“Do something!”

The cries from the left after every mass shooting are deafening. They want action, not “thoughts and prayers.” They demand confiscations, gun bans, background checks (even though they already exist), and any measure that will allegedly “take guns off the streets.” But invariably, proposed gun laws either hurt law abiding citizens or low-income families. Meanwhile, criminals have no additional worries. If they’re not abiding by old laws, what makes the left think they’ll suddenly abide by new ones?

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo has a plan that will hit both target groups: Law abiding citizens and low income families. He is proposing gun insurance as a response to the Gilroy shooting that affected two families in his city.

As is almost always the case, there is absolutely no evidence his law would have prevented the shooting. The alleged shooter was not poor. He passed a background check. His firearms would not have been made less lethal by being insured. But these are details the Mayor conveniently left out in his WaPo op-ed:

San Jose mayor: Why I’m requiring my residents to insure guns Of course, “the crooks” won’t pay a fee or buy insurance; only law-abiding gun owners would. An insurance requirement at the point of sale, if purchased locally, would make it harder for some guns to get into the wrong hands. Regardless of where the gun is purchased, all San Jose residents would face an insurance requirement for merely possessing a gun — just as they would a car. The insurance thereby provides an additional tool for law enforcement against crooks. A prospective burglar casing a home or a criminal standing watch on a street corner may avoid arrest due to lack of demonstrable criminality. Yet if a constitutionally compliant pat-down search revealed possession of an uninsured gun, the suspect would face the consequences of an uninsured motorist, including a fine, misdemeanor conviction and seizure of the gun.

So, according to the Mayor’s own admissions, the only way this law would take firearms out of the hands of prospective criminal is through “stop and frisk.”

San Jose, the 10th largest city in the nation, is a progressive trendsetter like San Francisco and Los Angeles. It’s in a state that already has some of the worst gun laws on the books. Making it cost-prohibitive for low-income families to have the means to protect themselves is the most asinine proposal he could make. Punishing law abiding citizens who own firearms is not about keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. It’s about keeping guns out of hands. Unfortunately, it won’t make a dent in guns that are used in crimes, only guns in the hands of people who will become victims of these crimes as a result of the Mayor’s proposal.

If none of this proposal makes sense to you, you’re clearly not “woke” enough for the radical progressive running San Jose. To him and his supporters, it’s all very clear despite its acknowledged dysfunction.

This is the most illogical gun control idea I’ve heard. It has nothing to do with stopping crime. It has everything to do with punishing gun owners and making it harder for low-income families to protect themselves. This is gun prevention, not crime prevention.

Image source.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]