Last week, San Jose, California Mayor Sam Liccardo penned an op-ed on the Washington Post to push a plan to force law-abiding gun owners in his city to buy firearms insurance.
Under Liccardo’s proposal, gun owners would have to purchase “coverage for accidental discharge of the gun, and for the intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun.” If they are unable to acquire insurance they would instead “require gun owners to pay a per-household fee to participate in a public compensation pool to eliminate the public cost — a taxpayers subsidy — of gun violence resulting from private ownership.”
Additionally, Liccardo wants the city to look into “a measure that would impose a tax on all ammunition and firearm purchases.”
Ammoland notes that “the Liccardo “fee” and “tax” proposals were presented alongside his “insurance” proposal.” Additionally, it notes that “all three proposals are an attempt to tax law-abiding gun owners out of exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.”
And there’s nothing new about it. In the Ammoland piece, it points out the following:
The notion of weaponizing insurance to attack gun owners has been around for decades. In 1996, Simi Valley, California Police Chief Randy G. Adams proposed a plan to require all concealed carry permit holders to obtain $1 million worth of liability insurance as a prerequisite to licensure. In recent years, lawmakers in several states have proposed legislation requiring gun owners to obtain such insurance.
The problem with this proposal is that the vast majority of car deaths are the result of accidents. However, gun deaths are intentional in nature, while also occurring at smaller and decreasing rates.
Already one of America’s most anti-gun states, without any real constitutional right to keep bear and arms, California continues to push the envelope on gun control. Sadly, law-abiding citizens will ultimately end up paying the price.