San Jose to Gun Owners: Get Insurance and Pay Annual Fee

The San José City Council on Tuesday took action to require every city household with a gun owner to have liability insurance coverage for their firearms and pay an annual fee.

San Jose is the first city or state in the U.S. with such gun violence reduction proposals.

San José Mayor Sam Liccardo initially pushed for these gun control measures in the wake of the mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in 2019 where the shooter and three victims  were killed and 17 injured, then renewed the effort after a transit worker killed nine co-workers then himself last May in San Jose.

“When we think about the horrible shooting at the VTA and so forth, I don’t pretend to know if we could have stopped it or not,” Liccardo said at a press conference Tuesday. “But if, in fact, we could have delivered some mental health services, there may have been a chance.”

After the council vote, Liccardo said in a statement: “Tonight San José became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm.”

“Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing  gun violence and its devastation in our community,” the mayor said. “I am deeply grateful also to our advocacy and legal partners with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP,  EveryTown, Moms Demand Action, SAFE, the Gifford Law Alliance and many others who work tirelessly to help us craft a constitutionally compliant path to mitigate the unnecessary suffering from gun harm in our community.”

“ I look forward to supporting the efforts of others to replicate these initiatives across the nation.”

Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, said in a statement, “Following unthinkable tragedies from gun violence, San José has taken action that will save lives. Our grassroots volunteers have been proud to work hand-in-hand with the mayor, city council, and community partners to help get this innovative package of gun safety laws crafted and across the finish line."

Ewan Barker Plummer,  a volunteer leader with Students Demand Action, Bay Area, said:

“This vote is a victory for gun safety. Thanks to the tireless advocacy of volunteers and commitment to gun safety from San José leaders San José is leading the charge against gun violence. We all want a safer San José, a safer California, and a safer nation. With this approach, we can move closer to that goal.”

The new ordinance, called the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, is expected to quickly attract legal challenges from Second Amendment advocacy organizations that have been threatening to sue the city.

There was some dissent among council members in the two separate votes Tuesday. Councilmember Dev Davis dissented on both items, saying that she believed the measures would be ineffective and might even be unconstitutional.

Councilmembers Matt Mahan and Pam Foley voted against the fees, objecting to the management structure.

The new ordinance will take effect in August. It requires that all San Jose residents who own a gun obtain a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy that specifically covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm.

Gun owners also will be asked to pay an annual fee of between $25-$35 to a nonprofit organization that will be established to aid suicide prevention programs, gender-based violence services, mental health and addiction services, and firearm safety training.

Sworn, active reserve or retired police officers, people who have a license to carry a concealed weapon and low-income residents facing financial hardships are exempt from the ordinance.

Failure to follow the ordinance could result in a civil fine or temporary forfeiture of a firearm, although police said they will only enforce it if they discover gun ownership as part of a criminal investigation.

 

43 Comments

  1. I understand there is a court challenge already filed. We have to wait and see what the courts do.

    But given that the City hired attornies to study the current framework regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I would think thewy got that covered.

    The fact is you have a right to a gun, but you also have a responsibility to ownership, just like any item that can cause public harm.

    I will agree that a fee is likely not going to survive because it could be called a tax. But since the insurance companies are private, the government is not violating anything.

  2. So they are taxing us if we own guns? This will be struck down when it inevitably gets to the US Supreme Court. But Sam, the king of homelessness, got his headline. Congrats Sam… BTW ‘great work’ for reopening The Jungle that Mayor Reed closed down just before recommending you for mayor. This time it will likely cost us $10 million to clean up. I’d imagine no one regrets recommending you for mayor more than Mayor Reed.

  3. Joe,

    STICK TO THE SUBJECT!!!

    I already granted that the fee is likely going to fail. But if these people did their work correctly, there is a severability clause so that if that part is deemed unconstitutional the insurance component will survive.

    Yuo may want to read this article (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2013/9/regv36n3-1n.pdf) titled “Insurance as Gun Control? A liability insurance mandate for firearm owners may pass constitutional muster, but its effect on violent crime would be modest.”

    “Conclusion

    Statutes requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance could be written in a way that would not violate the Second Amendment, but there are many constitutional pitfalls in such an undertaking. Such regulations could easily be used to impose disguised taxes, penalties, and prohibitions on gun ownership, to discriminate in favor of some law-abiding gun owners at the expense of others, or to promote overcharging by insurers supervised by state regulators eager to score political points with gun control advocates.

    Nevertheless, a properly drafted regulation would do more good than some of the other measures that have recently been proposed, such as bans on so-called assault weapons and limits on the capacity of magazines for semi-automatic firearms. Such efforts to ban limited categories of politically unpopular devices are unlikely to have any significant effect on criminal violence or negligent behavior. A mandatory insurance regulation might at least have some effect in deterring negligence, though it would probably not be very great. Although such regulations hardly deserve to be among the highest of legislative priorities, they would increase the chances that those who suffer accidental injuries at the hands of negligent gun-owners would receive some compensation. If legislators who feel driven to “do something” about guns could be persuaded to adopt properly drafted mandatory liability insurance laws instead of other measures that are ineffective or unconstitutional (or both), that would be a better outcome for both public safety and individual liberty.”

    In effect if the CATO institute can agree to this, it looks good to me. Given that they are a libertarian group:

    “The vision of the Cato Institute is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles.”

  4. So some of you think that an insurance requirement isn’t a violation of the 2nd Amendment… well I wonder if you’d think that a voting insurance or free speech insurance requirement would violate the Constitution. Seems many of you think that we have a protected right to a car and to drive that car wherever we want. Guess what, that isn’t a right according to the Constitution, that is a privilege and why the state can enforce an insurance mandate. This law is going to get struck down, and quickly at that. I doubt even the 9th Circuit would allow it to stand. Just another feel good law for gun grabbers that is going nowhere, will accomplish nothing, and cost tax payers money.

  5. So what if none of the insurance carriers decide to pick this up?
    Is the City going to become the de-facto insurer?

  6. I’m thinking fire insurance for people who live in Paradise. There are No insurers who will insure your home if you live there, so people have to get their insurance through the state. Now what if insurers balk at the SJ ordinance? Will the City back the policies? IDK, just wondering.

  7. Being an armed criminal, it would be a violation of your 5th amendment rights to pay a tax or have to buy insurance for such activities.
    Hey Al Capone, do you have insurance for all those Tommy guns you used on St Valantines day? Sorry buddy you’re going to have to pay a fine or go to jail.
    But don’t worry we are in a no bail state just promise to appear next June 31st.
    Idiots!

  8. So first of all. Those of us who had our CCW applications tossed and never addressed are now required to pay a fee that the VIP campaign donors don’t need to pay. Nor does the low income. Who does that leave? That leaves the honest tax paying individuals who went the correct route to obtain and wanted to carry legally. Are those who hold a liquor license and sell alcohol required pay an annual fee for the rehabilitation of those who kill others when involved in a DUI?. The only thing they will accomplish with this law is to give folks one more reason to not register or obtain a registered firearm. I could be wrong, they may accomplish more, in the way of law suits this is waisting more of the city’s money on litigation and paying those whose rights they have violated. I mean, it looks like there maybe a class action law suit headed their way already over the CCW scandal and now this. This city may go broke.

  9. Work90,

    Actually if you look at the history, any place that promotes liability insurance has not had any insurance “redlining” as you suggested. The truth is as long as an insurance company can make a profit, it provides insurance. So that is an empty argument.

    M T Gunn,

    Yes we should arrest and incarcerate criminals, but that DOES NOT exonerate negligence, or irresponsible ownership of a firearm. Which is why the insurace is there. Again a false logic.

  10. Big Nope. This came about because of all the unlawful occurrences. And who are we charging to make up the damage? The lawful gun owners. That’s like kicking the cat when your tire is flat.

  11. I look forward to auditing the “ nonprofit organization[s] that will be established to aid suicide prevention programs, gender-based violence services, mental health and addiction services, and firearm safety training.”

    They’ve been so effective so far.

    Thank you, Mayor Sam, for throwing us in that briar patch.

  12. California is the lamest state with the dumbest laws in the nation! They find every way to tax or punish law abiding citizens!

    Sam Liccardo is a joke!! Liberals will continue to turn society to trash!!

  13. Steven,
    How can you be so wrong so often. Think of Workers Comp insurance (though you’ve never been forced to provide it), when your Mod is to high, or when an industry is not profitable for the insurance companies, you are still required to provide it by law. So who do you think has to underwrite the insurance policy? But I digress, there is no conversing with you since you know everything. I will now save my breath.

  14. Work90,

    Again, show PROOF that there is no PRIVATE gun liability insurance or WHERE it has been cancelled from availibilty? And so far Workers Comp is STILL PRIVATE. You keep on “implying” that there is no insurance or that it WILL become a GOVERNMENT company. IT WILL NOT, thus it is not a GOVERNMENT TAX OR FEE. Thus the 2nd amendment will not be able to touch this.

    I already conceeded that the FEE for the nonprofit, is likley to fail because it is a government run or funded program. but the insurers are NOT!!!

  15. The problem here Mr. Goldburg is we no longer arrest criminals or incarcerate them for the crimes they commit, we just pass more useless laws that entrap and then don’t enforce them. The law has become a joke, anarchy is the name of the game, so we crack down on the taxpayers.

  16. @Steven Goldstein
    “But since the insurance companies are private, the government is not violating anything”

    Private or public has nothing to do with it. But there is no private insurance company will issue liability insurance on a firearm.

    The bottom line is there is nothing to debate here. It’s 100% illegal. The 2nd amendment is a right, like your right to vote and your right to free speech.

    Should I have to get insurance on my voting to? What if we elected a politician that created illegal laws and cost the city millions in law suits? Who pays for that?

    More practically, driving is a privilege and more people (pedestrians) are killed by cars in this city than guns. Should we have a “Vehicle Violence Tax” too?

  17. M.T. Gunn right. The criminals are free to do what they want and the honest people that obey the laws pay get stuck with the repercussions.

  18. Mr. Goldstein, Thanks for the Cato link. Note that it’s ~9 years old and much has changed. SJ has made some grave errors. We’re facing significant litigation over what’s arguably only to advance Liccardo’s political aspirations – not public safety. 2021 Homicides are down by over 22% per SJPD.

    Squandering examples: millions lost as a result of the old city hall dispute with SCC, the Hayes Mansion cost us at least a $68 million next loss, the Redevelopment Agency displaced many resulting in increased homelessness and $1.5 billion per latest City Finance report. The meager tax revenue from it will never offset the loss.

    Do note that NONE of DOJ’s Violence Reduction recommendations are in place. The BEST program and Mayors Gang Prevention Task Force have been comatose for over a year. SJPD’s response time continues to miss targets. SJPD is so severely understaffed that officers are forced to do double shifts (COVID contributed too) and Sheriff SWAT was needed to recent Oakridge mall shooting.

    Liccardo is not acting on evidence-based public safety measures. It’s about tapping Bloomberg’s wallet to fund Liccardo’s aspirations. Hire more cops – not feckless posturing.

  19. Jerold,

    Haven’t you seen this:

    There ARE insurance providers on the market already, that is just a false argument.

    Here is one https://locktonaffinityoutdoor.com/personal-firearm-liability/, which offers $1,500,000 coverage for $265/year. The fact is that this insurance has existed for a long time.

    So there are plenty of PRIVATE insurers, you just wanted to try to be clever.

    The CATO institute also said it is perfectly constitutional:

    “Conclusion

    Statutes requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance could be written in a way that would not violate the Second Amendment, but there are many constitutional pitfalls in such an undertaking. Such regulations could easily be used to impose disguised taxes, penalties, and prohibitions on gun ownership, to discriminate in favor of some law-abiding gun owners at the expense of others, or to promote overcharging by insurers supervised by state regulators eager to score political points with gun control advocates.”

    You SAYING that something does not exist means nothing, the facts are I prove that those opinions are false. THe grim reality is that you cannot fake it till you make it in this situation, where there is NO PROOF that your opinion is in fact.

  20. Wow. There is so much to unpack here.
    1) The annual fee: Will only be paid by lawful gun owners. Criminals? Not so much. And, BTW, if you are low income, you can skate? Honestly, I am not sure how this works. Guns and ammunition are pretty expensive. Paying the $25 fee should be like half a box of ammunition. Not sure why we are exempting low income folks.
    2) Liability insurance: Most homeowners already have coverage. I have not yet looked at the ordinance, but if it is minimum coverage, look to the minimum auto liability coverages. Like $15k/$30k. That is $15k for one death, $30k max for more than one death. Yep, that is super helpful. If I was a gun owner in CA, that is the minimum coverage I would buy, and would put forth the auto coverage limits as a good case to limit any higher coverage amounts. It is totally useless.
    3) And, Dang! You get a civil fine or forfeiture of your weapon if you do not comply. And, what about the criminals? What is their additional penalty? A small fine? I am sure this in going to scare them into compliance.
    This is all written as if everyone follows rules. They don’t, especially the criminals.

  21. JDBERGER, Correct and worse than you may imagine. EVERYTHING that Liccardo proposes for the non-profit is already free. SCC provides posters, education, and speakers on suicide prevention. Free counseling if no insurance.

    Gun stores are required to post advisories, trade group provide free material on safe storage, free guns locks, free material for K-12 classroom material and more.

    In response to suicides, gun ranges won’t rent to a single person unless the renter brings his/her firearm and wants to rent another to try – otherwise rentals only when accompanied by another person.

  22. WORK90, There’s some validity in your and Mr. Goldstein’s arguments. The devil’s in the details. Originally, Liccardo proposed that SJ offer firearms liability insurance after the Gilroy shooting. Just one problem: no one offered what Liccardo had in mind.

    Yes, one can get replacement insurance for a lost or stolen car, gun, and other personal property. In many cases, the coverage amount may not be adequate or available for a firearm loss – depends on the insurance.

    The insurance Mr. Goldstein references (via Lockton) offers insurance for legal expenses. There’s a concept called “moral hazard” that’s involved as well. Often it is excluded or inadequate to cover damages. Someone steals your car and kills another with it. How much will your insurance cover?

    What’s the value of human life? Depends, but $6-$7 million is not uncommon in airline crashes, OSHA settlements, involving willful negligence and similar events. SCC’s Public Health’s website claims the cost averages about $1.56 million in “gun violence” deaths. That’s significantly higher than the maximum liability coverage one can buy.

    Bottom line: Limited coverage is available as Mr. Goldstein correctly states. But it may be unobtainable, prohibitively expensive, or inadequate to cover risks.

    On balance, it seems unlikely that either of Liccardo’s proposals will survive challenges and will take years to resolve. One case (Young) has taken 9 years and still not settled. Meanwhile taxpayers are footing the soaring legal costs with no safety benefit to show for it.

  23. Taxpayer,

    At least as of March 21 2021, the Young case was dismissed and affirmed in the federal court. It stated specifically:

    “The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action challenging Hawai‘i’s firearm licensing law, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 134-9(a), which requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” Appellant George Young applied for a firearm-carry license twice in 2011, but failed to identify “the urgency or the need” to openly carry a firearm in public. Instead, Young relied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for selfdefense. Both of Young’s applications were denied. Young brought a challenge to Hawai‘i’s firearm-licensing law under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai‘i’s statute.

    From what I see it has not been appealed any further. I saw a document for submission to the supreme court, but I have not seen that it was accepted by the court. So that case is not on point.

    Again so far no one has proven that the insurance is as you put it ” But it may be unobtainable, prohibitively expensive, or inadequate to cover risks.” That is presumed facts not in evidence. Thus you need to be more careful.

    In any event if in the state of California it is typical for auto insurance to cost for a basic car about $150 a month thus coming to about $1800 a year. If you take my original information of $265 a year for $1,500,000 and multiply it by 5 to cover $7,500,000 you still get insurance that is less expensive than auto insurance about $1325 a year or about $110 a month. Does that sound prohibitively expensive or unobtainable?

  24. @Goldstien.

    First off, driving is a privilege so it’s not comparable. I think it’s obvious that you don’t understand, or don’t care, what is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. I don’t require insurance on my other rights. Rights are granted by the constitution. If I need insurance it should be provided by the government with my right.

    “Does that sound prohibitively expensive or unobtainable?”

    Yes. it is outrageous! If it’s not that much I supposed you can finance a few owners then. Not every gun owner is rich, there are lots of gun owners that are income restricted. It’s simply social engineering through $$ that is a regressive tax and targets the non-wealthy while protecting the criminals.

    Everything in that policy is already covered by a home owner’s policy, except for the legal defense. Which has always been issued through specific insurance companies and is not required by the law. In fact the state has discouraged that coverage in the past.

  25. Jerold and William,

    Please understand having a right DOES NOT REMOVE RESPONSIBILITY. In fact the 2nd Amendment did include a provision regarding firearms to be REGULATED.
    Pleqase understand this fact:

    “Does liability insurance cover gun-related incidents?

    Your homeowners insurance policy usually includes personal liability insurance, which protects you against injuries or damages that you or members of your household cause to non-household members. As you can imagine, the nature of having a gun in the home could bring liability insurance into play. You want to make sure that you carry insurance that is suitable for these instances.” (https://clearsurance.com/blog/how-gun-ownership-could-impact-your-homeowners-insurance)

    In effect even inurers state you are “make sure” you have gun liability insurance.

    As far as the state not encouraging gun liaiblity insurance, please provide some proof of this claim? And what qualifies is any law that prohibits it, not just opionions by politicians.

    In any event William, under the FEHA law your claim regarding “How about the city council deny Jews housing? Since Jews don’t rent from the city government, it will be private landlords that evict them, and totally legal.” was not only completely wrong, but encourages illegal discrimination.

  26. Constitutional rights are not subject to harassment of those who express them.

    These are small-time subversive politicians and camp followers, worse than poll tax-Trump types.

    They’re just appealing to typical “progressives” (and non-profit profits) before their next gigs.

    What a subversive disgrace as San Jose continues to fail.

  27. Not Suckered,

    REGULATIONS ARE NOT HARRASSMENT!! RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY ARE FOREVER LINKED. Again if the CATO institute a LIBERTARIAN organization can conceed that insurance is NOT an UNCONSTITUTIONAL regulation. It would appear that your just complaining, but not providing any EVIDENCE to support your complaint.

  28. What my American and Constitution Loving friends that post here have not fully comprehended; you no longer live under the Constitution. Police Power has held sway over your inalienable rights for at least 90 years. I mark the Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell et al., 290 U.S. 398 (1934) as the demarcation, but others may point to other landmarks.

    Jim Crow, Redlining, Rent Control, Eviction Moratoriums were and are built on this nebulous Police Power. As much as it pains me to concede, the Constitution is basically a cultural document, whereas populations that still believe it holds do not elect politicians nor pass laws that infringe on the bill of rights. There are pockets in the US that honor the Constitution, but San Jose and most of coastal California, certainly do not. A foundation of natural law or inalienable rights is akin to witchcraft or Sumerian god worship to your ruling elite.

    Perhaps with an originalist movement in the Supreme Court, there will be some claw back, but never underestimate the need to be liked for those willing to put the work into getting on the bench.

  29. Not Him,

    I guess you are going to argue that only the 10 amendments of the bill of rights should prevail, that is the original document right?

    Thus you are arguing that the 14th Amendment is subject to the 5th amendment. Right? Unfortuantely you decided to use your NARRATIVE to equate Jim Crow, Redlining, and Rental Stabilization and Eviction in the same group. Clearly they are not. Jim Crow and Redlining both are unconstitutional and illegal under the 14th amendment. But as of now Rental Satibilzation and Eviction Protections ARE consitutional and legal under the 14th Amendment.

    For as long as the Supreme Court chooses to not get inolved because no good case has been made to establish good cause to prevent rental stabilization or eviction controls, especailly until the COVID problem is actually proven solved, you are stuck.

    What is going on here is your “NARRATIVE” you wrote is in effect what the perfect example of a “NARRATIVE which is defined as a: something that is NARRATED or b: a way of presenting or understanding a situation or series of events THAT REFLECTS AND PROMOTES A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW OR SET OF VALUES

    In effect your OPINION is not FACT but just an attempt to manipulate readers here. NARRATIVES ARE NOT TRUTH. No matter what you think. The term and the use of NARRATIVE has gotten so abused in the last 10 years it is not funny.

    By the way I can see a lot of so called over their head landlords are still in deep trouble. It turned out that my landlord FALSELY reported my total rent to the rental assistance program. He only reported 75% of the rent cost for 9 months, which in fact was a fraud. He did so to prevent having to refund me the 25% rent I paid for those 9 months. I have pointed it out to the rental assistance program and also to the local Rental Housing Committee and the Office of the Inspector General of the Treasury because by declaring in the paperwork my total rent was only 75% the real one.

    I can imagine a lot of landlords tried this to avoid having to pay back rent that was 100% covered by the program. These landlord complained they were not getting 100% but then tried to cheat anyway!!!

  30. Not Him,

    Who are you then if your “not him”? In any case you can use selective perception all you want. But the reality is that you cannot contradict that even the Supreme Court allowed RENT CONTROL.

    The last U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of rent control, Block v. Hirsh
    (1921) 256 U.S. 135, seemed to say that rent control passed substantive due process only if there
    were an “emergency” in rental housing. In Block, the emergency was World War I, which
    constricted the construction of rental housing for workers. Things might be tough for Berkeley
    tenants in the ’70’s, but I would have trouble showing that this rose to an “emergency”
    comparable to World War I. But I noticed that the Supreme Court’s “emergency” requirement
    was adopted in 1921, during the “economic Due Process” era when the Court was striking down
    most economic legislation. That ended in the late 1930’s, when the Court switched over to
    almost complete deference to legislative decisions on economic matters. So I could argue that
    the “emergency exception” to the Court’s rule of toughness died when the rule itself died – and
    now there was no more “emergency requirement.”

    WASHINGTON — Tenants in nearly a million apartments subject to New York City’s rent regulations could breathe a sigh of relief on Monday. The United States Supreme Court, after indicating it might be interested in hearing a challenge to the regulations, decided to let them stand.

    As is customary when the court declines to hear a case, the justices gave no reasons. There were no published dissents. Perhaps one in a hundred petitions seeking review by the court is granted, meaning that the decision not to hear the case sent no larger message.

    The challenge to the rent law was brought by James D. Harmon Jr. and Jeanne Harmon, the owners of a five-story brownstone on West 76th Street near Central Park. They live on the lower floors and rent out the six apartments above them.

    Three of those apartments are subject to New York’s rent-stabilization regulations, under which the government sets maximum permissible rent increases and generally allows tenants to renew their leases indefinitely.”

    At least until the U.S. Supreme Court says so, these are the rules we live in.

  31. Not Him,

    In any case my landlord has a very bad record because he once attemtped to take IRS deductions that were illegal THe link of the case can be found here (https://www.leagle.com/decision/intco20140508e91) the case is OHANA v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Docket Nos. 16014-11, 25896-11. Ohana is a partner wirth David Avny forming a company called ADOI LLC, the property owner of my building when purchased in 2016. That case determined that there were illegal tax deductions. The case record says:

    ” Actual Reliance in Good Faith

    The general rule is that a taxpayer can not avoid his duty to file accurate returns by placing the responsibility on an agent. Pritchett v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 149, 174 (1974). It is not reasonable to fully rely on a professional simply because he is a return preparer. See Neonatology Assocs., 115 T.C. at 100 (the “mere fact that a CPA has prepared a tax return does not mean that he or she has opined on any or all of the items reported therein”). And it is not sufficient that a taxpayer relied unconditionally on a preparer; the taxpayer must also exercise “[d]iligence and prudence.” Marine v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 958, 993 (1989), aff’d without published opinion, 921 F.2d 280 (9th Cir.1991). As we said in Estate of Stiel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-278, taxpayers have a duty to read their returns to ensure that all income items are included. See also Metra Chem Corp. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 654, 662-63 (1987) (reliance on preparer with complete information not reasonable cause where cursory review would have revealed errors); Magill v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 465, 479-80 (1978) (taxpayer still has duty to read return to make sure all income included even if all data given to tax preparer), aff’d 651 F.2d 1233 (6th Cir. 1981). Given Ohana’s unusually focused attention to detail in other areas of his life, we do not find him credible when he says that he never once looked at his tax returns. And that he kept accounting records but never once made sure they tied with his Forms 1040 or Forms 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, is telling. CLAIMING RELIANCE ON A TAX PREPARER AND CHOOSING TO MAINTAIN IGNORANCE OF THE CONTENTS OF HIS RETURNS IS NOT REASONABLE RELIANCE IN GOOD FAITH, AND WE WILL NOT PERMIT OHANA TO AVOID ACCURACY-RELATED PENALTIES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATING HIS TAX LIABILITIES.

    While reliance on a professional tax preparer may save a taxpayer from accuracy-related penalties, it won’t where an intelligent and skilled taxpayer provided inaccurate information to the return preparer and claims improbably not even to have glanced at his returns to make sure they were satisfactorily prepared.”

    This is a public record, there is no privacy lost in disclosing it. All I did was Google my landlords name with IRS

  32. William

    READ THIS, IT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

    “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.”

    Since the language does not contain any ORs in seperating the the commas, the interpretation is each part is equally contingent on the inclusive phrases. Thus firearms are REGULATED. Why would their be an ATF if it was so universally accepted that ANYONE can have a firearm without any restrictions? Again , you make claims but do not bother to understand them. You must be a member of the NRA because they claim that no gun regualtion is constitutional.

  33. William,

    To also point out, if the NRA says that the 2nd Amenement is ABSOLUTE, then criminals cannot be held accountable to having a firearm, right? You say that it must be followed, thus no criminal can be charged with having possession of a firearm in that sense alone. Looks like you are going to exonerate many people because those convictions must be overturned or vacated.

    In effect you just disqualified the Penal Code Penal Code 29800(a)(1) PC – Felon in Possession of a Firearm – California Law. California Penal Code 29800(a)(1) PC prohibits convicted felons (or persons with outstanding felony warrants) from owning, purchasing, or possessing firearms. A conviction is a felony punishable by up to 3 years in jail or prison.

    Are you in fact saying this?

  34. Work90,

    THat is NOT the COMPLETE 2nd Amendment, you need to amend the constitution to remove the part thats says “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA”

    You cannot amend the constitution in any way. However you can complain all you want. You are not a Supreme Court Judge, nor an Attorney. This kind of SELECTIVE perception is the basis of the current flood of NARRATIVES being argued over and over again. I am tired of NARRATIVES, give me some real evidence?

    I am sorry to say Dave Graham, that somehow your email was sent to my browser. You operate Graham Contracting an asphalt service rright? Please I did not do anything, there must be a severe flaw in the website.

  35. To my American and Constitution Loving co-commenters.

    This person you humor with comments and snark is not meeting his adult responsibilities and needs to go to his room and think long and hard on how he can be better meet his written commitments. Arguing with him just arrests his development and enables his perpetual juvenility, distracting him from acquiring the resources and the character that allow him to be considered a man by the rest of us men, not someone else’s kept child.

    You are not doing him any favors.

    He needs you to just ignore him, so he has nothing left to do but to contemplate the long history of error and rationalizations that has left him in such a sorry state. Hopefully he can find some Faith in some higher being that will pull him out of his rut.

    He needs your prays, not your arguments.

  36. Work90,

    I suspect you clicked the save my name on the browser on your end, thus somehow duplicating it on mine.

    In any case Not Him seems to have run out of EVIDENCe because all Not Him is doing is personal attacks. I am amazed that the moderator here has not notice the violations of the commentary terms.

    Do you have anything constructive to discusss? Do you have any evidence to contradict mine? I am all ears.

  37. Ive had this character on ignore for quite sometime now… Its like watching the View and arguing with the TV. Not worth the time.

  38. Well, anybody got any case laws that can state this is unconsitutional?

    Make sure they are ON POINT?

  39. This is a big step and it will be recorded in history. It was necessary to do this for a long time, I think other states will also take this step. I myself would like to have a weapon in the future. Just recently writing about gun control in college, I found https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/gun-control/ for that. This precaution was long overdue. Especially after the circumstances that occurred in the city.

Leave a Reply

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