ADVERTISEMENT

A city will require gun owners to have liability insurance in an effort to incentivize safety

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,430
58,922
113
City lawmakers in San Jose, Calif., took a preliminary vote Tuesday to require gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay an annual fee, a step toward adopting what the mayor said is the first measure of its kind in the United States aiming to reduce the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior.

The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinances, despite opposition from gun owners who say the law would violate their Second Amendment rights. The push for liability insurance and an annual fee was introduced by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D) after a May 2021 shooting at a light-rail facility that killed nine people and the gunman, who took his own life.
The city council decided in a 10-to-1 vote that gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance through their homeowner’s or renter’s insurance so that the plan would cover everyone in their household. Lawmakers also voted, 8 to 3, for gun owners to pay an annual fee of about $25 that would go toward a nonprofit organization focusing on gun violence prevention programs in San Jose.



The ordinance must be approved at a final reading next month before it can take effect by August.
Before the vote, Liccardo estimated that city residents incur about $442 million of annual gun-related costs, including “private financial costs to individuals and families,” and that gun violence costs San Jose taxpayers $40 million a year in emergency response services.
“Tonight San Jose became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm,” Liccardo said in a news release. “Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation in our community.”



San Jose is the first city to pass such a measure, according to Brady United, a national nonprofit organization that advocates against gun violence. Gun owners and gun rights groups have promised to sue if the measure becomes law.

The president of the National Association for Gun Rights and executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown, did not immediately respond to a request for comment early Wednesday. Brown told CNN before the vote that there would be legal action if the city passed “this ridiculous tax on the constitutional right to gun ownership.”
“Our message is clear and simple: See you in court,” Brown said.

Liccardo has contended that although the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own a gun, “it does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right.”


The vote in San Jose comes weeks after President Biden called on Congress to take action on his gun-control agenda. The president has pushed for the Senate to pass several gun measures, including one that would require licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks. About $470 billion of the American Rescue Plan — the $1.9 trillion stimulus package Congress passed last year — was earmarked for cities and states to pay for measures including reducing gun violence.
Biden pleads for Congress to act on gun control as he marks 9th anniversary of Sandy Hook shooting
A Gallup poll in November found that 52 percent of Americans polled said “laws covering the sales of firearms” should be stricter, the lowest figure since the question was first asked in 2014. A study released last week by Everytown for Gun Safety, a lobby group for firearm restrictions, found a direct correlation between states with weaker gun laws and a higher rate of gun deaths.

The May rampage in Silicon Valley, the deadliest mass shooting recorded in the Bay Area, reverberated across the country. The gunman, a transit system employee, killed himself, authorities said. The mayor proposed the measures the following month.


Liccardo told KTVU this week that the push for stricter legislation in San Jose came, in part, because of inaction in Congress, saying lawmakers have not done enough outside of “thoughts and prayers” to address gun laws. The mayor said the proposals were modeled after the public health approaches to issues such as road-accident deaths, tobacco use and teen pregnancy.
In San Jose, 55,000 households legally own at least one registered gun, according to the mayor’s office.

The ordinance on liability insurance would require thousands of owners to have gun safes, install trigger locks and take gun safety classes. The liability insurance would cover damages or losses stemming from any accidental use of a gun, such as property damage, injury or death, the ordinance says.
A firearm owner would be considered liable if the gun is stolen or lost until the theft or loss is reported to authorities. But the mayor highlighted that those without gun insurance would not lose their firearms or face criminal charges.


On Tuesday night, the city council held an hours-long meeting to discuss the gun-related measures. Some council members and residents said they supported the ordinances because of their own personal experience with gun violence. One mother spoke of her daughter’s being killed because of gun violence in San Jose. Council member Maya Esparza referred to the 2019 shooting at a food festival in nearby Gilroy, Calif., that left three people dead and a dozen others injured.

“My own family has been touched by gun violence, particularly from the Gilroy shooting,” Esparza told CBS affiliate KPIX.
But some critics argued that the liability and fee requirements would do nothing to stop gun crimes, with one resident saying the city “cannot tax a constitutional right.” Others said the requirements do not address the issues surrounding illegally obtained weapons that are either stolen or purchased without background checks.


“People got killed and you got the audacity to come up in here and act like you’re going to be the savior of us all,” one resident said, according to KPIX.
Liccardo acknowledged some of those concerns, saying, “This won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime,” according to the Associated Press. He added that most gun deaths nationwide are suicides or result from accidents or other circumstances.

While the vote was denounced by gun rights groups, it was celebrated by gun-control advocates such as Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun reform nonprofit group.
“Following unthinkable tragedies from gun violence, San Jose has taken action that will save lives,” Watts said in a statement.
The mayor’s office said a private law firm has offered to represent the city at no charge, in case San Jose is sued by gun rights groups. Liccardo said in a news release that he hopes other cities will replicate the gun measure adopted in San Jose: “I look forward to supporting the efforts of others to replicate these initiatives across the nation.”

 
Will someone need to carry liability insurance to own a knife? What about a collectible car that isn't driven? What about fertilizer that a criminal may use as an explosive? What about opioids in the medicine cabinet? Where does this nonsense end? We already have criminal laws if someone uses the gun illegally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
City lawmakers in San Jose, Calif., took a preliminary vote Tuesday to require gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay an annual fee, a step toward adopting what the mayor said is the first measure of its kind in the United States aiming to reduce the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior.

The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinances, despite opposition from gun owners who say the law would violate their Second Amendment rights. The push for liability insurance and an annual fee was introduced by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D) after a May 2021 shooting at a light-rail facility that killed nine people and the gunman, who took his own life.
The city council decided in a 10-to-1 vote that gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance through their homeowner’s or renter’s insurance so that the plan would cover everyone in their household. Lawmakers also voted, 8 to 3, for gun owners to pay an annual fee of about $25 that would go toward a nonprofit organization focusing on gun violence prevention programs in San Jose.



The ordinance must be approved at a final reading next month before it can take effect by August.
Before the vote, Liccardo estimated that city residents incur about $442 million of annual gun-related costs, including “private financial costs to individuals and families,” and that gun violence costs San Jose taxpayers $40 million a year in emergency response services.
“Tonight San Jose became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm,” Liccardo said in a news release. “Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation in our community.”



San Jose is the first city to pass such a measure, according to Brady United, a national nonprofit organization that advocates against gun violence. Gun owners and gun rights groups have promised to sue if the measure becomes law.

The president of the National Association for Gun Rights and executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown, did not immediately respond to a request for comment early Wednesday. Brown told CNN before the vote that there would be legal action if the city passed “this ridiculous tax on the constitutional right to gun ownership.”
“Our message is clear and simple: See you in court,” Brown said.

Liccardo has contended that although the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own a gun, “it does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right.”


The vote in San Jose comes weeks after President Biden called on Congress to take action on his gun-control agenda. The president has pushed for the Senate to pass several gun measures, including one that would require licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks. About $470 billion of the American Rescue Plan — the $1.9 trillion stimulus package Congress passed last year — was earmarked for cities and states to pay for measures including reducing gun violence.
Biden pleads for Congress to act on gun control as he marks 9th anniversary of Sandy Hook shooting
A Gallup poll in November found that 52 percent of Americans polled said “laws covering the sales of firearms” should be stricter, the lowest figure since the question was first asked in 2014. A study released last week by Everytown for Gun Safety, a lobby group for firearm restrictions, found a direct correlation between states with weaker gun laws and a higher rate of gun deaths.

The May rampage in Silicon Valley, the deadliest mass shooting recorded in the Bay Area, reverberated across the country. The gunman, a transit system employee, killed himself, authorities said. The mayor proposed the measures the following month.


Liccardo told KTVU this week that the push for stricter legislation in San Jose came, in part, because of inaction in Congress, saying lawmakers have not done enough outside of “thoughts and prayers” to address gun laws. The mayor said the proposals were modeled after the public health approaches to issues such as road-accident deaths, tobacco use and teen pregnancy.
In San Jose, 55,000 households legally own at least one registered gun, according to the mayor’s office.

The ordinance on liability insurance would require thousands of owners to have gun safes, install trigger locks and take gun safety classes. The liability insurance would cover damages or losses stemming from any accidental use of a gun, such as property damage, injury or death, the ordinance says.
A firearm owner would be considered liable if the gun is stolen or lost until the theft or loss is reported to authorities. But the mayor highlighted that those without gun insurance would not lose their firearms or face criminal charges.


On Tuesday night, the city council held an hours-long meeting to discuss the gun-related measures. Some council members and residents said they supported the ordinances because of their own personal experience with gun violence. One mother spoke of her daughter’s being killed because of gun violence in San Jose. Council member Maya Esparza referred to the 2019 shooting at a food festival in nearby Gilroy, Calif., that left three people dead and a dozen others injured.

“My own family has been touched by gun violence, particularly from the Gilroy shooting,” Esparza told CBS affiliate KPIX.
But some critics argued that the liability and fee requirements would do nothing to stop gun crimes, with one resident saying the city “cannot tax a constitutional right.” Others said the requirements do not address the issues surrounding illegally obtained weapons that are either stolen or purchased without background checks.


“People got killed and you got the audacity to come up in here and act like you’re going to be the savior of us all,” one resident said, according to KPIX.
Liccardo acknowledged some of those concerns, saying, “This won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime,” according to the Associated Press. He added that most gun deaths nationwide are suicides or result from accidents or other circumstances.

While the vote was denounced by gun rights groups, it was celebrated by gun-control advocates such as Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun reform nonprofit group.
“Following unthinkable tragedies from gun violence, San Jose has taken action that will save lives,” Watts said in a statement.
The mayor’s office said a private law firm has offered to represent the city at no charge, in case San Jose is sued by gun rights groups. Liccardo said in a news release that he hopes other cities will replicate the gun measure adopted in San Jose: “I look forward to supporting the efforts of others to replicate these initiatives across the nation.”

It will never stick.
 
Will someone need to carry liability insurance to own a knife? What about a collectible car that isn't driven? What about fertilizer that a criminal may use as an explosive? What about opioids in the medicine cabinet? Where does this nonsense end? We already have criminal laws if someone uses the gun illegally.
Good points. Now do voter fraud.
 
Will someone need to carry liability insurance to own a knife? What about a collectible car that isn't driven? What about fertilizer that a criminal may use as an explosive? What about opioids in the medicine cabinet? Where does this nonsense end? We already have criminal laws if someone uses the gun illegally.
What about the moment i take your mom to pound town while i make your dad watch?
 
Will someone need to carry liability insurance to own a knife? What about a collectible car that isn't driven? What about fertilizer that a criminal may use as an explosive? What about opioids in the medicine cabinet? Where does this nonsense end? We already have criminal laws if someone uses the gun illegally.
Do any of the above result in 40K deaths in America every year?
 
I was asked to talk to Beto about this when he was running for president. He wanted to make it a national law and wanted the insurance perspective.

I basically told him personal liability coverage already covers accidental shootings (think Dick Cheney) but unless mandated by every state department of insurance there is no way insurance companies are going to add/assume liability for a lost or stolen gun. It doesn't work that way for cars why would it work that way for guns. I also advised him that since insurance is regulated at a state level there is no way to make it a national policy. Did he really think his home state of Texas would require this or any other gun loving state.

He didn't realize insurance was not managed at a federal level (something you might want to know when running for president) and it never became a part of his platform. He dropped out of the race shortly after our conversation.

I know, CSB
 
This will likely be the model for all major cities moving forward.

As well it should. The cost of gun violence shouldn't be passed on to tax payers. If you want to play with guns, you should be able to afford the cost of insurance.
You do realize the gangsters who do the vast majority of the gun violence will not purchase insurance. How about drug users having to purchase additional insurance due to ER visits for overdose issues.
 
You do realize the gangsters who do the vast majority of the gun violence will not purchase insurance. How about drug users having to purchase additional insurance due to ER visits for overdose issues.
You should change your name to Chief Obvious. Yes I know criminals will likely not purchase insurance. This is about all the gun owners, or soon-to-be gun owners, moving forward.

Securing and showing proof of insurance will be a requirement of purchase. Done.
 
You should change your name to Chief Obvious. Yes I know criminals will likely not purchase insurance. This is about all the gun owners, or soon-to-be gun owners, moving forward.

Securing and showing proof of insurance will be a requirement of purchase. Done.
And what insurance carrier is going to step up to the plate? I see the state furnishing the economically challenged with this insurance. You know who I’m talking about the ghetto residents who need a gat for protection cause where da live.
 
More than this, I think the accountability for gun ownership needs to be raised significantly. If you leave your gun on the seat of your unlocked truck, then it is taken and used to harm others - you should have criminal and civil liabilities.
 
And what insurance carrier is going to step up to the plate? I see the state furnishing the economically challenged with this insurance. You know who I’m talking about the ghetto residents who need a gat for protection cause where da live.
All of them. If insurance is mandated, like it is for autos, then insurance companies will gladly take their premiums based on the risk assessment assigned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noStemsnoSTICKS
Will someone need to carry liability insurance to own a knife? What about a collectible car that isn't driven? What about fertilizer that a criminal may use as an explosive? What about opioids in the medicine cabinet? Where does this nonsense end? We already have criminal laws if someone uses the gun illegally.
Honestly, I’d be okay to have different levels, and make room for guns kept as collectibles vs guns that you will carry around with you for example. Maybe not car insurance, but I assume there’s some sort of insurance for collectible cars.
More than this, I think the accountability for gun ownership needs to be raised significantly. If you leave your gun on the seat of your unlocked truck, then it is taken and used to harm others - you should have criminal and civil liabilities.
It would depend on the details, but agreed. for example, death or injury results from improper storage of a firearm, the gun owner could be liable.
 
This would be like Obama Care for guns,.. Liability insurance wouldn't guarantee gun safety anymore than health insurance guarantees good health care.
Are you saying you don't think having health insurance that provides preventative care as well as early treatment improves health outcomes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
This would be like Obama Care for guns,.. Liability insurance wouldn't guarantee gun safety anymore than health insurance guarantees good health care.
Of course not. That's not the purpose of insurance. But it does transfer the risk of loss from the victim of an accidental gun shooting to the gun owner.
 
FYI. I carry it. It’s common sense if you conceal however I don’t need a government to control my insurance choices. Also, this has zero control with gangs. This is just to piss off people who don’t support liberals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chief Turkeyscratch
Of course not. That's not the purpose of insurance. But it does transfer the risk of loss from the victim of an accidental gun shooting to the gun owner.

Well I guess if your goal is to get the victim's family a check that works...
 
FYI. I carry it. It’s common sense if you conceal however I don’t need a government to control my insurance choices. Also, this has zero control with gangs. This is just to piss off people who don’t support liberals.
I'm hoping it also dissuades rednecks from moving to Cali.
 
Well I guess if your goal is to get the victim's family a check that works...
Right. As it currently stands, unless the gun owner has a separate liability policy that would cover accidental gun discharge or, as one of the posters suggested, cover his/her negligence in leaving a gun in a car where it could be stolen, there is no insurance coverage and the victim of the shooting would be financially responsible. They obviously could sue the gun owner, but that would likely be as successful as getting blood from a turnip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
Liability insurance is a great idea. Now let's take it a step further and register all guns. Why should I have to license my car when purchased and then register it yearly while weapons are exempt? In reality it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT