Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-25-2021, 7:23 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,482
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee-pete View Post
My experience with Metcalf is that they don't police your weapons so long as you comply with all range rules. The guys who work there are good guys who also enjoy guns and want everyone to have safe fun. I would be shocked if they were tasked with checking that sort of thing.
I called them to ask. They said they have no plans to check insurance nor enforce any requirement for insurance: even though they are actually in San Jose boundaries, they are County run.

While it is always possible San Jose will try to force them to do something to adhere with their potential law which is yet to be even determined in any detail, I doubt that will happen.

Besides, I think San Jose has drawn a big target on themselves for 2A advocate organization lawsuits, and they'll be busy defending just their spoken intent alone and will have no time nor funding for any actions for years. Lawsuits and settlements are expensive.
__________________
Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment


Buy on Amazon? Use smile.amazon.com to contribute to the NRA. Amazon has contributed $252,312.36 to the NRA as of June 2021
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-16-2021, 5:11 PM
Tahoeshooter's Avatar
Tahoeshooter Tahoeshooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If this sticks, then they should require liability insurance for cigarette lighters, matches, and hiking boots, since people use those things when they go into the wilderness and start fires that end up costing billions in lost homes and businesses, not to mention loss of life.

If we apply the logic of making other users of a product buy liability insurance because some people misuse or have accidents with those products, then there is no limit.

And what about all the other government services that are lumped together and paid for? Notice that they haven't proposed a liability tax on alcohol, with the funds going to emergency services and victims of alcohol caused accidents. That would get them thrown out of office tomorrow. (And let's face it, alcohol causes far more problems in society than guns.) Alcohol caused injuries get lumped together with robberies and heart attack costs in terms of emergency services. Suddenly their socialist dream of everyone paying for everything for everyone else evaporates when it comes to paying for emergency services for firearm related injuries.

And lest we forget, this isn't just about paying out for victims or emergency services, it's about modifying gun owners' behavior. It says it right on the SJ City Council site...."encourages them to lock their guns", etc. Their real hope is that it will be too much hassle for some people and they just won't buy a gun to begin with. They don't want the population to have firearms. Firearms = death of innocent people in their minds.

Auto insurance is a special case because they are widely used dangerous machines and damages are highly likely to, and do occur 24/7 everywhere they are in use. The use of automobiles has an indeterminately higher probability of causing damage or injury than a gun if you think about it. With a gun you almost have to try to hurt someone with it, vs a car that is just WAITING to do some damage. Something almost always goes wrong if you just put a car into gear and press the pedal (or don't). Someone will get hurt or property will be damaged. Fire a gun down a empty street and it likely nothing will be substantially damaged. A car will ruin a fence or a building or another car. Few things are like motor vehicles, so don't let them get away with that argument.

Last edited by Tahoeshooter; 09-16-2021 at 5:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-16-2021, 8:06 PM
Nvberinger Nvberinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky959 View Post
IMHO, this is political grandstanding. CA has state pre-emption, and you can't tax a constitutional right. I'm also not aware of any insurance company that offers gun liability insurance. Only companies that offer CCW users legal assistance if they actually need to use a gun in self defense. I suspect they'll set the implementation time far in advance to straighten out the details, which will give GOC/FPC/CRPA enough time to get an injunction.
Require insurance no insurance company provides.

Absolute genius or stupidity!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-17-2021, 1:34 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,064
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nvberinger View Post
Require insurance no insurance company provides.

Absolute genius or stupidity!
There can be no insurance for intentionally inflicted injuries as that would violate State law (and the law of every other state for that matter). However, your home owners or renters policy may or does provide insurance for negligently inflicted injuries and property damage. I believe some or all of the gun owner policies that provide reimbursement for legal fees and costs in defense of a criminal action also provide liability coverage for civil suits brought by the wounded party.

So yes, such coverage does exist. However, it does not exist to cover criminally inflicted injuries, which is the source of the City expenditures for hospital and other medical care costs, i.e., the big bucket the City would like to fill up with insurance money. One would have to assume, therefore, that any City run insurance program would be intended to generate excess premiums to fund those uninsured losses; it is patently obvious that there are so few negligent shootings in the City per year (low double digits at best) (in the US for that matter) that the liability coverage will ever be exposed.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-17-2021, 1:59 PM
Tahoeshooter's Avatar
Tahoeshooter Tahoeshooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
There can be no insurance for intentionally inflicted injuries as that would violate State law (and the law of every other state for that matter). However, your home owners or renters policy may or does provide insurance for negligently inflicted injuries and property damage. I believe some or all of the gun owner policies that provide reimbursement for legal fees and costs in defense of a criminal action also provide liability coverage for civil suits brought by the wounded party.

So yes, such coverage does exist. However, it does not exist to cover criminally inflicted injuries, which is the source of the City expenditures for hospital and other medical care costs, i.e., the big bucket the City would like to fill up with insurance money. One would have to assume, therefore, that any City run insurance program would be intended to generate excess premiums to fund those uninsured losses; it is patently obvious that there are so few negligent shootings in the City per year (low double digits at best) (in the US for that matter) that the liability coverage will ever be exposed.
TRUE, and very good points. They've made up a paper tiger argument. But as stated, most shootings are not accidental, and insurance companies won't pay for intentional acts of destruction. Ram your car into a wall, tell them you did it, and just TRY to get them to pay for it.

So realistically this should be the main argument- the expenditure for emergency services that would be covered is far less than the stated costs, therefore unnecessary.

And by the way, it should be estimated how many guns are in SJ, and how much revenue would be paid to the city/county. None of that has been figured out yet. But the SJ City Council didn't care if there are no numbers to support anything they're saying. It may be that they'd only get 1% of their money back.

It's obvious this is a defacto gun ban. Defacto bans are an admission that politicians can't really pass the restrictions they want, so they resort to indirect methods.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-29-2021, 7:21 AM
czakita's Avatar
czakita czakita is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,129
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

How much more will it take for legal owners to take notice and say this infringement must stop?
__________________
Deo confidimus || CRPA member
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-29-2021, 7:36 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 652
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by czakita View Post
How much more will it take for legal owners to take notice and say this infringement must stop?
As usual there is preaching to the choir, all the "they can't do this", "lawsuits and settlements are expensive" and similar talk.

They can't do this yet they did.
Lawsuits and settlements are expensive yet everyone forgets it costs them nothing, their salaries and legal fees are paid by taxpayer money. Hello?

How much more will it take? There is no limit to the capacity for gun owners to talk loudly but rely upon the very few to really do something.

When the popular answer to doing something is running away to another state how does anyone expect those in San Jose to stand up for anything? If they were willing to stand up then it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

A lawsuit after the fact is not a plan or answer. Voting the people out who create these regulations and laws is the answer yet conservatives would rather sit at home in the comfort of their gun rooms fondling ammo boxes than doing anything. Yet all the effort and resources were thrown away trying to rid the state of newsome. Newsome is just the face of the problem but not the source of it. The local elected officials, the state senators are the problem. Instead of going after them what happened? Nothing, absolutely nothing and now you have an emboldened governor who will move mountains to insure what happened in San Jose becomes the model for everywhere else.

Gun owners for the most part would rather gasp in awe at how good Keanu Reeves looks in the Wick movie than make any effort to change anything.

And yet what is a common statement? "We know what we're doing", the new motto coined right on this forum.
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.
It takes only one person and two forums to create the appearance of lots of people saying the same thing.
A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
You can have it one way or the other; you can have it both ways; you can have it every way but not always.

Last edited by SharedShots; 09-29-2021 at 7:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-30-2021, 10:05 AM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,482
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
Voting the people out who create these regulations and laws is the answer yet conservatives would rather sit at home in the comfort of their gun rooms fondling ammo boxes than doing anything
You seem to forget that conservative voters are outnumbered 3:2 statewide and even worse in the Blue metros like San Jose and Santa Clara Cty.
If every gun-owning conservative voted, and most of us do, it will not move the needle. The Recall Election was 62% against, 37% for, roughly reflecting that ratio. When you are on the wrong side of a super-majority, your votes and voice simply do not matter. Stop blaming us. Most of my friends have already left and live in freedom. I am waiting for my wife’s retirement and we are gone.
__________________
Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment


Buy on Amazon? Use smile.amazon.com to contribute to the NRA. Amazon has contributed $252,312.36 to the NRA as of June 2021
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:53 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical