Thursday, February 2, 2023
HomeInsuranceCA Metropolis Approves 1st U.S. Gun Insurance coverage Measure: Readers Weigh In

CA Metropolis Approves 1st U.S. Gun Insurance coverage Measure: Readers Weigh In

SAN JOSE, CA — Leaders of a Northern California metropolis voted to require gun homeowners to hold legal responsibility insurance coverage final week. It’s the first measure of its sort within the nation and joined California’s lineup of stringent measures to curb gun violence.

The San Jose Metropolis Council overwhelmingly permitted the measure regardless of opposition from gun homeowners who mentioned it could violate their Second Modification rights and promised to sue.

In a nonscientific survey that drew 3,185 respondents, we requested readers to share their ideas on the brand new measure. The survey is supposed to not be a scientific ballot however solely to provide a broad thought of public sentiment.

Greater than 67 p.c of respondents reported that they didn’t agree with the brand new measure, whereas simply 30.4 p.c they did agree with it. Some 2.5 p.c of respondents mentioned they have been not sure.

The legal responsibility insurance coverage would cowl losses or damages ensuing from any unintended use of the firearm, together with dying, damage, or property harm, in line with the ordinance. If a gun is stolen or misplaced, the proprietor of the firearm can be thought of liable till the theft or loss is reported to authorities.

We requested readers whether or not different cities ought to approve of comparable measures and 67.1 p.c mentioned “no” whereas 30 p.c mentioned “sure.” We then requested whether or not the state ought to move an identical regulation and the response was almost similar: 67.7 p.c mentioned “no” and 29.8 p.c mentioned “sure.”

Read Also:   The 5 insurance coverage traits that we'll see in 2022

Some 70.7 p.c of respondents felt that the brand new measure would not scale back crime, 11.8 have been not sure if it could and 17.5 thought it could scale back crime charges.

Comparable legal guidelines have been proposed in Democratic-led cities across the Golden State, however San Jose is the primary metropolis to efficiently move one, in line with Brady United, a nationwide nonprofit that advocates in opposition to gun violence.

We requested readers to share further ideas on the matter:

The value of ammunition ought to be sky excessive and closely taxed, with these funds going to victims of gun violence.

Very like the best way criminals don’t purchase their weapons legally they received’t get the insurance coverage both.

About time, we take extra steps to cut back gun violence.

If that is the path to go, why not require insurance coverage for alcohol customers?

It’s an assault on the inherent proper of self protection. Criminals is not going to be affected, solely authorized gun homeowners who comply with the regulation. It’s additionally a monetary blow in opposition to minorities needing to defend themselves in excessive crime neighborhoods.

Blatently unconstitutional. Ballot taxes in an effort to vote was struck down as unconstitutional; the Proper to Preserve and Bear Arms is simply as a lot a proper as is the Proper to Vote.

This could have been carried out a long time in the past. A gun is simply as harmful as a automobile and automobile insurance coverage has been required for 70 years!

This does nothing to cut back crime. All it does is add to the already lengthy record of gun management measures that proceed to drive folks to go away California. How about introduce stronger measures for the criminals? Oh, there’s a dandy thought.

The unregistered weapons are those you have to fear about.

We want insurance coverage to drive a automobile, and a license. It appears cheap to require each for a gun

The ordinance comes as a part of a broad gun management plan proposed by Mayor Sam Liccardo following the Might 26 mass capturing on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority rail yard that left 9 folks useless, together with the worker who opened hearth on his colleagues then killed himself.

Read Also:   Monetary opening-up noticed boosting business, trade, funding, top quality building

At an hours-long assembly, critics argued that the payment and legal responsibility necessities violated their proper to bear arms and would do nothing to cease gun crimes, together with using untraceable, build-it-yourself “ghost weapons.”

“You can not tax a constitutional proper. This does nothing to cut back crime,” one speaker mentioned.

Liccardo acknowledged these considerations.

“This would possibly not cease mass shootings and hold unhealthy folks from committing violent crime,” the mayor mentioned, however added most gun deaths nationally are from suicide, unintended shootings or different causes and even many homicides stem from home violence.

Liccardo additionally mentioned gun violence prices San Jose taxpayers $40 million a yr in emergency response companies.

Council members, together with a number of who had misplaced associates to gun violence, mentioned it was a step towards coping with gun violence that Councilman Sergio Jimenez referred to as “a scourge on our society.”

The measure is supposed to induce San Jose’s 55,000 households who legally personal at the very least one registered firearm to buy gun safes, set up set off locks and attend gun security courses, Liccardo mentioned.

Gun homeowners who do not have insurance coverage will not lose their weapons or face any felony expenses, the mayor mentioned.

SEE ALSO: California’s COVID Gun Retailer Shutdowns Dominated Unlawful

This text initially appeared on the Campbell Patch

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular