.
News Alert
BART UPDATE: Oakland Coliseum Station Re-Opens…

New Bill Could Require Gun Owners to Have Liability Insurance

Two State Assemblyman argue if car owners are required to own it, so should gun owners.

Bay City News Service

State Assemblymen Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) introduced legislation Tuesday that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

Assembly Bill 231 would require the owners to cover damages incurred from incidents stemming from their firearms.

"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 in a statement.

Gomez said, under the legislation, individuals would receive a more affordable policy if they use a trigger lock for their firearms and take part in training courses.

Ting on Tuesday also introduced Assembly Bill 232, which would provide state income tax credits for people who participate in local gun buyback programs, with a cap of $1,000.

"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 weapons," Ting said.

Copyright © 2013 by Bay City News, Inc. - Republication, rebroadcast or any other reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited.

Do you agree gun owners should be required to have liability insurance? Tell us your opinion in the comments below.

Tim February 11, 2013 at 06:36 AM
It's easy if you're a retard who doesn't understand that requiring insurance IS an infringement on the Second Amendment. Why don't we require insurance to exercise the First Amendment. That way if you defame or slander someone they can recoup a judgement against you through your insurance. And the car analogy is ludicrous for two reasons. First, "cars" are not addressed in the Constitution. Second, insurance for cars is NOT required if the car is kept solely on your own property. Therefore, Constitution aside, I should not be required to have insurance for my guns that are kept solely on my property 100% of the time.
T. Brickle February 11, 2013 at 05:26 PM
Two points to add: Liability insurance will not stop mass shootings and similar tragedies. The perpetrators of these heinous acts act without regard of their potential personal liabilities. The only thing they are concerned with is how much death and destruction they can bring about. I am not completely against or for the idea of liability insurance for gun owners. However, I am against the argument that it will stop tragedies such as mass shootings at schools and other “soft targets”, if you will, used by elected officials to push this idea through. I find it hard to believe that anyone with an ounce of common sense thinks that somebody who intends to inflict this type of damage will be stopped if they must also have insurance when or at some point after they buy their weapon of choice, IF THEY BUY IT LEGALLY TO BEGIN WITH. If a person obtains their weapon illegally they are certainly not going to follow a law requiring them to have liability insurance. Even if they are insured, no amount of money can replace the loss of a loved one. To be continued....
T. Brickle February 11, 2013 at 05:40 PM
I cannot confirm this next thought but I am pretty sure I read something about it recently. The owner of a gun, knife, chainsaw, baseball bat etc. has limited liability (if any at all) in instances when the stolen weapon is used to injure or kill. However, the owner may be held liable if they are found negligent in some manner and that negligence contributed to a loss ie. injury or death. Ex 1: A person cleans his shotgun and leaves it on the garage workbench for a few minutes. A malcontent walks by, sees and grabs the gun. He then holds up a business and kills an employee. The gun owner may be found negligent and liable because he left a firearm in an open and accessible location even though the killer trespassed to steal the shotgun. Ex 2: The same gun owner properly secures his unloaded shotgun in a safe with a trigger lock in place. His house and garage are burglarized and his gun cabinet/safe is stolen. Side note- No, not all gun safes are so heavy that they cannot be easily handled by a couple of people. The homeowner comes home and immediately calls the police to file a report specifically noting that firearms were taken. The next day, the same burglars rob a business killing an employee. The gun owner may have limited or be absolved of all liability as he took the proper steps to ensure, as best he could, that his weapons were properly secured and filed a police report as soon as he found the weapons were stolen.
Steady Red February 12, 2013 at 05:04 AM
I shouldn't waste my time responding to someone with such a low-level understanding of the constitution...but the second amendment is not to protect hunting. While some of my guns are for hunting, many others are designed for killing people. God forbid I ever have to do such a thing, but should I need to defend myself and my family from a criminal or tyrannical government, I'll have the guns to do so.
kmt28 February 14, 2013 at 11:55 PM
Driving is considered a privelage not a right so it can not really be compared the two through the law. That is why most traffic cases usually result to guilty verdicts ....

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »