Gun Owners Insurance in California?

[marindependent]

SAN JOSE, Calif. - State lawmakers are considering a bill that would require gun owners to carry insurance, just as you would for your car or home. The insurance would cover the negligent or accidental discharge of a gun when someone is injured or killed.

Senate Bill 8 is actually modeled after a law implemented in San Jose just this month. Senator Nancy Skinner says they want individuals, not taxpayers, to be held financially responsible when their firearm is used to harm someone, even if it's unintentional.

KTVU: California insurance bill aims to hold gun owners financially responsible for negligence

 

[adjusterjack]

Somebody should tell those gun-grabbing morons that homeowners and renters policies already cover negligence and there are no liability exclusions for firearm negligence.

More political posturing. "Hey, folks, vote for me, look what I did to prevent gun violence."

Is the public really that stupid?

How the hell are they going to enforce something like that? Look up every registered gun owner in California and demand proof of insurance?

What will they want? A card saying that the holder is covered for firearms negligence? I can just imagine the insurance industry backlash to that.

The National Association for Gun Rights filed suit against San Jose the same day that the ordinance was approved.

“San Jose’s imposition of a tax, fee, or other arbitrary cost on gun ownership is intended to suppress gun ownership without furthering any government interest. In fact, the penalties for nonpayment of the insurance and fees include the seizure of the citizen’s gun. The ordinance is, therefore, patently unconstitutional,” the suit reads.

San Jose, California firearms law: Firearm rights group sues over proposed insurance, annual fee for gun owners | CNN

 

[WinoBlues]

“San Jose’s imposition of a tax, fee, or other arbitrary cost on gun ownership is intended to suppress gun ownership without furthering any government interest. In fact, the penalties for nonpayment of the insurance and fees include the seizure of the citizen’s gun. The ordinance is, therefore, patently unconstitutional,” the suit reads.

100% the goal.

 

[Cornelius]

Make all gun owners register their guns. Commit a crime with a unregistered gun and it's life in prison. You have 6 months to comply.

Gun owners can only by bullets from the state. Minimum cost of $100 a bullet. If found with illegal bullets. Automatic 10 years behind bars.

For those who don't like it the exit doors at the boarder is open.

 

[Al3x Lee]

Commit a crime with a unregistered gun and it's life in prison.

Gun owners can only by bullets from the state.

A. What if I commit a crime with a registered gun? Is that more acceptable?
B. Seems like buying bullets from the state kinda defeats the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment

SAN JOSE, Calif. - State lawmakers are considering a bill that would require gun owners to carry insurance, just as you would for your car or home.

Jokes on you lawmakers, I'm not required to carry insurance, I'm only required to show financial responsibility. Whether I choose to do that through insurance or through a security deposit and surety bond is up to me according to your state code

 

[WinoBlues]

Make all gun owners register their guns. Commit a crime with a unregistered gun and it's life in prison. You have 6 months to comply.

Gun owners can only by bullets from the state. Minimum cost of $100 a bullet. If found with illegal bullets. Automatic 10 years behind bars.

For those who don't like it the exit doors at the boarder is open.

So, mandate, register/track, confiscate.

What are your thoughts on the bad actors doing evil?

 

[marindependent]

homeowners and renters policies already cover negligence and there are no liability exclusions for firearm negligence.

OK, but it it could be far more complicated than that. I would not hang your hat on that protection as all encompassing.

The III states: "it is important to note that no insurer – primary or excess – provides liability coverage for illegal acts." And "Acts intended or expected to cause harm are also generally excluded from coverage, though some policies will cover cases for which bodily injury or property damage results from the use of “reasonable force” by an insured to protect persons or property. “Self-defense” coverage for firearms owners is available, though rarely found." Source.

Plus a lot of folks just do not have home or renters insurance. Not saying that I agree what so ever with the legislation.

Its also unclear to me what the new policies would or would not cover. The article is a bit thin on that.

 

[WinoBlues]

The III states: "it is important to note that no insurer – primary or excess – provides liability coverage for illegal acts." And "Acts intended or expected to cause harm are also generally excluded from coverage, .....

Also what was legal is changing. A law-abiding citizen becomes a criminal with the stroke of the legislative pen.

 

[scagnt83]

Somebody should tell those gun-grabbing morons that homeowners and renters policies already cover negligence and there are no liability exclusions for firearm negligence.

Homeowners does not cover it when you take your gun outside your home.

The law/insurance is more about concealed carry in public from what I've heard.

 

[scagnt83]

What are your thoughts on the bad actors doing evil?

They are doing most of the evil with guns bought from supposedly "good actors" in states that allow unregistered private sales among citizens.

Registering the guns prevents the straw purchases from happening.