Judge decides to not enjoin San Jose Gun Insurance Law

[bushmaster1313]

In January 2022 San Jose, CA passed an ordinance that, among other things: a) required gun owners to pay an annual fee to a fund that would fund gun harm reduction programs and b) maintain insurance for unintentional firearm-related death, injury or property damage. The City was sued the same day the ordinance was passed by pro-2A Plaintiffs. The pro-2A Plaintiffs asked the Court for a Preliminary Injunction to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance until the case was finally decided. Then Bruen was decided by the Supreme Court on June 23, 2022 (2A Freedom Day).

On August 3, 2022 a Federal Judge in San Jose, who was appointed by President Obama, denied the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Aug. 3, 2022 Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. NO JUDGE BASHING PLEASE. This means that the ordinance is still in effect. If they want, the pro-2A Plaintiffs can appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and if they lose there, they can Petition the Supreme Court to hear the case.

IMHO, the denial of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is significant because it will encourage other liberal progressive anti-2A states and communities to pass similar laws requiring gun owners to have liability insurance.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I may be mistaken, but I thought a ruling denying or granting a preliminary injunction motion could be appealed immediately.

 

[CH4]

I may be mistaken, but I thought a ruling denying or granting a preliminary injunction motion could be appealed immediately.

My mistake
An interlocutory appeal of the PI ruling would have to go to the Ninth, first, but is appealable up to SCOTUS.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Perhaps the OP should correct the title of this thread to the actual city in question.

 

[Borderboss]

I don't have time unfortunately to read the 30 pages, however if the suit was brought based on Bruen, that was a mistake. This should be argued as being a tax on a constitutional right. It would be the same if a government said you needed to get a license from them to publish a newspaper. The lawyers should have gone at it from that perspective.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Perhaps the OP should correct the title of this thread to the actual city in question.

Done thank you

 

[bushmaster1313]

I don't have time unfortunately to read the 30 pages, however if the suit was brought based on Bruen, that was a mistake. This should be argued as being a tax on a constitutional right. It would be the same if a government said you needed to get a license from them to publish a newspaper. The lawyers should have gone at it from that perspective.

How much tax does the Navy have to pay for berthing Submarine Squadron 11 in San Diego. Is it assessed per missile, per submarine or per squadron. If it’s per missile and a missile has multiple reentry warheads is the tax per warhead or is there a MIRV discount?

Because they sound like they are based in Hollywood, do Cruise missiles get a free pass?

 

[Private Bailey]

This isn’t clear to me. Gun owners pay a fee? To who? What’s the dollar amount? And this “fund” to provide insurance for gun-related deaths? Insurance for who? This doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[fordson]

How much tax does the Navy have to pay for berthing Submarine Squadron 11 in San Diego. Is it assessed per missile, per submarine or per squadron. If it’s per missile and a missile has multiple reentry warheads is the tax per warhead or is there a MIRV discount?

Because they sound like they are based in Hollywood, do Cruise missiles get a free pass?

Sorry, Shipmate. You are usually Clear in your writings but this one got me. The question, as I read it, was to use a strategy of “Poll Tax” to a Constitutional right vice the recent Bruen decision. Not sure on your Navy tax example. BTW, the Navy doesn’t pay taxes………

 

[ladder13]

Maybe we can get Medicare to pay the vig.

 

[Borderboss]

How much tax does the Navy have to pay for berthing Submarine Squadron 11 in San Diego. Is it assessed per missile, per submarine or per squadron. If it’s per missile and a missile has multiple reentry warheads is the tax per warhead or is there a MIRV discount?

Because they sound like they are based in Hollywood, do Cruise missiles get a free pass?

I don't understand your point. How does this relate to a governmental unit charging a person a fee for exercising their Second Amendment rights?

 

[bushmaster1313]

I don't understand your point. How does this relate to a governmental unit charging a person a fee for exercising their Second Amendment rights?

It doesn’t
Just having fun

 

[BSA1]

How is it going to be enforced? Is it going to be treated like vehicle tags with tax, er fee statement and proof of insurance requirement going to be sent in the mail to all registered gun owners? Of course as usual criminals will get a pass.

 

[Private Bailey]

I don't understand your point. How does this relate to a governmental unit charging a person a fee for exercising their Second Amendment rights?

There isn’t much point to any of this that I can see. It’s about a judge making a decision on a local ordinance in San Diego. One city. There isn’t any federal or state law here. There isn’t anything for gun owners to vote on or urge their congressman to vote against. It’s apparently a done deal in only one city so far. Someone will probably sue if they haven’t already. The case may wend its way through the courts for a year or two, during which time there’ll be periodic updates on its progress. Where is the threat to my Second Amendment rights here? Or is it just another part of that “slippery slope” we’re always talking about? I sure don’t know.

 

[bushmaster1313]

This is actually very serious litigation regarding a tactic which will be increasingly used to restrict gun ownership

 

[fordson]

This is actually very serious litigation regarding a actoc which will be increasingly used to restrict gun ownership

So this is our future then……that’s encouraging……….

 

[Private Bailey]

Okay, let’s say it’s major litigation even though I don’t buy into that. It’s in the courts. It’s being litigated. Other than file copycat lawsuits, what else is there to do? Like I said earlier, there’s no other meaningful action gun owners can take. Saying it could lead to similar things in the future is just that same old slippery slope argument. So all we end up doing is just talking about it. That doesn’t seem to be working.

 

[paplinker]

Okay, let’s say it’s major litigation even though I don’t buy into that. It’s in the courts. It’s being litigated. Other than file copycat lawsuits, what else is there to do? Like I said earlier, there’s no other meaningful action gun owners can take. Saying it could lead to similar things in the future is just that same old slippery slope argument. So all we end up doing is just talking about it. That doesn’t seem to be working.

What I took from this thread was to consider paying more attention to whats going on in your local government.

I see my mayor and chief of police in public who I voted for "directly and indirectly" and if any of this nonsense came up at a city meeting I would certainly remind them why I voted for them.

I live in the burbs outside of Philly and the city politics are trying to extend out here. It's best to keep up on local news and any potential changes to laws.

 

[Private Bailey]

What I took from this thread was to consider paying more attention to whats going on in your local government.

I see my mayor and chief of police in public who I voted for "directly and indirectly" and if any of this nonsense came up at a city meeting I would certainly remind them why I voted for them.

I live in the burbs outside of Philly and the city politics are trying to extend out here. It's best to keep up on local news and any potential changes to laws.

I agree with much of what you say. I’m just saying most city “ordinances” like this don’t involve a public vote. An exception to that would be if the ordinance is attached to some sort of bond referendum involving voter funding. We do elect mayors and other city/county officials, but once they’re in office, we’ve given them the authority to make these rules without our say so. That’s why I say that other than a lawsuit, we don’t have many options.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Get people to show up at city council meetings