the insurance company issuing the policy and the number of the insurance policy on the attestation form, sign the form under penalty of perjury".
It looks like you do not have to provide it to the City, just have to keep it with the gun(s). But, what, random house to house checks? Lists provided by the State of those who purchased gun? Got me.
You do have to affix āproof of payment of the annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the attestation form and keep it with the Firearmā
How will they enforce it?
That part seems less clear.
It says violations āshall be punishable by an administrative citationā and the fines fines for violations āshall be set forth in the schedule of fines established by resolution of the City Council.ā as well as āis also enforceable through all other civil and administrative remedies available to the City.ā
Oh, but they do say they can impound the firearms of violators.
āTo the extent allowed by law, the Firearm or Firearms of a person that is not in compliance with this Part may be impounded subject to a due process hearing.ā
A COMMENT AND WARNING TO MY NON-CALIFORNIAN FRIENDS
Something like this could be coming to you. San Jose has been talking about this kind of law for the past few years. As I recall, San Jose was one of the first CA cities to require all firearms be kept locked up in the home. Years later, so many other cities have now passed similar laws.
Before you go and say things like, āwell thatās California for youā, understand that these kinds of ordinances/laws passed in CA serve as a test bed and embolden progressives/anti-gunners elsewhere in the country. Yes, it could even happen to yours.
For those interested, the following link will take you to the language of the proposed city ordinance:
https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097
Reporting from behind the lines in Californiaā¦
Jeff
4 Likes
Nonprofit = oxymoron
Follow the money.
4 Likes
San Jose Wants You Pay $25/Year to Exercise Your 2nd Amendment Rightsā¦and Get Liability Insurance. This is B.S. not legal at all infringing FOR SUREā¦ I have this insuranceā¦ how many CRIMINALS you think going to run out and do thisā¦we really need to vote these anti firearms anti constitutional demoRats outā¦ come on people we need do our part,at voting timesā¦ and get rid of this mayor in san jose alsoā¦ just another way to track the legal firearm owners, like thereās not enough corrupt info out there on USā¦
1 Like
Im not moving, these corrupt bozos are going. vote them all outā¦ cli be red again or soon .
2 Likes
@Robert1202 , Maybe Iām being a little selfish as well. If I get all the red coats to move here, that makes Texas more conservative and less Beto like. Kinda like jerrymandering in a way.
3 Likes