State looking to force gun owners to buy
liability insurance, and lawmakers are
saying it’s because… cars.
Law Enforcement Today,
by
Mitch McKinley
Original Article
Posted By: Hazymac,
6/24/2022 2:56:56 PM
SACRAMENTO, CA – California is seeking to become the first state in the US to require liability insurance for gun owners.
“Guns kill more people than cars,” Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, said in a statement.
“Yet gun owners are not required to carry liability insurance like car owners must. Why should taxpayers, survivors, families, employers, and communities bear the $280 billion annual cost of gun violence? It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.” [Tweet] First, the comparison by Skinner is apples and zebras.
While she is technically correct, the application does not necessarily correlate.
According to the CDC, more than 32,000 people die in auto-related accidents each year.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
JimBob 6/24/2022 3:05:01 PM (No. 1195797)
Following along with Miss Nancy's reasoning, it seems to me that sellers and users of illegal drugs should also be required to purchase liability insurance. After all, a BUNCH of people die each year from using Fentanyl, Heroin, Cocaine, etc., and that's in addition to all the theft and robberies that the addicts commit to get the cash to pay for their drugs.
How about THOSE people -the Seller and the Users- pay THEIR 'Fair Share'?
18 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
seamusm 6/24/2022 3:06:12 PM (No. 1195798)
The Supreme Court answered this question over a hundred years ago. In "McCulloch v. Maryland - 1819", it ruled that newspapers could not be taxed because 'The power to tax involves the power to destroy'. If owning and carrying a gun is a basic constitutional right as ruled by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed just this week, then trying to limit that right via taxation is probably unconstitutional as well.
23 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Blizzard 6/24/2022 3:13:46 PM (No. 1195802)
Just a question to ponder... if own a gun(s) and move to one of these states, how will they know I own said guns? I guess if I'm ever involved in a shooting it would come out, but outside of that...how? Why would anyone admit they own guns to any state government? I'm not talking about new gun purchases, but ones that were legally or even illegally obtained before moving to such tyrannical state.
8 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 6/24/2022 3:18:16 PM (No. 1195806)
Guns and cars just have violent minds of their own. I think there needs to be liability insurance for owning silverware because silverware makes people fat and that puts enormous pressure on the medical system.
10 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Gordon Freeman 6/24/2022 3:22:20 PM (No. 1195813)
Do you think they're gonna be able to get the criminals to get gun insurance? I'll bet the state will subsidize their rates because of the their minority status.
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
itsonlyme 6/24/2022 3:27:18 PM (No. 1195819)
Words spoken from Bezerkeley
8 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
jalo1951 6/24/2022 3:32:43 PM (No. 1195821)
I'm sure the bros in the hood will be the first ones to line up to sign up. Stupid nonsense.
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Safari Man 6/24/2022 3:46:41 PM (No. 1195828)
We need liability insurance for people who wield votes for dimocrats… the damage they do with their votes is staggering.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
stablemoney 6/24/2022 3:58:53 PM (No. 1195837)
If you don't drive a car on road, car insurance is not required. If you own a gun, and leave it in your home, gun insurance should not be required. If you are not a robber or murderer, gun insurance would not seem to be a sought after purchase.
7 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Birddog 6/24/2022 4:00:24 PM (No. 1195838)
By all means...charge people that Illegally use a gun for the property damage, medical bills, funeral bills, and prosecution costs.
Insurance isn't needed or even valid in a "Criminal Act", but making committing crime SHOULD be a verrrrrrry expensive proposition. Let s get back to a point where "Crime does not Pay". I would add the retraction, banning, of ALL Govt.benefits to any household where a criminal resides,effective immediately upon arrest(rescind-able/refundable if found innocent at trial)
UNLESS..the accused perp is a Juvenile, there are other juveniles in the home that would be deprived of needed housing/food, healthcare..in which case the arrested Juvenile can file for "Emancipation" from the Family, stand trial as an adult, and be barred from residing at that residence for as long as they are under Judicial control(probation/parole/monitoring) "Moms" will raise better behaved children if their mal-behavior impacts the entire family.
"It takes a Village" in Swahili translates to..."Those not taught in the home will be taught with the World"
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
lakerman1 6/24/2022 4:00:45 PM (No. 1195840)
There are about one million deer hunters in Pennsylvania, and each year, a few - one or two - get shot and killed by someone else. And a few people get shot, accidentally, usually by family members, at home..
My homeowner's policy protects me if I accidentally shoot someone else.
And in my 83 years, I have shot just one person - my cousin Robert, who wanted me to shoot his padded hand, to test the power of my Christmas gift at age 6 - a Red Ryder BB gun, I accommodated Robert, shot his padded hand at 20 feet, and he said it hurt, a lot.
As for the California plan to require liability insurance, I suspect they would include liability for stolen guns.
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Zeek Wolfe 6/24/2022 4:07:35 PM (No. 1195852)
Gun ownership is a constitutional right and mandating the purchase of a good or service to enjoy this right would be in itself unconstitutional. Owning an automobile is not is not a constitutonal right but a privilidge and can therefore fall under any number of mandates. Ammunition would fall into a subcategory of 'right' in that guns are useless with out it. In post colonial days it would have been absurd to allow guns but disallow ammunition, ergo the 2nd amendment and attendant or implied rights...gun belts, holsters, specialty oils and sights, stocks and grips of various materials etc. The idea of purchasing liability insurance as a condition for a constitutional right is silly, and, more darkly, a restriction of freedom by neo-communists in the Democrat party.
5 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Venturer 6/24/2022 4:12:41 PM (No. 1195860)
Just another violation of the 2nd Amendment.
It's another infringement.
9 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 6/24/2022 4:16:26 PM (No. 1195867)
I have an 'all risk' umbrella policy for about $150 a year. My money and my stuff is worth that much to protect.
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Subsuburban 6/24/2022 4:23:11 PM (No. 1195879)
Another positive development arising from the Supreme Court's opinion is that it has exposed ALL the loony lefties out there. It's easy to spot them--they're the ones running around with their hair on fire!
4 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
DVC 6/24/2022 4:40:45 PM (No. 1195899)
Apparently the new move will be to give you your concealed carry permit but make EVERTHING a "sensitive area" where guns are still prohibited.
NYC is even saying that the entire CITY should be a 'sensitive area' and even with your shiny new "permit", you can't come into the city with a gun.
I don't think this will last very long, it's a desperate, hysterical over reach but they might manage to delay things a bit until a case is decided and they have to "get real" with their sensitive areas definition.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
rememberwhen 6/24/2022 5:11:50 PM (No. 1195927)
There's a minor difference between gun ownership and cars with respect to the insurance argument. First owning a car does not trigger mandatory insurance laws. One could own a hundred cars and not be required to purchase insurance. What triggers mandatory insurance is operating a motor vehicle on public streets or highways. The owner of those streets and highways, the state or political subdivision thereof, has the right to set the conditions under which automobiles may use those thoroughfares. None of this applies to gun ownership. This is a manifestly ridiculous argument but may sound otherwise to the uninformed.
3 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
bad-hair 6/24/2022 5:14:15 PM (No. 1195929)
????
So thugs may now be charged with shooting without proof of insurance ?
Why do we elect stupid people ?
I can hang somebody. Do i need to insure rope ?
4 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 6/24/2022 6:05:05 PM (No. 1195961)
Protecting myself doesn't require liability insurance. But I would suggest anyone considering attacking me with intent to bring harm get their own liability insurance.
4 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
BarryNo 6/24/2022 6:33:48 PM (No. 1195992)
I think they already had a court case on this due to California, and it has already been ruled unconstitutional by the current SCOTUS.
2 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
rochow 6/24/2022 8:02:03 PM (No. 1196108)
I assume she means white people should pay for this kind of insurance. Want a bet that black gun owners will claim they never heard of such nonsense if such a silly law should be introduced?
1 person likes this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Anti_democRAT 6/24/2022 8:45:34 PM (No. 1196165)
I can see the illegal gun owners lineing up for gun liability insurance which couldnt possibly be valid if the gun is used in the commision of a crime. Now maybe the many that choose suicide by gun can buu one of those policies to enrich their surviving family members but usually suicide invalidates that too. I think this is a no brainer non starter.
0 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 6/24/2022 8:47:46 PM (No. 1196168)
As a retired insurance agent let me offer my humble opinion. Your homeowners policy provides liability insurance for the accidental injury by a firearm. We paid a claim where an insured dropped a pistol while he showed it to a friend. Fortunately it was a minor wound to his foot. Your HO policy excludes the deliberate use of a firearm (or a garden rake or baseball bat) to harm someone. This is just more harassment against gun owners. Don’t go to California and leave if you live there. They are fascists and want you to be obedient peasants.
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
DVC 6/25/2022 1:42:51 AM (No. 1196331)
Re #23, given your knowledge of the topic, would an "all liability umbrella policy" pay for lawyers to defend you if you used a gun for self defense and were charged for some unintentional error during said self defense?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Hazymac"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)