Pages


Tuesday, June 21, 2022

CA bill would require liability insurance for gun owners

California would be the first state to require gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover the negligent or accidental use of their firearms, if lawmakers approve a measure announced Thursday. 

“Guns kill more people than cars. Yet gun owners are not required to carry liability insurance like car owners must,” Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner said in a statement.

*****

Funny, but I don't recall seeing anything at all about vehicles in the Bill of Rights.

27 comments:

  1. Car owners don't have to have liability insurance in order to own a car. Car OPERATORS have to have liability insurance in order to receive a license to operate a car on public property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahem, The titled owner does indeed need to have liability insurance by law, and he would be a fool to let someone else operate it with out it. Law or not.
      Daryl

      Delete
  2. The government insurance to keep and bear arms is an infringement of that right in the exact same way as charging sales tax to buy a newspaper. Unfortunately, the bill will mature into law due to the constitutional ignoramuses that pass it, and it will percolate through the courts for the next 5 years until it eventually gets held unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh my F$ck another insurance money grab. Medical isn't enough ffs?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another fine bill ramrodded through the legislative process by way of gut and amend.
    This is what happens to states when the Democrats attain super majority status.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WTH would the liability insurance cover? If I misuse a firearm, that probably invalidates any insurance. If someone steals it, then any use by the thief is probably not covered. Under what scenario will some "accident" occur that the insurance would actually pay out for? And wouldn't your homeowners insurance already cover accidents in your own house?

    I mean, I know this is just an added imposition on gun owners and the politicians don't care if it makes sense. But I can only think of some very few and rare scenarios where liability insurance would even make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not the insurance for something going awry with your gun that they want...it is the "LIST" of gun owners that the insurance policies would produce that they want. Then, they know where to go when the "rounding up" begins.

      Delete
  6. “Guns kill more people than cars. Yet gun owners are not required to carry liability insurance like car owners must,” Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner said in a statement.

    ^^^REALLY?!!! Who really believes this shit? In all reality cars nor guns have ever killed anyone....it's the stupid/evil people in control of those objects that kill, but what do I know?

    ReplyDelete

  7. “Guns kill more people than cars. If you include suicides. Otherwise it is about half as many, including killed by cops.
    Daryl

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Guns kill more people than cars." Booollsheeet. About 12000 people are killed by firearms each year. About 35000 are killed in car wrecks each year.

    Again, the left gaslighting, or out and out lying as usual, to move their agenda forward.

    Nemo

    ReplyDelete
  9. "“Guns kill more people than cars." California recorded 4,161 vehicle deaths last year. The number of firearms deaths was 2,945; the majority of these were suicides. Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner is a lying sack of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They don't mention there are only a few companies that sell such policies and asshats like our Insurance Commissioner in WA banned them for trying to cover illegal acts!
    Never mind that any use of a firearm that is deemed unlawful or illegal was not covered.
    All part of the plan, no insurance no firearm.

    Like many, do not understand what part of "shall not be infringed" they cannot comprehend, it is plain and clear English.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh hell no, BFUTW

    ReplyDelete
  12. And, again, this won't apply to convicted felons, whose 5th amendment rights would be violated by having to say they are gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
  13. California get dumber by the day. Bad data. Bad Laws. Bad Politicians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You stated 'bad politician' like there's an alternative. Prove me wrong!

      Delete
  14. And yet... California requires drivers to carry "uninsured driver insurance" because so many of its illegal immigrant and welfare bum drivers drive uninsured, unlicensed, in unregistered vehicles... Put me down as an illegal immigrant... They're getting better treatment in the US than the citizens anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, if you injure yourself with yer own gun, do you get the payout?

    ReplyDelete
  16. It could be quite hazardous to try selling gun liability insurance to gang bangers among others.
    Oh, I'm sorry! They would be exempted by the law.

    ReplyDelete
  17. WestcoastDeplorableJune 21, 2022 at 7:22 PM

    The state requiring insurance sure doesn't work with cars, how do they figure it'll work with guns?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Funny, but I don't recall seeing anything at all about vehicles in the Bill of Rights."

    The 9th Amendment should be used much more expansively.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thought a city tried that and it not pass muster In court. What do I know

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Guns kill more people than cars." Does she hav a link for thaty

    ReplyDelete
  21. Voters need to take out liability insurance to cover the costs of electing a senile old fart who fu*ks up the economy, national defense, supply chain, ....

    ReplyDelete

I moderate my comments due to spam and trolls. No need to post the same comment multiple times if yours doesn't show right away..