Mandatory Gun Liability Insurance

[Ben Lamb]

It is about California being the narrative spearhead and useful ideological soldier. Like it or not when California speaks everyone takes notice...and like New York, they are an activist tool of the left.

Seriously. The trend to use the organs of state for partisan politics is pathetic, regardless of who is doing it.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

This guy's just exercising his white privilege.

So this will fix the culture of violence and the erosion of the family structure? This feels more like my kids - always pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Everybody knows that poor gang-affiliated youth who have little economic hope and lone disaffected white guys with mental health issues are the root of 99.9% of gun violence. Time to start targeting our efforts at these groups -- more hoops for boring 50 yo family guys/gals is completely pointless.

It does seem logically pointless until we realize that the logical point is collecting votes from suburban moms to use to push the broader progressive revolution that has nothing to do with guns. Just like the right collects votes from working poor Catholics basis abortion concerns and uses it to pass policies that promote the gutting of American working-class jobs. Maybe folks need to stop being reliable single-issue voters and hold politicians accountable for their whole platform.

 

[Nick87]

Everybody knows that poor gang-affiliated youth who have little economic hope and lone disaffected white guys with mental health issues are the root of 99.9% of gun violence. Time to start targeting our efforts at these groups -- more hoops for boring 50 yo family guys/gals is completely pointless.

It does seem logically pointless until we realize that the logical point is collecting votes from suburban moms to use to push the broader progressive revolution that has nothing to do with guns. Just like the right collects votes from working poor Catholics basis abortion concerns and uses it to pass policies that promote the gutting of American working-class jobs. Maybe folks need to stop being reliabel single-issue voters and hold politicians accountable for their whole platform.

What he said.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Dog whistle politics, just like nearly all of the “voting reform” laws being passed. Whatever…..

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So whats next. Making the fast food industry pay for all the expenses that obesity causes?

I think that’s a bit apples to apples; I think a better comparison would be something like a chainsaws.

I'm not a fan, and I don't think SUPCO will uphold this, but it's going to be a long way to get there.

We require insurance for driving a car, but the individual mandate in the ACA was struck down. Laws are all over the place here. None of this does damned thing to change the culture that spawns gun violence though, so this won't do anything but discourage legal gun ownership in favor of the black market. Pretty silly all around.

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness." - John Roberts

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the individual mandate.


To the comparison to auto insurance. My question is what percentage of car accidents are fatal compared with guns. Seems to me that personal liability coverage mandates are pretty low <$50,000. So essentially they are more for minor car crashes not to settle vehicular homicide cases. In fact if you're drunk, or knowingly negligent you lose the coverage. If I burn down my house on purpose, I can't file a claim.

How many non-fatal accidental discharges are there in the US that cause injury? All others would fall out of the scope of insurance anyway right? So what's the point.

An insurance company is going to offer a policy that will pay out my victims if I decide to go on a rampage? Is there anything like that on the market? I'm going to murder you insurance?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think that’s a bit apples to apples; I think a better comparison would be something like a chainsaws.


"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness." - John Roberts

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the individual mandate.


To the comparison to auto insurance. My question is what percentage of car accidents are fatal compared with guns. Seems to me that personal liability coverage mandates are pretty low <$50,000. So essentially they are more for minor car crashes not to settle vehicular homicide case. In fact if your drunk, or knowingly negligent you lose the coverage. If I burn down my house on purpose, I can't file a claim.

How many non-fatal accidental discharges are there in the US that cause injury? All others would fall out of the scope of insurance anyway so what's the point.

An insurance company is going to over a policy that will pay out my victims if I decide to go on a rampage? Is there anything like that on the market? I'm going to murder you insurance?

I am guessing they are really looking at "bonding" rather than insuring. That the "insurer" would guarantee the non-event and pay when the event occurred. Which means no company would ever offer and no one could have guns - but not the govt fault it's the insurance companies ---- what total bs.

 

[schmalts]

So what does the insurance policy cover????

 

[VikingsGuy]

So what does the insurance policy cover????

Like so much of the growing bureaucracy-state, I assume rule-making outside the public attention will be used to define after the fact.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So what does the insurance policy cover????

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=74433

Here is what they approved. Super vague, no actual details about implementation,

 

[Ben Lamb]

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=74433

Here is what they approved. Super vague, no actual details about implementation,

Until Actuarialists get a hold of it, it's just theory. Once they're done, that's when the theft really begins.

 

[LuketheDog]

I am guessing they are really looking at "bonding" rather than insuring. That the "insurer" would guarantee the non-event and pay when the event occurred. Which means no company would ever offer and no one could have guns - but not the govt fault it's the insurance companies ---- what total bs.

I'm sure somebody will jump all over providing that policy coverage, especially since they know the likelihood of their clients (law-abiding gun owners) perpetrating one of those crimes is almost nil.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm sure somebody will jump all over providing that policy coverage, especially since they know the likelihood of their clients (law-abiding gun owners) perpetrating one of those crimes is almost nil.

But then the same folks will attack the insurers for fostering a gun culture - look at the vitriol about conceal carry insurance.

They don't want insurance any more than pro-life folks care if a woman watches a 15-minute video about fetal development or segregationists cared that funds be raised to cover the cost of elections (poll tax) - they are clearly arbitrary steps designed to make the hated thing just a bit more difficult so some folks will opt-out. Classic politics - it is time the reasonable middle starts objecting to all these shenanigans and votes those playing games out of office - left and right.

 

[Fullquiver]

But then the same folks will attack the insurers for fostering a gun culture - look at the vitriol about conceal carry insurance.

They don't want insurance any more than pro-life folks care if a woman watches a 15-minute video about fetal development or segregationists cared that funds be raised to cover the cost of elections (poll tax) - they are clearly arbitrary steps designed to make the hated thing just a bit more difficult so some folks will opt-out. Classic politics - it is time the reasonable middle starts objecting to all these shenanigans and votes those playing games out of office - left and right.

You need to stop making so much sense. This is politics we're talking about..

 

[Cousin Basil]

To hunt in the UK I had to have insurance. I Joined the Scottish Association for Country Sports, it was 48 GBP for a year membership with comprehensive insurance. I don't have any problem with folks having to have some sort of insurance coverage with relation to their firearms (homeowners, renters, etc). An ownership FEE? That will never survive legal challenge. Only in CA FFS......

Yeah, but the UK doesn't have American lawyers. You can bet it wouldn't be 48GBP equivalent here. No tax, no insurance - period. You crack the door and it will unleash a flood.

 

[schmalts]

But then the same folks will attack the insurers for fostering a gun culture - look at the vitriol about conceal carry insurance.

They don't want insurance any more than pro-life folks care if a woman watches a 15-minute video about fetal development or segregationists cared that funds be raised to cover the cost of elections (poll tax) - they are clearly arbitrary steps designed to make the hated thing just a bit more difficult so some folks will opt-out. Classic politics - it is time the reasonable middle starts objecting to all these shenanigans and votes those playing games out of office - left and right.

Sorry, but I know you hate to say it and you say "reasonable middle" but this is clearly a Democrat thing. I still remember people here posting "no democrats want to take your guns away" i bet you won't see it anymore because we all know many of them do. Let's just get that out there. Those who do vote straight D need to choose wisely what D they vote for if they value gun ownership. Only a fool won't think ammo tax and restrictions are not on their minds as well.

 

[Countryboi2508]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1410089236850634752

And again this will ONLY burden law abiding citizens because criminals will care less

 

[VikingsGuy]

Sorry, but I know you hate to say it and you say "reasonable middle" but this is clearly a Democrat thing. I still remember people here posting "no democrats want to take your guns away" i bet you won't see it anymore because we all know many of them do. Let's just get that out there. Those who do vote straight D need to choose wisely what D they vote for if they value gun ownership. Only a fool won't think ammo tax and restrictions are not on their minds as well.

I agree if we limit the question to gun control D's are the abuser - but I was just pointing out that this current "death by 1,000 paper cuts" approach to gun control is not a new political approach - The technique is used on a variety of topics by both parties.

 

[FLS]

This has NOTHING to do with helping to pay the cost of gun violence. It is 100% about gun registration and eventual confiscation if the bureaucrats deem you a threat. Which gun ownership, by a free thinker is to the state.