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
  #1  
Old 02-21-2020, 8:17 AM
GS2AC President GS2AC President is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default HELP! SJ Mandatory gun insurance scheme City Council meeting Tues Feb 25 130pm

ALERT ! Mayor Liccardo is pushing his latest scheme to punish gun owners... mandatory insurance for gun owners.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...have-liability

The same people who are perfectly fine protecting violent illegal aliens from deportation by ICE, can't stand the thought that you and I have a firearm to protect ourselves from those same animals.

We need EVERYONE to contact the members of the City Council and voice their opposition.

We need EVERYONE to show up at the council meeting and voice their opposition.

Feb. 25th at 1:30 PM at San José City Hall—200 E Santa Clara St. San Jose CA, 95113

City.clerk@sanjoseca.gov
District1@sanjoseca.gov
District2@sanjoseca.gov
District3@sanjoseca.gov
District4@sanjoseca.gov
District5@sanjoseca.gov
District6@sanjoseca.gov
District7@sanjoseca.gov
District8@sanjoseca.gov
District9@sanjoseca.gov
District10@sanjoseca.gov
mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov



Mark S Towber
President
GS2AC
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-21-2020, 10:03 AM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Stupidity knows no limits.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-21-2020, 11:01 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You would think that at least one of these guys would talk to an actual insurance agent before proposing one of these harebrained ideas. They seem to think that a "mandatory" liability insurance policy would provide coverage to a victim injured or killed in a shooting for medical expenses and personal injuries. They are, as a general proposition, WRONG! Liability policies provide coverage only for negligently inflicted injuries; insurance companies are prohibited by state statute from providing coverage for intentionally inflicted harms (drive-bys, robberies, gang slayings, etc etc.)

If anyone who is an insurance agent or broker can attend this hearing and set these guys straight, it would be a big help. And then provide them the stats for negligent injuries and deaths from firearms (which number, as I recall, around 5000 a year for both nationally).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-21-2020, 11:36 AM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sam does love his virtue signaling.

He has led the charge against housing...for years...now...opps...we need more high density housing.

He has led the assault on the Constitution by creating sanctuary city regulations, an anti gun stance, and allowed the beating of Trump supporters with no intervention by police...etc.

He absolutely wants to be governor...and this is all part of the plan...lots and lots of gun control crap.
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-21-2020, 11:45 AM
Transient Transient is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 237
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a poll tax. Plain and simple. SCOTUS has ruled against things like this. Imo, let thre mayor have his cake. Somebody will come along and file a lawsuit, and the city will end up writing a big fat check just like this one (pic). Iirc, this was only 1 of about 3 or 4 of the same amount the city of Chicago paid the NRA after getting their rear handed to them in court.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-21-2020, 2:42 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,428
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

From the article -

"The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."

I wonder, any other groups the Mayor would like to see this "pay to play" applied?

How about consumers of alcohol? Or MJ users. Or illegal aliens.

I'm guessing "no" on 2 out of 3 ….
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-21-2020, 4:01 PM
holdfast's Avatar
holdfast holdfast is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 119
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Libs need moron insurance.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
__________________
Regards,
Holdfast

"Hold Fast" when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-21-2020, 4:45 PM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
From the article -

"The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."

I wonder, any other groups the Mayor would like to see this "pay to play" applied?

How about consumers of alcohol? Or MJ users. Or illegal aliens.

I'm guessing "no" on 2 out of 3 ….
Maybe the cost of education should be paid for those with kids... Once your kid is no longer in school clearly you should stop paying...
__________________
us on facebook
UG Imports - Fremont, CA FFL - Transfers, New Gun Sales
Closure Schedule: http://ugimports.com/closed
web: http://ugimports.com/calguns / email: sales@ugimports.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/ugimports / phone: (510) 371-GUNS (4867)
FB: http://facebook.com/ugimports
NorCal Range Maps: http://ugimports.com/rangemaps

I AM THE MAJORITY!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2020, 5:03 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 863
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ugimports View Post
Maybe the cost of education should be paid for those with kids... Once your kid is no longer in school clearly you should stop paying...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-21-2020, 9:13 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 275
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Which item is it on the agenda?

https://sanjose.legistar.com/Meeting...s=info&Search=
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-21-2020, 9:15 PM
jeffyhog jeffyhog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Will criminals be required to carry insurance as well?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-21-2020, 9:39 PM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
If I had to guess they put it on the consent calendar because they don't plan on discussing it.
__________________
us on facebook
UG Imports - Fremont, CA FFL - Transfers, New Gun Sales
Closure Schedule: http://ugimports.com/closed
web: http://ugimports.com/calguns / email: sales@ugimports.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/ugimports / phone: (510) 371-GUNS (4867)
FB: http://facebook.com/ugimports
NorCal Range Maps: http://ugimports.com/rangemaps

I AM THE MAJORITY!!!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-22-2020, 6:39 AM
GS2AC President GS2AC President is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unread 02-21-2020, 12:45 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Member

Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default
This is a poll tax. Plain and simple. SCOTUS has ruled against things like this. Imo, let thre mayor have his cake. Somebody will come along and file a lawsuit, and the city will end up writing a big fat check just like this one (pic). Iirc, this was only 1 of about 3 or 4 of the same amount the city of Chicago paid the NRA after getting their rear handed to them in court.
==========

Waiting for someone else to come along and deal with it is not a great idea....you can't bank on others spending their money to deal with these kinds of issues.... especially given the fact that so many jurisdictions are trying the same stuff all across California..... better off on us taking action and attacking it now. If we can nip this in the bud we are all better off.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-22-2020, 6:46 AM
TFA777 TFA777 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 275
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ugimports View Post
If I had to guess they put it on the consent calendar because they don't plan on discussing it.
That's fkn sneaky.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-22-2020, 7:33 AM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
That's fkn sneaky.
If that's correct though I believe the public can get it removed from the consent calendar if they show up. I recall issues like that in Fremont where public commenters got items removed from consent calendar by being present and wanting to discuss.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
__________________
us on facebook
UG Imports - Fremont, CA FFL - Transfers, New Gun Sales
Closure Schedule: http://ugimports.com/closed
web: http://ugimports.com/calguns / email: sales@ugimports.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/ugimports / phone: (510) 371-GUNS (4867)
FB: http://facebook.com/ugimports
NorCal Range Maps: http://ugimports.com/rangemaps

I AM THE MAJORITY!!!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-22-2020, 8:19 AM
Transient Transient is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 237
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GS2AC President View Post
Unread 02-21-2020, 12:45 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Member

Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default
This is a poll tax. Plain and simple. SCOTUS has ruled against things like this. Imo, let thre mayor have his cake. Somebody will come along and file a lawsuit, and the city will end up writing a big fat check just like this one (pic). Iirc, this was only 1 of about 3 or 4 of the same amount the city of Chicago paid the NRA after getting their rear handed to them in court.
==========

Waiting for someone else to come along and deal with it is not a great idea....you can't bank on others spending their money to deal with these kinds of issues.... especially given the fact that so many jurisdictions are trying the same stuff all across California..... better off on us taking action and attacking it now. If we can nip this in the bud we are all better off.
I do agree with you. There's very likely a better way I could've said that. I'm not in the habit of rolling over for those who hate the COTUS. I also stand by what I said. If it gets passed, what I said is exactly how it'll go down. A lawsuit, possibly taken on contingency, will be required to overturn it. Then big fat checks like the image I posted will be worn by the city. An unnecessary use of taxpayer funds that could've been better utilized on roads, education, etc. When a city sees another city lost in court they'll be less likely to try the same garbage.

Btw, was it necessary to post my forum profile with your quote and reply? That smells like an attempt to ambush me. I could play that game too, but prefer the high road.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-22-2020, 9:00 AM
madmike88 madmike88 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 181
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ugimports View Post
Maybe the cost of education should be paid for those with kids... Once your kid is no longer in school clearly you should stop paying...
My kids are in Private School. Does that mean I can opt out of those educational bonds that are in my property tax?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:09 AM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Mandatory insurance would be almost impossible to enforce at a local level. Trying to enforce the ordinance would be difficult at best in most cases. People like me could simply say my firearms are at a location outside the city limits. Enforcement would likely be too expensive to make the program worthwhile beyond feeling good.

Then there are the penalties for violating the ordinance. Fine someone or throw them in jail because they did nothing? Lots of Constitutional issues that will likely cost the city.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-22-2020, 11:53 AM
Big Lambowski Big Lambowski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 35
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-22-2020, 12:34 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 275
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
Mandatory insurance would be almost impossible to enforce at a local level. Trying to enforce the ordinance would be difficult at best in most cases. People like me could simply say my firearms are at a location outside the city limits. Enforcement would likely be too expensive to make the program worthwhile beyond feeling good.



Then there are the penalties for violating the ordinance. Fine someone or throw them in jail because they did nothing? Lots of Constitutional issues that will likely cost the city.
They don't care. It's not their money that gets used to defend against lawsuits, it's ours.

I'd like to find out more statistics on drownings in swimming pools. I know nationally swimming pools are orders of magnitude more dangerous to children then rifles, yet no one is proposing a mandatory swimming pool insurance.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-22-2020, 3:18 PM
Bigdog68 Bigdog68 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 180
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So here is the text of an email I just sent to all of the addresses listed at the start of this thread - feel free to use and edit as you see fit:

Mayor Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council -



The problem is violence, whether the perpetrator uses a firearm, a knife, or a truck. You are lying to the public if you say the answer to firearm violence is to further attack firearm ownership. Be honest and just say you don’t know what to do about the problem but you are personally scared of objects made of iron, wood, and plastics, so that is what we will focus on. It is easier to attack an object than try to actually address a social problem. At least then the public would be informed before they vote.

Sam’s lack of knowledge of insurance is as glaring. Who will write and carry the insurance? If I shoot someone in self-defense, does my insurance still have to pay for the person who had just tried to sever my arm with a butcher’s knife? How would you bill criminals for unpaid liability insurance policies? Would insurance companies have to insure drug dealers who illegally owned firearms?

Why don’t politicians honestly state the end results of all the anti-firearm laws that state has passed for the last 30 years is that California has a higher rate of firearm homicides than Texas and Florida, two states with much higher firearm ownership rates than California? Maybe our political leaders don’t know what they are talking about?

If guns were the root cause of gun violence, then with around 8 million gun owners in California we would expect massive numbers non-criminal injuries from firearms. In reality, the number of injuries from firearms is at less than 1/100th of 1% of gun owners. So maybe we need to rethink this quasi “religious” belief that firearms cause violence and firearms owners should bear the costs of violence in our society.

If our so called leaders knew anything about the population they are attempting to regulate, then they would know that firearm ownership and participation in firearm related sporting activities promotes personal responsibility; concern for safety and care for others; a sense of community and belonging; respect for laws and public safety; and the value of human life. These personal attributes cut across race, gender, and economic class lines. Aren’t these characteristics exactly what we want each citizen to embrace? So why would you continue to attack law abiding firearm owners? At the same time, the people who commit firearms violence exhibit none of these attributes. Why are you not focusing on how to correct this situation, which would actually reduce crime?

Why has not Sam shared his thoughts on what is causing violence? Maybe if he did, the focus would look at what has changed in our society over the past 40 years that has raised the level violence we now experience. Maybe he would want to examine the failure of our public education system to prepare students for productive adult lives and why the police and social services have been unable to intervene when people first begin to become involved in crime and violence. Maybe he would see what has been done to mental health services and outreach to help people in need before they act out. Maybe Sam would examine what has happened to our morality and ethics that make it ok for some people to hurt others. But in Sam’s wisdom, we don’t look at these issues.

In the idiocy of Sam, the failure of our public institutions and to prevent violence should be paid by a subset of our society who we actually know will not contribute to violence? I have to wonder how someone with this level of thinking could convince so many that he is the right choice to lead a great city. Maybe this is why the quality of life in San Jose has been falling?

Sam’s other proposals are just as off target as his gun insurance scheme. The focus must be on actually addressing the causes of violence. California’s 30 years of irrational anti-firearms initiatives have only seen violence increase in the state at a faster rate than in the rest of the county; generated a fully confused compilation of laws that no judge, DA, or police officer can wholly comprehend; continues racist laws and law enforcement; leaves tens of thousands of felons in possible possession of firearms for at least a decade; and has created thousands of human rights abuses on our law abiding citizens every year.

Sam raised his hand to protect and defend the constitution, including the second amendment. So has the mayor lied when he took the oath of office or does he now feel that he is no longer bound by that oath? If his best idea is to charge insurance fees, then the city might as well give up because our mayor is numb above the shoulders.

The likely answer to this problem is to focus on the causes of violence, the people who cause it and the people who will become its victims. Sam and his city council brethren should lift their heads out of the sand and actually do something that will have an impact or get out of the way for new leaders who actually know how to address tragedies.

Sincerely,
Michael Palma
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-22-2020, 6:28 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,203
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
[snip]

Btw, was it necessary to post my forum profile with your quote and reply? That smells like an attempt to ambush me. I could play that game too, but prefer the high road.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'm guessing that poster couldn't find the quote button and copied all the text from your post, including the header info displayed on each of your posts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-22-2020, 6:32 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,203
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog68 View Post
So here is the text of an email I just sent to all of the addresses listed at the start of this thread - feel free to use and edit as you see fit:

Mayor Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council -



The problem is violence, whether the perpetrator uses a firearm, a knife, or a truck. You are lying to the public if you say the answer to firearm violence is to further attack firearm ownership. Be honest and just say you don’t know what to do about the problem but you are personally scared of objects made of iron, wood, and plastics, so that is what we will focus on. It is easier to attack an object than try to actually address a social problem. At least then the public would be informed before they vote.

Sam’s lack of knowledge of insurance is as glaring. Who will write and carry the insurance? If I shoot someone in self-defense, does my insurance still have to pay for the person who had just tried to sever my arm with a butcher’s knife? How would you bill criminals for unpaid liability insurance policies? Would insurance companies have to insure drug dealers who illegally owned firearms?

Why don’t politicians honestly state the end results of all the anti-firearm laws that state has passed for the last 30 years is that California has a higher rate of firearm homicides than Texas and Florida, two states with much higher firearm ownership rates than California? Maybe our political leaders don’t know what they are talking about?

If guns were the root cause of gun violence, then with around 8 million gun owners in California we would expect massive numbers non-criminal injuries from firearms. In reality, the number of injuries from firearms is at less than 1/100th of 1% of gun owners. So maybe we need to rethink this quasi “religious” belief that firearms cause violence and firearms owners should bear the costs of violence in our society.

If our so called leaders knew anything about the population they are attempting to regulate, then they would know that firearm ownership and participation in firearm related sporting activities promotes personal responsibility; concern for safety and care for others; a sense of community and belonging; respect for laws and public safety; and the value of human life. These personal attributes cut across race, gender, and economic class lines. Aren’t these characteristics exactly what we want each citizen to embrace? So why would you continue to attack law abiding firearm owners? At the same time, the people who commit firearms violence exhibit none of these attributes. Why are you not focusing on how to correct this situation, which would actually reduce crime?

Why has not Sam shared his thoughts on what is causing violence? Maybe if he did, the focus would look at what has changed in our society over the past 40 years that has raised the level violence we now experience. Maybe he would want to examine the failure of our public education system to prepare students for productive adult lives and why the police and social services have been unable to intervene when people first begin to become involved in crime and violence. Maybe he would see what has been done to mental health services and outreach to help people in need before they act out. Maybe Sam would examine what has happened to our morality and ethics that make it ok for some people to hurt others. But in Sam’s wisdom, we don’t look at these issues.

In the idiocy of Sam, the failure of our public institutions and to prevent violence should be paid by a subset of our society who we actually know will not contribute to violence? I have to wonder how someone with this level of thinking could convince so many that he is the right choice to lead a great city. Maybe this is why the quality of life in San Jose has been falling?

Sam’s other proposals are just as off target as his gun insurance scheme. The focus must be on actually addressing the causes of violence. California’s 30 years of irrational anti-firearms initiatives have only seen violence increase in the state at a faster rate than in the rest of the county; generated a fully confused compilation of laws that no judge, DA, or police officer can wholly comprehend; continues racist laws and law enforcement; leaves tens of thousands of felons in possible possession of firearms for at least a decade; and has created thousands of human rights abuses on our law abiding citizens every year.

Sam raised his hand to protect and defend the constitution, including the second amendment. So has the mayor lied when he took the oath of office or does he now feel that he is no longer bound by that oath? If his best idea is to charge insurance fees, then the city might as well give up because our mayor is numb above the shoulders.

The likely answer to this problem is to focus on the causes of violence, the people who cause it and the people who will become its victims. Sam and his city council brethren should lift their heads out of the sand and actually do something that will have an impact or get out of the way for new leaders who actually know how to address tragedies.

Sincerely,
Michael Palma
Very good, saving for future ideas.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-22-2020, 9:28 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 275
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Couple things be I'll asking in my email.

Given that this ordinance is, ostensibly, to cover costs of gun violence, please cite your source with the approximate costs of gun violence, for the past 10 years, the measures taken by the city to combat such violence, the cost of such measures and the results thereof.

Please also provide a comparative study of the costs of assault with blunt instruments, assault with knives or sharp objects, and justification for why these instruments will not require similar registration and insurance.

Additionally, given that all citizens are equal, will off duty law enforcement also be required to obtain such insurance? If not, why not? What about private security?

Do you intend to require insurance for all residents who can talk, as their words may offend me (words are violence after all), and I may be injured by them?

Toying with the idea of raising 2A but might sound like a cliche.
That being said no politician seems to realize, the 1A does not GRANT free speech, and the 2A does not GRANT the right to own a firearm.

The bill of rights only lays out what YOU (politicians) may NOT do (shall make no law, shall not be infringed, etc).
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-23-2020, 7:47 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,591
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog68 View Post
So here is the text of an email I just sent to all of the addresses listed at the start of this thread - feel free to use and edit as you see fit:

Mayor Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council -



The problem is violence, whether the perpetrator uses a firearm, a knife, or a truck
. You are lying to the public if you say the answer to firearm violence is to further attack firearm ownership. Be honest and just say you don’t know what to do about the problem but you are personally scared of objects made of iron, wood, and plastics, so that is what we will focus on. It is easier to attack an object than try to actually address a social problem. At least then the public would be informed before they vote.



Sincerely,
Michael Palma
Well said I agree 100% and have been saying the same for years.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-23-2020, 7:56 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CA Department of Insurance would/will shut this down right quick, for many reasons.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-23-2020, 10:24 PM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lambowski View Post
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.
Phuck Caesar.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-24-2020, 6:37 AM
GS2AC President GS2AC President is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Render unto Caesar.... which Caesar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lambowski View Post
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.
===

We live in a Republic.....The Constitution is Caesar in the United States... Not an elected official.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-24-2020, 6:41 AM
GS2AC President GS2AC President is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Talking points .....

Some suggested talking points..... based on Liccardo's own opinion piece with the Washington Post

San Jose mayor: Why I’m requiring my residents to insure guns
By Sam Liccardo August 26, 2019 at 12:59 p.m. PDT
Sam Liccardo, a Democrat, is mayor of San Jose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...18c_story.html

FIRST TALKING POINT...

".....The July mass shooting in Gilroy, Calif., left two San Jose families mourning the loss of their children, 6-year-old Stephen Romero and 13-year-old Keyla Salazar. As San Jose’s mayor, I hugged grieving family members, visited injured residents in the hospital and attended vigils. My mind reeled for words that might ease their suffering and the community’s pain, but shallow platitudes couldn’t offer much solace...."

Tell me Mayor Liccardo.... did you hug any of Bambi Larsen's family members after YOUR sanctuary city law protected the violent illegal alien who beat her, raped her and then hacked her to death?



2. " ... paying a fee to compensate taxpayers for the “gun violence subsidy” borne by the public. "

Excuse me.... but dont I already pay a tax for a police dept. and aren't they supposed to deal with public safety issues already? Why should innocent gun owners have a double burden?



3. ".....Of course, “the crooks” won’t pay a fee or buy insurance; only law-abiding gun owners would. An insurance requirement at the point of sale, if purchased locally, would make it harder for some guns to get into the wrong hands. .."

Thank you for admitting that you have no expectation that the criminals who cause the harm will not comply with the law...



4,. " ... Every U.S. state mandates that automobile drivers buy liability insurance; we should require no less of gun owners..."

Excuse me.... does mandating auto insurance stop people from driving with out it? And that auto insurance protects ME... not the rest of society.



5. "... While the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms, it does not require taxpayers to subsidize the exercise of that right. Courts routinely uphold the imposition of reasonable, nonobstructive fees or taxes on constitutionally protected activities.."

And will you next be suggesting a poll tax and other Jim Crowe laws because taxpayers should not have to subsidize the constitutional right to vote? Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional?



6. " ... all San Jose residents would face an insurance requirement for merely possessing a gun ...""

But not the criminals who are causing the crime to begin with.... so just exactly who are you targeting with this law if not the criminals who cause the violence.?


=========
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS2AC President View Post
ALERT ! Mayor Liccardo is pushing his latest scheme to punish gun owners... mandatory insurance for gun owners.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...have-liability

The same people who are perfectly fine protecting violent illegal aliens from deportation by ICE, can't stand the thought that you and I have a firearm to protect ourselves from those same animals.

We need EVERYONE to contact the members of the City Council and voice their opposition.

We need EVERYONE to show up at the council meeting and voice their opposition.

Feb. 25th at 1:30 PM at San José City Hall—200 E Santa Clara St. San Jose CA, 95113

City.clerk@sanjoseca.gov
District1@sanjoseca.gov
District2@sanjoseca.gov
District3@sanjoseca.gov
District4@sanjoseca.gov
District5@sanjoseca.gov
District6@sanjoseca.gov
District7@sanjoseca.gov
District8@sanjoseca.gov
District9@sanjoseca.gov
District10@sanjoseca.gov
mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov



Mark S Towber
President
GS2AC
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-24-2020, 3:38 PM
deebix deebix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 731
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lambowski View Post
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.


They aren't governing authorities if they are illegitimate. Deprivation of rights nullifies any standing of authority and legitimacy. Try again.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-24-2020, 4:22 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,031
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
CA Department of Insurance would/will shut this down right quick, for many reasons.
Right, I cannot think of any insurance that would cover a criminal activity. If my car was stolen, and smashes into private property, does my insurance cover that damage to the private property? I would assume no?

Just checked. This is common law rule.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder

Last edited by Sousuke; 02-24-2020 at 4:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-24-2020, 4:59 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Right, I cannot think of any insurance that would cover a criminal activity. If my car was stolen, and smashes into private property, does my insurance cover that damage to the private property? I would assume no?

Just checked. This is common law rule.
There is an Insurance Code statute that prohibits insurers from issuing coverage for intentional misconduct or coverage for punitive damages.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-24-2020, 5:02 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
From the article -

"The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."

I wonder, any other groups the Mayor would like to see this "pay to play" applied?

How about consumers of alcohol? Or MJ users. Or illegal aliens.

I'm guessing "no" on 2 out of 3 ….
The true idiocy of this statement is that no insurance company will pay anything at all for any but negligently inflicted injuries, of which there are stunningly few. And most of those are covered by homeowner's or renter's liability coverage.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-24-2020, 5:04 PM
Lifeisgood Lifeisgood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

what projected effects in terms of gun crime will the implementation of this bill have?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-24-2020, 5:44 PM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeisgood View Post
what projected effects in terms of gun crime will the implementation of this bill have?
None....Sammy is all about looking like he cares...carrying out the D agenda...and running for Governor...

A side effect may be to discourage potential buying...other than that, virtue signaling.
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-24-2020, 5:47 PM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
From the article -

"The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."
The funny part is...if you applied this logic to every gun (owner) in the City...the City owns the most...all of the guns carried by PD should count as well.

And the “gun violence” referred to....ummm...is actually violence committed by a person not an inanimate object.

I still want to see the city try to actually collect from the actual criminals that use guns...
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-24-2020, 5:58 PM
GS2AC President GS2AC President is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default REMINDER ! HELP KEEP SJ GUN INS LAW OFF THE AGENDA... TUES FEB 25TH 130 PM SJ

Quote:
Originally Posted by GS2AC President View Post
ALERT ! Mayor Liccardo is pushing his latest scheme to punish gun owners... mandatory insurance for gun owners.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...have-liability

The same people who are perfectly fine protecting violent illegal aliens from deportation by ICE, can't stand the thought that you and I have a firearm to protect ourselves from those same animals.

We need EVERYONE to contact the members of the City Council and voice their opposition.

We need EVERYONE to show up at the council meeting and voice their opposition.

Feb. 25th at 1:30 PM at San José City Hall—200 E Santa Clara St. San Jose CA, 95113

City.clerk@sanjoseca.gov
District1@sanjoseca.gov
District2@sanjoseca.gov
District3@sanjoseca.gov
District4@sanjoseca.gov
District5@sanjoseca.gov
District6@sanjoseca.gov
District7@sanjoseca.gov
District8@sanjoseca.gov
District9@sanjoseca.gov
District10@sanjoseca.gov
mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov



Mark S Towber
President
GS2AC
====

PLEEEEEEASE.... ANYONE that can show up to the Tuesday City San Jose City Council meeting.... please show up.

If we are successful in keeping this item off the priority list.... it DIES.

ALSO.... if you cant show up.... be sure to send an email to each council member and urge them to keep this item off the Council agenda for 2020.

This is your chance to STICK IT UP SAM LICCARDO'S *** !
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-25-2020, 9:35 AM
Murmur Murmur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: SD North County
Posts: 651
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog View Post
Will criminals be required to carry insurance as well?
That's a good idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:49 AM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

I just received this email from District 6
Quote:
Thanks for your email. I was just informed by staff that the item was dropped off the list.
__________________
us on facebook
UG Imports - Fremont, CA FFL - Transfers, New Gun Sales
Closure Schedule: http://ugimports.com/closed
web: http://ugimports.com/calguns / email: sales@ugimports.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/ugimports / phone: (510) 371-GUNS (4867)
FB: http://facebook.com/ugimports
NorCal Range Maps: http://ugimports.com/rangemaps

I AM THE MAJORITY!!!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-25-2020, 1:25 PM
allright's Avatar
allright allright is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Milpitas
Posts: 2,421
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ugimports View Post
I just received this email from District 6
I received the same email. I've been pretty proactive on this, and having some great dialog via email with one of the Mayor's reps. I hope it stays off the list, BUT, my gut tells me they will reword the name of the law/bill/?, and the content, and we'll see it again.

Off topic a bit: I "thought" there would not be a single insurance company that would cover your liability in the event your gun was stolen, and subsequently used in a crime. Low and behold, Lockton Affinity, the Insurance group who I insured my stuff with.....via the NRA, offers just such a product. Wow, I never would have guessed this. The verbiage is toward the bottom of page 1. "1. e."

https://locktonaffinityoutdoor.com/w...mplePolicy.pdf
__________________

WTB: , Smith K22, Colt Officer's Model Revolver in 22LR, , Ruger P89, Manurhin MR73, S&W 66, Lever gun in ?, ZKR 551, and CZ 453 22LR

Lifetime Member NRA
Member CRPA
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 12:38 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, 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.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical