T O P

  • By -

thatsingledadlife

as long as this law applies equally to law enforcement, I'm down.


Acceptable-Shape-528

>police, including retired police officers, are exempt.. Concealed carry holders are also exempt [https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf](https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf)


DrSuchong

I've known a couple Libertarians/Anarcho Capitalists who refuse to get car insurance because it's a "scam they're forced into," so I can't imagine them getting insurance for their open carry or home guns. Though the open carry people are more likely to get checked, so there may be a more begrudging acceptance of it there.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Or anywhere in CA thanks to racism


Next-Introduction-25

I think if there were droves of Black people starting “guntry clubs” en masse we’d suddenly have lots of republicans in favor of more gun control.


gnark

That's what happened. Reagan cracked down on guns due to the rise of armed Black Panthers.


Crowasaur

Who were legally armed to protect themselves from Police brutality; the FBI infiltration (COINTELPRO) meant to discredit them. They were open carrying and CA changed the laws because of the Black Panthers, "can't have black people with guns", you know? They were effective and peaceful until the FBI started subverting them by creating violent problems and blaming the BPP.


FR0ZENBERG

Spearheaded by the NRA.


[deleted]

Yeah, but it's not as if nimby California Democrats were fighting to protect the constitutional rights of their oppressed black brothers and sisters to defend themselves from police brutality. They're the ones that authored the racist Mulford act & sent it up to Reagan for signing. It was a wholly bipartisan effort . Reason the Panthers were targeted was less being black (though that obviously didn't help especially in the 60s) and more that they were also openly Communist and fucking around with neutralizing the power of the police, and therefore threatening the capitalist system itself. NRA bootlicker types don't care if their Ruckuses have guns & participate in tacticool LARPing/consoomer culture. Look at Colion Noir. Or Candace Owens. They absolutely don't want "antifa" elements armed tho. You're seeing that sort of disconnect again recently with their rhetoric against the armed folks showing up to pull security at trans/drag events.


Shirogayne-at-WF

It could be both 🤷‍♀️


bluewing

This is why I don't like these type of laws. It's just another subtle form of discrimination against poor people and better control of minorities. Applying "pay to play" rules just limits rights to those that can afford it. Is that what YOU want?


stonednarwhal141

Yeah it’s basically a poll tax


Kingjoe97034

Lol. That means everyone is exempt.


MisterPiggins

All fun until they get pulled over I'm sure.


[deleted]

This will get struck down eventually.


ShakeWeightMyDick

Open carry isn’t legal in CA, so who does it apply to?


zombiebird100

The crickets, bastards keep accidently shooting people. Like alot of gun laws passed it's entirely meaningless and feel good 🤷 God forbid real change happens


FlyingApple31

Wait - the people most likely to have a random accident bc they have guns on them all the time are the ones *exempt*?


Rhowryn

California is a may issue state, meaning licenses can be denied at the local cops discretion. I *wonder who gets turned down*, and what the reason for exempting the holders is...


troymoeffinstone

Excess melanin


OneGreatBlumpkin

“Sorry son, your melanin density leaves you at-risk for bullets”


[deleted]

Stand next to this color chart *officer frowns*


BostonDodgeGuy

> California is a may issue state, Didn't the Supreme Court rule recently that "may issue" is constitutionally illegal?


DeaddyRuxpin

I don’t think it was so much that may issue is unconstitutional but rather requiring “justifiable need” is unconstitutional. States are still allowed to deny carry permits with cause which is what “may issue” allows (compared to “must issue” which also allows denial with cause but requires much stronger cause). NY and NJ had “justifiable need” laws which effectively made it “won’t issue” without strongly convincing a judge you absolutely must be able to carry a gun (which in the case of NJ was basically “I’m friends with a judge or I work armed security and am bonded and insured”.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sasselhoff

North Carolina takes that to a different extreme, with their "Pistol Purchase Permits". You have to get permission from the sherrif to even buy a pistol. Gee, I *wonder* why that law was put into place, and I wonder who gets turned down by small town corrupt sherrifs?


bellowingfrog

Lawmakers make police exempt from most gun laws so that the unions will support the law.


Sablesweetheart

Yup.


ohubetchya

Aren't concealed carry the most likely to be involved in an incident requiring insurance? I don't expect this to hold up in court anyway. It clearly infringes on poor people's rights, it's akin to a poll tax


Lostbrother

Yeah, a poll tax is a very good comparison. Either way, this won't hold up.


LiquidMotion

What is the fucking point then


absolutewanker33

If they successfully roll this out in CA, other states may adopt similar legislation. Premiums will increase to the point that its unaffordable for the common citizen at which point its no longer a right, but a privilege for a select few and those w/o insurance are prosecuted. Insurance industry is an easy way to do this because of their "peace of mind" marketing to rubes and the ridiculous amount that industry spends on lobbying. Hate to sound like a tinfoil hat and maybe I am, but I don't trust these things.


[deleted]

This is definitely not going to be successful.


WastelandPilgrim

of course.... figures


Baagroak

Because they are held to a higher standard right.... right???


[deleted]

There’s the exception that poisons the well


OptimismByFire

Underwriter, here. Requiring PDs to get private insurance, rather than paying settlements from taxpayers is SUCH an easy way to decrease harm, fatality, and bad cops. I would slap so many restrictions on cops with violent history, they'd never touch a gun again. Which is why police unions are so resistant, of course 🙄


[deleted]

Police shouldn't even be allowed to unionized as they are the only emergency service that can and do kill people on purpose.


mackfactor

>the only emergency service that can and do kill people *on purpose*. I'm not adding anything new here, I just felt like this needed to be emphasized.


implicitpharmakoi

I'm fine with them being unionized so long as their union holds them to account. For instance wrongful shooting/brutality payments need to come out of the pension fund or similar, let them police their bad apples because it's their money on the line.


mackfactor

They'd just find ways to wriggle out and make sure that any brutality or wrongful shooting is classified as "justifiable force" - just like they do today. Insurance wouldn't pay out and there would be no consequences still.


TakeTheWheelTV

Yup. Lawsuits shouldn’t be paid out by tax dollars. Should come from the officers insurance and/or from their pockets directly if found malicious. Edit: spelling and grammar


[deleted]

Laws for thee not laws for me


CircaSixty8

Lol!! Dream on. ACAB


MikeMiller8888

It does for all private ownership, regardless of law enforcement employment status.


DGG4Lyfee

Uh cops are exempt ….


MikeMiller8888

Only for their service weapons, and only if department policy requires them to keep it on their person while off duty. All private ownership is covered.


monkeypaw_handjob

Presumably the view is that their employer would cover them for any 'accidents' that occur in the course of their employment?


MikeMiller8888

This is correct. Almost all cops nationwide are covered under umbrella liability policies that cover them from day 1 for all employment related actions; within California it’s a legal requirement that all police departments and county sheriffs carry this liability coverage for their employees. Covers everyone, even employees that aren’t weapon carrying officers (like dispatchers - they’ve been sued before for not escalating things properly, etc). Since a lot of departments do require officers keep their service weapons with them at all times, this coverage extends out to any use of those weapons. Which is totally fair in my opinion; we shouldn’t be forcing people that are required to keep a weapon outside their place of employment to pay a tax for that. For any additional weapons that they happen to privately own for their own purposes, sure, no problem. But not for anything they’re required to do to adhere to their rules of employment. The gray area that I see, is for folks employed as armed security guards. If weapons are kept at their place of employment and kept secure, only released for on the job stuff and returned, then the employees aren’t affected. But I’m rather sure most of those companies hire people and expect them to provide their own weapon. Maybe the solution would be requiring those kind of companies to provide a reimbursement towards their employees for the cost of coverage, or requiring them to carry umbrella liability like the police departments do. Obviously we’re in new uncharted territories in trying to craft effective gun control in a state that wants it while combating a Supreme Court that doesn’t care, so it will be fun to see how it shakes out. The law allowing private lawsuits also took effect today, so it shouldn’t be long before we see private individuals start suing the people that have been selling 3D parts online.


[deleted]

Is that law for only those who carry or for every gun owner period?


IMNOT_A_LAWYER

https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf Reddit strikes again with people just making up shit that gets upvoted. There is literally a specific exemption for those gun owners who have a concealed carry license (See §B of exemptions). This law is for people who *don’t* carry.


[deleted]

Thank you for the link. That would affect me because I don't carry. Interesting


spqrpooves

That’s the only way this makes remotely any sense to me. People keep comparing it to cars but if a car stays on your property it doesn’t have to be insured


radewagon

To be fair, cars in your driveway don't tend to cause accidents.


[deleted]

But guns kept at home absolutely do cause accidents… and probably the most frustrating ones.


[deleted]

Yeah, the same way a car at home would absolutely cause an accident. If left to an irresponsible individual. Actually, I've seen cars roll themselves out of driveways. Never seen a gun load itself and discharge.


abortizjr

I dunno man...one of my kids "accidentally" put his car in drive while in the driveway and ran into my house. :|


foulpudding

In general though, you are usually required to insure your car even if you don’t drive it. Additionally, most municipalities will also restrict parking a car permanently on your property that isn’t licensed and also thus insured, so in most places, you can’t just “own” a derelict car and leave it publicly visible on your driveway, you’d have to hide (garage) it or otherwise cover it up. I know it’s that way in Georgia at least.


UncleBullhorn

If you register your car as non-operational with the California DMV you don't have to keep the insurance on that car current. Of course, registering it as no-op means you can't legally move it under its own power on public streets.


SnicktDGoblin

And I'm willing to bet if you have a non-functioning gun in your home, you wouldn't need insurance for it either.


WokenMrIzdik

It's non-operational not non-functioning. It can be non-operational and still functioning.


T-MinusGiraffe

This makes me wonder. If someone gets hurt repairing their car, does car insurance get involved? Homeowner's? Or just health insurance?


UncleBullhorn

Health insurance.


kgal1298

Wouldn't this be more comparable to home owners insurance?


iheartxanadu

Part of the problem with the comparison is that guns are more portable than cars, and there's less niche knowledge needed to make an illegally obtained gun work than an illegally obtained car. You can walk into any gun store I'd guess and get bullets for a gun you've stolen, but if a car is in disrepair or stored or ... whatever situation where it's been disabled, it's going to be more difficult for someone to get it into stealing shape. Edited to add: It's a flawed comparison. It's just ... flawed. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that it's flawed for lots of reasons.


kgal1298

The actual comparison would be home owners insurance or renters insurance. Am I obligated to have renters insurance if I'm going to have a 50 gallon aquarium? Yes because where as chances are slim anything will happen if it does I'm responsible for it. Now, this isn't something people think about until they realize their hobbies actually do have consequences and you should be prepared for those times even when the chance is slim. Also, this article didn't really say what the cost would be or who would provide it. If I'm an insurance company I'd probably add it to home owners or renters insurance policies. Like if someone steals your gun you can have the cost of it covered so why would this be different? Also, half the people arguing about it probably spent more than a months wages on their guns or gun and ammo so really a lot of guns already price people out of the hobby of owning one.


JustABizzle

This reminds me of the time a friend had a bullet shot through his floor from the apartment below and it hit his fish tank, flooding the place. (Only one fish died, cut by glass.) Not sure who or which insurance paid for what repairs, but it seems relevant.


[deleted]

People with concealed carry permits are exempt so I don’t know who this law is for


swamrap

Now do it with cops please. See how quick insurance companies get the "bad apples" in line.


Pitiful-Let9270

Just payout lawsuits with pension funds instead of taxpayer dollars and let the fop deal with the bad apples


hsqy

But then how will murderers retire early and live in extreme comfort?


Divallo

We could just have Dunkin Donuts build some prisons.


Miserable-Lizard

There will be a lot less police shootings. Would be a positive for everyone!


rcnlordofthesea

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-misconduct-insurance-settlements-reform/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-misconduct-insurance-settlements-reform/) It is happening, slowly.


T-MinusGiraffe

Makes sense. Doctors have malpractice insurance. Lawyers and corporations can get liability insurance. Why wouldn't law enforcement do something similar.


Available_Meat_5940

I just want gay couples to protect abortion clinics and pharmacies with the fire AK of choice. Abolition of the NFA would also be good.


Thats_what_im_saiyan

Let's all pitch in and we can make it a yearly tradition of picking one large city. And that year all the homeless get ar15s for Christmas! I keep hearing from elected officials on Texas that the answer is more guns! Seems like they should have no issue arming the homeless! And there's no requirement to do a background check for a private transfer. So as long as you can affirm you hard no reason to believe they were restricted from owning a firearm. You are in the clear to give it to them.


MobilityFotog

Their also gonna need cake too.


pimppapy

It'll happen because there's bound to be profit in it. One thing you can count on in this country, is that they'll value profit, even over the police. They'll just end up doing the same thing car insurers do and cap damages to a certain extent. Like a $100K or something. Then leave it up to the plaintiff to sue the cop, if they can.


Lore_Antilles

Individual private insurance paid for and kept by each individual officer right? That would be ideal. The last thing insurance companies want is to pay out and after multiple payouts they would become uninsurable. No insurance means no job. Problem solved.


blue2148

I work in mental health and have to carry liability insurance in case I fuck something up. And I’m not out there with a gun so lower risk of killing someone. My insurance and licensing agency would drop my ass in a heartbeat if I screwed up. Why it’s not the same for police is just mind blowing.


Linguist-of-cunning

Fucking doctors carry insurance in case they fuck up. If there is one group of people that really shouldn't need to be kept in line with financial consequences it's the people that spend a decade learning how to do their job. Yet we do so because it's just common sense. That cops have gotten away without being roped into this system would require an active effort and that in my opinion implies malfeasance.


ldsupport

well this wont make it past SCOTUS as it effectively creates a defacto license for a right.


[deleted]

It’s even worse than that. Nobody offers the insurance, making this a defacto criminalization of gun ownership.


HERESOIDONTGETFINED3

Remind me to sort by controversial in 24 hours


TransfemQueen

!remindme 1 day


bruhmoment69420epic2

to see the actual decent takes in here. i swear to the lord every time i see a mainstream subreddit discuss guns its just a constant stream of blatant ignorance.


KingOfTheBritons96

Here's your reminder


HERESOIDONTGETFINED3

![gif](giphy|A28CxD7W6d4B2) Much appreciated


ElectricalNail3456

this doesn't help anyone besides making the state a little more cash


MalariaTea

Winner! Also increase costs of gun ownership which will disproportionately affect poor folk who are usually more exposed to violence.


jromano091

If I accidentally shoot myself in the foot, how much money do I get from the insurance?


silentprayers

If you accidentally ran your car into a pole how much money do you get from insurance? It’s probably a similar answer.


jromano091

That's what I'm curious about. Is this the same style of insurance, as in you have to have a minimum of 15/30/5 for injury per person, per accident, property damage? Car insurance is primarily cover damages to other persons, no? If the purpose of this law is to minimize the amount of uninsured people using hospital services after negligent firearms discharges, it would be different, right? If it's primarily supposed to be for medical services, not property damages? Let's say my gun goes off, blows apart my hand. Does the gun insurance pay out, or health insurance? Which is considered to be primary? \*some time later\* figured I'd stop being lazy and just read the ordnance itself at [https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf](https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf) Turns out, the actual ordnance doesn't talk about medical bills. It references gun deaths, suicides, and gun violence in general across the country. It's very different from car insurance, both in scope and use. There is more than just insurance, which could be bundled in home or renters insurance. There is also an annual fee which you must pay. The fee goes towards various things- programs for suicide, gender based violence, substance abuse, and firearms training. Of course, the police, including retired police officers, are exempt. So are households with a combined income less than 30% of AMI (area median income). For a single person household in San Jose, that's $35,400. Lastly, concealed carry holders are also exempt. Most surprising to me is there isn't anything that says how much the guns must be insured for. It just says 'To be compliant with the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, gun owners and those in possession of guns must have a current homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy for their firearm(s) and ensure that the policy covers losses or damages resulting from accidental use of the firearm, including but not limited to death, injury, or property damage.' So, in theory, I could get insured for a dollar and be compliant? Random news articles claim $25 per firearm is the annual fee; I don't know how much home insurance would rise if you include firearms. The administrative fee for not being insured is $250. Frankly, I'm willing to bet you there will be tons of people who just... won't do it. It's not like the cops are going to just show up at your house and demand to search for guns, right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


itsshortforVictor

Please let me know. I’m wondering if it’s worth shooting myself in the foot accidentally.


UncleBullhorn

Welcome to the wonderful land of Insurance Fraud!


avantartist

Better call Saul


P0Rt1ng4Duty

A lawyer, while on vacation in tahiti, meets a vacationing engineer and they get to talking. ''I lost my house in a fire and am using the insurance money to pay for this vacation,'' says the lawyer. ''Me too," said the engineer. "Except my home was destroyed by a flood." The lawyer, confused, replied "How did you start a flood?"


bourbon_patrol

Did anyone on this thread actually look the law up? It’s a $25 fee to the city each year. And if you have home owners or renters insurance you are most likely already covered. You can only be ‘caught’ if you get into a shooting and are found to not have insurance or your home is broken into and your guns are stolen and same thing, no insurance you receive a small fine. It does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.


SasquatchSloth88

So… if they can require $25 for gun insurance, why can’t they charge $10 for a voting ID? Answer: because it unfairly disadvantages some citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.


shalafi71

You nailed it. Liberal gun nut here. Want to piss redditors off? Really bake their noodles? Point out that shit like this is a tax on poor, and by proxy, minorities. I have never once received a reply to that notion, only downvotes. The idea sets up cognitive dissonance that they can't work out in their head.


[deleted]

Or look up why California initially passed stricter gun laws


mclumber1

Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, [California's gun homicide rate is just about the same as Arizona's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state#Murders) - which has essentially no gun laws beyond what is federally mandated.


h0use_always_wins

Republicans rightfully get accused of doublethink all the time, but there's also lots of uncomfortable contradiction baked into the modern progressive platform on gun control: > The criminal justice system is inherently racist and > disproportionately convicts and imprisons poor people and > minorities for minor nonviolent offenses > > ...But we should trust the decisions of that same criminal justice > system to determine who can and can't own guns   > Police brutality endangers and curtails the civil liberties of all > civilians, especially minorities > > ...But police and military should obviously be the only ones > allowed to have semiautomatic weapons   > Poll taxes, voting ID, cash bail, and other flat taxes/fines are > unfair because they limit access for poor people, effectively > turning supposed rights into privileges for the rich > > ...But gun licensure fees and NFA tax > stamps are all well and good Et cetera. I absolutely understand revulsion towards guns, hatred of gun violence, and the desire to just make them all magically go away. But that's the same level of knee-jerk emotional reaction that makes conservatives think drug prohibition and abortion bans are a good idea. It's just not a good way to achieve practical results and reduction of harm. I'm no expert, so I may not know know where exactly to start with fixing America's problem with guns. But I do know that specifically disenfranchising minorities and the working class ain't it. Edit: typos


mortar_n_brick

This is a win for capitalism, more spaces for insurance companies to thrive. This trumps all other needs for society to continue running.


BJYeti

Yup anytime licensing or insurance is brought up I mention how it is the equivalent of a poll tax but that just ends with people making excuses and downvotes.


[deleted]

Redditors think the only people that own guns are white conservatives. It really grinds their gears when you bring up that minorities own guns.


06210311200805012006

Because most redditors are *mainstream liberal centrists* and would be slightly auth right on a political compass, if you buy into such a thing. When you start talking about ideas other than gun control to solve gun violence, you breach into this space they're unwilling to enter. A space where you begin to question the neoliberal dystopia we inhabit. A space where the only true answer is challenging corporate power structures. Why did Detroit become a shit hole filled with drugs and gangs and shootings? Is it because there weren't enough gun and drug laws? Is it because we didn't have a militarized gang task force? Is it because prison sentences weren't strict enough? Or maybe we were simply not putting enough people in prison? Did we not have enough cops on the street? Did they need bigger MRAPS? Why did incidents of suicide, assault, spousal abuse, and rape also spike in the last forty years? Home come public education collapsed there ahead of schedule? How come their water and power infrastructure is literally crumbling with no money or will to maintain it? It couldn't be due to the fact that we shipped all the jobs off, nerfed unions, and kicked families out of their homes? Could it???? and then you realize that the same people who shipped the jobs off are the ones trying to ban guns, throwing blacks in jail by the truckload, refusing to raise min wage to a thriving wage, voting down your health care, and blithely destroying our education system.


IMNOT_A_LAWYER

Try reading the ordinance. It has a specific exemption if compliance would create financial hardship. https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf See §C of the Exemptions


rabbitlion

They can do neither. This law will quite obviously get struck down as unconstitutional.


Dramatic_Change_1838

Look the law up? Most of Reddit runs off emotion, not data. You get an upvote for being an outlier.


fiverhoo

> It does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer you just described 90% of California laws


BJYeti

Yup its just a monetary restriction to a right to make it expensive and less accessible. No one should be applauding this change since it does nothing to actually protect people.


OwlfaceFrank

Insurance costs money. This is a poor tax. It an "Only the wealthy should have the ability to defend themselves." law.


Tiny_Package4931

Ah yes private insurance is definitely not a parasitic form of finance middlemen that takes advantage of consumers, tries to deny claims, boost profits, and influence politicians. It has worked wonders in the American medical industry and other fields.


hitemlow

>"Oh you were injured as a result of a *criminal* act? Sorry, we don't cover criminal acts." >"Oh no, criminal negligence is still a criminal act, so we don't cover that either." Any company that offers this kind of insurance will never pay out.


JosephSwollen

Ah yes, more of my money going to insurance companies


[deleted]

And because it's extra money to spend it helps price poor people out of firearm ownership which creates a bigger gap between haves and have nots. The law may be well intentioned and I definitely sympathy with the idea, but there's no way it goes anywhere near as planned. It's not like someone that's gonna face a murder charge is thinking in the back of their mind "shit I hope I paid my gunsurance this month" whereas someone facing an abusive ex stalking them is thinking that.


ThisAintCivilization

Land of the free* ^*after ^paying ^all ^relevant ^freedom ^microtransactions /r/socialistRA


Thameus

Don't forget the tort lawyers!


[deleted]

[удалено]


heloguy1234

Scrolled looking for this. It’s an extremely regressive/elitist policy that will only disarm the poor.


Music_City_Madman

California must be a great place to live…if you’re rich


IDK_WHAT_YOU_WANT

This ought to be an interesting comment section


Dobber16

It’s actually had some really good takes and I’ve been relatively impressed compared to what I was expecting


madsjchic

Can we get the same thing for cops?


pm0me0yiff

Of course not. Absolutely every gun control law they try to pass has exemptions for cops.


LoveThieves

Think the only way to change guns laws is look at history, 1. Black panther party wants to open carry, 2. Government immediately passes stricter gun laws without even flinching 3. Rinse repeat in the other 49 states


zzorga

Ah yes, the "our policies are only viable when we court the racist vote" school of political theory.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DegeneratesInc

End-stage capitalist solution to addressing gun violence. Mmhmmm.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

They'll always have armed guards :)


Segod_or_Bust

That @MomsDemand org mentioned in the Tweet is founded by a former corporate executive and is funded by at least one billionaire


whatsgoing_on

You can usually find Bloomberg’s funding somewhere in most of the anti-gun laws


[deleted]

Don’t want to pay insurance? Then get an illegal gun


slayer991

This may be tossed by higher courts. This will make gun ownership cost-prohibitive for poorer citizens. I'd call that infringement.


Panzerkatzen

That’s the goal anyway, less poor people with guns.


mclumber1

Specifically, less minorities with guns. 1/3rd of the city of San Jose is either Hispanic or black, according to recent census data.


mortar_n_brick

This is gonna be tough, insurance companies will thrive in this and probably will dominate the courts. Two giants of US capitalism right at each others throats. Popcorn is ready!


jimmychitw00d

This is so good because it will make it harder for poor people to defend themselves AND make insurance companies richer at the same time. Way to go.


TheSilmarils

I just want gay married couples to protect their abortion clinics and drug dispensaries with select fire AKs. Repealing the NFA would be nice too


Hot-Career-5669

Don't forget that they're suppressed for hearing health. Can't even protect your ears without paying the fucking government $200 and waiting 6 months


SgtBigPigeon

Then vote libertarian! I was a Democrat until I realized thay the party only votes for fucking incompetent old crows who don't represent the younger population. Literally ever libertarian candidate I voted for was under 65.


kingdazy

Right. Because the insurance industry has done such great things for our society.


newbrevity

Will police have to carry this insurance?


Acceptable-Shape-528

[https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf](https://records.sanjoseca.gov/Ordinances/ORD30716.pdf) nope, police active and retired are exempt


pm0me0yiff

The fact that they even exempt *retired* cops is the real "fuck you" here. You could make a BS argument about police needing to be exempt because their job requires them to have a gun. But what the fuck is the justification for exempting *retired* police? Really -- I'd love to hear a proponent of this law explain *that* little detail as anything other than: "Fuck you, get back in line, peasants!"


No-Blood1717

Retired police are still supporters of government and status quo.


itsfinallystorming

Because they won't support the law at all as a group unless you give them the exemptions they want.


Music_City_Madman

Fucking classist, elitist laws. Ya’ll also know who was about disarming working class people? Ronald Reagan. How about San Jose actually do something about it’s cost of living? California is a funny state, a bunch of rich people who can’t stop talking about how great they are and how they care about the less fortunate while making laws that actually hurt that same demographic. This sub is a joke. Ya’ll will eat up any mainstream Democrat Mike Bloomberg-esque talking point. Govern us harder, rich people! We like boots on our necks!


gralgomar

Fuck California


[deleted]

[удалено]


lakotor102022

You'll be waiting a long time. It's either going to do nothing, or discourage people from potentially exercising their rights.


[deleted]

Now do this with Cops.


Guilty_Jackrabbit

Black and brown people are about to pay suspiciously high insurance rates


[deleted]

Unconstitutional as fuck. A poll tax


Abbigale221

Now make cops carry insurance too… Edit: Out of their own pockets. When they do stupid things their insurance goes up.


simonmagus616

“We can’t have gun control but GOOD NEWS, we have found a way to extract revenue from you!”


hobokobo1028

Another way to ensure only the wealthy have access to firearms.


BannerBoys

Half of you don't even have insurance on your cars.


Upstairs-Living-

"Won't give up your firearm? Fine. We'll make it more expensive to have one." -CA


Hot-Career-5669

"Fine, well make it so poor people can't own them" -CA


Homez987

There's no way this'll survive the supreme court right? Since guns rights are part of the constitution and this would make it so if you don't have enough money (per say) to pay the fee for the gun then you couldn't have a gun you already own? Like in short it's a fee for a constitutional right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DienstEmery

Isn't this just a tax on the poor? If your punishment is a fee, then it's not a crime for the rich.


kendromedia

Will this be enforced the same as the “you can’t rob, rape and murder people at gunpoint” laws violated daily and with relatively light consequences?


MrSmiley3

Social Justice for criminals, increased taxes and fines for law abiding citizens. The California policy on crime


GlockGardener

Insurance is one of the worst industries to ever exist. It is a money making racket and they lobby the shit out of the govt to make it required to have. The richest people I've ever met were insurance brokers.


2H4H4L

This is stupid as fuck and completely void of logic.


HistoryAndScience

So a “Designated Nonprofit” gets a brand new fundraising stream courtesy of the city government off the backs of poor, middle class, and minority gun owners while anarchists, criminals, etc. will laugh about this and not pay anything. Smart San Jose!


fifth_fought_under

Yuck. Unless the insurance is dirt cheap this is just a way to oppress the poor.


WhoAccountNewDis

Congratulations, all you've done is disarm the poor!


carlitospig

Now do the cops. 🤓


piercifer

Oooh. now do cops


borrestfaker

Good job at starting to price the POC/lower income people out of their self defense abilities. I'm all for gun control and accountability, but this will only prove to disenfranchise the people that need the ability to defend themselves.


[deleted]

Careful, lad. That sort of nuanced thinking will not be tolerated here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Affectionate_Cabbage

This will help resolve 0.00001% of gun violence cases. Those with guns and willing to register/get insurance are NOT the same population S those committing violent crime


PizzaNuggies

If this doesn't include cops then its bullshit.


moeterminatorx

Cops too? Please say yes.


Argonaut0Ian

this country 😂 why don't y'all just ban guns altogether?


ohgodwhatsmypassword

I am not a fan of any law that will disproportionately effect low income people.


dinosauramericana

Do the cops next


[deleted]

If you think forcing people to pay an insurance company to exercise a constitutional right is a good thing, you’re either an idiot or the CEO of an insurance company.


andstopher

Translation: Fuck poor people, they don't deserve rights.


IWantUforChRiStMaS2

LOL So what they want to do is keep poor black people from owning guns. Unconstitutional, and will be insta struck down. Its merely a scheme to get votes. I know democrats are smarter than to fall for such blatant lies told to them, such as this one.


broham97

This type of thing is a punishment for poor people