7 ms·

San Jose to require owners of firearms to pay back taxpayers for gun violence

30 points by rchaudhary 5y ago

gameman144 5y ago
This seems like a constitutional challenge just waiting to blow up, and similar measures for other rights enumerated in the Constitution would be pretty clearly unconstitutional: e.g. > The government may make no law establishing religion, but members of fundamentalist/extremist religions will need to pay insurance fees to reimburse for extremist violence committed by others of their religion. > People choosing not to quarter soldiers in their homes will have to pay a fee towards military housing for those soldiers; people who choose to quarter soldiers don't have to pay these fees. etc.
- staticman2 5y ago
  Judges may agree with you. But on the other hand you can make up slippery slope arguments about anything. Here's one: the government can currently limit people under 18 from buying guns. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to blow up, imagine if the government said you have freedom of religion, provided you are at least 100 years old. Clearly this is absurd, so 5 year olds need to be able to buy guns, since one will lead to the other or one scenario is logically inconsistent with the other.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    5 year olds can shoot guns. I've shot guns since I was 8 and got my hunter's safety permit at 14. At any rate, this law is an unconstitutional absurdity designed to be agitating and inconvenient while accomplishing nothing except stroking someone's ego.
    - staticman2 5y ago
      Some states limit the ability for children to buy guns. This has not been deemed unconstitutional.
  - gameman144 5y ago
    Fair enough point, it'll be interesting to see this pan out. It seems to me, though, that there are two distinct categories here. On the one hand is what the criteria are under which one can exercise their rights. This is where your age criteria for guns, or "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" exceptions, or not being able to practice cannibalism just because it's your religion, come into play. On the other hand, though, is penalties that exist solely because you're exercising your rights. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right of an individual to buy a gun) isn't permissible is one thing, which is what I think you're referring to above. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right to buy a gun) is permissible, but that the government will penalize you for saying it anyway seems like an absolute breach of your rights.
    - krapp 5y ago
      I have to buy health insurance, even if it mostly subsidizes people less healthy than myself. I have to buy car insurance even if I'm a good driver. When a legally allowed activity can have significant negative effects on society (as gun ownership does) it's not uncommon that society requires compensation through taxes or insurance.
      - prepend 5y ago
        Everyone has to buy Heath insurance. I think the issue here is that only gun owners are paying this new tax.
        pyuser583 5y ago
        Wasn’t there a SCOTUS case recently that said this isn’t the case? The fine is $0.
        jimmygrapes 5y ago
        The way it currently stands is that as a U.S. Citizen/Permanent Resident you are required by law to have a documented health insurance with a defined minimal set of coverage based on your circumstances; however, there is no penalty, fee, or other legal method of enforcement of this law, which makes it effectively meaningless. It is on this basis that SCOTUS in recent weeks ruled that there is no reason to change the law, since there is no harm caused by it. A bit screwy, but it's logically sound.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Sure, but age limits are a part of “strict scrutiny” (generally accepted that until you reach the age of majority your rights are limited - or at least exercised by parents on your behalf). Yes, rights can be curtailed, but there must be a good reason and the law carefully crafted to only address that concern and nothing else. San Francisco’s law banning firearms in public housing was struck down after the NRA challenged it. Similar issue - you can’t say “sure! we support gun rights and you can have a gun in your home, but public housing is special and not really your home”. The govt can’t provide housing then turn around and say you lose rights because of it. The courts aren’t very big fans of these “de facto banning by carefully creating requirements that are impossible or near impossible to meet”. In fact, under strict scrutiny, the burden of any requirements have to be justified - even minor hurdles to exercising rights can be deemed unconstitutional.
  - amadeuspagel 5y ago
    There are all sorts of limitations on what minors can do, including limitations on constitutional rights. This is a pretty well established exception and not at all comparable to taxing people for exercising their rights.
    - staticman2 5y ago
      Sure, but there's nothing in the constitution saying minors have less rights. So it's just as "wacky" to give them less rights based on the text of the constitution as anything else. My point is any constitutuonal debate is going to be wacky. All that really is going to matter is how a judge feels, ultimately. Incidentally the text of the constitution was only meant to apply to the federal government initially so based on the actual text state governments can 100% ban guns, ban free speech, throw you in jail without the right to an attorney, etc. The Supreme Court does not interpret the constitution in that fashion today but that's a judge made reading.
      - amadeuspagel 5y ago
        As long as we have had laws, there has been some conception of a minor, someone who does not have the rights and duties of an adult. The authors of the constitution were well aware of this. This is not as "wacky" as anything some cynical politician came up with three days ago.
- krapp 5y ago
  How is it a Constitutional challenge? The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, and this law doesn't appear to abridge that right.
  - prepend 5y ago
    I suppose in the same way that a poll tax does or doesn’t abridge voting.
    - krapp 5y ago
      Poll taxes are forbidden by the Constitution - paying insurance isn't. And the Venn diagram of gun owners and people who believe there should be a mandatory ID requirement for voting - a poll tax by another name - deeply overlaps, so that's a disingenuous argument.
      - prepend 5y ago
        Poll taxes are forbidden by laws (I think civil rights voting act). Voting isn’t a right called out in the constitution, firearms are. I was just clarifying that charging a fee definitely limits an activity. People argued for poll taxes saying it wasn’t a large amount, it wasn’t, but the fees were enacted to limit voting. And specifically discriminate based on race. Not good. This “insurance” fee is designed to limit gun ownership so likely conflicts with the constitution.
desine 5y ago
Most "gun violence" uses stolen firearms. Presumably, they'll be using CA's firearm registry to enact the tax. So it's legal owners paying for the actions of illegal gun owners (as a bit of a generalization).
- mjsir911 5y ago
  Perhaps this will incentivize locking guns up better so they won't be stolen? What's the current punishment for losing a gun and maybe having it end up causing "gun violence"?
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    The same punishment that you get if someone steals your car and runs someone over with it: nothing.
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      Comparing cars and guns has always struck me as such a strange argument in the United States. What happens if someone gets their car taken away? They might not be able to go to their job. They might not be able to get themselves or their family food or medical care. What happens when a person in the US loses their gun? They'll tell you they are now unsafe, but in reality all it does it take away someone's hobby.
      - desine 5y ago
        >They'll tell you they are now unsafe, but in reality all it does it take away someone's hobby. It must be nice having such a sheltered, safe life. Not all of us are afforded such opportunity.
        seattle_spring 5y ago
        Where in the US do you live? Can you share some stories of how you've secured your personal safety using a gun, where you had no other viable options?
failwhaleshark 5y ago
More collective punishment of law-abiding people. I'm glad I moved out of California.
- cromwellian 5y ago
  So car insurance is collective punishment? You own a gun, you increase collective risk. Conservatives hate paying for negative externalities but love positive externalities it seems.
  - shiohime 5y ago
    You should pay a fee and have internet insurance anytime someone commits a cybercrime. Shit it's not even about left/right but rather the government is completely incompetent and cannot protect its citizens so they decide to tax them via "required" insurance if you exercise your right to own a gun? lol.
    - cromwellian 5y ago
      Indirectly yes. Online firms should have to carry hacker insurance, and pay a penalty for when they get hacked and personal data is widely leaked. This will then show up in increases prices that such firms charge end users. Security ain't free. It's either compelled via law, or via tort. Right now, the 'insurance fee' is tort if enough companies are sued.
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    Don't go there.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    Most firearm deaths are suicide or a family member injuring themselves. The main victims of gun owners are gun owners. This isn’t a case of externalities.
chrisco255 5y ago
I think we should carry this logic to its natural conclusion and require politicians to pay back and be held liable for any laws or policies they pass that inadvertently ends up causing any harm to anyone.
- desine 5y ago
  I have never been inspired to participate in the writing of a bill until now, thank you.
pyuser583 5y ago
This is not like car insurance. Car insurance is required so that if I misuse my car, and some sues, they will be able to recover damages. The risk of an individual being sued over their use of firearms is negligible, because of the strong legal protections firearms have. It’s impossible for anyone to sue anyone over a firearm used in a crime. The insurance here is for the city of San Jose. That would be like requiring car owners to purchase insurance to fund the police department. That’s simply not how insurance works. Citizens don’t purchase insurance insulate tax payers against the cost of funding the government.
- desine 5y ago
  If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting some things. Car insurance is for your personal liability in an "event" People cannot sue firearm manufacturers for their use in the crime. Civil suits against individuals are allowed. So if I shoot you, you can sue me for shooting you (or the relevant trauma/stress/hospitalization, etc). But you cannot sue Colt because I shot you. I'm not sure if automobiles have or need the same protections - can you sue Chevrolet if I run you over?
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    You’re right about that (and I am wrong) … it is possible to sue other individuals for their use of firearms. In the interest of caution, I’ve reread the article several times. It’s not clear exactly what’s happening (or whether it’s anything remotely like car insurance.) There are several possibilities: 1. The city has taken out an insurance policy. This policy will pay the city to cover the cost of mass shootings. In order to prevent an increase in taxes, they are charging a tax/fee to gun owners. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very problematic. This “fee” is simply a tax. The fact that it’s intended to pay the city’s premium for a specific policy doesn’t make it not a tax. So the city is simply taxing gun owners. 2. All gun owners are now required to take out insurance policies to cover their own unlawful use of firearms. The city will then sue those who engage in mass shootings, and receive damages from the insurance coverage. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very unlikely. The article tells gun owners to pay the city, not find an insurance company to cover them. 3. All gun owners are required to take out insurance policies to cover their liabilities should they be sued by other citizens for their use of guns. This is a lot like car insurance, but least supported by the text of the article. It’s not supported at all really. As we saw with Obamacare, a requirement to buy insurance is a tax, as is a fee for failing to buy insurance. Do even if it is option 2 or 3, it’s still a tax on gun owners. Taxing people for exercising a constitutional right is, well, unconstitutional. So you are right, but my conclusion holds unless the article is very wrong.
akomtu 5y ago
Law makers in the US can make laws that aren't legit. They do it to appeal their voters. So in deep blue states, law makers circle around gun control, and in deep red states law makers do the same about abortions. Neutral/centrist law makers don't exist because they would be ousted by both blue and red, who together constitute the majority. Judges are the only adults in the room who have to clean the mess.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  I wonder what the middle ground agreement might be. "Blue team will let red team keep guns as long as red team lets blue team kill babies (but only if unwanted)" or "Red team will abandon guns if blue team allows unwanted babies to be born (barring unmanageable complications)"?
  - akomtu 5y ago
    Your middle ground is rational, but the two camps live the world of emotions. The red think that abortions contradict the bible and your middle ground will be seen as a compromise with satan who's trying to deceive them. Nothing less than the second arrival will change their mind. The blue isn't much better, although they tend to defend their opinion with mental gymnastics, for they don't have a holy book with undisputable authority. Their arguments is about moral superiority, even though they seem to use logical elements.

30 points by rchaudhary 5y ago

This seems like a constitutional challenge just waiting to blow up, and similar measures for other rights enumerated in the Constitution would be pretty clearly unconstitutional: e.g. > The government may make no law establishing religion, but members of fundamentalist/extremist religions will need to pay insurance fees to reimburse for extremist violence committed by others of their religion. > People choosing not to quarter soldiers in their homes will have to pay a fee towards military housing for those soldiers; people who choose to quarter soldiers don't have to pay these fees. etc.

staticman2 5y ago
Judges may agree with you. But on the other hand you can make up slippery slope arguments about anything. Here's one: the government can currently limit people under 18 from buying guns. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to blow up, imagine if the government said you have freedom of religion, provided you are at least 100 years old. Clearly this is absurd, so 5 year olds need to be able to buy guns, since one will lead to the other or one scenario is logically inconsistent with the other.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  5 year olds can shoot guns. I've shot guns since I was 8 and got my hunter's safety permit at 14. At any rate, this law is an unconstitutional absurdity designed to be agitating and inconvenient while accomplishing nothing except stroking someone's ego.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    Some states limit the ability for children to buy guns. This has not been deemed unconstitutional.
- gameman144 5y ago
  Fair enough point, it'll be interesting to see this pan out. It seems to me, though, that there are two distinct categories here. On the one hand is what the criteria are under which one can exercise their rights. This is where your age criteria for guns, or "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" exceptions, or not being able to practice cannibalism just because it's your religion, come into play. On the other hand, though, is penalties that exist solely because you're exercising your rights. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right of an individual to buy a gun) isn't permissible is one thing, which is what I think you're referring to above. To say that a given piece of speech (or the right to buy a gun) is permissible, but that the government will penalize you for saying it anyway seems like an absolute breach of your rights.
  - krapp 5y ago
    I have to buy health insurance, even if it mostly subsidizes people less healthy than myself. I have to buy car insurance even if I'm a good driver. When a legally allowed activity can have significant negative effects on society (as gun ownership does) it's not uncommon that society requires compensation through taxes or insurance.
    - prepend 5y ago
      Everyone has to buy Heath insurance. I think the issue here is that only gun owners are paying this new tax.
      - pyuser583 5y ago
        Wasn’t there a SCOTUS case recently that said this isn’t the case? The fine is $0.
        jimmygrapes 5y ago
        The way it currently stands is that as a U.S. Citizen/Permanent Resident you are required by law to have a documented health insurance with a defined minimal set of coverage based on your circumstances; however, there is no penalty, fee, or other legal method of enforcement of this law, which makes it effectively meaningless. It is on this basis that SCOTUS in recent weeks ruled that there is no reason to change the law, since there is no harm caused by it. A bit screwy, but it's logically sound.
- refurb 5y ago
  Sure, but age limits are a part of “strict scrutiny” (generally accepted that until you reach the age of majority your rights are limited - or at least exercised by parents on your behalf). Yes, rights can be curtailed, but there must be a good reason and the law carefully crafted to only address that concern and nothing else. San Francisco’s law banning firearms in public housing was struck down after the NRA challenged it. Similar issue - you can’t say “sure! we support gun rights and you can have a gun in your home, but public housing is special and not really your home”. The govt can’t provide housing then turn around and say you lose rights because of it. The courts aren’t very big fans of these “de facto banning by carefully creating requirements that are impossible or near impossible to meet”. In fact, under strict scrutiny, the burden of any requirements have to be justified - even minor hurdles to exercising rights can be deemed unconstitutional.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  There are all sorts of limitations on what minors can do, including limitations on constitutional rights. This is a pretty well established exception and not at all comparable to taxing people for exercising their rights.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    Sure, but there's nothing in the constitution saying minors have less rights. So it's just as "wacky" to give them less rights based on the text of the constitution as anything else. My point is any constitutuonal debate is going to be wacky. All that really is going to matter is how a judge feels, ultimately. Incidentally the text of the constitution was only meant to apply to the federal government initially so based on the actual text state governments can 100% ban guns, ban free speech, throw you in jail without the right to an attorney, etc. The Supreme Court does not interpret the constitution in that fashion today but that's a judge made reading.
    - amadeuspagel 5y ago
      As long as we have had laws, there has been some conception of a minor, someone who does not have the rights and duties of an adult. The authors of the constitution were well aware of this. This is not as "wacky" as anything some cynical politician came up with three days ago.
krapp 5y ago
How is it a Constitutional challenge? The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, and this law doesn't appear to abridge that right.
- prepend 5y ago
  I suppose in the same way that a poll tax does or doesn’t abridge voting.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Poll taxes are forbidden by the Constitution - paying insurance isn't. And the Venn diagram of gun owners and people who believe there should be a mandatory ID requirement for voting - a poll tax by another name - deeply overlaps, so that's a disingenuous argument.
    - prepend 5y ago
      Poll taxes are forbidden by laws (I think civil rights voting act). Voting isn’t a right called out in the constitution, firearms are. I was just clarifying that charging a fee definitely limits an activity. People argued for poll taxes saying it wasn’t a large amount, it wasn’t, but the fees were enacted to limit voting. And specifically discriminate based on race. Not good. This “insurance” fee is designed to limit gun ownership so likely conflicts with the constitution.

desine 5y ago

Most "gun violence" uses stolen firearms. Presumably, they'll be using CA's firearm registry to enact the tax. So it's legal owners paying for the actions of illegal gun owners (as a bit of a generalization).

mjsir911 5y ago
Perhaps this will incentivize locking guns up better so they won't be stolen? What's the current punishment for losing a gun and maybe having it end up causing "gun violence"?
- chrisco255 5y ago
  The same punishment that you get if someone steals your car and runs someone over with it: nothing.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Comparing cars and guns has always struck me as such a strange argument in the United States. What happens if someone gets their car taken away? They might not be able to go to their job. They might not be able to get themselves or their family food or medical care. What happens when a person in the US loses their gun? They'll tell you they are now unsafe, but in reality all it does it take away someone's hobby.
    - desine 5y ago
      >They'll tell you they are now unsafe, but in reality all it does it take away someone's hobby. It must be nice having such a sheltered, safe life. Not all of us are afforded such opportunity.
      - seattle_spring 5y ago
        Where in the US do you live? Can you share some stories of how you've secured your personal safety using a gun, where you had no other viable options?

failwhaleshark 5y ago

More collective punishment of law-abiding people. I'm glad I moved out of California.

cromwellian 5y ago
So car insurance is collective punishment? You own a gun, you increase collective risk. Conservatives hate paying for negative externalities but love positive externalities it seems.
- shiohime 5y ago
  You should pay a fee and have internet insurance anytime someone commits a cybercrime. Shit it's not even about left/right but rather the government is completely incompetent and cannot protect its citizens so they decide to tax them via "required" insurance if you exercise your right to own a gun? lol.
  - cromwellian 5y ago
    Indirectly yes. Online firms should have to carry hacker insurance, and pay a penalty for when they get hacked and personal data is widely leaked. This will then show up in increases prices that such firms charge end users. Security ain't free. It's either compelled via law, or via tort. Right now, the 'insurance fee' is tort if enough companies are sued.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Don't go there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Most firearm deaths are suicide or a family member injuring themselves. The main victims of gun owners are gun owners. This isn’t a case of externalities.

chrisco255 5y ago

I think we should carry this logic to its natural conclusion and require politicians to pay back and be held liable for any laws or policies they pass that inadvertently ends up causing any harm to anyone.

desine 5y ago
I have never been inspired to participate in the writing of a bill until now, thank you.

pyuser583 5y ago

This is not like car insurance. Car insurance is required so that if I misuse my car, and some sues, they will be able to recover damages. The risk of an individual being sued over their use of firearms is negligible, because of the strong legal protections firearms have. It’s impossible for anyone to sue anyone over a firearm used in a crime. The insurance here is for the city of San Jose. That would be like requiring car owners to purchase insurance to fund the police department. That’s simply not how insurance works. Citizens don’t purchase insurance insulate tax payers against the cost of funding the government.

desine 5y ago
If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting some things. Car insurance is for your personal liability in an "event" People cannot sue firearm manufacturers for their use in the crime. Civil suits against individuals are allowed. So if I shoot you, you can sue me for shooting you (or the relevant trauma/stress/hospitalization, etc). But you cannot sue Colt because I shot you. I'm not sure if automobiles have or need the same protections - can you sue Chevrolet if I run you over?
- pyuser583 5y ago
  You’re right about that (and I am wrong) … it is possible to sue other individuals for their use of firearms. In the interest of caution, I’ve reread the article several times. It’s not clear exactly what’s happening (or whether it’s anything remotely like car insurance.) There are several possibilities: 1. The city has taken out an insurance policy. This policy will pay the city to cover the cost of mass shootings. In order to prevent an increase in taxes, they are charging a tax/fee to gun owners. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very problematic. This “fee” is simply a tax. The fact that it’s intended to pay the city’s premium for a specific policy doesn’t make it not a tax. So the city is simply taxing gun owners. 2. All gun owners are now required to take out insurance policies to cover their own unlawful use of firearms. The city will then sue those who engage in mass shootings, and receive damages from the insurance coverage. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very unlikely. The article tells gun owners to pay the city, not find an insurance company to cover them. 3. All gun owners are required to take out insurance policies to cover their liabilities should they be sued by other citizens for their use of guns. This is a lot like car insurance, but least supported by the text of the article. It’s not supported at all really. As we saw with Obamacare, a requirement to buy insurance is a tax, as is a fee for failing to buy insurance. Do even if it is option 2 or 3, it’s still a tax on gun owners. Taxing people for exercising a constitutional right is, well, unconstitutional. So you are right, but my conclusion holds unless the article is very wrong.

akomtu 5y ago

Law makers in the US can make laws that aren't legit. They do it to appeal their voters. So in deep blue states, law makers circle around gun control, and in deep red states law makers do the same about abortions. Neutral/centrist law makers don't exist because they would be ousted by both blue and red, who together constitute the majority. Judges are the only adults in the room who have to clean the mess.

jimmygrapes 5y ago
I wonder what the middle ground agreement might be. "Blue team will let red team keep guns as long as red team lets blue team kill babies (but only if unwanted)" or "Red team will abandon guns if blue team allows unwanted babies to be born (barring unmanageable complications)"?
- akomtu 5y ago
  Your middle ground is rational, but the two camps live the world of emotions. The red think that abortions contradict the bible and your middle ground will be seen as a compromise with satan who's trying to deceive them. Nothing less than the second arrival will change their mind. The blue isn't much better, although they tend to defend their opinion with mental gymnastics, for they don't have a holy book with undisputable authority. Their arguments is about moral superiority, even though they seem to use logical elements.