California city becomes first to demand gun owners pay liability insurance and an annual fee

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
San Jose, California, became the first city in the United States to impose restrictions on gun owners demanding they purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee.

Under the new ordnance, gun owners would need to keep proof of insurance and proof of fee payment with their gun at all times. They would be required to be able to provide documentation to police officers when requested.

Those who do not comply with the law could be nailed with a fine or even have their guns impounded.

Gun rights advocates said they would challenge the constitutionality of the ordnance in the courts.

"Any abridgment of a constitutional right, any chipping away, no matter how small, is the beginning of the downfall of the Constitution and what our rights really mean," said Sam Paredes, the executive director of the Gun Owners of America.

Read complete article:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/san-jose-gun-fee-liability
 

Mocha Latte

Well-Known Member
I’m not surprised that this is coming out of the socialist republic of Mexifornia. And to the points above, why are they doing everything in their power to punish law-abiding and tax paying citizens while literally changing laws to encourage and reward criminals?! This is getting crazy. Good is evil and evil is good. :confused:
 

fl2007rn

Well-Known Member
They are doing everything they possibly can to chase tax paying Americans out of the state. Who's going to pay for all the "universal" benefits when they are finally successful?
California is also chasing away tourists because of the politics, crime, and homeless population. My husband was born in California and he never wants to go back unless he absolutely has to.
 

Xenosjeff

Well-Known Member
The real root is the problem is that California and other lawless cess pools propose and enact laws that are clearly unconstitutional from their inception. The two choices for cause are, ignorance of the constitution and evil intent.
The fact that this gets off the starting line is an indictment of California and it’s governing communist mafia.
Evil or stupid, either way, great job California!

Jeff
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
This of course is illegal, being a violation of the law written in the 2nd Amendment, since it is clearly an infringement on the right to be armed. But it doesn't matter much what the law says when those who have no respect for the law have the power to put you in jail. And when even the Court has no respect for the law, the law no longer exists as a practical matter.

If history tells us anything it is that the tendency of government is to grow ever more powerful and controlling, until it becomes a despot, and ultimately a tyrant. This is what professional government people strive for, even though many of them might deceive themselves about it. The authors of our Constitution knew this, and wrote a body of law limiting what government can do. The right to be armed not being infringed is part of that limit, and the right itself is another part of that limit, the idea being that an armed people can only be pushed so far before they rise up and remove the despot from power.

So the political class naturally hates the Constitution and the rights embodied in it, because it stops them from what they want to do. Imagine if the worse thing that could happen if you get caught robbing a bank is that maybe you might have to give back whatever amount of money you haven't spent yet, and that's it, no jail time or anything. Do you think we might have more bank robberies? The same thing applies to incursions on our rights by a corrupt government. Where there are no consequences for lawlessness, why should anyone obey the law?

It is important to remember that those who work to destroy the right to be armed say that no right is unlimited. They also claim that if a right is unlimited all they have to do is say that in their opinion any limit they want is a reasonable limit and that makes it legal. If a majority in government votes for it, by definition it becomes a reasonable limit. So by that reasoning there are no rights, only privileges, because government has the authority to limit any of them all it wants. This ideology has long been undermining our law, and we are only beginning to see the effects of it, the 2nd Amendment being like the canary in the mine.

We are already seeing incursions made against other rights, including the right to free speech and to worship God as we choose. And it looks like what we have seen so far is just barely the beginning. Every successful incursion they make encourages more.

I would point out though that while requiring gun owners to buy special insurance is illegal it is not a bad idea. Anyone should already have liability insurance, either as a homeowner or you should get it outright if you are not; liability insurance alone doesn't cost much. I have homeowner's insurance, and I also have insurance just for those who carry a concealed gun. Mine has a phone number on the card I can call and they will dispatch a lawyer to defend me if I ever have to defend myself; they pay for the lawyer up to a certain amount (that amount depending on how high a premium I want to pay). It also provides a lawyer in the case of a civil case, pays any civil penalty that might be assessed, and pays bail. It costs me under $15 a month and I think it's well worth it, given how high legal fees can be.
 

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
This of course is illegal, being a violation of the law written in the 2nd Amendment, since it is clearly an infringement on the right to be armed. But it doesn't matter much what the law says when those who have no respect for the law have the power to put you in jail. And when even the Court has no respect for the law, the law no longer exists as a practical matter.

If history tells us anything it is that the tendency of government is to grow ever more powerful and controlling, until it becomes a despot, and ultimately a tyrant. This is what professional government people strive for, even though many of them might deceive themselves about it. The authors of our Constitution knew this, and wrote a body of law limiting what government can do. The right to be armed not being infringed is part of that limit, and the right itself is another part of that limit, the idea being that an armed people can only be pushed so far before they rise up and remove the despot from power.

So the political class naturally hates the Constitution and the rights embodied in it, because it stops them from what they want to do. Imagine if the worse thing that could happen if you get caught robbing a bank is that maybe you might have to give back whatever amount of money you haven't spent yet, and that's it, no jail time or anything. Do you think we might have more bank robberies? The same thing applies to incursions on our rights by a corrupt government. Where there are no consequences for lawlessness, why should anyone obey the law?

It is important to remember that those who work to destroy the right to be armed say that no right is unlimited. They also claim that if a right is unlimited all they have to do is say that in their opinion any limit they want is a reasonable limit and that makes it legal. If a majority in government votes for it, by definition it becomes a reasonable limit. So by that reasoning there are no rights, only privileges, because government has the authority to limit any of them all it wants. This ideology has long been undermining our law, and we are only beginning to see the effects of it, the 2nd Amendment being like the canary in the mine.

We are already seeing incursions made against other rights, including the right to free speech and to worship God as we choose. And it looks like what we have seen so far is just barely the beginning. Every successful incursion they make encourages more.

I would point out though that while requiring gun owners to buy special insurance is illegal it is not a bad idea. Anyone should already have liability insurance, either as a homeowner or you should get it outright if you are not; liability insurance alone doesn't cost much. I have homeowner's insurance, and I also have insurance just for those who carry a concealed gun. Mine has a phone number on the card I can call and they will dispatch a lawyer to defend me if I ever have to defend myself; they pay for the lawyer up to a certain amount (that amount depending on how high a premium I want to pay). It also provides a lawyer in the case of a civil case, pays any civil penalty that might be assessed, and pays bail. It costs me under $15 a month and I think it's well worth it, given how high legal fees can be.
The framers of the constitution placed the second amendment for the reason we see today. Should the government turn to tyranny there would be a militia in place with the second amendment right to bear arms to defend ourselves against tyranny. This is why the Democrats are trying so hard to disarm Americans under the guize of guns being the cause of increased violence when we all know it's the lawless people using guns that's the problem and they have gone soft on crime and instead are focusing on the root of the rise in crime being those the democrat DA's are not prosecuting they are not holding accountable. It's Not guns it's lawlessness being encouraged by lawless attitude towards crime. All prophetically foretold, increase of lawlessness in the last days.
 

Bedra1958

Well-Known Member
California is also chasing away tourists because of the politics, crime, and homeless population. My husband was born in California and he never wants to go back unless he absolutely has to.
My husband and I are also from California, and our last visit to the west coast in 2017 cemented our decision to never go back there. I miss California the way it used to be, but it's gotten so bad we will not ever go back again.
 

Carl

Well-Known Member
People are already moving out of California in droves. I know this not only from the articles I've read about it, but where I live (Ga.) we have TONS of newcomers from California moving here because they're sick of what's going on there. Houses and condos are selling like hotcakes
Ya gotta watch what they vote for though. Otherwise you will wind up wit California II
 

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
Ya gotta watch what they vote for though. Otherwise you will wind up wit California II
California is going down the tubes and elections here in California don't matter anymore. Democrats are likely to not go anywhere because of massive voter fraud, not due to California residents wanting their leadership. California laws passed by a Democrat Assembly of legislators made it legal for illegal immigrants to obtain driver license which automatically place them in the voter registration list and gives them the right to vote though they are not legal citizens.
Here's an RF article that addresses this:

September 4, 2020
Invitations to Voter Fraud in 2020
California is Exhibit A – while key battleground states are also at risk.
By Joseph Klein

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, the Court observed that “flagrant examples” of voter fraud “have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.” As the National Commission on Federal Election Reform stated in its 2005 bipartisan report, the problem “is not the magnitude of voter fraud. In close or disputed elections, and there are many, a small amount of fraud could make the margin of difference.” The report noted that “Invalid voter files, which contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, or deceased voters, are an invitation to fraud.”.

These non-U.S. citizens may become automatically registered to vote even though they are not eligible to vote in federal elections. This has happened in Pennsylvania, for example. The door is then open for these non-U.S. citizens who are legally in this country to vote illegally.

Complete article:
https://www.raptureforums.com/politics-culture-wars/invitations-to-voter-fraud-in-2020/
 

Ghoti Ichthus

Pray so they do not serve alone. Ephesians 6:10-20
Aside from being unConstitutional, this law is RACIST because it will disproportionately harm non-Whites, who, on average, have lower incomes.

This law is also SEXIST and AGEIST for the same reason :tappingfoot Single women and seniors, especially, are going to be seriously, disproportionately, adversely affected :cry

My sad prediction is the home invasion, robbery, carjacking, burglary, and rape rates in San Jose are gonna skyrocket :furious :rant :mad :wild


:soapbox :rant this is the kind of thing victimizes and revictimizes women and girls over and over and over and over and over and . . . :rant :soapbox

. . . and then the system will revictimize the victims, especially those without significant political clout/money, some more if when the State refuses to prosecute the rapes, robberies, etc. . . .


:cry


:pray :pray :amen :amen


PS: The first crime victim needs to start the class action lawsuit :tappingfoot
Whether or not they own or owned a firearm, the fact that some people have and carry them makes everyone safer. This law, because it will reduce gun ownership, or at least reduce cc, will make everyone less safe, to include those, who cannot or will not ever own or carry a firearm :tappingfoot
 
Top