Of course, California would do this since it's the mecca of bad ideas. Giving illegal aliens state benefits is a bad idea. High taxes are a bad idea. The lockdown regime it had under COVID was a terrible idea, so bad that Gov. Gavin Newsom faces a recall election. And the state always has wildfires that burn out of control because it never ever wants to do any preemptive measures, like controlled burns (essential forest management, by the way), because the green freaks throw tantrums.
California's a progressive cesspool, which is why people are leaving. Even Bill Maher noted how the state is wrapped in red tape, noting the building of his little solar shed as an example.
And the Golden State also knows how to engage in grossly unconstitutional actions against the Second Amendment. In San Jose, the city is mulling charging gun owners to cover the cost of firearm-related violence (via Axios):
San Jose will require gun owners to compensate taxpayers for gun-related emergency responses, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
Why it matters: It's the first U.S. city to take such a step. The move, approved unanimously by the San Jose City Council on Tuesday, comes after last month's mass shooting at a transit station in the city.
The big picture: The ordinance requires every firearm owner to buy liability insurance coverage and pay an annual fee for medical and police responses to gun-related injuries and deaths, the Chronicle reports.
Officials haven't decided how much gun owners would be required to pay annually but the amount would be determined following a gun harm study from the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation, which is expected to be completed this fall.
In a preliminary report, the institute estimated that gun-related homicides, suicides and other shootings cost San Jose about $63 million annually, per the Chronicle.
Recommended
Oh, you bet your candy ass there's going to be legal challenges here. Penalizing law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional right to own firearms and making them pay for the acts of criminals.
Firearms reporter and expert Stephen Gutowski of The Reload touched on this point and zeroed in on the illiberal and illegal underpinnings of this ordinance.
"San Jose's forcing legal gun owners to pay fees in order to offset the cost of criminal acts seems odd as it lays the blame for violence with people who aren't responsible for it. Requiring residents to purchase liability insurance before they can own a gun is akin to requiring them to purchase libel insurance before they can speak in the public sphere," he said in a statement to Townhall. "Both proposals are ripe for a legal challenge and I wouldn't be surprised if the ultimate outcome of this is the city being forced to pay the legal fees of whichever gun-rights group wins the race to file suit against them."
One can hope, as these legal challenges also take a lot of time and money. It would be a great way to stick it to the city. We'll find out eventually.
Thus far, this ordinance is in "draft mode" only for lack of a better term, but this is blue bastion politics. It's probably going to pass in the near future and the lawyers will be waiting:
These might as well be called the "please sue us immediately" acts. https://t.co/RisUsq3Lhu
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 30, 2021
The City Council approved an action (among other things) directing the City Attorney and City Manager to draft ordinances/language and take it back to the Council in the fall. The laws aren’t in print yet. https://t.co/i5RIDmCoyW pic.twitter.com/kzaSP2RxQz
— ???????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? (@gunpolicy) June 30, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member