The new freedom crushing San Jose law requiring insurance and a “gun harm reduction fee” has been covered in a couple of areas already here at Bearing Arms. Tom did a rundown and Cam also focused on this on a recent Cam and Co. I’d be remiss if I did not throw my hat into the ring! Actually, what caught my attention was a headline, as they’re designed to do. ABC News teased me with the following “Gun rights group sues to stop groundbreaking San Jose gun law”.
This report brings up Dudley Brown’s National Association for Gun Rights bringing suit against the City on the grounds that the rule is unconstitutional. Looking at some of the text of the rule, to bring us all onto the same page, we get the disturbing details (which will be used as a blueprint in other jurisdictions).
Insurance required. A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy from an admitted insurer or insurer as defined by the California Insurance Code, specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the Firearm, including but not limited to death, injury or property damage.
A person who resides in the City and owns or possesses a Firearm in the City shall pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to the Designated Nonprofit Organization each year. The date by which payment shall be made annually shall be established in the regulations promulgated by City Manager pursuant to Section 10.32.235. The annual fee will be set forth in the schedule of fees and charges established by resolution of the City Council.
We should all understand and know that this is bad without discourse. It is. Beyond the surface crud here, the definitions of what one of the designated nonprofits might be are so loose that gun owners could end up having their money go right into the pockets of groups that lobby against our gun rights.
What’s just as disturbing as the fact that this became a law in a city in the United States of America, is how ABC News reported on the measure. The headline is what was attention grabbing. Bravo! You’ve got my attention.
“Groundbreaking” is the word they used in the headline. Groundbreaking? Mainstream media has fallen so far from grace that they think the taxation and implementation of mandatory insurance for exercising a constitutional right is “groundbreaking”. When “groundbreaking” is being used, the connotation is generally supposed to be that it’s new, novel, and “good”. Putting lipgloss on a pig does not make the pig any less of a pig. There’s nothing good about the San Jose law and to have the news further condition the public into thinking it is a positive thing, makes me believe that ABC News should be paying a fee into an Annual Information Harm Reduction fund.
All the MSM stations, papers, radio stations, podcasts, and websites should have to pay enormous fees into this new Information Harm Reduction fund. They should also be fined when they report #fakenews, with that money going into the account. The amount of money raised on infractions of the #fakenews initiatives would be enough to give every citizen a free college education or two. I like that idea. I wouldn’t mind brushing up on my corporal knowledge by getting a BA in basket weaving from one of these woke universities.
The progressive pinkos want free everything for everyone, with tuition reimbursement being a big talking point in the past. Here’s their way to get there. Didn’t Biden campaign on that and fail to deliver (We don’t talk about Brandon)? Fine the media when they lie or are just being bad actors.
In a press release put out by the San Jose Mayor’s office, the following was said about the measure:
“Tonight San José became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm. Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation in our community. I am deeply grateful also to our advocacy and legal partners with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, EveryTown, Moms Demand Action, SAFE, the Gifford Law Alliance and many others who work tirelessly to help us craft a constitutionally compliant path to mitigate the unnecessary suffering from gun harm in our community. I look forward to supporting the efforts of others to replicate these initiatives across the nation.”
I think the entire gun owning community has a general interest in how applying punitive punishments for exercising a right will “mitigate the unnecessary suffering from gun harm”. Waiting on an answer to that question will come when they find Jimmy Hoffa. Which is not really accurate, because the chances of finding Hoffa are much greater than finding the answer to “how” this measure does anything but punish those that more-than-likely have a different political opinion than the council. This is more bigotry from the progressives.
I sure hope that Brown’s efforts, as well as those of any other group that may jump on board are successful. The way this whole measure is being presented is beyond misleading. The only thing that would’ve been real groundbreaking here is if the mayor of San Jose and the full council just outright said they have a full contempt for firearms, firearm owners, and the Second Amendment. It’s not only the gun they hate, it’s the gun owner. If that’s not bigotry, I don’t know what is.