Greater Gun Harm Reduction

San Jose, California Mayor, City Council and DA all want to save lives.

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Compo...News/2943/4699

Highlights:

...San Jose would become the first city in the nation to require that every gun owner have liability insurance coverage for their firearms, to incentivize safer behavior from gun owners, and to compensate many injured victims.

...San Jose would become the first U.S. city to require gun owners to pay a fee to compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun-related injuries and death...

...these rules create a constitutionally-compliant mechanism to enable law enforcement to impound guns from high-risk individuals unwilling to follow the law.

...making it illegal in San Jose to possess, manufacture, or assemble a "ghost gun"...

...require fingerprinting with all ammunition purchases.

...create a public campaign encouraging reporting of implied or explicit threats of violence...

...a final ordinance requiring gun stores to video and audio-record all gun sale transactions...


I have read they likely cannot do anything because they may be exceeding their authority. However, this is another reason Colorado SB21-256 is a horrible idea. I am certain once the bill is signed into law, Denver and Boulder, at least, will follow suit.

Another note, I have been reading for years that anti gun forces will use the banks and insurance to curtail the private ownership of firearms. It would be easy for an insurer to deny coverage because of firearm possession, citing higher risk. This could extend to health insurance as well.

Sounds like some people have never heard of a morale hazard before.

Another thing that comes to mind is that gun owners have been paying for the upkeep of this country's natural spaces for decades now. If the argument that gun owners should have to pay for the public cost of having to respond to firearm injuries and deaths, then that sounds like perfect justification to have EVERY single other form of recreation start having to pay for their wildlife, public, and social impacts.

More stupid shit from morons who DGARA about their constituents.

Making it so hard to have and keep them is the way most places have been going after guns. Just like the proposed brace ruling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...sures/2571254/

It passed. Let the lawsuits begin.

The same politicians who push this. Are the same ones who sue business that provide "CCW" insurance. It's a catch -22. We want you to have coverage. But we will do everything in our power. To keep companies out of the state, that provide coverage.

Maybe they should make automobile insurance a requirement? Then there would be no uninsured motorists. Oh, even better. Let's add a licensing requirement. Let's make sure that drivers have to be licensed. Then there would be no unlicensed drivers.

Liability insurance requirement

“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.


According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.


“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”


https://www.insurancejournal.com/new.../10/287849.htm