General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCalifornia bill would make gunowners buy liability insurance
AP via Yahoo NewsGuns 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.
She said the costs of gun violence shouldn't be borne by taxpayers, survivors, families, employers and communities: "Its time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.
The state of New York is considering a similar requirement in the wake of numerous recent mass shootings and a rise in gun violence.
LakeArenal
(28,713 posts)gladium et scutum
(803 posts)By the current interpretation of the Constitution, ownership of a gun is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. To require a gun owner to pay for insurance to own a gun is not any different than requiring a voter to pay a tax to vote. Both rights are guaranteed in the Constitution.
lindysalsagal
(20,433 posts)Driving, marrying and even dying requires a tax. Nothing new about that. And, it's supposed to be a "well regulated militia." Regulations are what we need.
gladium et scutum
(803 posts)No problem requiring insurance to drive. or establishing rules to regarding marriage. Voting and owning guns are guaranteed by the Constitution. To attach a financial responsibility to exercise those rights is unconstitutional.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)Well regulated means rules and regulations.
In fact, I would like to require anyone who wants to have a weapon to be in the National Guard o r some other well regulated government organization.
gladium et scutum
(803 posts)That is not the interpretation that the Supreme Court has decided on. Guess who's interpretation counts.
lindysalsagal
(20,433 posts)gladium et scutum
(803 posts)The Supreme Court is the one that made that determination
LakeArenal
(28,713 posts)gladium et scutum
(803 posts)But the poor and minorities may not have the financial ability to pay for the insurance. Should they be denied a right guaranteed by the constitution because they are poor. What if there was a tax to vote. Would you support that because you no problem with paying the tax to vote.
LakeArenal
(28,713 posts)48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)Then let's arm the poor and minorities and give them tax credits for insurance. That fucking piece of shit amendment can be used for anything.
manicdem
(386 posts)Those that want it can get it.
Groundhawg
(517 posts)Better Days Ahoy
(698 posts)Otherwise called an unintentional tort. It's right up front in your personal or commercial liability as a covered cause of loss, minus exclusions:
What it doesn't cover are intentional torts, AKA crimes.
Better Days Ahoy
(698 posts)Otherwise called an unintentional tort. It's right up front in your personal or commercial liability as a covered cause of loss, minus exclusions:
What it doesn't cover are intentional torts, AKA crimes.
manicdem
(386 posts)Crashing a car into a crowd of people wouldn't be covered by insurance. Burning your own house down on purpose.
The main thing we're worried about is criminals using guns in crimes, which cover the vast majority of gun violence which this wouldn't cover. I'm not sure what this actually does. Medical or current insurance policies may cover accidents and negligence to other people. Or civil suits should be slam dunk in these cases.
Better Days Ahoy
(698 posts)Tells me that THIS is how proper background checks will actually happen. Good God, we grilled applicants on the business insurance side something fierce to weed out the sketchy ones, who then had nowhere to go but the excess and surplus lines (read: high risk or just plain crap) markets. Betcha states will need to set up insurance pools like they do for nearly uninsurable coastal property risks. When states pay out enough in claims, THEN maybe they'll do something when insurers threaten to pull out entirely. Money talks, insurers walk.
lindysalsagal
(20,433 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Deuxcents
(15,776 posts)Make sure the NRA doesnt have their hands in it
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)
they finally get it there?
Rhetorical. Celebrate now.
ck4829
(34,971 posts)LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)So now people can fight the government, when the word around here is rednecks with AR-15s cant; but somehow blue with a few deer rifles can?
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Im neutral on this one, but how is the state of CA going to enforce it?
madville
(7,397 posts)Is when someone purchased a gun from a dealer and they have to check for it or maybe if the owner went to a gun range they might require proof of it. Other than that, without a registration system, millions of existing gun owners in California would probably just ignore it.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)NRA.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... insurance could simply comply with red flag laws and commit to some intention / sannity checks.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)and your coupling it with red flag laws and mental health checks, as long as those checks are done by a neutral party, are an intriguing idea.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)The amount of financial damage done by guns in accidental shootings is very small compared to the number of gun owners that would be required to buy policies. Anyone buying and selling any firearms in CA, even private party sales, already has to go through a background check, 10 day waiting period and pass a safety and handling test.
If the law stands and I doubt it will, they will be cheap and easy to get and it will have zero impact on reducing gun violence.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,904 posts)Negligent and accidental shootings cause a very small amount of the death and injuries caused by guns. Suicides and murders/mass shootings would not be covered. Intentional and criminal acts aren't covered by insurance.
Amishman
(5,540 posts)Such insurance won't cover what we want it to cover, won't be the huge financial obstacle many want it to be, and will fund the NRA and other pro-gun lobby groups.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)probably already have it. Standard form renters and homeowners' insurance cover this as part of their liability coverage.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... someone gets a gun in their hands.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)Every gun sale in CA is required to go through a licensed dealer with full background checks, waiting periods and safety handling tests.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... comes to guns better than the rest of the nation.
madville
(7,397 posts)Cant put a tax or monetary penalty on a constitutional right, it disenfranchises poor people just like a poll tax on voting.
The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment will probably come into play.
sarisataka
(18,197 posts)- such insurance will not cover intentional criminal acts. Depending on verbiage it may not cover any intentional acts e.g. self-defense
- such insurance will not be expensive. (See elements of insurable risk)
- despite it being inexpensive it will almost assuredly be struck down if applied to general ownership. If narrowed in focus it could possibly pass scrutiny