Calif. Law Would Force Gun Owners to Buy Insurance

[petegz28]

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.


Source: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...#ixzz2K9jhMhId

[Bump]

Originally Posted by KC_Lee

Cause everyone on the road has at least liability insurance right....right??

seriously, wtf is that shit

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Seems unnecesarily racial.

Could you rephrase it so it is appropriately racial, yo?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

lol seems you don't know what being racist actually means

Seems you don't know how to read.

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Here we go again with this comparing it to auto inusrance crap.

Originally Posted by blaise

You don't have to buy car insurance to own a car.

Originally Posted by The_Doctor10

No just to drive it...

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to own and drive a car. I don't see how they can compel you to purchase Liability Insurance for excercising your 2nd ammendment rights. But then agian I didn't think they could compel you to purchase health insurance either.

[HonestChieffan]

With any luck there is a program to underwrite insurance for gun owners who are below the median income level in California or this is gonna be some serious financial hurt on people who have no means.

Maybe if you own a gun and dont not have proof of insurance the state could have a penalty. The penalty could be assessed in ones income tax. Unless you are in a protected group that can petition for a waiver then you get a bye for a period of time.

This bitch has some potential.

[mr. tegu]

People should be should be forced to buy insurance for the right to free speech as well. That would prevent a lot of the stupid things that are said from being said. People would be forced to actually think first and be responsible with their words. But if that were the case, these guys probably wouldn't be proposing this law.

[petegz28]

I can't see how they can say you are only entitled to a Constitutional right IF you buy something.

See, we are right back to the very argument made during the health care debate and peopel swore it wouldn't go beyond that.

Somehow I think the Constitution would have to be amended for something like this to stand.

[HonestChieffan]

Word on the street.....dont quote me....but lighters and matches may require either a permit or proof of fire insurance. Not sure it applies to all lighters or just disposables.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Word on the street.....dont quote me....but lighters and matches may require either a permit or proof of fire insurance. Not sure it applies to all lighters or just disposables.

It applies to all matches, lighters and other incendiary devices. Assault lighters will be banned.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by listopencil

It applies to all matches, lighters and other incendiary devices. Assault lighters will be banned.

I like it. Black with the retractable wind screen kind. Semiautomatic Flame Generating Assault Devices (SFGAD.mil)

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

I like it. Black with the retractable wind screen kind. Semiautomatic Flame Generating Assault Devices (SFGAD.mil)

That sounds scary. We need this legislation now! Something must be done.

[2bikemike]

This is from another Forum I frequent, Good Post!

As I said to some liberal friends of mine, wait till they actually do this and watch he nation explode with crys of racism.

Insurance runs on actuarial tables. Those tables are going to:
Red line certain regions as high crime and therefore uninsurable areas.
Cause men to pay much higher rates than women.
Cause minorities to pay astronomically higher rates than anyone.
Show favoritism to homeowners, as they will be able to bundle it into their homeowners package.

This thing, if the courts even allow it, will be tied up with attorneys for 30 years.

Insurance for guns, really means, "full employment for attorneys."

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That sounds scary. We need this legislation now! Something must be done.

If it only saves one child, its worth it. Once we legalize dope, these flame throwers will be in the hands of people not trained and qualified to operate, own, or be in the presence of such things. Think of the children!

Why does anyone need them anyway? Nowhere does the constitution say you have a right to a instrument of mass immolation.

[notorious]

Is anyone else getting sick of the witch hunts?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by notorious

Is anyone else getting sick of the witch hunts?

Racist overtones