"SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Taking a nod from the city of San Jose, a California lawmaker on Thursday introduced a bill that would require gun owners to obtain liability insurance for the negligent or accidental use of their firearms.
If enacted, SB 505, introduced by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, (D-Berkeley), would make California the first state in the nation to adopt such legislation.
"Guns kill more people than cars," Skinner said. "Yet gun owners are not required to carry liability insurance like car owners must. Why should taxpayers, survivors, families, employers, and communities bear the $280 billion annual cost of gun violence? It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share."
Under the proposal, gun insurance in California would be similar to car insurance. Gun owners would be held civilly liable for property damage, injury, or death resulting from the use of their firearms. They would also have to obtain liability insurance that covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm, including property, damage, injury or death and keep proof of their insurance with their gun."
https://www.ktvu.com/news/california-la ... be-insured
California lawmaker proposes requiring gun owners to be insured
Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.
Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source
Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.
Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.
Report when things come up.
Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.
Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.
Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source
Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.
Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.
Report when things come up.
Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.
Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
-
Momto2boys973
- Princess
- Posts: 20173
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm
Good. Better than nothing.
עמ׳ ישראל חי -
Murdoc's Mistress
- Donated
-
Regent
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 4:09 pm
- Location: Point Nemo
Gonna go out on a limb and assume the ammosexuals are totally against this....
Good on CA. Hope it passes.
Good on CA. Hope it passes.
You were born an original, don't die a copy.
-
Frau Holle
- Regent
- Posts: 4852
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:32 pm
- Location: Far away
As much as I do think it would be a good idea, I doubt it would be constitutional.
“ I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night “ - Sarah Williams
-
SouthernIslander
- Queen Mother
- Posts: 9425
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
- Location: Texassippi
Murdoc's Mistress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:03 pm Gonna go out on a limb and assume the ammosexuals are totally against this....
Good on CA. Hope it passes.
@ ammosexuals-
SouthernIslander
- Queen Mother
- Posts: 9425
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
- Location: Texassippi
I would support this.
-
Frau Holle
- Regent
- Posts: 4852
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:32 pm
- Location: Far away
Keep in mind the precedent it sets.
Owning a gun is a constitutional right, much like the ability to freely gather and legally protest.
If the side that wins a cost associated with exercising a constitutional right, the other side will too.
At this point, certain constitutional rights will only be able to be exercised by those with financial holdings.
Owning a gun is a constitutional right, much like the ability to freely gather and legally protest.
If the side that wins a cost associated with exercising a constitutional right, the other side will too.
At this point, certain constitutional rights will only be able to be exercised by those with financial holdings.
“ I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night “ - Sarah Williams
-
Lemons
- Donated
-
Princess
- Posts: 11250
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm
It would be constitutional. States can mandate insurance. That’s not taking away anyones right to own a weapon.Frau Holle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:12 pm As much as I do think it would be a good idea, I doubt it would be constitutional.
-
Frau Holle
- Regent
- Posts: 4852
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:32 pm
- Location: Far away
States can mandate it insurance for choices like car ownership, but is there any other instance where they have mandated insurance to be able to exercise a constitutional right?Lemons wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:16 pmIt would be constitutional. States can mandate insurance. That’s not taking away anyones right to own a weapon.Frau Holle wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:12 pm As much as I do think it would be a good idea, I doubt it would be constitutional.
“ I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night “ - Sarah Williams
Donate to MomConfessions to avoid seeing ads just select donate from the header menu. Please visit our friends:
