Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

California Mayor to Tax Law-abiding Gun Owners for the Actions of Criminals

Friday, August 30, 2019

California Mayor to Tax Law-abiding Gun Owners for the Actions of Criminals

This week, San Jose, Calif. Mayor Sam Liccardo took to the pages of the Washington Post to tout a plan to require law-abiding gun owners in his city to purchase firearms insurance. Under the Liccardo proposal, firearms owners would be required to purchase “coverage for accidental discharge of the gun, and for the intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun.” If unable to acquire insurance, or as an alternative to purchasing insurance, the city would “require gun owners to pay a per-household fee to participate in a public compensation pool to eliminate the public cost -- a taxpayers subsidy -- of gun violence resulting from private ownership.” Further, Liccardo wants the city to explore “a measure that would impose a tax on all ammunition and firearm purchases.”

It is instructive that the Liccardo “fee” and “tax” proposals were presented alongside his “insurance” proposal. As a practical matter, all three proposals are an attempt to tax law-abiding gun owners out of exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.

Contrary to the fawning media coverage of Liccardo’s “insurance” proposal, it is not a “different” approach to gun control. The notion of weaponizing insurance to attack gun owners has been around for decades. In 1996, Simi Valley, California Police Chief Randy G. Adams proposed a plan to require all concealed carry permit holders to obtain $1 million worth of liability insurance as a prerequisite to licensure. In recent years, lawmakers in several states have proposed legislation requiring gun owners to obtain such insurance.

In pushing his new tax, Liccardo repeatedly compares mandatory firearms liability insurance to mandates requiring car insurance. Here, the mayor is comparing apples to oranges. The vast majority of harm resulting from the use of motor vehicles is the result of accidents. There are a small and decreasing number of accidents involving firearms each year. However, the vast majority of harm perpetrated with firearms is intentional.

Under Liccardo’s proposal, the “insurance” would be for the rare accident and “the intentional acts of third parties.” In other words, accidents and circumstances where a criminal steals a gun from a law-abiding gun owner and commits a criminal act.

Now compare this to car insurance. If a criminal were to break into a victim’s garage, steal their car, and then run over a pedestrian, who would be held responsible? Not the car’s owner or their insurance company. The responsibility would rest where it belongs, on the criminal. Would it be proper to force law-abiding car owners to underwrite the costs of all the potential criminal misuse of their vehicles if stolen? Or, does society properly understand that the criminal’s actions are their own and treat them accordingly?

In his commentary, Liccardo adopts a collectivist approach to the issue of violence perpetrated with firearms. The mayor claims that “taxpayers have subsidized gun ownership and the harms that accompany it.” In economic terms, Liccardo might argue that the mere private ownership of firearms has negative externalities. Under this thinking, when a person buys a firearm, they are not internalizing the full cost of their decision to exercise their rights.

This issue of externalities is often illustrated in the environmental context. For instance, a person who drives will purchase gasoline for their car. As the car is driven, it emits pollution into the air. Absent a specific tax on the gasoline or car, an economist might point out that the driver did not pay a price sufficient to reflect the cost their pollution imposes on the rest of society. This societal cost that the driver did not pay for would be a negative externality.

Private firearms ownership does not map onto this kind of thinking. The mere presence of a firearm in the home of a law-abiding gun owner imposes no societal cost. If a criminal breaks into the home, steals the firearm, and misuses it, then that criminal has created a cost to society. Society can attempt to exact the price of that harm from the criminal using the criminal and civil judicial systems. Under Liccardo’s collectivist thinking, the law-abiding gun owner who was the victim of theft is in some part guilty alongside the criminal who stole and misused the firearm.

While Liccardo has draped his proposals in flowery language, in reality this is just another unsophisticated attempt to price Americans out of gun ownership. Liccardo appeared to admit that his proposal is aimed at pricing young adults out of exercising their Second Amendment right. An article from an NPR affiliate stated,

Just like how car insurance is expensive for young drivers, Liccardo says, premiums could help ensure more of the cost falls on “folks who should not be getting access to guns” in the first place.

Such candor is unwise. The federal courts have not looked favorably on attempts to curb constitutional rights through targeted taxation.

The 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Com'r of Revenue addressed a discriminatory use tax on paper and ink consumed in publication. The Court determined that the tax was an unconstitutional attack on First Amendment rights. The Court explained that “A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected.” Such a tax targeted at gun owners, even if disguised as an insurance requirement, would be a similarly suspect attack on Second Amendment rights.

Liccardo’s proposal is not without irony, as it comes at the same time there has been a push to restrict the types of insurance available to law-abiding gun owners. Anti-gun lawmakers in several jurisdictions have taken issue with insurance policies that protect law-abiding gun owners in the event they are forced to use a firearm in self-defense.

Last year, the CATO Institute pointed out one populous Northeastern state’s schizophrenia on this issue. Moreover, legislation has been introduced in California to restrict the types of insurance law-abiding gun owners may purchase.

Far from novel, Liccardo’s “insurance” proposal is just the latest attempt to place barriers between law-abiding Americans and their right to keep and bear arms.

IN THIS ARTICLE
California Tax
TRENDING NOW
Biden Goes All in On Calls for Extreme Gun Control

News  

Monday, May 3, 2021

Biden Goes All in On Calls for Extreme Gun Control

President Biden dropped any pretense at “moderation” in his first address to a joint session of Congress since assuming the presidency.

Assault on Firearms Industry Continues

News  

Monday, May 3, 2021

Assault on Firearms Industry Continues

Joe Biden mentioned a number of the anti-gun goals...

A Civilized Society

News  

Monday, May 3, 2021

A Civilized Society

Bloomberg columnist Sir Max Hastings shares his thoughts on guns, crime, and the differences between his native Britain and the United States in “I Grew Up on Guns. Now I’ve Learned to Love Firearm Control.”

Leaked ATF Rule Would Upend Firearm Industry

News  

Monday, April 26, 2021

Leaked ATF Rule Would Upend Firearm Industry

On April 20th, The Reload, published what appears to be a leaked draft of an ATF proposed rule.

The Games Gun Controllers Play

News  

Monday, May 3, 2021

The Games Gun Controllers Play

An ABC News/ Washington Post survey released on April 28th has several interesting findings, but the takeaways aren’t limited to specific datapoints. The survey, the results, and the media coverage demonstrate that so-called “gun violence” prevention ...

Washington: Anti-Self-Defense Legislation Sent to Governor’s Desk

Monday, April 26, 2021

Washington: Anti-Self-Defense Legislation Sent to Governor’s Desk

Today, unconstitutional anti-gun legislation has been sent to the desk of Governor Jay Inslee for his consideration.

Florida Alert! Firearms Preemption Enforcement Bill Has Passed! Now Governor Must Sign

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Florida Alert! Firearms Preemption Enforcement Bill Has Passed! Now Governor Must Sign

SB-1884, the Preemption Enforcement bill has passed both the House and Senate and is now on the way to the Governor for his signature. This bill stops anti-gun governments and subdivisions of government from trying to ...

Kansas Legislature Overrides Gov.'s Veto of NRA-Backed Bill

News  

Monday, May 3, 2021

Kansas Legislature Overrides Gov.'s Veto of NRA-Backed Bill

The Kansas Legislature voted to override Gov. Kelly's veto of House Bill 2058, an NRA-backed bill that improves the ability of law-abiding gun owners to protect themselves and their families.

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Second Amendment Concealed Carry Case

News  

Monday, April 26, 2021

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Second Amendment Concealed Carry Case

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear an NRA-backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.