San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo Meets with President Biden to Discuss Gun Violence

Following his city's recent approval of a plan to reduce gun violence, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccard met Monday with President Joe Biden and other officials at the White House to discuss how the same can be done nationally.

The gun harm reduction proposals approved by the San Jose City Council at the end of June include a mandate for gun insurance, impounding guns from those who do not comply with insurance mandates and other laws and recording all gun purchases to mitigate gun straw purchases, among many other proposals.

The mayor likens gun insurance to auto insurance, which he said was effective in reducing per-mile car accidents by 80 percent in four decades. Insurance would also reduce the public cost of gun violence, the mayor maintains, which in San Jose costs taxpayers about $442 million annually, according to preliminary data from the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation.

Liccardo first proposed the measures after the 2019 Garlic Festival shooting in Gilroy which claimed four lives and wounded 17.

He reintroduced them this year weeks after the Bay Area's deadliest mass shooting, which claimed nine lives in San Jose at the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority rail yard.

 

24 Comments

  1. “The mayor likens gun insurance to auto insurance, which he said was effective in reducing per-mile car accidents by 80 percent in four decades.”

    Who knew car insurance wasn’t invented until 1980? Lucky for the mayor’s statistical claims that it came along during the same decade as did anti-lock brakes, improved vehicle suspensions, the founding of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the adoption of the “red clearance interval” on traffic signals, increased use of median barriers (e.g. Hwy 17), etc.

    Also lucky for the mayor, with Biden he’ll have an audience even dumber than those who watch “The View.”

  2. Imagine those two Einstein’s in the same room together.

    The irony of ‘Gropey Joe’ cracking down on law abiding gun owners when his crackhead son has all sorts of firearm skeletons in his closet is priceless.

    It’s good to be king.

  3. I will be happy to demonstrate in this topic how Phu Tan Elli and William Ashbless have been wrong before and are wrong again?

    I will be happy to remind them of the fact that the constitution requires regualtions on PEOPLE in order to have RIGHTS to a gun.

    Pleeae go ahead and personally attack me, and I will post accurate laws and reasoning to prove your arguments are baseless.

  4. “Pleeae go ahead and personally attack me, and I will post accurate laws and reasoning to prove your arguments are baseless.” — Steven Goldstein

    No one doubts Mr. Goldstein’s ability to ruin an exchange through use of the cut-and-paste favored by the unhinged, but the topic here is not whether or not history has produced a mountain of judgments, opinions, and decisions that support every sides of the gun debate, the topic here is whether or not mandatory insurance will have a meaningful effect on protecting the lives of innocent citizens.

    How, exactly, will compelling the law-abiding to buy insurance prevent lawbreakers, who most certainly will not heed the mandate, from using firearms to victimize others? It is a simple question, one that speaks directly to the program’s justification, and one the media has chosen not to direct to the mayor.

  5. pHUT tAN eLLI, YOU ASKED FOR IT:

    “BUT SO FAR THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED REGULATIONS ON FIREARMS, AND THUS THIS IS JUST A REGUGLATION. Again PLEASE find a case where INSURANCE was defined as a violation of the 2ND AMENDMENT. You have not even posted any argument to substantiate that the INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY standard would determine that INSURANCE is UNOCSTITUTIONAL. You also wrote:

    “Supreme Court decisions have defined what the 2nd Amendment text means. Your throwing away applicable Supreme Court decisions and using your own opinions of what the text of the 2nd Amendment ignores the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of Government.”

    Please read this from the Cornell Law School web page found here (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-15-16/the-militia-clauses)

    “Regulation of the Militia

    THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE MILITIA “BEING UNLIMITED, EXCEPT IN THE TWO PARTICULARS OF OFFICERING AND TRAINING THEM . . . IT MAY BE EXERCISED TO ANY EXTENT THAT MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY CONGRESS. . . . THE POWER OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE ON THE SAME SUBJECTS, HAVING EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND NOT HAVING BEEN PROHIBITED BY THAT INSTRUMENT, IT REMAINS WITH THE STATES, SUBORDINATE NEVERTHELESS TO THE PARAMOUNT LAW OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. . . .”[1789]

    [1798] Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).

    UNDER THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT OF 1916, [1790]

    [1790] 39 Stat. 166, 197, 198, 200, 202, 211 (1916), codified in sections of Titles 10 & 32. See Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution, 54 HARV. L. REV. 181 (1940). back

    THE MILITIA, WHICH HAD BEEN AN ALMOST PURELY STATE INSTITUTION, WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THE TERM “MILITIA OF THE UNITED STATES” WAS DEFINED TO COMPREHEND “ALL ABLE-BODIED MALE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALL OTHER ABLE-BODIED MALES WHO HAVE . . . DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO BECOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,” BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN AND FORTY-FIVE. THE ACT REORGANIZED THE NATIONAL GUARD, DETERMINED ITS SIZE IN PROPORTION TO THE POPULATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, REQUIRED THAT ALL ENLISTMENTS BE FOR “THREE YEARS IN SERVICE AND THREE YEARS IN RESERVE,” LIMITED THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THOSE WHO “SHALL HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED SUCH TESTS AS TO . . . PHYSICAL, MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL FITNESS AS THE PRESIDENT SHALL PRESCRIBE,” AND AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT IN CERTAIN EMERGENCIES TO “DRAFT INTO THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO SERVE THEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF THE WAR UNLESS SOONER DISCHARGED, ANY OR ALL MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND NATIONAL GUARD RESERVE,” WHO THEREUPON SHOULD “STAND DISCHARGED FROM THE MILITIA.”[1791]

    [1791] Military and civilian personnel of the National Guard are state, rather than federal, employees and the Federal Government is thus not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for their negligence. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965).

    THE MILITIA CLAUSES DO NOT CONSTRAIN CONGRESS IN RAISING AND SUPPORTING A NATIONAL ARMY. THE COURT HAS APPROVED THE SYSTEM OF “DUAL ENLISTMENT,” UNDER WHICH PERSONS ENLISTED IN STATE MILITIA (NATIONAL GUARD) UNITS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENLIST IN THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES, AND, WHEN CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE, ARE RELIEVED OF THEIR STATUS IN THE STATE MILITIA. CONSEQUENTLY, THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE FIRST MILITIA CLAUSE HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FEDERALIZED NATIONAL GUARD; THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT STATE GOVERNORS HOLD A VETO POWER OVER FEDERAL DUTY TRAINING CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OR THAT A NATIONAL EMERGENCY BE DECLARED BEFORE SUCH TRAINING MAY TAKE PLACE.[1792]

    [1792] Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 434 (1990).

    Sow when you wrote “The word fanciful comes to mind.” You just made unsubstantiated assumptions regarding my understanding, Of course like others once presented with information that DIRECTLY contradicts you arguments you will resort to personal name calling. So when you wrote:

    “A militia is an organization. To see if organizations have standing to bring suit against infringements upon its members, the Court looks to see if the organization’s members would have standing. If the answer is “yes” then the organization has standing. Vice-versa is true….that members can bring suit on behalf of the organization that they are members of. A militia is not an arm of State Government.”

    In fact MILITIA’S are REGULATED by both the CONGRESS and the STATES. You cannot “CREATE” a PRIVATE militia, that is a GANG or an ILLEGAL ORGANIZATION. So, when you also said:

    “I must say that you are amazing in your ability to selectively define and articulate the most profound of manufactured premises and then proceed logically to logical but invalid conclusions.”

    Actually I used CONCLUSIONS ALREADY DEFINED BY LAW AND BY THOSE WITH EXPERTISE. It is people like yourself that ASSUME that your point of view is one of any authority. AGAIN you are not a REAL person, you have no CREDENTIALS or AUTHENTICITY other than your own. The Readers here are getting a free education because you forced “FACT CHECKING”

  6. “The requirement for insurance is unconstitutional because it converts a right to a privilege.”

    “You should read the book titled “READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS” written by Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, it will tell you that any Constitution with any provisions separated by commas, requires ALL CLAUSES TO BE SATISFIED. You cannot pick and choose the one part and have it override the others:

    “12. Conjunctive/Disjunctive Canon

    And joins a conjunctive list, or a disjunctive list—but with negatives, plurals, and various specific wordings there are nuances.

    The conjunctions AND and OR are two of the elemental words in the English language. Under the conjunctive/disjunctive canon, AND COMBINES ITEMS WHILE OR CREATES ALTERNATIVES. Competent users of the language rarely hesitate over their meaning. But a close look at the authoritative language of legal instruments—as well as the litigation that has arisen over them—shows that these little words can cause subtle interpretive problems. Although these conjunctions can appear in countless constructions, we have identified six types of sentences in which they most frequently appear in legal instruments.

    #1: The Basic Requirement

    WITH THE CONJUNCTIVE LIST, ALL THREE THINGS ARE REQUIRED—WHILE WITH THE DISJUNCTIVE LIST, AT LEAST ONE OF THE THREE IS REQUIRED, BUT ANY ONE (OR MORE) OF THE THREE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT. HENCE IN THE WELL-KNOWN CONSTITUTIONAL PHRASE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS,1 THE AND SIGNALS THAT CRUELTY OR UNUSUALNESS ALONE DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF THE CLAUSE: THE PUNISHMENT MUST MEET BOTH STANDARDS TO FALL WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION.2 THE SAME POINT HOLDS TRUE FOR THE PHRASE NECESSARY AND PROPER3 IN ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION.

    A common interpretive issue involves the conjunction and, which (if there are two elements in the construction) entails an express or implied both before the first element. Here it is implied: “Service shall be made upon the District of Columbia by delivering . . . or mailing . . . a copy of the summons, complaint and initial order to [both] the Mayor of the District of Columbia (or designee) and the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia (or designee).”4 A plaintiff sued the District for injuries suffered when a fire truck struck her car, but her complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the rule just quoted because she had not served the mayor.5 She contended that the purpose of the statute was substantially satisfied by service on the corporation counsel; since that officer was a statutory agent of the mayor, service on him or her was, in legal effect, service on the mayor. The D.C. Superior Court correctly held that what the rule says, it says (see § 2 [supremacy-of-text principle]), and the and means that service must be effected on both corporation counsel and the mayor.6

    Sometimes huge amounts of money can depend on these little words. In OfficeMax, Inc. v. United States,7 the federal tax code imposed certain taxes on “toll telephone service,” including “a telephonic quality communication for which . . . there is a toll charge which varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time of each individual communication.”8 In 1965, when Congress enacted the relevant provision, AT&T was the only telephone-service provider in the United States that offered long-distance calling, and it imposed a toll on long-distance calls based on variations in both the time and distance of the call. In the 1990s, other operators started charging long-distance rates based on time only, and AT&T adopted this approach in 1997. If the tax code required variation based on both time and distance, then no telephone-service consumers would be subject to the tax. THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THE TAX APPLIED WHENEVER TOLL CHARGES VARIED IN AMOUNT BASED ON EITHER TIME OR DISTANCE. OFFICEMAX ARGUED THAT THE TAX APPLIED ONLY WHEN TOLL CHARGES VARIED IN AMOUNT BASED ON BOTH TIME AND DISTANCE. RELYING IN PART ON DICTIONARIES AND USAGE GUIDES, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY HELD THAT AND IS CONJUNCTIVE AND THAT THE TOLL MUST THEREFORE VARY ON BOTH BASES.9

    When there is a multi-element construction with an and between the last two elements only, the rhetorical term for the construction is syndeton. Some drafters, perhaps through abundant caution, put a conjunction between all the enumerated items, as here:

    The seller shall provide:

    (a) a survey of the property; and

    (b) the surveyor’s sworn certificate that the survey is authentic and, to the best of the surveyor’s knowledge, accurate; and

    (c) a policy of title insurance showing the boundaries of the property; and

    (d) a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property.

    THIS TECHNIQUE IS CALLED POLYSYNDETON. IT IS A RHETORICAL TECHNIQUE MERELY; IT DOES NOT CONVEY A MEANING DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE IDENTICAL PHRASING MINUS THE ANDS AT THE END OF (A) AND (B). AND IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED BY LEGAL DRAFTERS LEST, OVER TIME, IT CAST DOUBT ON THE MEANING CONVEYED BY THE USE OF SYNDETON.

    Sometimes drafters will omit conjunctions altogether between the enumerated items, as here:

    The seller shall provide:

    (a) a survey of the property;

    (b) the surveyor’s sworn certificate that the survey is authentic and, to the best of the surveyor’s knowledge, accurate;

    (c) a policy of title insurance showing the boundaries of the property;

    (d) a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property.

    THIS TECHNIQUE IS TERMED ASYNDETON, AND IT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO CONVEY THE SAME MEANING AS THE SYNDETIC OR POLYSYNDETIC FORMULATION: IT IS AS THOUGH AND WERE INSERTED BETWEEN THE ITEMS. BUT BECAUSE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION COULD BE READ AS A DISJUNCTIVE FORMULATION, MOST DRAFTERS AVOID IT.”

    In effect if you are trying to say take the 2nd Amendment written this way”

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Scalias interpretation would read

    “A well regulated Militia, AND being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    IT WAS NOT WRITTEN LIKE THIS:

    “A well regulated Militia, OR being necessary to the security of a free State, OR the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    You would be correct under Scalia’s legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Please understand too many people assume the incorrect interpretation. This demonstrates your legal reasoning is WRONG.

    In effect the 2nd Amendment ALWAYS HAD REGULATIONS AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF HAVING A GUN.

    All states have laws determing that they are only allowed to exist for the purposes of having a lawfully recognized Militia:

    You seem to have an incomplete idea of the idea of a militia, you correctly indicated WHAT a MILITIA can be comprised of BUT NOT THE REGULATIONS THAT THE MILITIA MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH.

    HOWEVER, IF ANY MILITIA IS FOUND TO VIOLATE ANY STATE LAW REGULATING THE TERMS OF SERVICE OF A MILITIA, THEN THEY ARE A GANG AND NOT A LEGAL MILITIA You should read:

    “Many individual states have additional statutes describing their residents as part of the state militia; for example Washington law specifies all able-bodied citizens or intended citizens over the age of eighteen as members of the state militia, as explicitly distinct from the National Guard and Washington State Guard.[ Revised Code of Washington 38.04.030. Accessed via http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030%5D In states such as Texas, the state constitution classifies male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 to belong to the “Unorganized Reserve Militia”.[ http://constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm%5D The Texas constitution also grants the county sheriff and the governor of the state the authority to call upon the unorganized reserve militia to uphold the peace, repel invasion, and suppress rebellion, similar to the early “Texas Rangers”.

    Private militias & the modern citizen-militia movement

    Laws authorizing the state governments to officially make privately-organized militias part of the state’s official military force vary; Nevada, for example, allows the governor to “issue licenses to bodies of persons to organize, drill and bear arms as volunteer military companies or volunteer military organizations,”[ “Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 412, section 126”. State of Nevada. Retrieved February 22, 2021.] whereas South Carolina prohibits any group from being enlisted into its state guard. “South Carolina Code of Laws Title 25 – Military, Civil Defense and Veterans Affairs, Chapter 3 – South Carolina State Guard, Section 25-3-50. Civil organization, society or club enlisted as unit”. justia.com. State of South Carolina. Retrieved 25 February 2021. ] States with military histories that date back to the American revolution may officially recognize militias from that era that continue to exist and operate independently; Massachusetts law explicitly makes the National Lancers part of its organized militia and protects the right of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts to exist and operate as a private organization,[ General Laws, Part I, Title V, Chapter 33, Section 4A”. The 188th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State of Massachusetts. Retrieved 22 February 2021.][ “General Laws, Part I, Title V, Chapter 33, Section 132”. The 188th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State of Massachusetts. Retrieved 22 February 2021.] while Rhode Island recognizes a number of independent chartered militias as a separate part of its overall military force.[ “Rhode Island General Laws Title 30 – Military Affairs and Defense, Chapter 30-4 Independent Military Organizations”. Justia. 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2021.] [“Rhode Island General Laws Title 30 – Military Affairs and Defense Chapter 30-1 Militia Section 30-1-4 Classes of militia”. Justia. 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2021.] During World War II, Hawaii authorized several private paramilitary militias to operate, including the Businessmen’s Military Training Corps and the Hawaii Air Depot Volunteer Corps.[ Stentiford, Barry M. (2002). The American Home Guard: The State Militia in the Twentieth Century. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 147–150. ISBN 1585441813. Retrieved 13 July 2014.]

    Since approximately 1992, there have been a number of state- and regional-level private organizations in the United States that call themselves militia or unorganized militia, some of which have been tied to domestic terrorism and extremist views, which operate without any official sanctioning or licensing by their state governments.[ Mulloy, Darren. American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement, Routledge, 2004.] The 2000’s and 2010’s also saw the formation of several national-level private militia organizations, the largest of which being the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters.[ Sunshine, Spencer (January 5, 2016). “Profiles on the Right: Three Percenters”. Political Research Associates. Retrieved February 11, 2016.] [ “Oath Keepers militia will attend Portland ‘free speech’ rally, says leader”. The Guardian. June 4, 2017.]

    For example the Texas laws state this:

    “State of Texas

    From 1846–1903, the Texas Militia was legally empowered by the United States Militia Acts of 1792, and Article 6 of the Constitution of the State of Texas to “TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, AND TO REPEL INVASIONS.”[19]

    From 1903 to present, following the Militia Act of 1903, the Texas Militia is legally empowered by Title 32 of the United States Code and Article 4, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Texas to “EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, AND TO REPEL INVASIONS”. Operations are conducted under command of the Texas Military Department by the Texas Adjutant General.

    From 1903 to present, some Texas Militia units are also subject to Title 10 of the United States Code, which legally empowers the United States government to mobilize them when more resources are needed than available in the United States Armed Forces for war, national emergency, or national security. Operations are conducted under command of the United States Department of Defense by the Secretary of Defense.”

    So have all gun owners registered their oath and explicitly stated they will perform as a militia under the laws? I doubt it, and that is TEXAS!!!

    Nevada requires this:

    “NRS 412.126 Voluntary military organization: Licensing by Governor; muster roll; inspection; oaths of members.

    1. The Governor is authorized to issue licenses to bodies of persons to organize, drill and bear arms as volunteer military companies or volunteer military organizations.

    2. Whenever any such body of persons associate themselves as a volunteer military company or volunteer military organization and drill with arms under the license of the Governor, the volunteer military company or volunteer military organization:

    (a) Shall file with the Adjutant General annually, or at such time as the Governor or Adjutant General may designate, a muster roll of such volunteer military company or volunteer military organization certified by the oath of the commanding officer thereof. The muster roll shall contain the names, ages, occupations and places of residence of all members thereof, and the number and character of all arms in the possession of such organization.

    (b) Is subject to inspection by the Adjutant General upon his or her request within such time as the Adjutant General shall designate.

    3. EACH MEMBER OF SUCH VOLUNTEER MILITARY COMPANY OR VOLUNTEER MILITARY ORGANIZATION SHALL TAKE AND SUBSCRIBE TO AN OATH BEFORE A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER IT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA AND WILL OBEY AND MAINTAIN ALL LAWS AND OBEY ALL OFFICERS EMPLOYED IN ADMINISTERING THOSE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS.

    (Added to NRS by 1967, 1302; A 1979, 240; 2013, 1109)”

    In effect it looks like to be recognized as a legal militia there is a handcuff regarding both what the Militia can or cannot do. In this case they all swear to uphold the laws and the constitution, which makes any one even filing a lawsuit opposing a law officially not a member of a legal militia.

    I can imagine all states have laws regulating militias, even an UNORGANIZED one. You wrote:

    “And even if it weren’t it wouldn’t have any impact on gun crime. Hard to believe the person who posted that link has passed a bar exam. Can he even read? Insurance doesn’t cover intentional criminal action. That’s why the title of the page at the link is LAWFUL PERSONAL DEFENSE INSURANCE.”

    But a CRIMINAL must get the gun from someone who “lawfully” had the right to get one, in at least the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of the weapon. THAT is why this policy must apply, because no criminal can get a gun solely through an illegal means. And having an insurance database is not a “state” database, thus you cannot claim it is forced gun registration on the part of the state. Yes the state can subpoena the insurance company once the gun is identified. But if the gun is properly insured prior to the criminal act, then that insurance policy must apply. So yes this will deter gun crimes because most are going to be traced to irresponsible acts by the previous owners. They may likely be prosecuted for an illegal gun sale.

  7. Mr. Goldstein,

    You have once again failed to demonstrate the ability to comprehend and respond intelligently to a direct question. Pasting volumes of material available to anyone on the internet is just slightly above the ability level of a chimpanzee. So, take this opportunity to try to do better. I repeat the direct question:

    How, exactly, will compelling the law-abiding to buy insurance prevent lawbreakers, who most certainly will not heed the mandate, from using firearms to victimize others?

  8. Phu Tan Elli, you wrote:

    “You have once again failed to demonstrate the ability to comprehend and respond intelligently to a direct question. Pasting volumes of material available to anyone on the internet is just slightly above the ability level of a chimpanzee. So, take this opportunity to try to do better. I repeat the direct question:

    How, exactly, will compelling the law-abiding to buy insurance prevent lawbreakers, who most certainly will not heed the mandate, from using firearms to victimize others?”

    How about this:

    But a CRIMINAL must get the gun from someone who “lawfully” had the right to get one, in at least the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of the weapon. THAT is why this policy must apply, because no criminal can get a gun solely through an illegal means. And having an insurance database is not a “state” database, thus you cannot claim it is forced gun registration on the part of the state. Yet the state can subpoena the insurance company once the gun is identified. But if the gun is properly insured prior to the criminal act, then that insurance policy must apply. So yes this will deter gun crimes because most are going to be traced to irresponsible acts by the previous owners. They may likely be prosecuted for an illegal gun sale.

    It is about time that the REAL criminals, the ones providing the guns to criminals, be held accountable. Thus the Insurance Regulation. I in fact support a NATIONAL requirement that all weapons be registered into a PRIVATE database for the purposes of requiring the INSURANCE to be purchased PRIOR to the transference of a firearm. ONLY UPON A SUBPOENA GRANTED BY A COURT WILL AN INDIVIDUAL GUNS RECORD BE ACCESSED

    Thus, the only way a firearm cannot be traced after a crime to an original purchaser would be one from outside the country. Of course, firearms transport from outside the country is easily regulated too. And so much more expensive, thus the “little fish” criminals will be traced to the originating purchases. On top of that, instead of making it a CRIMNIAL penalty, making the mere act of allowing your gun to get in the hands of a criminal will make you CIVILLY LIABLE for all damages caused by it. That is CONSTITUTIONAL from what I understand.

    Just consider this too:

    YES THERE IS A REASON I AM VERY ANGRY, BECAUSE I AM TIRED OF THE USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED BY PEOPLE LIKE PHU TAN ELLI AND WILLIAM ASHBLESS TO DESTROY THE VALUE OF THE INFORMATION AGE. AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED PRODUCE PROOF BECAUSE ASKING THE QUESTION IS NOT PROOF BUT AN UNSUBSTATIATED ALLEGATION. YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOK BY CARL SAGAN “THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD: SCIENCE AS A CANDLE IN THE DARK” BECAUSE HE WROTE IN IT:

    “I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is A SERVICE AND INFORMATION ECONOMY; when NEARLY ALL THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES HAVE SLIPPED AWAY TO OTHER COUNTRIES; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, AND NO ONE REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST CAN EVEN GRASP THE ISSUES; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or KNOWLEDGEABLY QUESTION THOSE IN AUTHORITY; when, CLUTCHING OUR CRYSTALS AND NERVOUSLY CONSULTING OUR HOROSCOPES, our critical faculties in decline, UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT FEELS GOOD AND WHAT’S TRUE, WE SLIDE, ALMOST WITHOUT NOTICING, BACK INTO SUPERSTITION AND DARKNESS…

    The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, CREDULOUS PRESENTATIONS ON PSEUDOSCIENCE AND SUPERSTITION, BUT ESPECIALLY A KIND OF CELEBRATION OF IGNORANCE”

    And he also said:

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: IF WE’VE BEEN BAMBOOZLED LONG ENOUGH, WE TEND TO REJECT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE BAMBOOZLE. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. THE BAMBOOZLE HAS CAPTURED US. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. ONCE YOU GIVE A CHARLATAN POWER OVER YOU, YOU ALMOST NEVER GET IT BACK.”

    DONALD TRUMP IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE. HE NEVER HAD ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE NOR ANY COMMON SENSE WHEN IT CAME TO COVID, GOT IT HIMSELF, AND PROMOTED DRUGS AND IDEAS THAT WERE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT DANGEROUS.

    AND YOU ALL STILL SIMPLY SAY “DON’T LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG.” I AGREE THAT THE SCIENTISTS ARE STILL WAY BEHIND IN THE COVID PROBLEM. AND IN FACT, THEY ARE HOPING THAT THE VACCINES WORK, BUT IN SOME CASES BEING DISCOVERED THE VACCINES DO NOT PROTECT LONG TERM OR FROM MULTIPLE EXPOSURES. REMEMBER SCIENCE IS A SLOW PROCESS, IT CANNOT BE ACCELERATED EVEN WITH UNLIMITED MONEY. THE LAB WORK AND EVERYTHING ELSE TAKES THE TIME FOR IT ALL TO BE PROVEN.

    BUT IN OUR AGE, TIME IS NOT PROVIDED, GIVENT THE INSTANT GRATIFICATION WE ALL LIVE UNDER TODAY. I AM JUSTFIABLY ANGRY BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE PHU TAN ELLI AND WILLIAM ASHBLESS BECAUSE THEY OVER AND OVER AGAIN PROMOTED FRIVOLOUS QUESTIONS BY MAKING UNSUBSTATIATED ALLEGATIONS AND “HOPES” THAT IN SOMEONE ELSE WILL PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. THE UGLY TRUTH IS THAT THESE PEOPLE JUST PERSONALLY ATTACK, AND ATTEMPT TO MISNFORM THE READERS HERE.

    CARL SAGAN WAS RIGHT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, AND HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THIS TOO. I PREFERR TO LISTEN TO HIM.

  9. This is unsurprising. It was predicted.

    He is engaging in this stunt to a great degree if not fully as a political move and to get more exposure. Television interviews were what might happen, though he got one or more earlier so they may not care to do another round with him now.

    Subversion stunts for political purposes — he may well know along with some others running the city that there’s no way these can proceed since they’re so illegitimate. (That they’re loony doesn’t matter to the gun control crowd, any more than the Constitution or any other fact or obstacle does.)

    Ya got yer exposure, Sammy, like Cuomo shown at the Second Avenue Subway opening and all the rest of the superficial appeal to the usual crowd.

  10. The mayor’s auto insurance analogy continues to be wrong, fooling only idiots.

    They’re the ones to whom he’s appealing by engaging in this attempted form of subversion with his infringement ideas, while approaching the end of his term and working already for his next job. This is campaign material. He and others may know they can’t do these crazy as well as illegitimate things, even if fellow subversives and idiots love it. They may already be expecting the legal team to give the city an excuse not to proceed (at least with everything), while taking that moment also to make more political (campaign) statements.

  11. NOT SUCKERED you wrote:

    “Subversion stunts for political purposes — he may well know along with some others running the city that there’s no way these can proceed since they’re so illegitimate. (That they’re loony doesn’t matter to the gun control crowd, any more than the Constitution or any other fact or obstacle does.)”

    WHAT SUBVERSION? WHAT CONDUCT IS AGAINST THE CURRENT RULES? YOU ARE JUST UPSET HE FOUND A LARGE LOOPHOLE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT. You wrote:

    “The mayor’s auto insurance analogy continues to be wrong, fooling only idiots.”

    PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF THIS STATEMENT? YOU ARE NOT A JUDGE NOR ARE YOU PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN THE CASE. WHERE CAN YOU CITE ANY CASE ON POINT THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS CORRECT? SO FAR YOU ARE PROVING YOURSELF TO BE GUILTY OF THE OLD SAYING:

    “Before Putting Mouth in Gear, Ensure Brain Is Engaged”

    ALL THE REST IS JUST YOU’RE RANTING AND RAVING.

    PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW OF SUBVERSION, IF YOU CAN’T IT IS ONLY AN OPINION BASED ON INSUFFICIENT FACTS.

    IN FACT AGAIN YOU ARE SHOWING EXACTLY WHAT CARL SAGA FEARED WHEN HE WROTE HIS BOOK THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORL, PUBLISHED IN 1995. HE SUGGESTED THE FOLLOWING “BALONEY DETECTION KIT”:

    Sagan presents a set of tools for skeptical thinking that he calls the “baloney detection kit”.[3][4]:210[5] Skeptical thinking consists both of constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan suggests employing such tools as independent confirmation of facts, debate, development of different hypotheses, quantification, the use of Occam’s razor, and the possibility of falsification. Sagan’s “baloney detection kit” also provides tools for detecting “the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric”, such as argument from authority and statistics of small numbers. Through these tools, Sagan argues the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature of science can take place.

    Sagan provides a total of nine tools in this kit.

    There must be confirmation of the facts given when possible. (WHERE IS YOUR?)

    Encourage debate on the evidence from all points of view.(YOU PROVIDE NO DEBATE, JUST EITHER AGREE OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES)

    Realize that an argument from authority is not always reliable. Sagan supports this by telling us that ‘authorities” have made mistakes in the past and they will again in the future.(SO FAR NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO EITHER MY INFORMATION OR OTHERS AS TO THE INNACUARACY OF THE REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS, ONLY PERSONAL ATTACKS)

    Consider more than one hypothesis. Sagan adds to this by telling us that we must think of the argument from all angles and think all the ways it can be explained or disproved. The hypothesis that then still hasn’t been disproved has a much higher chance of being correct.(BUT YOU PROVIDE NO OTHER HYPOTHESIS, ONLY A CONCLUSION OR A PERSONAL ATTACK)

    Try your best to not purely stick to a hypothesis that is your own and become biased. Sagan tells us to compare our own hypothesis with others to see if we can find reasons to reject our own hypothesis.(YOU HAVE REJECTED EVEN CONSIDERATION OF THIS IDEA, PERHAPS BECAUSE IT WILL FAIL MISEARBLY)

    Quantify. Sagan tells us that if whatever we are trying to explain has numerical value or quantitative data related to it, then we’ll be much more able to compete against other hypotheses.(NOT APPLICABLE HERE, BUT IT MEANS YOU BETTER FOR OTHER TOPICS THAT DEAL WITH QUANTIFIABLE DATA)

    If there is a chain of argument, every link in that chain must be correct.(THIS IS WHERE SO MUCH OF THE INTERNET FALLS APART CIRCULAR VALIDATION BY A LIMITED AND SELECTED RESOURCES THAT EXAGGERATE OR OVERSTEP ANY POSSIBLY VALID HYPTOHESIS)

    The use of Occam’s razor, which tells us to choose the hypothesis that is simpler and requires the least amount of assumptions.(SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY NOT EVEN DOING ANY RESEARCH AT ALL EXCPET ON FACE VALUE THAT IN MOST CASES TURNS OUT TO BE A MISINTERPRETATION OF THEINFORMATION)

    Ask if a given hypothesis can be falsified. Sagan tells us that if a hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified then it is not worth considering. With the use of this “baloney detection kit”(AS FAR AS SO MUCH WRITTEN HERE, YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT TESTED AND CAN BE PROVEN FALSIFIED)

    I WILL CONSIDER DEMONTRATING THE LOGICAL FALLACIES IN A LATER POST.

  12. I advise you not hyperventilate because it increases atmospheric CO2.

    I will have reduced anthropogenic CO2 emissions if my advice is taken.

  13. Not suckered,

    Was that humor?

    Did you have ANYTHING constructive to argue, or just try the old “p!ss on the messenger” approach?

    Where is the REAL debate here?

  14. There has been no real debate; you’ve just been griping and posting a good deal of incorrect and “unsound” or unhealthy material. The gun control measures sought are illegitimate, and are as likely certain as anything a political stunt to help Liccardo get his next political gig. (The test is if people see him as possibly a lobbyist. Representing whom? Google has its own people already.)

  15. “But a CRIMINAL must get the gun from someone who “lawfully” had the right to get one, in at least the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of the weapon. THAT is why this policy must apply, because no criminal can get a gun solely through an illegal means.” — Steven Goldstein

    Mr. Goldstein needs to ask himself how he could be supportive of so intrusive and controversial a policy, yet completely incapable of justifying it.

    Although there are many ways to refute the desperation-driven, but nonetheless lame justification quoted above, I opt to hoist Mr. Goldstein on his own petard by showing how useless insurance has proved as crime-prevention aid, by citing how useless it is in preventing cars from being used by lawbreakers.

    Though it is true every car used in a bold smash-and-grab theft, takeover robbery, or drive-by shooting was at one time registered and insured by a compliant owner, it is almost always the case that its use in these very public crimes has nothing to do with that owner. The cars observed by witnesses or captured on video have typically been stolen, or their true ownership obliterated by a series of hazy, unreported transfers, depriving the police of an investigative lead (the chain of custody) and the public of any safety benefit associated with car insurance (or registration, for that matter).

    So spurious is the association between car registration/insurance and the prevention of serious crime that it can be argued that were they not requirements thieves and robbers and murderers could use cars they own (or borrow). There is no reason to believe the absence of reg/insurance requirements would increase serious crime, but plenty of reason to believe they’d create fewer victims (by removing the need to steal the cars of others).

    Neither gun registration nor Liccardo’s lunatic insurance scheme will alter the behavior of criminals nor make the public safer. In fact, given City Hall’s legendary incompetence, any gun database created would quickly be hacked with the ownership records ending up on the dark web.

  16. NOT SUCKERED you wrote:

    “There has been no real debate; you’ve just been griping and posting a good deal of incorrect and “unsound” or unhealthy material.”

    PROVE IT, YOU DON’T HAVE ANY CASE ON POINT TO DO IT. I HOWEVER DO GIVE PROOF. YOU JUST DON’T LIKE IT. You wrote:

    “The gun control measures sought are illegitimate, and are as likely certain as anything a political stunt to help Liccardo get his next political gig. (The test is if people see him as possibly a lobbyist. Representing whom? Google has its own people already.)”

    YOU WROTE A CONCLUSION WITH NO LOGICAL OR EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT. WHO ARE YOU TO ACT AS A JUDGE IN THIS MATTER, YOU ARE A FAKE PERSON HIDING IN A FAKE NAME. IN THE END YOUR CREDIBILITY IS NOTHING.

  17. PHU TAN ELLI Jul 14, 2021 @ 9:09 am
    “But a CRIMINAL must get the gun from someone who “lawfully” had the right to get one, in at least the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of the weapon. THAT is why this policy must apply, because no criminal can get a gun solely through an illegal means.” — Steven Goldstein

    Mr. Goldstein needs to ask himself how he could be supportive of so intrusive and controversial a policy, yet completely incapable of justifying it.

    Although there are many ways to refute the desperation-driven, but nonetheless lame justification quoted above, I opt to hoist Mr. Goldstein on his own petard by showing how useless insurance has proved as crime-prevention aid, by citing how useless it is in preventing cars from being used by lawbreakers.

    Though it is true every car used in a bold smash-and-grab theft, takeover robbery, or drive-by shooting was at one time registered and insured by a compliant owner, it is almost always the case that its use in these very public crimes has nothing to do with that owner. The cars observed by witnesses or captured on video have typically been stolen, or their true ownership obliterated by a series of hazy, unreported transfers, depriving the police of an investigative lead (the chain of custody) and the public of any safety benefit associated with car insurance (or registration, for that matter).

    So spurious is the association between car registration/insurance and the prevention of serious crime that it can be argued that were they not requirements thieves and robbers and murderers could use cars they own (or borrow). There is no reason to believe the absence of reg/insurance requirements would increase serious crime, but plenty of reason to believe they’d create fewer victims (by removing the need to steal the cars of others).

    Neither gun registration nor Liccardo’s lunatic insurance scheme will alter the behavior of criminals nor make the public safer. In fact, given City Hall’s legendary incompetence, any gun database created would quickly be hacked with the ownership records ending up on the dark web.

  18. Sorry did not post correctly

    PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Mr. Goldstein needs to ask himself how he could be supportive of so intrusive and controversial a policy, yet completely incapable of justifying it.”

    ACTUALLY, I DID BUT YOU IGNORE IT. I PROVIDED ALL THE CORRECT LEGAL REASONING AND STATUTORY REFERENCES IN THE PAST AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. YOUR SELECTIVE PERCEPTION IS NOT GOING TO WIN, AND THUS YOU JUST PROVEN TO BE UNREASONABLE AND IRRATIONAL. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECTYou wrote:

    “Although there are many ways to refute the desperation-driven, but nonetheless lame justification quoted above, I opt to hoist Mr. Goldstein on his own petard by showing how useless insurance has proved as crime-prevention aid, by citing how useless it is in preventing cars from being used by lawbreakers.”

    Auto Insurance and Gun Insurance are not tools for criminal prevention, they are FINANCIAL TOOLS TO MITIGATE COSTS OF ILLEGAL AND UNSAFE OPERATIONS OF THE DEVICES. NOTHING MORE. BUT GIVEN THE ABILITY TO ALLOW FOR PROPER “CONTACT TRACING” OF THE GUNS, SOONER OR LATERE A GUN SELLER MAY HAVE TO PAY THE FINANCIAL COST OF A CRIME. WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE MOST TERRIFIED ABOUT. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You wrote:

    “Though it is true every car used in a bold smash-and-grab theft, takeover robbery, or drive-by shooting was at one time registered and insured by a compliant owner, it is almost always the case that its use in these very public crimes has nothing to do with that owner. The cars observed by witnesses or captured on video have typically been stolen, or their true ownership obliterated by a series of hazy, unreported transfers, depriving the police of an investigative lead (the chain of custody) and the public of any safety benefit associated with car insurance (or registration, for that matter).”

    BUT A CAR IS NOT A WEAPON BY DESIGN. SO THAT ARGUMENT IS WORTHLESS. THE FACTS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP OR OPERATION OF A WEAPON BY DESIGN IS JUSTIFIED. AGAIN, TRYING TO CHANGE THER SUBJECT. You wrote:

    “So spurious is the association between car registration/insurance and the prevention of serious crime that it can be argued that were they not requirements thieves and robbers and murderers could use cars they own (or borrow). There is no reason to believe the absence of reg/insurance requirements would increase serious crime, but plenty of reason to believe they’d create fewer victims (by removing the need to steal the cars of others).”

    AGAIN, GUN INSURANCE IS NOT DESIGNED TO PREVENT CRIMES IT IS TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL LOSS DUE TO GUN USAGE AND IN A LOT OF CASES IRRESPONSIBLE, UNSAFE, OR UNSUPERVISED USE OF A WEAPON. AGAIN, YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You wrote:

    “Neither gun registration nor Liccardo’s lunatic insurance scheme will alter the behavior of criminals nor make the public safer. In fact, given City Hall’s legendary incompetence, any gun database created would quickly be hacked with the ownership records ending up on the dark web.”

    NOW THAT MEANS YOU ARE IN FACT GOING TO EITHER BE A HACKER OR YOUR TEAM WILL HIRE THEM. THUS JUSTIFIES THAT YOU SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. YOU IN EFFECT THREATENED TO VIOLATE FEDERAL AND STATE COMPUTER CRIMES. BUT ANOTHER CRIME DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE TOOLS TO BE USED TO MITIGATE THE COSTS OF CRIME OR IRRESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP.

  19. “I PROVIDED ALL THE CORRECT LEGAL REASONING AND STATUTORY REFERENCES IN THE PAST AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.” — Steven Goldstein
    For all your cutting and pasting you have yet to explain how this policy will achieve its purported goal of reducing gun violence. This you haven’t done because it can’t be done, but you are too insecure to admit your mistake, so you just continue on as if the only justification necessary for the government to do something is that it can, which is, by any definition, dictatorial.

    “Auto Insurance and Gun Insurance are not tools for criminal prevention, they are FINANCIAL TOOLS TO MITIGATE COSTS OF ILLEGAL AND UNSAFE OPERATIONS OF THE DEVICES.” — Steven Goldstein
    In an article about reducing gun violence, in which the aim of the plan in question is identified as such, you continue to cling to the contentious and unresolvable issue of the plan’s legality. This constitutes a tacit admission on your part that you can’t defend the plan’s purported aim.

    “THE FACTS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP OR OPERATION OF A WEAPON BY DESIGN IS JUSTIFIED.” — Steven Goldstein
    What has any of this, what you describe as a “financial tool,” to do with irresponsible ownership of a firearm. You’re confusing yourself. Either it’s a plan to reduce violence or it’s nothing more than a plan to tax gun owners who’ve committed no crimes for the unfortunate existence of gun-related crimes. Using that logic, then insurance should be demanded of owners of all implements used in violent crimes (knives, clubs, hatchets, hammers, household chemicals, etc.).

    “GUN INSURANCE IS NOT DESIGNED TO PREVENT CRIMES IT IS TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL LOSS DUE TO GUN USAGE AND IN A LOT OF CASES IRRESPONSIBLE, UNSAFE, OR UNSUPERVISED USE OF A WEAPON. AGAIN, YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. “ — Steven Goldstein
    If it’s not designed to prevent crimes then why did you bother, in a previous post, to justify it on that basis using that moronic concoction about chain of custody? Again, the subject of the article to which we are commenting on is crime prevention, thus it is you who keep changing the subject.

    “NOW THAT MEANS YOU ARE IN FACT GOING TO EITHER BE A HACKER OR YOUR TEAM WILL HIRE THEM.” — Steven Goldstein
    I will now add paranoid to your diagnostic dossier.

  20. Important to note that NOTHING in Liccardo’s proposal shows evidence of reducing firearms crime. Millions have been spent by DOJ and foundations to identify such programs. Project Ceasefire is but one. No silver bullets, but some have shown significant reductions.

    Meanwhile, no increased funding for SJPD or signs of life since 2017 in the Mayor’s Gang Prevention task force.

    Let’s not forget that Liccardo’s 2019 gun control effort included city-provided insurance should SJ firearms owners not have it. The proposal was quietly dropped in his 2021 grand-standing proposal.

    Why? Because such insurance isn’t available. SJ explored offering it in 2019 and quickly realized it would make the Hayes Mansion purchase and Redevelopment Agency boondoggles look like petty cash loses in comparison.

  21. TAXPAYER you wrote:

    “Important to note that NOTHING in Liccardo’s proposal shows evidence of reducing firearms crime. Millions have been spent by DOJ and foundations to identify such programs. Project Ceasefire is but one. No silver bullets, but some have shown significant reductions.”

    This program is to mitigate the COSTS of both CRIME and IRRESPONSIBLE USE OF A FIREARM. NOTHING MORE You wrote:

    “Meanwhile, no increased funding for SJPD or signs of life since 2017 in the Mayor’s Gang Prevention task force.”

    I CAN’T ARGUE WITH THIS ONE. You wrote:

    “Let’s not forget that Liccardo’s 2019 gun control effort included city-provided insurance should SJ firearms owners not have it. The proposal was quietly dropped in his 2021 grand-standing proposal.

    Why? Because such insurance isn’t available. SJ explored offering it in 2019 and quickly realized it would make the Hayes Mansion purchase and Redevelopment Agency boondoggles look like petty cash loses in comparison.”

    THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE REALLY WRONG HER IS ONE VENDOR (https://californiafirearminsurance.com/california-firearm-liability/) OFFERING INSURANCE FOR $347 A YEAR, AND THIS VENDOR (https://locktonaffinityoutdoor.com/lawful-defense/?keyword=gun%20insurance&segmentcode=hfa03610&gclid=CjwKCAjwlrqHBhByEiwAnLmYULsuzCYYWK_ob4SMKLkGOczdThGr0iCy4g4Kop0qLn574t20OlFLRBoCcmYQAvD_BwE) THAT TOPS OFF AT $265 A YEAR, AND THIS VENDOR (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/uscca-info/membership/promo/?tID=605e0266eb29b&utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=13433562946&utm_term=firearm%20liability&utm_content=membership&utm_purpose=direct+sales&gclid=CjwKCAjwlrqHBhByEiwAnLmYUDHOBY_odlSfpRs94COMIPdcSeqWeU4ASr9ByvJskAiBtCoXnSl-4hoCApAQAvD_BwE) OFFERING INSURANCE AT$299 TO $499 A YEAR.

    SAN JOSE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN ANY CASE.

  22. Bemused,

    I use the ALL CAPS sometimes t make it easier to seperate my voice with the included text, to show how I addrees the points made, in in MANY cases completely disprove.

    Is that all you can do, argue about my posting style?

  23. Mr. Goldstein, Please check your facts. The insurance offerings you mention DO NOT satisfy Liccardo’s “social tax” proposal. Neither do any other insurance products such as auto insurance or health insurance.

    More die in vehicular incidents each year than by firearms in the US. Latest figures: 36,120 vehicle fatalities v. 13,958 non-suicide gun deaths. This figure includes justifiable homicide by law enforcement and self-defense. Suicides account for about 2/3rds of firearms fatalities. Banning firearms has not impacted the suicide rate in other countries.

    A much larger problem is drug abuse -over 90,000 deaths per year. Medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death – over 250,000 per year. Liccardo should be advocating a “social tax” on pharmaceuticals and health care were he not disingenuous. Facts matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *