San Jose approves 1st U.S. liability insurance law for gun owners
A California city voted Tuesday night to require gun owners to carry liability insurance in what’s believed to be the first measure of its kind in the United States.
The San Jose City Council overwhelmingly approved the measure despite opposition from gun owners who said it would violate their Second Amendment rights and promised to sue.
Are they going to inspect every residence to determine exactly who owns a gun. Because they know that the criminals won’t comply since they illegally own their weapons.
They are trying to make money from our Constitutional Rights! What is next? Will they try to foist a liability insurance scam on what we say? How about a surcharge tax placed on our Fifth Amendment right? irontomflint
The type of insurance they are going to require either does not exist or is very rare. The Commie AG of WA, Bob Ferguson (who acts ore like a St. Senator than AG) banned one of the few firearm owner insurance companies on the grounds it was covering unlawful activity which it did not. The policies stated if the act of self-defense were disproven, it would not be covered. And yes, seems a lot like a Poll Tax.
So, who's suing the City of San Jose for infringing the Second Amendment. This seems like it would be a slam sunk win, as without the "insurance", no one would be allowed to own a firearm, except criminals, of course.
Are they going to inspect every residence to determine exactly who owns a gun. Because they know that the criminals won’t comply since they illegally own their weapons.
ReplyDeleteThey need to look up the word 'infringe'.
ReplyDeleteonly a dumb ass would pay. I hope all the bodyguards protecting the morons gripe.
ReplyDeleteNo, and thats a problem
DeleteThey should quit and refuse to work in that city.
only a dumb ass would pay. I hope all the bodyguards protecting the morons gripe.
ReplyDeleteThey are trying to make money from our Constitutional Rights! What is next? Will they try to foist a liability insurance scam on what we say? How about a surcharge tax placed on our Fifth Amendment right?
ReplyDeleteirontomflint
Will they require liability insurance for democrats to make sure that people hurt by their mental disability disease are compensated?
ReplyDeleteThe type of insurance they are going to require either does not exist or is very rare.
ReplyDeleteThe Commie AG of WA, Bob Ferguson (who acts ore like a St. Senator than AG) banned one of the few firearm owner insurance companies on the grounds it was covering unlawful activity which it did not. The policies stated if the act of self-defense were disproven, it would not be covered.
And yes, seems a lot like a Poll Tax.
That may be the ploy here. You have to have it but it doesn't exist!
DeleteI'm sure Commiefornia's coastal towns have plenty of sand for them to pound up their asses.
ReplyDeleteI guess that would make me a de facto felon. No way I’d be signing onto any “liability insurance” gov’t gun registration scam.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe anybody still lives in that state....
ReplyDeleteSo, who's suing the City of San Jose for infringing the Second Amendment. This seems like it would be a slam sunk win, as without the "insurance", no one would be allowed to own a firearm, except criminals, of course.
ReplyDeleteNemo
The best insurance for gunowners is more ammo
ReplyDelete