On June 29th, the San
Jose City Council unanimously passed ordinances requiring “every gun
owner to buy liability insurance coverage for their firearms" and also to "pay
a fee to compensate
taxpayers for the emergency medical and police responses to gun-related
injuries and deaths," the San Francisco Chronicle reported. San Jose is
the first city in the United States to enact such a radical—and preposterously
unconstitutional-- anti-gun stance.
Shortly before the vote, an
organization called the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation (PIRE)
released a preliminary report stating that gun violence in San Jose costs the
city approximately $442 million annually. Officials have yet to decide on the
amount of the fee that legal gun owners will now be forced to pay.
Predictably, far-left Democratic
Mayor Sam Liccardo praised the measures and reportedly argued that gun owners
who refuse to comply with the new laws would have their weapons seized. Liccardo
issued a statement reading: "While the Second Amendment protects the right
to bear arms, it does not require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership. We
won't magically end gun violence, but we will stop paying for it."
Everything about the measures
is tyrannical and counterproductive. The unprecedented ordinances are sure to
be challenged in court by firearm-rights groups. One such group, the Firearms
Policy Coalition, has already planned legal action. The FPC put out a statement
reading in part, “All states and local governments must comply with the Bill
of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment, period. The days of governments doing
whatever they wish to impose expansive, unconstitutional gun control laws are
numbered. We will work tirelessly to bring your tyrannical efforts to a
crashing halt, and are committed to restoring human liberty and freedom using
every available resource. If San Jose adopts Mayor Liccardo's outrageous and unconstitutional
gun control proposals, we will not hesitate to challenge the City's policies in
federal litigation and take every possible action to block their enforcement.”
The gun-rights group went on
to refute each piece of the council’s (10-point) plan, explaining why each
specific measure is unconstitutional.
Legal firearms owners have to
reimburse taxpayers for emergency medical and police responses to gun-related
injuries and deaths? The vast majority of legal gun owners are taxpayers
themselves, unlike many others in the city. And legal gun ownership prevents far more crime, injuries, death, property destruction
and monetary loss than it causes.
Is the San Jose City Council
also going to enact laws forcing spoon owners to pay for the staggering costs
that obesity inflicts on society? If spoon owners refuse to comply, will they
have their beloved spoons seized by the city? Or will those like Nancy Pelosi,
who own wildly expensive freezers specifically designated to hold their vast
collections of custom ice creams, have to pay for these costs? California is
wine country, but why shouldn’t those with a wine cellar have to pay for
the terrible costs of alcoholism? Or those who own a shot glass?
In reality (a scary place
Democrats/progressives/leftists never visit) it’s the city council’s own-- and
other leftist lunatic’s policies on a local and national basis-- that cause the
destruction of the family, breakdown of morality, dismissal of religion,
subsidizing of immoral and destructive behavior, and punishment of traditional
Judeo-Christian values that lead to the poverty, addiction, soullessness and
hopelessness that cause crime. Oh, and defunding the police doesn’t
help, either. It isn’t rocket science. In fact, it’s a simple case of good versus evil.
If our elite progressive
rulers were actually worried about “justice,” they would be compensating
taxpayers, preferably by not using the money they take from them to make things
worse. If they really wanted to be social justice warriors, they would resign.
Or become conservatives.
Until they do, the rest of us
need to stick to our guns.