ADVERTISEMENT

A city will require gun owners to have liability insurance in an effort to incentivize safety

The vast majority of firearms manufactured and privately owned will never result in a single minute of hospital care. By contrast, every single vehicle that uses public roads contributes to the wear and tear on those roads.
Not hard, but rather an attempt to deter gun ownership.

Won't ever happen here in Texas. Hold a person accountable for crimes committed with a gun or a negligent parent for not preventing unsupervised access to a minor? Yes, I'm all about that. Making me pay liability insurance for guns that spend 90% of their lives in the safe and the other 10% at a shooting range or hunting lease? That's horse crap and really only punishes legal and responsible gun owners.

Not sure how this will prevent the next pasty, white, depressed loon from shooting up a mall or gang violence.

I thought that is what lawsuits were for. :cool:

or

Bobby, "Hey Ricky, shoot me in the leg."
Ricky, "Why?"
Bobby, "So we can collect the insurance money. Hunt'n season's coming up and I need a new deer rifle"
Lawsuits and judgments against uninsured people aren’t worth the paper
 
so? Insurance exists for the minority of car owners who get into car accidents. For the majority of car owners, paying insurance is a losing proposition.
Have you ever been involved in an auto accident in which your insurance provider had to pay a claim to another driver for either vehicle damage or medical bills? I have. Do you know any friends or family members whose insurance provider has had to pay a claim for an auto accident they caused? I certainly do.

Have you ever shot someone with a gun and necessitated medical care? I haven’t. Do you personally know anyone who has? I don’t.

I don’t think you want to compare the percentage of drivers who will cause an auto insurance claim at some point in their lives to the percentage of gun owners whose gun necessitates medical treatment at some point in their lives.

That statistic would not help your argument.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
Have you ever been involved in an auto accident in which your insurance provider had to pay a claim to another driver for either vehicle damage or medical bills? I have. Do you know any friends or family members whose insurance provider has had to pay a claim for an auto accident they caused? I certainly do.

Have you ever shot someone with a gun and necessitated medical care? I haven’t. Do you personally know anyone who has? I don’t.

I don’t think you want to compare the percentage of drivers who will cause an auto insurance claim at some point in their lives to the percentage of gun owners whose gun necessitates medical treatment at some point in their lives.

That statistic would not help your argument.
Didnt say more car accidents happened than gun incidents. Just that both represent distinct minorities. if more people had insurance claims than didn’t, the insurance industry would go out of business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
you need a permit to protest
Not to protest individually. If you are part of a group that wants to hold a rally/protest that requires street closures or police presence then the organizers of the rally/protest need to obtain a permit. But not every individual who participates needs a permit.
 
Didnt say more car accidents happened than gun incidents. Just that both represent distinct minorities. if more people had insurance claims than didn’t, the insurance industry would go out of business.
Most people pay more in premiums than their insurer pays out in claims. But most drivers will as some point in their life cause an accident requiring vehicle repairs and/or medical bills. That vast majority of gun owners will never shoot another person.

The comparison is laughably disparate.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
Not to protest individually. If you are part of a group that wants to hold a rally/protest that requires street closures or police presence then the organizers of the rally/protest need to obtain a permit. But not every individual who participates needs a permit.
Time and place restrictions on protesting have been found to be constitutional. Simply explaining that requiring insurance to own a gun is not necessarily unconstitutional.
 
Time and place restrictions on protesting have been found to be constitutional. Simply explaining that requiring insurance to own a gun is not necessarily unconstitutional.
You keep comparing two things. The cost to show you are eligible (permits) to do something and a cost to STAY eligible are 2 different things.
 
Time and place restrictions on protesting have been found to be constitutional. Simply explaining that requiring insurance to own a gun is not necessarily unconstitutional.
You brought it up in the context of permits. If I want to use my gun in a public place such as a state-owned shooting range, I have to buy a permit - just like organizers of a rally have to do if they want to use public facilities such as a park or street.
 
You keep comparing two things. The cost to show you are eligible (permits) to do something and a cost to STAY eligible are 2 different things.
Let me try this way. A requirement to have liability insurance to legally own a gun is an infringement of your 2A rights. However, the analysis does not stop there. The Court would apply a scrutiny test to the law to determine it was a permissible infringement of the 2A.
 
Let me try this way. A requirement to have liability insurance to legally own a gun is an infringement of your 2A rights. However, the analysis does not stop there. The Court would apply a scrutiny test to the law to determine it was a permissible infringement of the 2A.
And I'm telling you that would get thrown out. "Shall not be infringed upon"
 
So if someone uses an unregistered firearm while committing a crime, will they get a ticket for not having insurance?
 
Seems like a great idea.
The new plan has no set deadline to go into effect, but opponents have already sought an injunction. The Firearm Policy Coalition says the law is "burdensome, unconstitutional, and prohibited by California law" for gun-owning citizens, ABC 7 reported.

"Since San Jose's recalcitrant City Council members don't believe that the United States Constitution applies to them or their citizens, Firearms Policy Coalition and our members are now committed to fight the City's outrageous and offensive policies in federal litigation and take every possible action to block their enforcement," the group said.
 
ADVERTISEMENT