City Officially Makes Biggest Attack Yet on Second Amendment


The city of San Jose, California, has launched what is arguably the most brazen attack yet against law-abiding gun owners, forcing them to pay for crimes committed by those who do not abide by gun laws.

In a stunning vote on Tuesday, the city’s council — all but one of whose members are Democrats — unanimously decided that law-abiding gun owners must carry liability insurance to own a gun and must pay a fee to help the city pay for instances of gun violence not created by people who are simply exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo was pleased by the decision.

“We won’t magically end gun violence, but we stop paying for it,” the Democrat said.

Liccardo added that those unwilling or unable to comply with the draconian gun control ordinance simply shouldn’t own firearms — rendering themselves defenseless against those who will without a doubt ignore the new law.

Watch: DC Mayor's Infuriating Response When Asked Why She Is Kicking 40% of Black Students Out of School

The mayor went to Twitter multiple times to share updates about his city’s anti-gun law.

“The @CityofSanJose is taking action against gun violence with this first-of-its-kind landmark decision. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to own guns, but doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership. #EndGunViolence,” Liccardo tweeted.

In another tweet, the mayor again said his city is simply looking out for taxpayers.

“Gun violence in San José costs taxpayers $442 million. That’s $2.2 million in taxes *per gun violence victim*. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to own guns but doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership,” he wrote.

Man Awakens to Unusual Sounds, Sees Something Troubling and Instinctively Grabs Gun Before Surprising Armed Robbers at Door

If Liccardo is being truthful, this might be the first time in recent history that a Democrat has been genuinely concerned about taxpayers. The mayor, of course, isn’t being truthful. Liccardo and other city leaders are simply going after guns.

This isn’t about saving money — it’s about exercising control.

San Jose is now putting people of modest financial means in a tough position. Do they resort to buying illegal guns, now that Democrats have decided to make gun ownership a luxury for the wealthy?

Would you live in a city that forced you to pay a tax so you could keep your gun?

How many minority residents living in San Jose will pay for the city’s assault on their rights by becoming victims of crimes? The city hasn’t answered those questions.

If you employed the logic and rhetoric commonly used by Democrats, you’d say San Jose is simply targeting its impoverished citizens in what is no doubt a move to deny disadvantaged Americans their rights.

Will Liccardo next come for voting rights? Will poor and minority Californians in the San Francisco Bay area be taxed so they can exercise other constitutional rights?

There are numerous questions about this ordinance that have yet to be answered. Perhaps at some point, a rational judge will have something to say about this attempt to make people less safe while also forcing them to pay to exercise a constitutional right.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , ,
Johnathan "Kipp" Jones has worked as a reporter, an editor and a producer in radio, television and digital media. He is a proud husband and father.
Johnathan "Kipp" Jones has worked as an editor and producer in radio and television. He is a proud husband and father.