Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CA attempting to force gun owners to have gun insurance

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CA attempting to force gun owners to have gun insurance

    .

    What's the legality of making gun owners buy insurance to own a gun?


    That can't be legal can it?



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...democrats-say/



    .
    Own a gun? Time to buy violence liability insurance, California Democrats say

    Published February 05, 2013

    Associated Press


    Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.

    Similar bills have been introduced in other states after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.

    "I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country," said Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced AB231 along with Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles. "There's basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. ... I don't think that taxpayers should be footing those bills."

    Ting equated the idea to requiring vehicle owners to buy auto insurance. Gomez said it would encourage gun owners to take firearms safety classes and keep their guns locked up to get lower insurance rates.

    No state has enacted the requirement despite repeated previous attempts, said Jon Griffin, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    Bills have been offered unsuccessfully in Massachusetts and New York since at least 2003, when the conference began keeping track, he said. Similar bills were proposed in Illinois in 2009 and in Pennsylvania last year. Lawmakers are introducing the bills this year in even more states after the recent shootings.

    Some proposals would require buyers to show proof of insurance before they could purchase a weapon. The proposal in California would apply to anyone owning a weapon, Ting said, though the bill's details are still being worked out.

    Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said most gun owners already act responsibly and can be sued for damages if they don't.

    He said the proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law, he said.

    Moreover, he questioned whether it is constitutional to require someone to buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right.

    "If they don't address it in committee, I'll guarantee they'll have to address it in court," Paredes said.

    Ting said he and Gomez plan to work with gun owners and opponents to craft a constitutional bill. It will not require insurance companies to offer gun insurance, but will encourage them to enter the market.

    He noted that the National Rifle Association itself already offers its members the chance to buy liability insurance, despite its opposition to requiring gun owners to buy such policies.

    Ting also introduced AB232, which would give a state income-tax credit of up to $1,000 to anyone who turns in a firearm to a local gun buyback program. The amount of the credit would be determined based on the value of the weapon.
    .
    .

  • #2
    Violence liability insurance . . .?

    Perfect. I'll buy that when the criminals are required to carry "annoying, violent idiot that wastes resources because I can't stop shooting innocent people" insurance . . .

    Comment


    • #3
      Can't possibly force someone to buy insurance on a right. Then again, they said you had to buy health insurance so we're so far off the constitution already it probably won't matter.

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't see this one holding up in court.
        "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
        -Chris Rock

        Comment


        • #5
          For starters this is only proposed legislation, have you guys ever looked at your own State's Legislature and see what kind of laws get proposed then never leave committee?

          As others have said there serious constitutional questions about making some one buy insurance for an enumerated right in the Consitution. I doubt this will become law if it even makes it out of committee.

          The comparison that you buy car insurance is creative, but as has been stated, driving is a privilege not a right.
          semper destravit

          Comment


          • #6
            Here it is once more, and I really think we all understand it. This is just one more "ploy" from the liberal left. The left which will NOT be satisfied until NO law abiding citizen owns a firearm.

            That clown Hillary Clinton used to speak of the "vast right conspiracy". Total bullsh..t like that is right up her alley. What does exist, what we are facing, is a vast left wing conspiracy. A conspiracy if left unchecked, will deny us all many freedoms we currently take for granted. Chief among these rights is the one embodied in the 2nd Amendment, Lord, how they hate that one!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              In theory it's not much different than forcing people who own anything that could be potentially dangerous to carry special insurance. Certain breeds of dog come to mind. GSD, APBT, Dobie's, Rottie's, etc. I've never heard of an entire state forcing extra insurance, but have heard of local communities. And dog or gun or whatever else it's stupid.
              He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High
              shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
              - Psalm 91:1

              On Ignore - A few folks.

              Comment


              • #8
                Here's another one to add to the mix. A certain "liberal" party in Colorado is proposing legislature to hold the sellers, manufacturers, owners and possessors of "assault-style rifles", (even defined as semi-automatic rifles) to be held liable for acts of violence. It's their contribution to the current gun control hysteria. What next...holding the same individuals liable if you have an "assault-style knife" if you get cut up in a bar? What a bunch of c**p!
                Last edited by codemanski; 02-06-2013, 11:25 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bsd13 View Post
                  In theory it's not much different than forcing people who own anything that could be potentially dangerous to carry special insurance. Certain breeds of dog come to mind. GSD, APBT, Dobie's, Rottie's, etc. I've never heard of an entire state forcing extra insurance, but have heard of local communities. And dog or gun or whatever else it's stupid.
                  We agree that it's stupid for guns. For other stuff, maybe, maybe not.

                  I wonder if those democrats would consider a "Free Speech" license a good idea.
                  ~Gun control has always been about punishing the people that didn't shoot anyone.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Raiden341 View Post
                    Violence liability insurance . . .?

                    Perfect. I'll buy that when the criminals are required to carry "annoying, violent idiot that wastes resources because I can't stop shooting innocent people" insurance . . .
                    Originally posted by Cannady View Post
                    Can't possibly force someone to buy insurance on a right. Then again, they said you had to buy health insurance so we're so far off the constitution already it probably won't matter.
                    Originally posted by TheTick
                    I've bought plenty of gun insurance: Extra magazines
                    Originally posted by BigMyk View Post
                    We agree that it's stupid for guns. For other stuff, maybe, maybe not.

                    I wonder if those democrats would consider a "Free Speech" license a good idea.
                    Should only apply to those idiots who voted these politicians into office.

                    Comment


                    • #11

                      It is a scam or ruse -- designed to accomplish two things. First, it makes gun ownership more expensive. Second, it begins a 'back door' registration scheme, as your insurance company will want the purchase details, caliber, make, model and serial number of every firearm you own.

                      As history shows us, registration leads to confiscation a few years later and - Voila! - your rights are now a faint privilege subject to bureaucratic fiat.

                      The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                      The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                      ------------------------------------------------

                      "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Let's be honest. A lot of these far left types just need to be *ahem* bent over. It's all just because they are frustrated.

                        If you catch my drift.
                        I yell "PIKACHU" before I tase someone.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GangGreen712 View Post
                          Don't see this one holding up in court.
                          That's what most of us thought about Obamacare................
                          Today's Quote:

                          "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                          Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
                            That's what most of us thought about Obamacare................
                            The difference is, the federal government wasn't taxing a specific named right, or denying any constitutional right until tax was paid. If the law is that one cannot possess a firearm without insurance, then I don't see how it can be justified, even if they try to claim that it's a "tax". Once again, even if it was considered a tax, it's a tax to exercise a right, which I don't think will stand. It would be the same as if you had to have some kind of insurance in order to attend a church, or to own a Bible in case you offended someone with your religion and got sued for discrimination. Or perhaps you could be arrested for speaking against the government without insurance, which would be required in case some liberal was offended by your speech and sought compensation for emotional damages.

                            I just don't see how it could be justified, as it would be considered an infringement. There's been enough precedent set recently and I think in the courts, the momentum is more in the pro-2A's favor.
                            Last edited by GangGreen712; 02-06-2013, 10:09 PM.
                            "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
                            -Chris Rock

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by GangGreen712 View Post
                              The difference is, the federal government wasn't taxing a specific named right, or denying any constitutional right until tax was paid. If the law is that one cannot possess a firearm without insurance, then I don't see how it can be justified, even if they try to claim that it's a "tax". Once again, even if it was considered a tax, it's a tax to exercise a right, which I don't think will stand.
                              How is this any diffrent, really, from making it mandatory that you have a firearm owner ID card (IL), or a "pistol permit" (NY) before you can actually buy a gun? You are being forced to pay a fee just for the *opportunity* to try to exercise a right.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4548 users online. 288 members and 4260 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X