California lawmakers propose mandatory gun insurance

February 8, 2013

gunsTwo California assemblymen have introduced a bill that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance covering potential damage caused by the weapons. [LA Times]

Democrats Jimmy Gomez of Echo Park and Phil Ting of San Francisco introduced AB 231 on Tuesday.

Ting compared the proposal to car insurance.

“The government requires insurance as a condition of operating a car — at the very least we should impose a similar requirement for owning a firearm,” Ting said. “The cost to society of destruction by guns is currently being borne collectively by all of us, and not by those who, either through carelessness or malice, cause the destruction.”

Executive Director of Gun Owners of California Sam Paredes responded to Gomez and Ting’s billl by saying that government cannot require citizens to buy insurance in order to exercise a constitutional right.

Ting introduced another bill on Tuesday that would create a state gun buyback program. Ting proposed providing a state income tax credit of up to $1,000 for turning in a firearm as part of the program.

“Gun buyback programs are an effective way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and lower the risk of intentional or accidental damage by these weapon,” Ting said.

 


55 Comments

  1. Jorge Estrada says:

    I’m not the least bit surprized that the insurance companys want to get their part in this polical orgy. The Title should read: Proposed Mafia Coverage For Guns, it’s amazing how money in the right hands fix all, never mind having guns in the right hands.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  2. Truth Hurts says:

    I think they don’t understand. Driving is not a right. But being able to purchase and own a gun is!!!!! The car insurance argument is flawed because of this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  3. Harley says:

    I don’t think these “lawmakers” are stupid at all. In fact, they may have hit on something here.

    The more bills they introduce that may or may not be passable, the more money from the Gun Lobby that has to be wasted to fight them, diluting the fight against other proposed anti-gun legislation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  4. cosmos7 says:

    Insurance is required as a condition of operating a car on the public roadways… it is not required to own a vehicle or use it on private property.

    I’d have little issue with requiring insurance for public carry and use of firearms on the condition California goes shall-issue on its CCW permitting. Would be far better than the murky waters we have now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16

    • doggin says:

      This is a path intended at identifying who owns them and what arms do they own. This will mark those who abide by the law so later they can be collected by law enforcement. This will work folks…….we all know criminals abide by the law don’t they. Wanna get guns off the streets? try rounding up say 50% of the documented gang members in the USA ,raid their club houses and then report back.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1

      • SamLouis says:

        In 1989 the Robert-Roos Act was passed where certain “assault weapons” on a list had to be registered with the State of California.

        The CA DOJ estimated at the time that something like 7% of said weapons owned in CA at the time were actually registered. 7%…

        I expect it would be far less than 7% today if that list was to be expanded.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

        • doggin says:

          Dont forget Bidens speech where he admitted his knuckleheads do not have the time to review every permit or application. So whats the point of more worthless paper work? could it be more revenue….. Nah.. How about the 7000 AR15’s our government just ordered for “personal defense”

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  5. rogerfreberg says:

    Obviously this is an in-the-face attack on the 2nd amendment,

    However, I can’t help but wonder if the ‘insurance’ isn’t something that the state might want to administer… so it could be just another tax… ah… I mean ‘revenue enhancement.’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2

    • tomsquawk says:

      yes, it seems the two freshman lawmakers have learned what Sacramento is all about

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1

  6. slojustice says:

    Lets follow in Chicago’s footsteps and violate the Constitution. And then watch while California with all of our early release criminals and weakened three strikes becomes one of the most violent places on earth. The Constitution has become just a speed bump to these idiots.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 3

    • kayaknut says:

      Let’s also not forget police officers who cross the line, by either stealing drugs at gunpoint or flipping out and then just start shooting.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5

      • tomsquawk says:

        police insurance?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2

        • The Gimlet Eye says:

          You mean like malpractice insurance for doctors? Now there’s an idea. Considering the rate at which they are beating and tazering people, I’d say that they are going to need it.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6

        • seesfarther says:

          They already have it…. taxpayers.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

  7. choprzrul says:

    Alan Gura is 2 for 2 before the Supreme Court with gun rights cases. Legislators are providing him with a target rich environment for litigation.

    I actually welcome all of this nonsense. It is going to serve to further expand our 2A civil rights via the courts. Thank you Sacramento.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1

  8. slomike says:

    Do I hear an echo? Tea, anyone?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 4

Comments are closed.