by Lee Williams
There are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country. None of them keep criminals from committing crimes, so when the mayor of a large metropolitan city says he’s got a couple of ideas that have never been tried before, you can bet I’m going to pay attention. After all, you know he’s about to unleash some military-grade crazy, and to that end San Jose, California Mayor Sam Liccardo certainly did not disappoint.
In an opinion piece he wrote (in crayon, most likely) for CNN, the good mayor said he recently proposed “a comprehensive set of initiatives to reduce gun-related harm in San Jose.”
“These proposals include two measures that no other city nor state in the United States has ever tried: mandatory gun insurance to support victims, and mandatory gun fees to compensate taxpayers,” he wrote.
Liccardo said he plans to force every gun owner to have liability insurance – “regardless of where they purchased their gun.” And he claims the insurance will compensate the “victims of unintentional gun harm…by paying medical bills, rehabilitative needs, and tragically, funeral expenses.”
The mandatory insurance, he said, “incentivizes safe gun ownership, where risk-adjusted premiums might encourage owners to take gun-safety course, use gun safes or install child-safety locks.”
Liccardo said money raised from extorting gun owners to pay a “modest fee” will be used to “compensate taxpayers for the cost of gun-related violence.”
“Many like to point to the Second Amendment to skew the discussion on much needed gun reform. And while it protects the rights of citizens to own guns, it doesn’t require the public to subsidize gun ownership,” Liccardo wrote.
Unfortunately for San Jose residents, the crazy didn’t stop there. The mayor’s plan can be used to confiscate firearms too.
“Skeptics will say that criminals won’t comply. They’re right; yet that’s an important feature of these proposals, not a defect. These ordinances create a legal mandate that provides police with a lawful means for seizing guns from non-law-abiding, dangerous people,” Liccardo wrote. “The response to every officer’s call for domestic violence in my city, for example, includes the question, ‘do you have any guns in the home?’ If that gun owner lacks proof of payment or insurance, the police can seize the gun – and dramatically reduce the lethality of the risk to the victim.”
I live in the real world, unlike the good mayor, who clearly lives in The Land of Make Believe, where fairies offer free unicorn rides, and pixie dust has replaced dollars as the medium of exchange. For it is only in The Land of Make Believe that the mayor’s plan is legal, enforceable, workable and necessary.
His two-pronged bit-o-lunacy makes about as much sense as taxing a stabbing victim for bleeding on the sidewalk.
Liccardo acknowledges that the Second Amendment may “skew the discussion,” but he clearly doesn’t understand the Framers’ intent, which forbids him and all other dictator wannabees from infringing upon our rights – even the rights of the good folks living behind the lines in California.
The only good thing I can say about the mayor’s proposal is that at least he’s honest about his true intent. It is all just another method of gun confiscation. That’s it. He said it himself. It’s another way for California officials to seize someone’s guns.
And the city officials bought it – hook, line and sinker.
Despite its obvious unconstitutionality, the San Jose city council voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of the mayor’s gun confiscation plan, and all of the lawsuits, protests and other problems it will bring
The council, obviously, needs to lay off the pixie dust.