 Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. The impudence, the audacity, the unmitigated gall of those Knuckleheads of Liberty podcasters daring to voice opinions outside the mainstream of accepted thought. Listen, if you dare, it's angry, it's funny, it's even sometimes sad, but it's always based on freedom and justice as you will see. Here's our host, Jason McPhee. Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. We are coming at you on May 17, 2002, and this is a special edition, a second of two parts with Sam Burides of Gun Owners of California. I said there's so much stuff out there with these crazy both California national administrations. It's got us all triggered enough to really focus in on gun issues and gun ownership issues for this in the last show. But before we get into that, let me reintroduce you to our panel again. In our upper left-hand corner, we have Leon, the word Rathwaite last word in Liberty. He is a retired engineer from the state of California. In our upper right-hand corner, we have our screaming eagle of freedom, Tim Everett. He is a pilot in the state of California. In our lower left-hand corner, we have our special guest today, and that's Sam Burides of Gun Owners of California here to talk to us about some of these really interesting issues on guns. And my name is Jason McPhee and I'll be your host today. So, you know, this is kind of an interesting one, this first topic we're going to jump into on this show. And that's ensuring your way to gun safety. And this is something that's popped up in California recently in San Jose. And they recently voted, I believe their city council, I think it was that voted on it, and they had said that, you know what, we're going to try and put some insurance and I guess tax on the guns in order to help deal with, I guess, the gun violence issues or something. I'm not quite sure of exactly how they think that's going to solve it all, but unfortunately, we have Sam here to talk to us about it. And it did pass. That article said, you know, I guess it was up for a vote, but you know, here we have another article said it actually did pass in February of this year. So this is, you know, really going to say, hey, you know, gun owners have to carry special liability insurance. You know, I actually kind of, from a market perspective, I like the idea of pricing risk, but I tell you, this seems to have a whole lot of problems when you really think about it. And Sam, why don't you tell us a little more about it? Sure, Mayor Liccardo of San Jose sold this as a requirement that people by gun owners are being required to have liability insurance to be able to pay for the results of gun shootings. And ultimately, we pointed out to him and the media finally accepted the fact that even he agreed that, well, you can't actually require people to buy liability insurance to pay for a criminal act. So this liability insurance isn't going to go towards paying for the victims of gun shooting. So this was just kind of a lost leader that he had. And as you can imagine, this is another precursor requirement where the government is requiring somebody to do something before they can exercise an enumerated constitutional right, a right that is in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. But no, it's not yours until you buy liability insurance in order to be able to pay for the results of gunshot victims. You know, waiting periods so that we can make sure that you are a law abiding citizen before you exercise a constitutional right. So Mayor Liccardo use this as a, you know, it's basically a campaign ploy. There's several lawsuits that are in the process of being filed or have been filed to challenge this wholly unconstitutional issue. You can't buy, there is no insurance policy that you can buy that's going to pay for the misuse of a firearm. It doesn't exist. Exactly. You know, but Jason, I was a little bit confused by your statement. You say this is a market price and out risk, which is maybe true in a sense. But what we have here going on, what do you have here going on is that the criminal is the one who's going to commit a criminal act. But the gun owner, a law abiding gun owner is one who's going to be paying the price for the liability insurance. I don't see how that is the market is working efficiently here. If this is allowed to go through, I don't see that at all. Well, I think that the issue would be, and Tim, I'll let you in. I just wanted to answer Leon real quick here, but I think the issue is if it were truly something like, let's say for instance, you were managing explosives on your property or something, and you had to have insurance so that your neighbor, in case something blew up and it damaged your neighbor's property, maybe you could see some kind of a parallel there. But this is something kind of weirdly different. And like Sam was saying, it totally ties into the aspect of a criminal here. And one of the questions I had as well, too, is have they even talked about pricing? I mean, what kind of pricing would they even have to do with this? Because I know when they talk about environmental regulations, they talk about like pricing of like putting $10 million per life on a lot of regulations that go through. How would you even begin to put the insurance on a handgun if they even put a pricing on that? Tim, were you going to say something before I respond? I don't know. Go ahead and answer that one, Sam. They ultimately admitted because every lawyer, every consultant to the city council pointed out, hey, guys, you can't, there is no insurance policy that will pay for the criminal misuse of a firearm. So the best you can do is require them to have what is equivalent to an umbrella policy in case they have an accident. It was not a malicious or illegal use of a firearm and an accident occurred. But most insurance policies have riders that exclude accidents with firearms. It would be analogous to requiring people to get insurance for the misuse of driving a vehicle. Now, most automobile policies for accidents, they're all covered and then if you're partially at fault, they graduate that, you know, you're 20% at fault, the other person's 80% at fault. But they will not cover, their policies will not cover the actual misuse of a vehicle. When you commit an act with a vehicle, you run into a business or run over people on purpose or you drive drunk. And I was just thinking of NOSHA or wherever that was up in Wisconsin where the guy drove through, I think it was a stolen vehicle, and he drove through a crowd. And I mean, $50,000 liability is probably the minimum somebody had to have on that car, maybe $100,000. That couldn't even begin to cover the damage that that guy would have done in that parade. True. Sorry, go ahead. I just want to bring that up since you brought that car up. I think the insurance companies would say, you know what, we're not responsible for paying anything as a result of that criminal act. This was not an accident. It was an intentional act. And, you know, you're on your own buddy, you're outside of the policy rules and guidelines. So tough toast that we're not covering that. So, and whether it's insurance, whether it's San Jose requiring all residents of the city of San Jose to pay a fee if they are gun owners as so that they can exercise the privilege of owning guns within the city of San Jose. That's another one of these precursor conditions on the exercising of a constitutional right, clearly, clearly unconstitutional. And the mayor knows it. And he's willing to spend millions of dollars in San Jose, the city of San Jose resources out of their budget to fight this in court, knowing full well that he's going to have his rear end handed to him in a legal basket. He's going to lose and he knows it. So this is an egotistical politician who's using this to try to score brownie points for his eventual run for Congress or governor or emperor or king, whatever it is that he wants to do in the future. He is a small time tyrant and he wants to take that to higher levels. Yeah, I like that. I like that. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I like that analogy, a lost leader of an act because he's just going to use that. He's going to reach into there. You know, if it wasn't for those terrible Republicans, I would have been able to pass this gun insurance, gun owners insurance thing, and then we would have solved all our problems. Life would have been just a pool of cherries. But now those evil Republicans, that's why you need to elect me. Yeah, definitely. Leon, what were you going to say? Yeah, but all of this, thank you. All of this gets back to the issue of the government trying to make us get their permission, the government's permission for us to exercise our enumerated constitutional right. This is really problematic. I think this could not withstand a constitutional scrutiny. It will not stand. I don't think so. 100%. I agree. I agree. And as we discussed previously, these rights were not granted to us by government. They were enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because they pre-existed the existence of this country. These rights are human rights that are God-given or by our creator, as they said, in the Declaration of Independence. And they wanted to make sure, I mean, there were, some of our founding fathers are saying, we don't need to do this because everybody knows what rights are and what God-given rights are. And thankfully, there were a bunch of knuckleheads back then who said, hey, listen, in generations to come, they're going to forget about the sting of sacrifice in revolting against a tyrannical government. They're going to forget about what liberty and freedom is, and they're going to infringe on our rights and tyrannical rise again. So we want to enshrine at least these 10 rights that pre-existed the Constitution and cannot be taken away by government because they were not granted by government. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always and forever.