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.



More worthless, feel-good legislation to placate the extreme segments of their constituency. In other words a tactic to get more “face time” before the public to make it appear as if they are actually doing something to fight crime.

What a pair of losers. If the insurance measure was actually approved it would be killed in court. The ineffective gun buy back programs are also a waste of taxpayer money but they do create more face time for these two reprobates.


Separate Insurance specifically for owning a gun? If that is was what they really wanted why can’t it just fall under the general liability of renters or homeowners insurance? Sounds like the real reason is to find out who has guns so in the future they can choose to take them away? By freedoms.


Well I found a copy of the Bill these two have introduced. It was easy, all i had to do was look up “really stupid idea generated by lawyers to profit lawyers” in Websters Dictionary and lo and behold there was the bill


What a great idea. This would encourage legal owners to take much more care with their weapons and provide another charge to those caught using guns illegally. Of course this must apply to ALL people, including the legislators, judges etc, all people.


Dick Cheney’s premiums will be double


Are you being sarcastic?


I can see the handwriting on the wall. Next, fat people and smokers will have to buy insurance. Then cyclists, hikers, and runners will have to buy insurance. Then, anyone with high blood pressure or some type of heart disease will have to have extra insurance. Then, property owners will have to be taxed to help people who don’t own property, and car owners will have to be taxed to pay for public transportation–maybe through the black box and gasoline tax for miles driven.


and the state will get an override from the state mandated insurance or they will write it themselves.


another hair-brained piece of proposed legislation. maybe i can get insurance if i punched someone out.


I can see the criminals lining up to buy Gun Insurance right now. NOT !! What a crock, just another way to make americans pay money for someone else to get a big paycheck and expense account while they pick and choose which liability cases they want to pay for or not. Back to the drawing board people. And let be real this time. Sheesh !! JMO


Mr. Paredes says Gov. cannot require citizens to buy insurance? Yea that worked well with Obama’s national health care didn’t it?


That’s not what he said. Read the article.


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.

O.k. so what did I miss? Did you read article?


You missed the fact that the supreme court said that you don’t have to buy health insurance and all you have to do is pay the ” penalty” ( now known as a ” tax” as it was ruled ) for not having it.

The second ammendment upheld by the supreme court in the heller case, states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that shall not be infringed.

Forcing you to buy insurance would be a direct infringment on that right.


Anxious to get our Gov. freebee?


What freebee are you refering to. If its health insurance your talking about I have it and pay a lot for it.


EXACTLY!!! You pay, I pay, so why do I have to subsidize others???


Am wondering if these guys have any direct ties to the Insurance Industry. And would it be mandatory for illegal aliens?


Illegals don’t register their guns, so they won’t have to pay insurance.

1 2 3