Commentary  CNN touts San Jose as being “poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements.” At first, I had thought that the poorly worded headline must be mistaken, as there are cities, such as Kennesaw, Georgia, that have required residents to own guns. In San Jose’s case, “gun ownership requirements” means paying an annual tax and being required to purchase insurance to exercise the right (privilege?) to own a firearm. CNN also published an opinion piece by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo defending the recently passed legislation, saying “gun owners should cover the costs of gun violence.” Why should individuals who played no role in the crimes of others be held responsible? I don’t know the answer, but it seems that holding criminals responsible for their own misdeeds is becoming increasingly unpopular in California governance. Liccardo emphasizes the costs to taxpayers of gun violence, citing a report by the National Institute …