What’s the crime rate in San Jose, California? It’s actually not that bad,a 15, at least for a California city not that far away from San Francisco and Oakland. So, why this focus on creating prohibitive rules against law abiding citizens?
San Jose Moves to Require Gun Owners to Have Insurance and Pay Annual Fees
Gun owners in San Jose, Calif., may soon be required to carry liability insurance and to pay an annual fee for suicide prevention and other safety programs intended to reduce gun violence.
Members of the San Jose City Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of a gun-ownership ordinance Tuesday night. If the measure is passed again after a second reading next month, as expected, the fees imposed on the roughly 50,000 gun-owning households in the city of more than one million residents could take effect in August.
City officials say the annual “harm reduction fee” of about $25 will go toward the cost of nonprofits that would help to run programs to reduce forms of gun violence like suicide and domestic violence, as well as to provide gun safety training, mental health counseling and addiction treatment. (snip)
What is new, San Jose officials say, is making liability insurance a requirement, similar to insurance for motorists, and seeking a fee to offset city services that go toward serving people directly affected by gun violence.
The problem really isn’t the yearly fees (though, they are problematic), it’s the insurance, which you know will be expensive. But, that’s the point, to make it too expensive to own a firearm. Even though it is rarely the legal owner of a firearm who is the problem.
And, immediately, lawsuits were filed
“If left intact,” the National Association for Gun Rights said in a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, “the City of San Jose’s ordinance would strike at the very core of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and defend one’s home.”
California is one of the few states which has no mention of gun rights. But, the federal Constitution is the basis of the whole system, and we know this is an attempt to deny law abiding citizens their 2nd Amendment Right
The liability insurance would cover “losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use” of the firearm, including “death, injury or property damage,” the ordinance reads.
If a gun is lost or stolen, the owner of that gun would also be responsible for it up until the moment the loss or theft is reported to the police, according to the ordinance.
So, if someone breaks into your home and steals your firearm and kills someone before you even know it was stolen, the gun owner would be liable. That won’t make the insurance really expensive, right? So much that people would give up their firearms. Making them at the mercy of the criminals that liberals empower. The National Association Of Gun Rights says
“We promised we would sue the City of San Jose if they actually passed this ridiculous tax on the right to keep and bear arms, and now we’re fulfilling that promise,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “To tax a constitutional right is absolutely preposterous and places an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. Do the members of the San Jose City Council actually believe this will do anything to stop crime?”
The National Foundation for Gun Rights sent a cease and desist letter to the San Jose City Council on July 15th, 2021 urging the city to reject the proposed ordinance.”
A right that you have to pay a tax to exercise is not a right at all. You would not dream of imposing a tax to attend a church or to disseminate or read a newspaper, which are protected by the First Amendment,” said Hannah Hill, Policy Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “This is why the Foundation exists – to stand up to bullies like the City of San Jose and their tyrannical ordinance which will harm law-abiding citizens and set an ugly precedent for gun control laws all across the nation.”
This will end up in the Supreme Court.
Read: San Jose Looks To Require Gun Insurance And Yearly Fees, Immediately Sued »
Following reports that liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer 
President Biden is acting as leader of the free world, combatting Russian aggression against Ukraine. Working closely with political and military leaders of the NATO alliance, and mobilizing economic and military deterrents to avoid another European war, Biden has hit his stride seeking to construct a multifaceted and multinational policy that, to his credit, has a reasonable chance of success.
A major culprit is the lack of a federal occupational heat safety standard. Unlike other workplace hazards with their own specific and enforceable rules, such as 
When the coronavirus pandemic first swept Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf closed stores and schools and ordered millions of citizens to stay home. Even four months into the crisis in 2020, all but “life-sustaining” businesses in much of the state were locked down.
…..Spurred by a court order, the Biden administration is proposing long-awaited updates to energy-efficiency standards for manufactured homes that it projects will save mobile-home owners thousands of dollars and prevent millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere in the coming decades. But the new standards, due in May, have also sparked a fierce debate about costs, equity and the future of manufactured housing.
