People who have weapons would be required to pay an insurance policy to cover damage caused by them, according to a bill under discussion this week in California.
(Read here: Crime in the United States skyrockets with historical figures of violence)
The municipal ordinance, which must be submitted to its first vote this Tuesday in San José, will also require the payment of an annual fee to finance non-profit groups dedicated to helping victims of gun violence.
(Also read: Two dead leaves a shooting in upstate New York)
The bill seeks to reduce the damage caused by Firearms and ease taxpayer bills.
“We’ve seen buying insurance policies reduce car accidents for decades, for example by encouraging drivers to drive more safely and to buy cars equipped with airbags and anti-lock brakes,” said Mayor Sam Liccardo.
“Similarly, available gun insurance policies can encourage gun owners to use their guns safely by taking classes and installing trigger locks.”
(You may be interested in: The criminal gangs of Colombians that plague several US cities.)
The second amendment to the Constitution protects the right of every citizen to have a gun, but it does not imply that taxpayers have to subsidize that right.
Weapons abound U.Swhere about 40 percent of adults live in a home with guns, according to the Pew Research Center.
Some 23 million guns were sold in the country in 2020, and 40,000 people die from gunshot wounds every year. Despite this horrible statistic, and the fact that most Americans agree with restricting the rules on the use of weapons, several attempts have failed on the grounds that these types of controls infringe on individual freedoms.
A statement from the San Jose City Council says gun violence costs the city nearly $40 million a year in police and emergency medical response, health care, and case investigations.
“The second amendment to the Constitution protects the right of every citizen to have a gun, but it does not imply that taxpayers have to subsidize that right,” Liccardo added.
The annual rate of 25 dollars will be destined to finance programs that seek to reduce armed violence, as well as psychological attention and treatment against addictions.
The National Foundation for Gun Law, a group that supports gun ownership, described the bill as “a blatantly unconstitutional scheme.” “This is as unthinkable as imposing a ‘free speech tax’ or a ‘church going tax’.”
The group announced that it is working on a lawsuit to face the proposal before the judiciary. The ordinance must undergo a second reading on February 8, before being approved in August.
– Russia believes there is little reason for optimism in US responses.
– The US and NATO reject Russia’s demands on Ukraine, what comes next?
#Gun #owners #pay #insurance #policy #California