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 have thought about liability insurance for when I retire in case I got into a shooting. To handle the legal fees etc. Don’t think it should be required however.
Pat
So anybody wondering where the insurance lobby is on this? What are the odds these industry shitbags are spoon-feeding these fuckin’ legislation to state legislatures around the country and lining the pockets of state reps to carry this legislation?
If the insurance lobby has their fingers anywhere near this (and I’m bettin’ dollars to doughnuts they do), the gun-rights advocates need to shine a glaringly bright light on this immediately so everybody can get a good look at the cockroaches.
I had an exchange on another site last evening where someone told me I should be criminally liable and incarcerated if a criminal broke into my home, stole a firearm, and used it in the commission of a subsequent crime. “It’s about personal responsibility, sonny. Learn it, live it,” they said. “I would hold you partially responsible and would like to see you go to jail for a long time.”
I asked if they were ready to go to jail if a thief stole their car or took a knife from their kitchen and subsequently injured/killed someone. No response.
The man who lost his mother and brother. The brother forever condemned for what he did, the mother tarnished by accusations that she was evil for owning guns, for raising a basket-case, &c. As the heir to her estate, it only makes sense.
It will never stop. Better face it now and be prepared to defend your rights from attack on every conceivable front. If they can’t get A they will try B. Rinse and repeat till something sticks. They have an agenda and they will do whatever it takes to execute it.
The whole liability insurance for gunowners is a barely veiled roundabout angle at prohibition.
The second amendment is recognized by the Heller decision as a constitutionally protected right to own firearms for defense against criminals. Requiring insurance to own firearms would be the same thing as a poll tax, which has been held to be unconstitutional.
How about requiring violent criminals to acquire and maintain liability insurance as a condition of release from prison and to stay free? Their rate of recidivism and violence is far higher than the violence committed by people eligible to legally own firearms.
While we’re at it, how about liability suits against the government by victims of violent crime whenever a violent criminal released from prison victimizes them? If the government were to dump toxic waste, people who suffered because of it would be entitled to sue to recover damages. Criminals who have proven violent are the human equivalent of toxic waste.