San Jose’s new gun control law is incredibly problematic in so many ways. We’ve already talked about them over and over. However, that hasn’t really changed much of anything in San Jose.
Frankly, not a whole lot is going to change anyway. As Gabriella Hoffman notes in her op-ed, the measure penalizes the law-abiding.
The city of San Jose in California recently made history, but not for anything good. Gun-owning residents will soon be required to pay a premium price to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Mayor Sam Liccardo, a gun control advocate, recently announced a new “innovative” ordinance in response to the tragic mass shooting that befell the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) rail yard in May.
The new law will mandate gun owners pay liability insurance and an annual fee for costs incurred by gun-related violence. And at what cost? The freedom to exercise their right to keep and bear arms legally without being burdened with arbitrary financial burdens.
California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, with 107 restrictive provisions in the books. Last year, there were over 2,220 homicides in the state — a 31% increase from 2019.
Law-abiding gun owners shouldn’t be held criminally or civilly liable for crimes they don’t commit. Since these gun owners aren’t responsible for these acts of violence, how can they be responsible for the wrongdoing of others?
Much to the chagrin of gun control advocates, responsible gun owners already take appropriate precautions and practice gun safety. Across the Golden State, gun owners safely store their firearms and teach their peers to handle firearms with care. How does requiring gun owners to obtain personal insurance for ownership prevent crimes they aren’t responsible for?
What’s “innovative” about punishing innocent people for crimes perpetrated by others and pricing them out of firearms ownership?
That’s a very fair question.
What Liccardo is trying to do will essentially restrict gun ownership to the wealthy. Whether that’s a bug or a feature is really anyone’s guess and no one knows for certain except Liccardo, but I know where I’ll put my money. Especially since this eventuality has been mentioned more than once in the media. Liccardo would have had to have actively tried to avoid it.
He just doesn’t care.
San Jose’s “innovative” gun control law won’t actually do much of anything to combat the growing crime in the city. After all, the bad guys won’t be paying any fees or getting insurance.
Then again, there are legions of people who legitimately believe gun owners are criminals in the making, that one day we’ll just wake up and start robbing and shooting people for some insane reason.
They actually believe this.
Is Liccardo one of those? Again, no one can know for certain except Liccardo.
However, the facts don’t back up that claim.
Hoffman’s argument that it’s wrong to penalize the law-abiding for the acts of the criminals is dead-on correct. The law-abiding citizens of San Jose didn’t do anything wrong. Their increased violence likely comes from criminal gang members–people who generally don’t purchase their firearms lawfully–than anything else. So why should the average citizen be made to answer for those crimes?
Unfortunately, this is Liccardo we’re talking about here. He just doesn’t seem to care.