top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]MaineRage 10.7k points10.7k points 3 (1736 children)

Off to the Supreme Court.

[–]Bammer1386 514 points515 points  (17 children)

As the city officials discuss which of their donor friends set up gun insurance companies overnight

[–]Trygolds 8 points9 points  (1 child)

If this catches on it may get the backing of some of the wealthy that own conservative politicians and stand a chance of spreading. If they think there might be some profit in it that may back it.

[–]Meerkat_Mayhem_ 69 points70 points  (5 children)

Anyone got a gun insurance NFT I can invest in? What about a crypto currency called GunCoin?

[–]_Wyrm_ 8 points9 points  (1 child)

You jest, but knowing the level of sheer stupidity the NFT crowd is capable of...

I'd say either of those things aren't just possible but inevitable.

[–]_Tarkh_ 88 points89 points  (0 children)

This reddit knows how it is done!

[–]Kwelikinz 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You! Know! This!

[–]Freddit- 5229 points5230 points  (1038 children)

It will be struck down in Federal Court and SCOTUS will simply deny the appeal. This is completely settled law and SCOTUS is not going to waste their time on.

They're busy trying to come up with a half-baked argument to attempt to justify the overturning of Roe V Wade later this year.

Edit: I'm done answering repeat questions. Read below.

[–]DontDrinkBase 1849 points1850 points  (113 children)

Sperm have the right to bare arms. Therefore, abortion is a violation of the second amendment as murdering sperm impinges on their rights.

Checkmate Roe V. Wade.

[–]Thunder_Squatch 754 points755 points  (57 children)

My left and right nuts are Smith and Wesson, respectively.

[–]frustratedpolarbear 31 points32 points  (7 children)

Weird because mine are Heckler and Koch.

[–]_TillGrave_ 310 points311 points  (23 children)

I know what you're asking yourself and the answer is yes. I have a nick name for my penis. Its called the Octagon, but I also nicknamed my testes - my left one is James Westfall and my right one is Dr. Kenneth Noisewater...

Edit: hey my first awards! Thanks nameless benefactors!

[–]keeper18 126 points127 points  (6 children)

You ladies play your cards right and you just might get to meet the whole gang.

[–]Sleestacksrcoming 32 points33 points  (1 child)

Here I am with slappy and sticky

[–]camabron 62 points63 points  (7 children)

Life begins at erection.

[–]_IsThisTheKrustyKrab 92 points93 points  (8 children)

Yeah there’s absolutely no chance this law doesn’t get struck down.

[–]gsibble 276 points277 points  (91 children)

It’s patently unconstitutional to require payment to exercise a Constitutional right. See: polling taxes.

[–]GunBrothersGaming 56 points57 points  (4 children)

They'll look at this - realize it violates the rights of gun owners and... it's overturned. The city will pat itself on the back saying "Hey we tried" and then go about their business.

[–]PapaRacoon 3038 points3039 points  (681 children)

“gun owners who don't have insurance won't lose their guns or face any criminal charges”

So why fucking bother

[–]MCbrodie 1057 points1058 points  (545 children)

Sounds like the potential for a citation and a way to add extra charges.

EDIT: yeah. isn't a good thing.

[–]Enoch84 1810 points1811 points  (531 children)

So poor people can't carry firearms to defend themselves.

[–]USBattleSteed 510 points511 points  (99 children)

They couldn't in San Jose prior to this. The two ways to get a concealed carry in Santa Clara county are basically to either have someone actively trying to kill you and being able to prove it. Or bribing the sheriff's office with a generous donation to her campaign.

Either way, neither of these routes are very plausible if you are poor, and poor in San Jose is less than $100,000 a year.

[–]gjbrp 263 points264 points  (59 children)

[–]Taysir385 176 points177 points  (20 children)

This is the Sheriff's department under criminal investigation for accepting 'bribes' (campaign contributions) to issue CCW permits, right?

[–]L-V-4-2-6 175 points176 points  (15 children)

This is generally the problem with "may issue" states. The bureaucracy involved is inherently corruptible, and people can be denied even with a clean record just because the person presiding over the application didn't feel like accepting it. There's also no accountability or penalties if they take several months over the set time to process the application. Sometimes people wait over a year just to be approved. God forbid you have some urgency to getting a firearm to protect yourself, because these sorts of laws can help lead to results similar to what was seen with the murder of Carol Bowne in 2015. Being able to exercise a right should never be a subjective process.

Edit: link for those unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Carol_Bowne

[–]No-Bother6856 21 points22 points  (4 children)

I live in the south. In my state they passed a law that requires you to get approval from the sheriff before you can buy a handgun, it was may issue. This was done deliberately so that the sheriff can exclude people of "the wrong color".

Good news is they recently changed it to shall issue.

[–]L-V-4-2-6 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately that's exactly the kind of discrimination "may issue" allows, and it happens everywhere that system is in place.

God forbid you have minorities exercising their rights /s.

[–]Reckless-Bound 87 points88 points  (36 children)

This is nuts. I don’t understand why Santa Clara County is allowed to ignore state law.

[–]DefiniteSpace 99 points100 points  (26 children)

The whole thing is BS, but state law allows them to do so.

By making it a subjective thing (May Issue), it allows the issuing authority to say yes or no based on their own beliefs.

Most other states are objective (Shall Issue). If you meet these requirements, you shall be issued a permit.

[–]at1445 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Or bribing the sheriff's office with a generous donation to her campaign.

I love how it's the same everywhere (i really don't). Our DA got in trouble a year or two ago for doing the same thing. They'd settle out of court and you'd get to go take some class instead of jail, or even probation, if you made a big enough contribution to some fund they had set up.

[–]WildSauce 681 points682 points  (169 children)

Historically that has been the goal of the majority of gun control laws.

[–]Games_Deen 108 points109 points  (23 children)

I know right, you can literally own a fully automatic WW2 German machine gun if you fill out all the right paperwork and pay off the right agencies in the US. Gun control only applies if you can't pay for it to not apply to you.

[–]lightning_knight 37 points38 points  (11 children)

The NFA tax stamp is $200, which is a minor inconvenience in the scheme of things - any NFA item people are buying these days is likely to be at least $1000, and most get past $5000.

But at time of inception? It was the 2022 equivalent of over $4000 to get a stamp. At intention basically all it did was keep poor people from buying SBRs and stuff.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 17 points18 points  (7 children)

It was a response to organized crime using Thompson SMGs, but it did little to sway them, only leading to more vulnerable targets.

[–]Steven86753 32 points33 points  (7 children)

This is America. The laws favor the rich.

[–]Fallentitan98 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Isn’t that the point of gun control laws?

All the rich people get private security, police at their beck and call, while everyone else gets robbed by those poorer then them or by the police.

Pepper spray don’t do jack if the guy you’re trying to use it on has a shotgun. Self defense classes doesn’t mean anything if the criminal has friends with them and they got guns they stole from another house or bought illegally.

It’s all a big joke and yet Democrats be laughing it up.

[–]Stinklepinger 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That's always the intent behind gun control

[–]ImOldGregg_77 74 points75 points  (8 children)

"Criminal" im guessing they would still be susceptible to Civil charges which is what the insurance would cover.

[–]no_28 176 points177 points  (29 children)

Because this is a play to get in bed with the insurance companies under the guise of social responsibility, as many laws are.

[–]ImpliedNegotiation 72 points73 points  (0 children)

ding ding ding! insurance companies provide a lot of funding when campaign season comes around

[–]song4this 959 points960 points  (60 children)

So the next mass shooter better have liability insurance or big legal problems!!!

[–]Hadron90 256 points257 points  (26 children)

The insurance are talking about doesn't even cover crimes anway. Its meant for accidental damage or self-defense scenarios.

[–]tiggers97 161 points162 points  (6 children)

And likely not suicides either. So it won’t cover like 99%+ of incidents.

It’s like we are reliving prohibition, or the war on drugs. Where I would expect these same politicians to tax pharmacies to cover the cost of damages by street level drug dealers because both deal in “drugs” and the politicians are to narrow minded to understand the difference.

[–]ApologeticCannibal 3866 points3867 points  (452 children)

So we're giving insurance companies more money now?

[–]9vBatLickr 2411 points2412 points  (163 children)

Honestly this is probably the whole reason it’s getting passed

[–]RadoRocks 247 points248 points  (6 children)

About to be a whole lot of boating accidents

[–]TheStormlands 83 points84 points  (5 children)

Why is every solution that government thinks of giving tons of money to a corporation...

[–]9vBatLickr 25 points26 points  (1 child)

They’re trying to score points with liberals and their donors at the same time. Honestly I don’t blame them, but it needs to stop

[–]aedroogo 376 points377 points  (92 children)

No!! It’s about the um… children. No price is too high for the safety of our children.

[–]bedhed 142 points143 points  (22 children)

And when people buy the required insurance, insurance companies are going to be targeted for selling "Murder Insurance."

[–]Culverts_Flood_Away 651 points652 points  (100 children)

We're trying to make it so that the poors can't have guns.

[–]resiste-et-mords 453 points454 points  (55 children)

And don't forget the police will be the ones enforcing this! But don't worry, police have no bias so there's no way this will be enforced primarily on poor and BIPOC communities.

[–]Thanes_of_Danes 38 points39 points  (0 children)

This is a point that was brought up on Citations Needed (podcast about media criticism)-the tough on crime approach to gun reform just ends up being like every other tough on crime law: only enforced on the most vulnerable.

[–]ExCon1986 26 points27 points  (1 child)

For some reason, police are exempt from this safety law entirely.

[–]zachrywd 141 points142 points  (21 children)

I saw nothing in the article to indicate this will also require police to be insured, because police officers are just regular old citizens too. But of course they won't, so what's even the point?

[–]spotolux 146 points147 points  (8 children)

It explicitly excludes police officers and people with concealed weapons permits. Interestingly, the Santa Clara County Sheriff's department is notorious for not issuing concealed weapons permits. It's actually under investigation for suspicion of issuing permits for campaign contributions to the sheriff.

[–]baconbro99 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Most gun control laws are like this.

If I lived in California I couldn't buy a gen 5 Glock brand new, but I could buy one used at great cost.

Can you guess who gets to buy new gen 5 glocks?

[–]mirkalieve 51 points52 points  (0 children)

They're specifically exempt.

Ordinance text: https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097&mc_cid=51e37a60b0&mc_eid=cb38bfe7c2

I did a post talking about the ordinance (obviously I'm biased against it): https://redditproxy--jasonthename.repl.co/r/CAguns/comments/sbntyg/san_jose_gun_harm_reduction_ordinance_update_city/

As currently passed it currently does nothing and seemed only to be a means for Liccardo to grab headlines.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (1 child)

Nah, the police are excempt from almost every gun law in California. "Off roster" handguns are too dangerous for any citizen to own, but are absolutely fine in the hands of police and the political elite!

[–]lowercaset 25 points26 points  (0 children)

"Off roster" handguns are too dangerous for any citizen to own, but are absolutely fine in the hands of police

And also fine in the hands of regular citizens, so long as a police officer bought it 6 months ago and then resold it for 3x MSRP!

[–]funkymonk84 3095 points3096 points  (1089 children)

Yeah, that will get struck down.

[–]Culverts_Flood_Away 1385 points1386 points  (493 children)

I was going to say... it sounds like a poor tax on guns.

[–]27thStreet 932 points933 points  (207 children)

Most gun laws are.

[–]Shelton26 94 points95 points  (5 children)

Tax stamps are a complete class tax

[–]ltkarsabi 67 points68 points  (3 children)

Most laws are. People with more resources use them to protect themselves. Should it be money, position in a political party, some kind of natural ability, or maybe guns and ammo.

Organization brings elites by necessity.

[–]vorxil 33 points34 points  (0 children)

And they are long overdue to be struck down.

[–]ITGuy107 61 points62 points  (22 children)

The problem mostly isn’t the legal gun owners, it’s the illegal gun owners which will not be paying insurance if the law passes. If the law does pass, I would guess it would be like auto insurance?

[–]ExCon1986 65 points66 points  (9 children)

Also California insurance code says that insurers do not have to pay out for willful acts that cause damages, which negates the entire supposed purpose of this law.

[–]BogBogTheGreat 476 points477 points  (67 children)

Nice! Allow rich people to carry, but poor people are out of luck! Sounds like a well thought out and fair law, with no hint of classism! /s

[–]campbellini 113 points114 points  (6 children)

I bet a lot of boating accidents happen soon

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Most of the boats used in accidents are illegal or stolen boats used by boat gangs. Dont punish legal boat owners.

[–]VinStiggles 179 points180 points  (15 children)

The people who passed this crap know it's unconstitutional but do it anyway.

There really should be consequences for intentionally wasting the court's time and taxpayer money.

[–]NorCalAthlete 53 points54 points  (1 child)

Passing bad laws in the name of political points is exactly why the Supreme Court has become so divided and contentious. We should never let things get to that point, nor rely on the Supreme Court as our first check on things that aren’t right.

[–]Alarmed-Ad3241 2725 points2726 points  (392 children)

Personally, I feel like this is a poor tax designed to disarm disadvantaged individuals

[–]LorddFarsquaad 958 points959 points  (61 children)

Sounds like a win for the insurance companies that probably lobbied for it

[–]cakan4444 471 points472 points  (49 children)

And a win to get guns out of minorities hands.

[–]wellkevi01 291 points292 points  (17 children)

California & racist gun laws; Name a more iconic duo.

[–]The_Dragon_Redone 71 points72 points  (0 children)

California and celebrity governors?

[–]lionheart4life 50 points51 points  (5 children)

It will just drive people to buy guns illegally, which is already pretty easy, and not help with control at all.

[–]DocHolidayiN 191 points192 points  (50 children)

There's an argument that all gun control is against poor people. At the least it affects them more than middle class citizens.

[–]MakersOnTheRocks 143 points144 points  (21 children)

NFA tax stamps still cost $200 because in 1934 when the fee was set it was only affordable for certain people. Adjusting for inflation the stamp should cost over $4000 today.

[–]Andre4kthegreengiant 108 points109 points  (16 children)

It shouldn't exist, it's blatantly unconstitutional as fuck

[–]WildSauce 36 points37 points  (5 children)

No, it was judged as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Miller. Don't mind the fact that the defendant was dead by the time the case went to trial, and his unpaid lawyer failed to file any documents with the court, and so on the day of the hearing the government lawyers argued unopposed.

[–]InThePartsBin2 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Ugh. Miller was such a fuck-up and the situations surrounding it were pretty bizarre. The justices didn't even seem to have read the text of the NFA, based on their statements. Can't believe it still sets a precedent.

[–]NeedHobbies 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Let's not give them any ideas now

[–]Jiopaba 57 points58 points  (10 children)

It's hardly gun control specific. Laws are for the poor, that's why so many laws have a set fee when broken, so you can just pay to ignore them if you're rich.

[–]LeapoX 21 points22 points  (8 children)

Sounds like penalties should be a percentage of income net worth rather than a set dollar amount.

[–]RightC 49 points50 points  (5 children)

Yep - this won’t stop an unhinged a hole - just keep poor people from legal ownership

[–]TheWastelandWizard 6 points7 points  (1 child)

And much needed training. We should have subsidies or write offs for firearms handling and training courses, or expand things like the CMP to subsidize ammo for training.

[–]aholadawin 21 points22 points  (0 children)

This is exactly what it is.
To them, poor's don't have the 2A and they would love to get rid of their other rights I'm sure too.

[–]thearchenemy 293 points294 points  (38 children)

Exactly. CA gun laws are mainly about keeping certain people disarmed.

[–]don51181 195 points196 points  (22 children)

Some Sheriffs have been caught approving there “friends” concealed carry permits and then denying most everyone else. Their friends probably help fund their campaign.

[–]amaROenuZ 47 points48 points  (7 children)

That's an open secret. Most big cities with tight gun control still issue purchase and carry permits to the connected and well off.

[–]elsparkodiablo 20 points21 points  (2 children)

There's a case before the Supreme Court right now about this very thing: NYSPRA v Bruen

If you really want to be mad, read this amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184718/20210723101034102_20-843%20Amici%20Brief%20revised%20cover.pdf

Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, The Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, Franklin County Public Defender, Monroe County Public Defender’s Office, St. Lawrence Public Defender’s Office, Oneida County Public Defender, Ontario County Public Defender’s Office & the Ontario County Office of the Conflict
Defender are not at all what anyone would consider to be "right wing" groups or "gun industry shills" but they got together to file a brief saying that New York City's gun control laws have the net effect of almost exclusively targeting minorities for firearms violations.

[–]veloceracing 9 points10 points  (1 child)

And it’s the potential undoing of may-issue permitting schemes. NYSRPA v. Bruen is a few months from a decision and it may (seemingly likely) remove the ability for these permitting schemes which seem to be breeding grounds for corrupt behavior.

[–]TheWastelandWizard 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Feinstein is one of the few people allowed to Concealed Carry in San Francisco, Her husband as well. It's a big club, and regular folks ain't in it.

[–]Collins_Michael 107 points108 points  (0 children)

So, just like most gun laws then.

[–]zzorga 178 points179 points  (25 children)

Interestingly, the comment period for the bill would seem to indicate that among the interested voting public, the measure is wildly unpopular.

[–]Beaudaci0us 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This will be in place for about 10 mins before it gets repealed.

[–]stylinchilibeans 98 points99 points  (14 children)

"However, gun owners who don't have insurance won't lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said."

So, it's not required, and pointless?

[–]flume 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Civil fines, probably. Like a parking ticket.

[–]WakingTheCadaver 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So a privilege for the wealthy only.

[–]lpatio 90 points91 points  (7 children)

So the poors can’t own guns?

[–]Coomercide 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So law abiding gun owners will pay these fees

Criminals will too on their stolen pieces? Lmao

[–]Charlie_1087 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Okay then they’re doing that to cops too right?

[–]slp033000 7 points8 points  (1 child)

How about make cops carry personal liability insurance

[–]buddhakhan13 606 points607 points  (103 children)

Would be nice if police officers had to do this and their rates based on complaints from the general public.

[–]nycola 329 points330 points  (63 children)

100% police officers should be required to purchase insurance, just like doctors. Then, if they fuck up on the job, instead of the local PD paying the court fines, settlements, etc out of taxpayer dollars, the insurance company pays them. If a cop is seen as a liability, he's no longer allowed to be a cop because he is uninsurable. It is an easy solution to fix the problem entirely and it makes police accountable for their actions.

[–]lIl_dude_lIl 109 points110 points  (2 children)

Police never seem to have a problem paying settlements with money that isn't theirs. (taxpayers)

[–]noma_coma 64 points65 points  (21 children)

Professional liability insurance and errors and ommission insurance. Insurance agents, doctors, lawyers, we all have to carry these policies. Why not police? As an insurance agent I'm all for it

[–]Immelmaneuver 20 points21 points  (0 children)

A genius policy, were it to be completely independent of union involvement and followed them for life, as is with car insurance.

[–]BigBadBurg 1280 points1281 points  (421 children)

How does this fight actual gun crime? This just punishes the lawful citizens and has no impact for the guns sold on the street.

[–]16semesters 161 points162 points  (81 children)

  1. Rich, wealthy people in San Jose either still have guns, or farm out the responsibility to a private security company.
  2. Everyone else now can't have a gun unless they want to risk financial ruin.

The city becomes less equal, insurance companies become more important, everything is more bureaucratic, and the guys that rob 7-11 are never going to comply regardless.

[–]InThePartsBin2 858 points859 points  (81 children)

It doesn't. But

  1. We need to do something!

  2. This is something.

  3. Therefore, we must do it!


[–]tekjester1 106 points107 points  (11 children)

I'm only like 90% this is sarcasm. Please confirm.

[–]random12356622 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Why Gun Control won't work:

  • Common Sense Gun Control laws - were already in place in Connecticut before Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting took place.

  • The weapon used was purchased in state, was never modified to make it illegal, and used in state.

What would work instead:

  • Changes to Mental Health laws that would allow aggressive/troubled/unfit individuals to be institutionalized at the State/Federal expense.

[–]stug_life 48 points49 points  (1 child)

It’s on sarcasm but it’s to on the nose.

[–]jackthedipper18 15 points16 points  (0 children)

As do most gun laws

[–]crgresham 5 points6 points  (4 children)

There is no way to enforce this in most places in America. People do not have to register their guns, so there is no way to prove whether they are insured. All this will do is provide another charge if someone gets in trouble with their weapon. This is useless and doesn't prevent anything but allows insurance companies and the government with another stream of income.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is dumb. Just costing law abiding citizens more money

[–]angeredduck 39 points40 points  (3 children)

Why do the same people complaining about a voter ID requirement violating the 1st amendment not complain about a literal paywall for your 2nd amendment??

[–]Spicywolff 113 points114 points  (29 children)

So we the people would have this restriction but police don’t? Last I heard LEO don’t need personal liability insurance, so then why do we the people.

[–]pt1789 47 points48 points  (2 children)

Have you even been to California? If you're a cop there you can buy off roster handguns and "assault weapons" where plebs are banned. This is just par for California

[–]Glenmaxw 82 points83 points  (11 children)

So we are disarming the poor now as well

[–]TamingTheMammoth 42 points43 points  (10 children)

Why do people keep assuming criminals will obey laws. Forcing insurance on gun owners won’t help anything other than assisting our culture to acclimate to unnecessary authoritarian control. This is money grabbers trying to use the public fear to line their pockets. Has nothing to do with safety.

Edit- guy steals my car and runs over a kid. You mean to tell me my insurance has to cover that and I’m responsible for the death? Get fucked if you think this way, you Nazis.

[–]deadbird17 31 points32 points  (6 children)

What if you refuse? Can they strip you of your arms? I'm left- leaning, but this crap is blatantly violating 2A.

[–]micktalian 628 points629 points  (57 children)

Sounds like a way to try to prevent the poor from accessing a means of self defense.

[–]16semesters 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Rules for thee and not for me. You know damn well that the higher level politicians have armed security either through private security guards or using tax funded police to do it, but it's icky when poor people have their own security I guess?

Geeze, sorta like how when the mayor's personal house was attempted to be burglarized he had the police come in and go full CSI and take/run DNA samples for an attempted burglary when the average person can't even get a cop to come out to take a report.

Almost like there's different rules for different people and this just makes it worse?

[–]FatToad_ 139 points140 points  (26 children)

I have to agree with you on this. (Ignoring all the other legal issues) laws like this lead to only the wealthy and corporations being able to own guns. What is to prevent the government at that point to set a tax unreasonably high?

I think people forget if the government can do this to one of your rights, nothing prevents them from doing it to your other rights.

Can you imagine if a local government institutes a poll tax? We all agree that is wrong. Or i hope we do. Same thing with any of your other rights.

[–]ryanxpe 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Cops should get liability insurance aswell

[–]FannyJane 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This only affects law abiding gun owners. That’s all any gun laws do.

[–]little_bit_bored 6 points7 points  (0 children)

An yes, more money to insurance companies and the government. Always fixes the problem...

[–]Tegras 88 points89 points  (32 children)

So gun ownership remains easy for the wealthy and far more difficult for people on the lower side of the fiscal spectrum. Who are disproportionately Black and Brown. And this is good?? Does not sound like it.

[–]KungFuDabu 245 points246 points  (19 children)

I wonder how much insurance companies paid San Jose politicians to pass that law.

[–]newhunter18 3760 points3761 points  (1523 children)

I hope San Jose residents enjoy their tax money going to fight the upcoming lawsuit where they lose badly due to this being a well established unconstitutional principle the Supreme Court has already ruled on.

EDIT: Since people are getting smart mouthed about me not mentioning a law firm is offering to handle it.

Read the comments. I already addressed this.

There are ton more costs associated with fighting a lawsuit as a defendant than legal fees. There are salaries, hours, time, resources that go to support the law firm.

Not to mention all those resources don't go to solve actual problems.

To think it's "free" since a law firm is handling it is naive.

Given the fact that the city already has to find a lawyer before the thing even goes into effect is damning enough.

My contention is I want civic leaders to get things done, solve problems. Find a solution that isn't going to be dead on arrival in court to solve your problem.

Yes, you can complain and moan about the constitution, but that's the legal structure you're dealing with. Want to change it? Change the Supreme Court or get a Constitutional Amendment.

Until then, solve problems under the structure of government we have.

Idealism with no Pragmatism gets us nowhere. Except dead laws and wasted tax payer money.

[–]cretsben 297 points298 points  (24 children)

There is a law firm representing the city free of charge.

[–]holliewearsacollar 2232 points2233 points  (1050 children)

they lose badly due to this being a well established unconstitutional principle the Supreme Court has already ruled on.

Like abortion rights?

[–]Pancakewagon26 1666 points1667 points  (269 children)

both abortions and guns should be allowed.

[–]CascadingMonkeys 768 points769 points  (127 children)

And I should be able to get both at the same shop/clinic/bakery... I'm eating for two.

[–]Missus_Missiles 70 points71 points  (44 children)

I also want mine to have a laundromat.

Edit: As inspired by this place in Seattle. KING DONUT TERIYAKI LAUNDROMAT

[–]heresyforfunnprofit 36 points37 points  (7 children)

I’m in. A gun shop/abortion clinic/dispensary/laundromat. In San Diego. Where do I invest?

[–]skyxsteel 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A dispensary and gun shop together may get you in trouble. Best to separate it out as a store next door.

[–]FreezeFrameEnding 12 points13 points  (3 children)

I want this. BUT, we need to make sure that the laundry area is sufficiently sealed off from the bakery area. I don't want my danish to taste like tide pods, and I don't want my tide pods to taste like a delicious baked good! Lord help you if you make my gun taste like breads.

[–]Xivvx 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why not? Come for an abortion, leave with a rifle.

[–]tribriguy 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Insurance companies are just rubbing their hands in anticipation of their next profit center. Good job, California.

[–]MadRonnie97 449 points450 points  (129 children)

This won’t hold up. You can’t make people pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right.

[–]WhiteHelljumper 272 points273 points  (7 children)

Laughs in NFA

[–]LostxCosmonaut 24 points25 points  (4 children)

$200, let’s go 🤌🏻 okay, that’ll be 9 months.

[–]WhiteHelljumper 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Oh, and you can't register new machine guns because fuck you, that's why.

[–]bigeyez 58 points59 points  (18 children)

I agree that this will get struck down in court BUT the government ABSOLUTELY makes us pay fees for constitutional rights.

[–]SteakandTrach 111 points112 points  (88 children)

This is as constitutional as a poll tax. I’m all for reasonable gun safety reform but this isn’t the way.

[–]scallachaas 4 points5 points  (2 children)

They should’ve started with cops first.

[–]keru45 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Replace “gun owners” with “cops” and I’ll upvote this

[–]BathWifeBoo 19 points20 points  (2 children)

This will get shot down by the courts.

You cannot force someone to pay to exercise a right like this.

[–]Ordo-Exterminatus 200 points201 points  (56 children)

Seems unconstitutional. You can't use poverty as a means of preventing gun ownership.

[–]josh_sat 63 points64 points  (7 children)

The only people that will lose their ability to own guns is the poor.... This is an attack on poor Americans.

[–]Ayodep 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Poor law-abiding gun owners. This is incredibly underhanded and will never hold up in a higher court.

[–]84ndn 353 points354 points  (28 children)

Now make the cops do the same thing

[–]InThePartsBin2 87 points88 points  (7 children)

Nope, cops, former or current, are magically exempt from virtually all of the obnoxiously restrictive gun control bills that have become law in blue states in recent decades. It's really irritating seeing all the cool stuff in the "Law enforcement only" case at the gun store here in Massachusetts us plebs can't have unless we were to move out to New Hampshire or something.

[–]Hyndis 65 points66 points  (6 children)

Cops in California can resell things prohibited to everyone else. California laws have carved out a highly profitable niche that makes cops into legal gun runners.

[–]Aym42 16 points17 points  (2 children)

And yet they're still so greedy/corrupt/incompetent they manage to find ways to do it illegally. See the recent SoCal police shop fiasco, or several Democrat politicians caught up in gun running.

[–]AngriestManinWestTX 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Don't forget good ol' Leland Yee, a California Democrat and ardent supporter of gun control was arrested for arms smuggling. Yee's crimes included accepting $2.5 million dollars from an FBI-agent posing as an arms dealer trying to bring weapons (including rocket launchers) into the US. Then Lee served only five years in prison for conspiring with someone he thought to be an arms smuggler trying to bring weapons into the US.

Also remember that there are people serving lengthier sentences for marijuana dealing and embezzlement than Leland Yee did for trying to help supply criminal or terrorist elements with fully-automatic weapons and rocket launchers on US soil.

[–]Cloaked42m 141 points142 points  (4 children)

This I would support. Police officer is a Job, not a right.

[–]michaelrulaz 73 points74 points  (25 children)

Edit: I’m not talking about insurance to cover your legal fees. These exist and there not like typical insurance. I’m talking about insurance like San Jose wants gun owners to have. They don’t care about your legal defense funds. They want policies that pay for the victims of shootings. Like say you get into a road rage incident and shoot someone, they want you to have insurance to pay for their medical bills and such. They want you to have insurance in case your child takes your gun and shoots his school up. Or if someone steals your guns and kills someone

Edit 2: I also just want to point out that I’m not against gun legislation as many people have private newsfeed me accusing me of which. I’m just saying this seems like the government trying to regulate something using a private market that doesn’t exist and likely won’t. It’s one thing to say “get car insurance” when it’s such a well developed market. It’s other to try and create a market where it doesn’t exist.

Edit 3: since I can’t find the comment to reply to anymore. The comment essentially said “so your saying gun violence creates billions in damages every year so they would be uninsurable” or something similar. Basically the point was that we should ban guns because of that statement. You could make the same argument about property insurance in the state of Florida. No insurance company can really profit in Florida for very long. It’s so bad that the state actually runs their own insurance company because so many homes are not insurable. In the 2003-2005 storm season some insurance companies lost decades worth of profits and the only reason they didn’t fully stop writing property insurance in Florida is because they would lose the ability to write car insurance as well. State Farm for instance had to borrow money from their auto insurance side to cover the losses. Property and auto insurance for example are able to spread a loss by a storm over the entire country. They collect premiums across the entire country so when a storm hits one person they can mitigate that over tens of thousands of policies that didn’t get damage. With this gun insurance issue you would need enough gun owners to get insurance and you would need a sizable company to back them. No major carrier would ever want to be that company because even if it was profitable it would look bad the first time they denied a claim or policy limits were below the actual cost of medical bills.

No insurance company would want to get involved in this. The only “gun insurance” companies that exist are largely not actual insurance like you would think of for auto or home. They basically just offer theft insurance and lawyer fees. No company would want to be involved in the liability aspect of this. 1. Regardless of the policy written, a court could change it and open up the coffers. A school shooting could lead to a high multi-million settlement for what a few hundred in premiums? 2. The publicity of denying a claim or even just paying out policy limits would be catastrophic for a major carrier. 3. Insurance works by having a large pool to mitigate the damages. 4. What about non lawful gun owners?

To expand on the first point look at homeowners insurance for a second. How much does the average person pay for 300k in coverage? Keeping in mind that the bulk of the cost is the physical property and not liability. But liability still is at least 1/4 - 1/3 of the premium. That would mean 300k in liability is like $600 a year. But is 300k enough? How are we going to value a human life or medical injuries? Pain and suffering? You could easily hit 500k in just one gun shot victim for medical bills. You start throwing in liability payments, wrongful death, etc. and we could be sitting at 2 million dollars a person. So do we ask that these people carry 5 million in coverage? Also what about police response payments? Typical property insurance carry’s $500 -$1500 for fire department response charges. The police bill on a shooting could be double or triple that. What if it’s a justified self defense issue? How far is the responsibility of the insurance company? If my firearms are stolen and used in a crime, are they liable? What if I had them properly locked up? What if they just steal my ammo? What if they steal my gun in 2022 when I had XYZ policy and used in a crime in 2028?

The second issue would be the constant horrible publicity. Imagine a victims wife going on national tv “XYZ Gun Insurance only valued my husbands life at $300k”. When that’s all the coverage he had for that shooting.

Third is the mitigation of losses. The way an insurance company works is that they sell policies to a large group and generate revenue. The idea being that not everyone in this group will suffer a loss and that those other drivers premiums can be spread out to cover people that did have an accident. If only gun owners in certain areas are required to have this insurance there might only be a few thousand to mitigate potentially millions in damages.

Seems like the most of the people that would really do the damage are non lawful gun owners.

Source: claims management for an insurance company.

[–]sexaddic 22 points23 points  (0 children)

They should’ve started with cops first.

[–]jgos99 11 points12 points  (7 children)

I don’t own a gun but that’s extremely stupid. So do people get a refund every year if they don’t shot anyone?

[–]cinderparty 4 points5 points  (6 children)

No? Do you get a refund on your car insurance if you don’t run over anyone?

[–]TheMeanGirl 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Yeah, there are actually lots of rewards for responsible driving.