California Democrats Introduce Bill That
Would Force Homeowners and Renters to
Disclose Number of Firearms to Insurance
Companies, Government
Gateway Pundit,
by
David Greyson
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
2/19/2024 1:53:32 AM
For years, California Democrats have been hostile to gun owners. California Democrats frequently attempt to erode Second Amendment rights in the state.
A bill in the Democrat-controlled California State Assembly that was introduced on February 16th, would force homeowners and renters to disclose information about firearms they own. Assembly member Mike Gipson, and State Senator Catherine Blakespear are the two leading California Democrat lawmakers pushing this legislation.
Section 2086 will be an addition to the Insurance Code pertaining to AB-3067.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
john56 2/19/2024 2:04:15 AM (No. 1660776)
Any sane person should have left or in the process of leaving California.
20 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
JonR 2/19/2024 2:13:50 AM (No. 1660777)
One way or another, these damn democrats are going to make gun ownership illegal unless We, the People stop them in their tracks! If will more than likely get messy…
25 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 2/19/2024 5:19:38 AM (No. 1660801)
What part of that shall not be infringed does California not understand?
18 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
mifla 2/19/2024 5:21:54 AM (No. 1660803)
Sorry, I don't recall.
13 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
petrichor 2/19/2024 5:40:49 AM (No. 1660810)
Thus allowing the insurance company to deny a liability claim for an undisclosed firearm.
19 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
billa57 2/19/2024 7:21:09 AM (No. 1660843)
The Socialist dictatorship is almost complete in California.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 2/19/2024 7:38:46 AM (No. 1660855)
Perhaps the proponents of this un-Constitutional Bill would like to... oh, never mind.
8 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
chumley 2/19/2024 7:53:00 AM (No. 1660865)
I left that horrible place in 1971 and was never so glad to get out of a place in my life. Even leaving the middle east was not as 100% satisfying as leaving California.
13 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
czechlist 2/19/2024 8:42:27 AM (No. 1660912)
kalifornika isn't even "a nice place to visit" any longer.
11 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Strike3 2/19/2024 9:53:27 AM (No. 1660977)
I have one small gun, used to take care of rats, snakes and crows. Any more silly questions?
6 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
milwaukeeroad 2/19/2024 10:19:24 AM (No. 1660986)
Hatchets too? How about machetes? Any requirement to report sharpened pencils?
8 people like this.
At the rate insurance companies are canceling homeowner policies throughout the state due to the risk of fire, this would be a non-problem for most of us.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
franq 2/19/2024 10:33:55 AM (No. 1661006)
They never stop, do they?
6 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
padiva 2/19/2024 10:57:30 AM (No. 1661038)
How about every gun owner must get a legal plan which covers the legal rights and responsibilities of gun ownership?
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DVC 2/19/2024 11:02:56 AM (No. 1661047)
"force"? Uh, no, people WILL not comply, you can guarantee that.
9 people like this.
It wouldn't be long before enterprising hackers were selling this information to potential burglars on the Dark Web.
4 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
ldb51 2/19/2024 1:42:35 PM (No. 1661178)
Californians are already required to disclose possession to the "government" - registration was required when I purchased mine.
However, notification to insurance carriers, who have no business knowing, but will claim to have rights to know EVERYTHING they are allowed by law, provides the coercive threat of being cancelled. The carrier could do so because of a fabricated "statistical risk", or they could refuse to honor, e.g., fire coverage because of a "fraudulent " omission in the insured's policy statement application.
The Left is determined to turn us all into hopeless, helpless victims who have no choice but to beg for help and wait for the government teat to come around our way. And if we don't survive the "assistance", well, there were just too many of us anyway.
Oh, also see the ongoing attempt to define guns as a public health crisis, so they can turn the gun "problem" over to the Centers for Disease Control and the WHO. Given his accomplishmnets in the COVID realm, let's see how creative Fauci and his cohorts can be with our 2nd Amendment.
3 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
MickTurn 2/19/2024 3:12:21 PM (No. 1661220)
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law.
To claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence, courts have long required that the claimant must prove that they were the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirements, an issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)