A set of proposals moved forward during a Tuesday, October 15 City Council committee meeting that may cause law-abiding registered gun owners in Sacramento to pay a “harm reduction fee” and face additional restrictions. The measure is said to have surfaced after a recent spike in shootings, with supporters parading out their foolishness by claiming the fees and restrictions would somehow reduce gun violence.
Council clowns Lisa Kaplan and Mayor Darrell Steinberg announced the proposals a week prior, which include banning minors from entering gun stores and prohibiting the sale of firearms at home-based businesses. These halfwitted measures do absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence as a child entering a gun store can not purchase a firearm, and a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) is required to conduct identical paperwork and background checks with all the same regulations whether they are a home-based business or a brick and mortar.
The city is also considering charging gun owners harm reduction fees, requiring a $25 annual tax per every firearm owned, an absurd and frankly unconstitutional measure. Dan Reid, managing director of State & Local Affairs at the National Rifle Association is based in Sacramento and oversees the organization’s lobbying efforts. Ried aptly points out that charging a $25 annual fee for each gun owned would quickly add up for hunters, recreational shooters and collectors, making firearm ownership and related hobbies cost-prohibitive. For far-left extremists, however, I’m pretty sure that’s the point.
“They’re going to be tasked with this annual punitive tax, essentially, for exercising a constitutional right,” Reid said.
Sacramento is also talking about requiring gun owners to maintain liability insurance to “cover accidents,” another measure that Reid correctly points out will not prevent gun violence and only serves to cause a financial burden upon residents who follow existing laws. There is zero connection between this requirement and actually preventing criminals from illegally obtaining firearms for nefarious activity.
“People that are engaging in violent activities are never gonna have this insurance…And even if they did have this type of insurance, it would never cover that type of activity, right? It’s gonna be outside the mark,” Reid said in an interview.
San Jose passed similar insurance and harm reduction fee policies two years ago. While a federal court dismissed lawsuits from the National Association for Gun Rights and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association arguing the policy violates the Second Amendment, the court ruled procedurally, saying they could sue again once the city actually charges the harm reduction fees. Such rulings do not consider the passing of the law itself as a violation, instead waiting for the real breach that occurs with implementation.
The city’s law and legislation committee instructed staff to bring the proposals to the full council for consideration rather than bringing them back for review first. This fast-tracking occurred at the behest of family members of those killed in the 2022 mass shooting on K Street who pushed the committee to move quickly.
Stop reading here if you’re the sensitive type because I’m going to lay out some brutal truth. This is The Truth About Guns after all.
Deborah Grimes, whose son Greg Najee Grimes was killed in a 2022 Fourth of July shooting, told the committee she has met many other families who have lost loved ones in shootings and that she believes the proposals will save lives.
“The throughline is that all of these murders are senseless gun violence,” said Grimes during the meeting.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news Deborah, but these proposals would have done absolutely nothing to save your son’s life. Greg Najee Grimes, an assistant football coach at Inderkum High School, was tragically murdered by a multi-time offender, Tahje Michael, who was finally brought to justice after an appearance on America’s Most Wanted. Below is a photo of Michael. You judge for yourself if this looks like the type of guy who carries liability insurance on his guns.
Leniency for multi-time offenders and liberal district attorneys, judges, parole boards and legislators giving free passes to violent criminals are to blame for Grimes’ murder, not the law-abiding gun owners whom you wish to punish Ms. Grimes. I’m terribly sorry for the loss of your son who, by all accounts, will be sorely missed and was a beloved member of the community, however, tragedy is no excuse for ignorance, both of which are now your burden to bear.
The K Street murders were the result of a gang-related shooting between rival gangs. The abject idiocy that goes into thinking these gangs may reconsider their violent ways because they don’t want their Bloods and Crips insurance premiums to go up is too much to comprehend. Are human beings really this stupid? I’m choosing to believe that they just can’t let a tragedy go to waste when it comes to their disarmament agenda, assuming the general public is too dumb to notice.
Insurance for guns? Lol I rarely ever hear about thugs having insurance for cars for the times they are actually the vehicle’s owner.
Nothing new…Sleazy discrimination schemes circle back to History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is Rooted in Racism and Genocide.
Not this time. This legislation discriminates against all LEGAL gun owners, black, white or any other color in the city of Sacramento. It seems to me, off the cuff, that the insurance requirement cannot be imposed on nonresidents who legally bring firearms into the city. The criminal class will be unaffected, thus proving that the purpose of these laws is to discourage the legal ownership of firearms and nothing else. That this is so is unsurprising. Steinberg was a huge anti-gunner when he was in the Legislature, and when the then-Sheriff of Sacramento County was issuing CCWs on shall issue basis (under state law providing for may issue) Steinberg tried to raise the cost of CCWs too high for most people to afford them, among other nefarious gun ban schemes. For him to pull a stunt like this is true to form.
“You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at once.”
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Maybe every Dem in this council should instead adopt a thug. Adopting murderers, assaulters, car jackers, etc., will most definitely lower crime among the tax payers.
Progressivism and totalitarianism go hand in hand.
‘If fascism comes to America it will come in the guise of liberalism.’
Par for the course.
The only plan to stop lunacy like this is to hold these officials punitively liable for a conspiracy to violate your rights.
Can’t. They have legislative immunity.
“Are human beings really this stupid?”
Sadly, a very large percentage of the population really is that stupid.
Along similar lines, a large percentage of the population is horribly uninformed. And a large percentage of the population operates on emotion rather than intelligence and knowledge. Finally, we have to acknowledge that a significant percentage of the population is intelligent, well-informed, operates on intelligence plus knowledge, and is simply evil.
In other words a LOT of people are a huge liability to you personally and to society as a whole. Plan accordingly.
Damn painful lesson to learn re population distribution and averages.
Cutting off children from gun stores is to shut off a normal part of America so people will stop viewing guns as normal. The action has a purpose.
As usual, the claim of crime reduction if these laws are passed. But no explanation offered as to how.
If perhaps the violent offenders were held responsible instead of the law abiding, there is a reasonable chance violent crimes may be reduced.
punish the law abiding for the sins of the criminal
this is what Democrats do and they’re very good at it.
How about a $1000ea tax on an individual who, identifes as “minority”, found in possession of a stolen gun. Doubles if doesn’t know their sex.
@Darwin, I beg of you to stop using the leftist idealological propaganda phrase “gun violence”. An inanimate object can commit no violence.
Instead, in future articles please pay attention to write something like “voilent act committed with a firearm” or “criminal misuse of a weapon” or similar as more accurate and factual statements.
Otherwise, great work. I like your articles and they are one reason I come back to TTAG almost daily.
When you try to pass these laws I stop caring about your dead kid