The Californian city of San José wants to force owners of firearms to take out insurance for the damage that their machines could cause.
The decree, examined Tuesday in first reading by the city council, would also oblige the owners to discharge a modest annual tax (25 dollars) intended to finance NGOs fighting against violence linked to weapons.
The purpose of this law is not to limit the purchase of firearms but the physical damage that they regularly cause as well as the financial cost that this entails for the community, explain the municipal authorities.
“We have seen how insurance has reduced road deaths over the decades, for example with financial incentives to promote safe driving and the purchase of cars fitted with airbags and anti-lock braking systems” , underlines Sam Liccardo, the mayor of this city of one million inhabitants, the largest in northern California.
“Similarly, gun insurance currently available on the market can adjust the amount to encourage owners to keep their guns in a safe, install locking systems and take safety courses,” he continues. .
Firearms are commonplace in the United States where about 40% of adults live in a household with at least one weapon, according to the Pew Research Center organization.
Nearly 23 million firearms were sold in the country in 2020 and around 40,000 people are shot and killed each year (including suicides).
Despite this devastation and the fact that a majority of Americans say they favor stricter gun controls, politicians have failed to toughen the laws on the matter, opponents invoking the Constitution and the protection of their freedoms individual.
“While the 2nd Amendment protects the right of all citizens to own a gun, it does not stipulate that the taxpayer must subsidize this right,” notes Mr. Liccardo.
In a press release, the San José City Council estimates the cost of gun violence to the city at around 40 million per year (police, rescue, investigations, etc.).
The National Foundation for Gun Rights, a group opposed to the proposed city ordinance, called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional,” as implausible as a “free speech tax” or a “tax on the right to go to church”.
The decree will pass a second reading next month and should enter into force in August if it is adopted.
–
