4
4
0
Not sure if someone's posted this or not but I'll share.
Yahoo
Posted from yahoo.com
Firearms and Guns
2nd Amendment
Insurance
State of California
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
These first two statements below are in conflict with the third:
"A California city voted Tuesday night to REQUIRE gun owners to carry liability insurance..."
"The council also voted to REQUIRE gun owners to pay an estimated $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety education and training, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and mental health services."
"However, gun owners who don't have insurance won't lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said."
So what's the point? If I lose my weapon because someone stole it or through an unforeseen mishap, I should not be held liable for what someone else does with it. If I hand it to another person and they use it to illegally kill or hurt someone, I should not be held liable (unless I know what they intend to do with it or if I know them to be a risk). If I carelessly leave my weapon around the house and accessible to irresponsible and untrained kids, this "requirement" does nothing more to hold me responsible for my negligence. At best, paying for insurance as a choice to avoid liability if I do something dumb or accidently with my weapon is the only good reason to have it. I weigh that risk based on my education, discipline, and typical practices for my weapon(s) on whether I need insurance. My weapon is for home defense, and I regularly take it to the range to train myself and my kids. It's no one's business whether I think this is high risk enough for me to pay into insurance, a safe, and/or a trigger guard. To put into context with regards to what I saw someone else post about vehicle insurance. While this kind of insurance is not the same, it does highlight the point that if someone steals my car and uses it to kill. My liability insurance should not have to pay the other party for damages.
Seems to me that this is a backend way to confuse people into thinking gun ownership comes at a higher cost and to finance some more "non-profit" groups who probably are more aligned to doing away with the 2nd amendment. I do not think this "requirement" but not really a "requirement" (according to the mayor) will ever hold up in court.
"A California city voted Tuesday night to REQUIRE gun owners to carry liability insurance..."
"The council also voted to REQUIRE gun owners to pay an estimated $25 fee, which would be collected by a yet-to-be-named nonprofit and doled out to community groups to be used for firearm safety education and training, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and mental health services."
"However, gun owners who don't have insurance won't lose their guns or face any criminal charges, the mayor said."
So what's the point? If I lose my weapon because someone stole it or through an unforeseen mishap, I should not be held liable for what someone else does with it. If I hand it to another person and they use it to illegally kill or hurt someone, I should not be held liable (unless I know what they intend to do with it or if I know them to be a risk). If I carelessly leave my weapon around the house and accessible to irresponsible and untrained kids, this "requirement" does nothing more to hold me responsible for my negligence. At best, paying for insurance as a choice to avoid liability if I do something dumb or accidently with my weapon is the only good reason to have it. I weigh that risk based on my education, discipline, and typical practices for my weapon(s) on whether I need insurance. My weapon is for home defense, and I regularly take it to the range to train myself and my kids. It's no one's business whether I think this is high risk enough for me to pay into insurance, a safe, and/or a trigger guard. To put into context with regards to what I saw someone else post about vehicle insurance. While this kind of insurance is not the same, it does highlight the point that if someone steals my car and uses it to kill. My liability insurance should not have to pay the other party for damages.
Seems to me that this is a backend way to confuse people into thinking gun ownership comes at a higher cost and to finance some more "non-profit" groups who probably are more aligned to doing away with the 2nd amendment. I do not think this "requirement" but not really a "requirement" (according to the mayor) will ever hold up in court.
(3)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
It shouldn't... There are those using the vehicle comparison, not accounting for the fact that owning a vehicle is not a right. Should we also require people to have insurance for Speech? After all, there are some well know people out there who have had their social media history scrutinized and attributed to someone's interpretation of hate or racists speech and they wind up losing their jobs. Others use speech to incite riots. Should we require all protestors and individuals attending rallies to have insurance in order to have insurance, just in case they are identified as the cause of inciting a riot and causing harm to people and property?
(1)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - I can see the left going apeshit when BLM and other leftist mouthpieces have to carry insurance so they can spout their garbage.
"Well, you've been sued by 600 people for $100,000,000 who say your speech set off rioting and looting, so, consequently, we're quadrupling your premiums."
"Well, you've been sued by 600 people for $100,000,000 who say your speech set off rioting and looting, so, consequently, we're quadrupling your premiums."
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gun owners, of which I include myself, must take responsibility for what happens to their guns. If proper safeguards are not in place, and the gun is used by someone else, then the owner is responsible to a degree.
Liability insurance is not a bad idea.
Liability insurance is not a bad idea.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
But making everyone buy insurance and pay a fee?
How do you justify that? How do you determine who pays higher premiums and why?
Do you have to pay a fee and get insurance to exercise any other constitutional rights? Why/not?
How do you justify that? How do you determine who pays higher premiums and why?
Do you have to pay a fee and get insurance to exercise any other constitutional rights? Why/not?
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
Sgt (Join to see) - If states would pass and enforce laws governing gun owner responsibilities, then perhaps insurance would not be necessary. Until then we must use whatever means necessary to insure they do.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison - What laws? And don't you think that people who use firearms to commit crimes are probably not going to get insurance and pay their fee? Not having car insurance doesn't stop people from getting behind the wheel of a car, does it?
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
Sgt (Join to see) - For example;
Back in the 90's, while I was in the business of selling firearms, Washington state had a law stating that a gun owner was responsible for securing his guns. Up unit I closed my shop in 2004, the state had not prosecuted one single person. None. And yet gun's were still left in cars, laying around houses, and criminals were grabbing them.
(I have a number of other complaints about how laws are not being enforced, but that is for another time.)
Bottom line: Gun owners MUST be responsible for securing their guns!
Back in the 90's, while I was in the business of selling firearms, Washington state had a law stating that a gun owner was responsible for securing his guns. Up unit I closed my shop in 2004, the state had not prosecuted one single person. None. And yet gun's were still left in cars, laying around houses, and criminals were grabbing them.
(I have a number of other complaints about how laws are not being enforced, but that is for another time.)
Bottom line: Gun owners MUST be responsible for securing their guns!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google