Gun Owners in San Jose Outraged They'll Have to Buy Insurance, Like Drivers

[Jilly_in_VA]

Owning a gun in the city of San Jose will soon have a lot in common with owning a car.

In two landslide votes Tuesday night, the San Jose City Council approved a first-of-its-kind law that mandates gun owners buy and maintain liability insurance and pay an annual fee. The vote for the annual fee passed 8-3 while the insurance vote passed 10-1.

“Now, we know that law-abiding drivers might benefit from auto insurance because it incentivizes us all to drive more safely, invest in safer cars, anti-lock brakes, and a host of other measures,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told the Los Angeles Times.

The two measures are aimed at encouraging safer gun ownership and reducing gun violence, according to Liccardo. Gun liability insurance would cover unintended firearm-related accidents and damages, according to the ordinance. Among the costs of emergency response, victim assistance, and more, gun violence runs city taxpayers as much as $442 million a year, according to the mayor’s office.

While many insurance companies and firearm associations offer some kind of coverage for gun owners, it’s unclear how many Americans actually have it.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7wgnw/gun-insurance-law-san-jose-california

[AndyS]

1. Guns cost our country $280 Billion a year.

There are about 400 million guns in the US. That works out to $700 per gun per year. Sounds like a solution to me, a $700 a year 'violence tax' on every gun in America.

[FalloutShelter]

2. Break out the tiny violins.

[Srkdqltr]

3. I think that is fair.

[MenloParque]

4. My husband pays a monthly fee for firearm liability insurance with legal assistance.

The policy is not required but adds peace of mind. My husband had to legally defend himself a couple years back while doing utility work up in Lassen County (red neck area of California). Sitting in his truck about 30 miles from the closest town on his laptop, a group of armed rednecks approached on dirt bikes. The legal assistance included with policy had my husband connected to a top self-defense attorney from Sacramento. No charges. Husband alive, red neck dirt biker not alive to terrorize anymore. Firearm liability insurance with legal protection is smart.

[PTWB]

6. I'm glad your husband is OK.

Nearly everyone I know who has a concealed permit also already has firearms liability insurance. The peace of mind, as you said, is absolutely worth it.

[PTWB]

5. These insurance policies are already widely available and incredibly common.

I'm curious if there were any insurance company lobbyists behind this ordinance. Not that it is a bad idea to carry insurance if you're going to carry a gun. I think it's a great idea.

Nearly everyone I know who carries concealed already has a firearms liability policy. I'm sure those existing policies will be updated to comply with the requirements of this ordinance. I just looked at my policy to refresh my memory and it covers a lot of things, including: attorney's fees in criminal and civil cases, payment of bail bonds up to $250,000 as a result of a defensive gun use leading to an arrest, expert witness fees, private investigator fees, payment of lost wages during trial, and biohazard cleanup. The cost is pretty cheap, less than $30 a month, but well worth the peace of mind.

I'm typically opposed to any mandatory fee-based gun control programs because they'll disproportionately affect minorities and impoverished folks, while they'll be trivial to the point of being meaningless for the wealthy. This ordinance ameliorates those concerns by waving the fees and insurance requirements for low-income individuals as defined by CA §68632.

This ordinance also exempts sworn law enforcement officers and holders of valid concealed carry licenses.

[Zeitghost]

7. That is not the type of insurance they are talking about

They want insurance to cover any damage the gun owner causes, not personal protection.

What these well intentioned laws fail to take into consideration is that insurance doesn't cover intentionally illegal acts. The vast amount of damage done with firearms are criminal acts of violence and those won't be covered.

[MenloParque]

8. Most firearm insurance policies cover both liability and legal aid.

I do know my husbands policy provides liability coverage (property and bodily injury, death) in case of accidents. Also, if there is a shooting, a 24/7 line connecting to a network of self-defense attorneys to provide all the legal help you need including representation.

[PTWB]

9. That type of liability is already covered by homeowners insurance policies.

At least my homeowners policy covers liability for personal injury and property damage in cases lawful or accidental gun use. I suspect the insurance policies in CA are no different.

[Sgent]

16. Homeowners / renter's already covers

any negligent discharge. Intentional discharge can't be covered by insurance due to universal requirements that insurance not cover criminal acts.

[NutmegYankee]

10. This is fallacious thinking.

A driver needs insurance because they operate a motor vehicle on public roads; driving on public roads is a privilege. A car kept on private property (like a farm vehicle) or in a garage (like a restoration project) does not need insurance. Farm vehicles for instance do not require tags and a license is not required to drive one. In fact, many states allow 14 year-olds to drive farm machinery, a legal restriction imposed from child labor laws rather than motor vehicle law.

What this law does is require people to keep insurance on an object stored in their home, which is outside of legal precedent. Even homes, normally insured, are not legally required to be so by law. People do so to protect investments and because the lender normally requires it on a mortgage loan, a form of private contract. But once a mortgage is paid off, there is no requirement. It's completely voluntary.

You can make a case to support the law based on other reasons, but the automobile based argument is pure sophistry.

[sarisataka]

11. Do you remember a few years ago

When it was called "murder insurance"?

Times change.

[marie999]

12. No, because it is the same as having to register your firearms.

And to answer questions about why I am against registering firearms, I am Jewish and if you look at Jewish history, we are welcome in a country until that country's government decides that the Jews are the ones causing the country's problems and need to be killed.

[gratuitous]

13. This sounds good to me

Victims of firearm violence shouldn't be saddled with expensive medical bills just because they were luckless enough to be (knowingly or unknowingly) around a negligent bearer of firearms.

[hack89]

14. This will make the NRA a ton of money

Care to guess who sells a lot of gun insurance?

[hack89]

15. Won't impact crime or mass shootings

Won’t impact gun suicide for that matter. How many true gun accidents are there that aren’t covered by homeowners insurance?

[UTUSN]

17. No downside to this - neither about the insurance nor the gunnuts' outrage!

[ripcord]

18. Toothless measure

From the article quoted in Latest News

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