Should California gun owners be forced to buy liability insurance? A new bill says yes.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

California could become the first state in the country to require gun owners to be insured against the negligent or accidental use of their firearms under legislation introduced Thursday.

“Guns kill more people than cars,” Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) said in a statement. “Yet gun owners are not required to carry liability insurance like car owners must. Why should taxpayers, survivors, families, employers, and communities bear the $280 billion annual cost of gun violence? It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”

Skinner introduced legislation Thursday morning as an amendment to SB-505, an unrelated bill which will be gutted. The announcement follows a string of gun violence measures that the Legislature has treated with special urgency last month’s school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

If the bill passes, it will require gun owners to carry coverage for losses from death, injury, property damage and other incidents. Owners would have to keep written evidence of their policy where the gun is stored, and to carry it when transporting the firearm. They would be considered civilly liable for negligent or accidental use.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/should-california-gun-owners-be-forced-to-buy-liability-insurance-a-new-bill-says-yes/ar-AAYyKIK

[Mr.Bill]

1. I have mixed feelings about it.

The insurance should be mandatory but the NRA is the #1 seller of the insurance. They will make a fortune on it.

[Shermann]

3. That's self-defense insurance protection

The vast majority of gun deaths are completely intentional. These types of policies won't pick up the tab for criminal gun violence by the policy holder. I'm not sure any policies do.

[Thunderbeast]

2. It's simple math...TAX AMMUNITION!

$280,000,000,000 in gun related costs each year.

8,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition sold each year.

Tax each bullet $35.

Victims apply for restitution from the fund.

Externalities removed from gun ownership costs. That's the libertarian/conservative agenda.

Nobody confiscates ANY guns. 2A preserved.

[MichMan]

4. Why only $35?

You do realize that a punitive tax on ammunition would quickly be ruled unconstitutional, right?

[Thunderbeast]

5. $280 billion dollars in damages divided by 8 billion bullets equals $35 per round

It is not a punitive tax...

It's a "user fee" to pay for hospitals, funerals, support for widows (widowers) and orphans, police, grief counsellors, etc..

We all pay for it now.

Let the true costs be borne by those who participate in the activity.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. It's a punitive tax

The average price per bullet is something like 40 cents. Tacking on $35 per round on top of that would be seen as punitive by pretty much every Federal Court in the country. Doesn't matter if you call it a tax or a fee, it has zero chance of surviving a court challenge. Effectively banning something indirectly is still banning it.

[Thunderbeast]

7. Does $712 per gun per year sound better?

Just because the real costs are extraordinary does not mean that they are not real. $280 Billion is A LOT OF MONEY that not only causes endless heartbreak, but it is a drain on the society and the economy. Other countries that don't worship firearms do not have to absorb these costs.

Currently, the cost of firearms culture is $800 per year for EVERY man, woman, and child. I am not getting ANY value from the gun in my neighborhood. I do fear that their gun will somehow end up in the hand of someone who will kill me with it.

That $800 per year per person is currently buried in taxes, medical insurance, life insurance, and other devastating social costs. The costs are real. I just want those costs borne by those who, for whatever reason, choose to own firearms

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

8. No, its not better.

$712 more than doubles the prices of a lot of guns. It would also fail in court. I understand what you would like to do, but from a Constitutional standpoint those reasons don't matter. You cannot impose a large financial burden on a right. And currently, owning a gun is a right.

[The Mouth]

9. It will get tossed out

For exactly the same reason a poll tax will get tossed out.

Currently, barring SCOTUS reinterpretation, it is an enumerated right. You can't tax people to exercise an enumerated right, be it voting, assembling, or making political speech.

Just an idiotic feel-good motion.

The only part that will pass muster is being civilly liable for negligent or accidental use, which is arguably already the case.