CA City Approves 1st U.S. Gun Insurance Measure: Readers Weigh In

Campbell CA

30 January, 2022

4:33 PM

Description

SAN JOSE, CA — Leaders of a Northern California city voted to require gun owners to carry liability insurance last week. It is the first measure of its kind in the nation and joined California's lineup of stringent measures to curb gun violence. The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the measure despite opposition from gun owners who said it would violate their Second Amendment rights and promised to sue. In a nonscientific survey that drew 3,185 respondents, we asked readers to share their thoughts on the new measure. The survey is meant not to be a scientific poll but only to give a broad idea of public sentiment. More than 67 percent of respondents reported that they did not agree with the new measure, while just 30.4 percent they did agree with it. Some 2.5 percent of respondents said they were unsure. The liability insurance would cover losses or damages resulting from any accidental use of the firearm, including death, injury, or property damage, according to the ordinance. If a gun is stolen or lost, the owner of the firearm would be considered liable until the theft or loss is reported to authorities. We asked readers whether other cities should approve of similar measures and 67.1 percent said "no" while 30 percent said "yes." We then asked whether the state should pass a similar law and the response was nearly identical: 67.7 percent said "no" and 29.8 percent said "yes." Some 70.7 percent of respondents felt that the new measure wouldn't reduce crime, 11.8 were unsure if it would and 17.5 thought it would reduce crime rates. Similar laws have been proposed in Democratic-led cities around the Golden State, but San Jose is the first city to successfully pass one, according to Brady United, a national nonprofit that advocates against gun violence. We asked readers to share additional thoughts on the matter: The price of ammunition should be sky high and heavily taxed, with those funds going to victims of gun violence. Much like the way criminals don't buy their guns legally they won't get the insurance either. About time, we take more steps to reduce gun violence. If this is the route to go, why not require insurance for alcohol users? It's an attack on the inherent right of self defense. Criminals will not be affected, only legal gun owners who follow the law. It's also a financial blow against minorities needing to defend themselves in high crime neighborhoods. Blatently unconstitutional. Poll taxes in order to vote was struck down as unconstitutional; the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is just as much a right as is the Right to Vote. This should have been done decades ago. A gun is just as dangerous as a car and car insurance has been required for 70 years! This does nothing to reduce crime. All it does is add to the already long list of gun control measures that continue to force people to leave California. How about introduce stronger measures for the criminals? Oh, there is a dandy idea. The unregistered guns are the ones you need to worry about. We need insurance to drive a car, and a license. It seems reasonable to require both for a gun The ordinance comes as part of a broad gun control plan proposed by Mayor Sam Liccardo following the May 26 mass shooting at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority rail yard that left nine people dead, including the employee who opened fire on his colleagues then killed himself. At an hours-long meeting, critics argued that the fee and liability requirements violated their right to bear arms and would do nothing to stop gun crimes, including the use of untraceable, build-it-yourself "ghost guns." "You cannot tax a constitutional right. This does nothing to reduce crime," one speaker said. Liccardo acknowledged those concerns. "This won't stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime," the mayor said, but added most gun deaths nationally are from suicide, accidental shootings or other causes and even many homicides stem from domestic violence. Liccardo also said gun violence costs San Jose taxpayers $40 million a year in emergency response services. Council members, including several who had lost friends to gun violence, said it was a step toward dealing with gun violence that Councilman Sergio Jimenez called "a scourge on our society." The measure is meant to urge San Jose's 55,000 households who legally own at least one registered firearm to purchase gun safes, install trigger locks and attend gun safety classes, Liccardo said. Gun owners who don't have insurance won't lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said. SEE ALSO: California's COVID Gun Store Shutdowns Ruled Illegal