California Lawmakers Propose New Bill That Requires All Gun Owners To Get Liability Insurance

[SkyChief]

Ca Senator Nancy Skinner said that the costs of gun violence shouldn't be borne by taxpayers, survivors, families, employers and communities: "It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”

The bill would also require gun owners to have insurance that covers losses or damages from the negligent or accidental use of their firearm. And they would have to keep proof of insurance with their firearm and show it to police if they are stopped for some reason.

source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...sedgntp&cvid=38647de55ce049c5a90f65b6a46ec77b

This bill is the most egregious violation of the Second Amendment of any state in US history.

If allowed to pass, other states will follow suit. New York is watching closely to see if California can crawl down this rabbit hole.

Note: California is one of a few states that do not acknowledge the Right to keep and bear Arms, so the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights do not apply here. California is sort of like a different country when it comes to civil rights.

 

[Ishm]

I like the concept of being self responsible across any area of life. If you let your gun get into the hands of a bad guy, child etc, why shouldn't you take some responsibility for contributing to any damage caused by your failure? I am into my 45th year of owning well secured guns that no thief can access without heavy machinery, so quite happy to be held responsible for their security.

 

[HIP56948]

I own a gun. Wouldn't bother me if I had to get liability insurance. Probably wouldn't cost that much or be a big deal.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Ca Senator Nancy Skinner said that the costs of gun violence shouldn't be borne by taxpayers, survivors, families, employers and communities: "It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”

The bill would also require gun owners to have insurance that covers losses or damages from the negligent or accidental use of their firearm. And they would have to keep proof of insurance with their firearm and show it to police if they are stopped for some reason.

source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...sedgntp&cvid=38647de55ce049c5a90f65b6a46ec77b

This bill is the most egregious violation of the Second Amendment of any state in US history.

If allowed to pass, other states will follow suit. New York is watching closely to see if California can crawl down this rabbit hole.

Note: California is one of a few states that do not acknowledge the Right to keep and bear Arms, so the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights do not apply here. California is sort of like a different country when it comes to civil rights.

It's time for dimwits like Nancy Skinner to be held responsible for being soft on crime.

 

[VySky]

I own a gun. Wouldn't bother me if I had to get liability insurance. Probably wouldn't cost that much or be a big deal.

I wonder if the bangers in Compton, East LA or Chicago will carry insurance? CA is going after the wrong demographic

 

[Cameron]

Ca Senator Nancy Skinner said that the costs of gun violence shouldn't be borne by taxpayers, survivors, families, employers and communities: "It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”

The bill would also require gun owners to have insurance that covers losses or damages from the negligent or accidental use of their firearm. And they would have to keep proof of insurance with their firearm and show it to police if they are stopped for some reason.

source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...sedgntp&cvid=38647de55ce049c5a90f65b6a46ec77b

This bill is the most egregious violation of the Second Amendment of any state in US history.

If allowed to pass, other states will follow suit. New York is watching closely to see if California can crawl down this rabbit hole.

Note: California is one of a few states that do not acknowledge the Right to keep and bear Arms, so the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights do not apply here. California is sort of like a different country when it comes to civil rights.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would vote for strict liability for firearms damages through the entire chain of ownership. If you sell a gun and it is later used in a crime, you are liable for any and all economic and emotional damages that result. Owning and selling a gun is serious and should be treated that way.

 

[Court Jester]

I live in California, so what happens if I refuse to get liability insurance for my guns, are they going to come and try and take my guns away?

LOL, this should be fun-- LOL!

Guess what, there is already liability attached to gun ownership, they are called CIVIL COURTS. Anyone negligently harms somebody with a gun and they get sued.

 

[SkyChief]

I live in California, so what happens if I refuse to get liability insurance for my guns, are they going to come and try and take my guns away?

Your guns will be taken only if you get caught with them.

For example, you are on your way to the shooting range. Your (unloaded) guns and ammo are (legally) secured in the trunk of your car.

You get pulled over for a burned out tail-light. You know that there's a loose electrical connection in your tail-light, and wiggling it is all it takes to make it work again. You open the trunk to fix the tail-light and the arresting cop sees your guns and ammo.

The cop asks you to show proof of liability insurance for your guns. You cannot, so your guns are confiscated on the spot.

And the cop will probably get a bench warrant to search your home for additional weapons, which too will be confiscated.

So if your guns never leave your home, then you really have nothing to worry about.

 

[Bear5131]

I live in California, so what happens if I refuse to get liability insurance for my guns, are they going to come and try and take my guns away?

LOL, this should be fun-- LOL!

Guess what, there is already liability attached to gun ownership, they are called CIVIL COURTS. Anyone negligently harms somebody with a gun and they get sued.

Laws are not made for the ones not breaking the law, laws are made for the lawless

 

[Court Jester]

Laws are not made for the ones not breaking the law, laws are made for the lawless

Yep, and my guns don't worry about the laws. My guns know I am responsible for protecting them from the State of California. Therefore, my guns are fine to sleep like little babies at night, knowing daddy is watching out for them.

 

[Antiwar]

This bill is the most egregious violation of the Second Amendment of any state in US history.

With respect:

How so?

 

[Court Jester]

Your guns will be taken only if you get caught with them.

For example, you are on your way to the shooting range. Your (unloaded) guns and ammo are (legally) secured in the trunk of your car.

You get pulled over for a burned out tail-light. You know that there's a loose electrical connection in your tail-light, and wiggling it is all it takes to make it work again. You open the trunk to fix the tail-light and the arresting cop sees your guns and ammo.

The cop asks you to show proof of liability insurance for your guns. You cannot, so your guns are confiscated on the spot.

And the cop will probably get a bench warrant to search your home for additional weapons, which too will be confiscated.

So if your guns never leave your home, then you really have nothing to worry about.

All true, and I feel bad for any cop tasked with enforcing any of that when they could be out arresting criminals.

Nobody looks inside the trunk of my car. That is off limits to the police.

 

[SkyChief]

This bill is the most egregious violation of the Second Amendment of any state in US history.

With respect:

How so?

this proposed law undermines (infringes on) the right of the People to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights (2A) explicitly prohibits lawmakers from passing laws which infringe on this right.

No other state in US history has ever attempted to coerce rightful gun owners into purchasing a product or service in connection with keeping and bearing constitutional arms.

 

[Bear5131]

this proposed law undermines (infringes on) the right of the People to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights (2A) explicitly prohibits lawmakers from passing laws which infringe on this right.

No other state in US history has ever attempted to coerce rightful gun owners into purchasing a product or service in connection with keeping and bearing constitutional arms.

New York city , it's outrageously expensive to own a gun

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I wonder if the bangers in Compton, East LA or Chicago will carry insurance? CA is going after the wrong demographic

Of course not, but see criminals are important partners to the Democrats so they will never be charged

 

[Grand Mal]

I live in California, so what happens if I refuse to get liability insurance for my guns, are they going to come and try and take my guns away?

LOL, this should be fun-- LOL!

Guess what, there is already liability attached to gun ownership, they are called CIVIL COURTS. Anyone negligently harms somebody with a gun and they get sued.

Insurance. This is about having insurance that makes you worth suing. The state of California is just trying to provide another revenue stream for lawyers.
Insurance and liability judgements make the world go round in America. Makes your medical system the most expensive in the world, for one thing.

 

[Grand Mal]

Of course not, but see criminals are important partners to the Democrats so they will never be charged

What a dumb post.

 

[Antiwar]

this proposed law undermines (infringes on) the right of the People to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights (2A) explicitly prohibits lawmakers from passing laws which infringe on this right.

No other state in US history has ever attempted to coerce rightful gun owners into purchasing a product or service in connection with keeping and bearing constitutional arms.

With respect:

You didn't say how, you just rephrased.

Are you a 2A absolutist?

You seem to think that the 2A allows freedom from responsibilities and consequences.

 

[SkyChief]

With respect:

You didn't say how, you just rephrased.

Are you a 2A absolutist?

Don't worry about me personally. My personal views are not important.

You seem to think that the 2A allows freedom from responsibilities and consequences.

I never said that, and I don't think that at all. That is a lame straw man argument.

Fact #1) The Second Amendment explicitly prohibits lawmakers from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Fact #2) The proposed mandatory gun liability insurance Law in California infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore the proposed Law violates the US constitution, and cannot be passed.

 

[Antiwar]

Don't worry about me personally. My personal views are not important.


Fact #1) The Second Amendment explicitly prohibits lawmakers from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Fact #2) The proposed mandatory gun liability insurance Law in California infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore the proposed Law violates the US constitution, and cannot be passed.

With respect:

#1 is an anti-fact. #2 depends on #1. Your commentary seems to be hiding in a 2A absolutist closet.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Ca Senator Nancy Skinner said that the costs of gun violence shouldn't be borne by taxpayers, survivors, families, employers and communities: "It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”

The bill would also require gun owners to have insurance that covers losses or damages from the negligent or accidental use of their firearm. And they would have to keep proof of insurance with their firearm and show it to police if they are stopped for some reason.

source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...sedgntp&cvid=38647de55ce049c5a90f65b6a46ec77b

This bill is the most egregious violation of the Second Amendment of any state in US history.

If allowed to pass, other states will follow suit. New York is watching closely to see if California can crawl down this rabbit hole.

Note: California is one of a few states that do not acknowledge the Right to keep and bear Arms, so the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights do not apply here. California is sort of like a different country when it comes to civil rights.

Nope. Not egregious or unconstitutional.

When an organization wants to protest in a space, or rent out a space for a protest or speeches: permit fees are usually required, security fees and liability insurance is required often.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Don't worry about me personally. My personal views are not important.


I never said that, and I don't think that at all. That is a lame straw man argument.

Fact #1) The Second Amendment explicitly prohibits lawmakers from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Fact #2) The proposed mandatory gun liability insurance Law in California infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore the proposed Law violates the US constitution, and cannot be passed.

Your first point is factually untrue as not everything dealing with firearms infringes on the right to bear arms.

Second point does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Remember, it is about the right to have them…not how you get them. Because is it was….

Then being forced to purchase a firearm to own one (unless gifted, but even then someone has to buy it) is unconstitutional as the price of a firearm can be too much for many. Not too mention the rounds needed….

 

[MAGAnificent]

Don't worry about me personally. My personal views are not important.


I never said that, and I don't think that at all. That is a lame straw man argument.

Fact #1) The Second Amendment explicitly prohibits lawmakers from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Fact #2) The proposed mandatory gun liability insurance Law in California infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore the proposed Law violates the US constitution, and cannot be passed.

It can get passed, especially in stupid blue states like California and New York, however it will not survive it's first SCOTUS challenge.

 

[Roadvirus]

Ca Senator Nancy Skinner said that the costs of gun violence shouldn't be borne by taxpayers, survivors, families, employers and communities: "It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”

The bill would also require gun owners to have insurance that covers losses or damages from the negligent or accidental use of their firearm. And they would have to keep proof of insurance with their firearm and show it to police if they are stopped for some reason.

source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...sedgntp&cvid=38647de55ce049c5a90f65b6a46ec77b

This bill is the most egregious violation of the Second Amendment of any state in US history.

If allowed to pass, other states will follow suit. New York is watching closely to see if California can crawl down this rabbit hole.

Note: California is one of a few states that do not acknowledge the Right to keep and bear Arms, so the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights do not apply here. California is sort of like a different country when it comes to civil rights.

SCOTUS would frag this thing in an instant.

 

[Ishm]

I live in California, so what happens if I refuse to get liability insurance for my guns, are they going to come and try and take my guns away?

LOL, this should be fun-- LOL!

Guess what, there is already liability attached to gun ownership, they are called CIVIL COURTS. Anyone negligently harms somebody with a gun and they get sued.

So, just need to extend that process to include people who are negligent with their guns and hence feed the crime world. I.e. if you leave your gun in your car overnight, or unsecured in your home when you are out etc, then you should take some responsibility for the criminals having easy access to it. Get the first few cases like that through the courts and suddenly people staring at $massive penalties might take keeping their guns safe from theft pretty seriously.