The state of California has some of the most extensive gun control laws on the books. Despite that, many local governments seem to be dealing with a violent crime problem.

I mean, it's like gun control doesn't work.

However, I can at least understand why some people might think some of those regulations would potentially reduce violent crime. It requires one to ignore or be oblivious to how criminals get their guns, of course, but I can see why they thought that.

But in the city of Sacramento, they've got a problem and they're looking to pass gun control measures there that are even dumber than usual.

More strict firearm regulations are advancing through City Council chambers. .

The ordinances, with some inspired by laws passed through the city of San Jose, range from requiring gun liability insurance to a yearly $25 gun harm reduction fee. The council’s Law and Legislation committee unanimously passed the regulations Tuesday. The ordinances will be considered next by the full City Council. 

These ordinances, spearheaded by Councilwoman Lisa Kaplan and Mayor Darrell Steinberg, would also prohibit minors from entering gun dealerships and ban the sale of firearms from homes and residence-based businesses.

Alright, so let's look at each of these ordinances individually and allow me to explain why they won't do a bloody thing to stop violent crime in any way, shape, or form.

Liability Insurance

The idea of gun insurance has been popular with many on the anti-gun side for a while. I still don't completely understand why, though.

See, the idea here is that it'll put gun owners on the hook for what happens with their guns because the insurance companies will make them take actions or risk being liable for all kinds of problems.

Only, that's not how insurance works.

Insurance will only cover unintentional acts, not intentional ones. For example, my car insurance will cover a fender bender that was the result of me not hitting the brakes quickly enough. It won't cover me running down someone I don't like. If I get sued for the latter, I'm on the hook for that one.

Similarly, this idea of gun liability insurance--no such thing actually exists, but San Jose defined it as homeowners or renter's insurance--would cover injuries resulting from a negligent discharge. It wouldn't cover the injuries sustained in a mass shooting.

And there's no way they're covering what happens with a stolen gun, which is what's used to commit most violent crimes.

Instead, all this does is drive up the cost for owning a firearm, putting it out of reach for many poorer folks in Sacramento.

Barring Minors from Gun Stores

If liability insurance won't accomplish anything, this particular measure will accomplish even less.

Minors can't buy guns at all. As such, even if they walk into a gun store, they can look but they can't touch. While kids do get guns far too often, they aren't buying them from your local gun store. They're getting them via the black market or stealing them themselves. Keeping them out of a gun store won't change any of that.

Now, this wouldn't be the most invasive law they could imagine, though it still won't do anything, but there are problems with it.

For example, there are a lot of stores that sell a lot of things as well as guns. Would a minor be barred from a Walmart that sells shotguns? Would they be unable to buy the chef in their family that cast iron Dutch oven they saw at Bass Pro Shops?

The term "gun dealer" isn't relegated to the small gun store that exists just to sell firearms, after all. It includes any store that sells firearms. 

Granted, I don't know how many such stores there are in Sacramento, but it's still something that's going to cause an issue.

Among many issues.

Banning Sales from Residence-Based Businesses

Not every gun dealer operates out of a brick-and-mortar store. Some want to, but they start out handing sales and transfers out of their home first. This lets them test the waters a bit, build up some clientele, etc.

But now Sacramento wants to ban the practice all because of violent crime.

However, I promise you, the people selling to violent criminals out of their homes aren't people with FFLs. They're criminals selling illegally acquired firearms. 

Those folks aren't going to be inhibited by any such ban. 

In fact, none of these will actually impact the illicit trade in firearms in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't even take a particularly smart person to see this. That tells us just how much dumber than that the city leaders in Sacramento are, apparently.