New California Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Have Insurance

Friday, January 27, 2023

Under SB 8, gun insurance in the state would be similar to car insurance, making gun owners civilly liable for property damage, injury, or death resulting from the use of their firearms.

Posted by qcp at 03:33 PM | 44 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

END;

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Make the premium's ten thousand dollars a year per gun, with a sliding scale so the rich pay more. Lots more. Oh, and make ammo 1000 dollars a box.

#1 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2023-01-27 11:07 AM | Reply

Will never pass constitutional muster for two reasons.

A. Depending on price it will make ownership and, therefore, the 2nd A a right for those wealthy enough to afford it.

B. Will be a de facto ban for those who can't afford it.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-27 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's the reason for the increased cost of premiums based on income and assets.

Make it equally onerous regardless of income or wealth. Elon Musk's premiums would be about ten million dollars per gun. Maybe more. That's how they roll on traffic fines in Finland. It works too.

#3 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2023-01-27 01:06 PM | Reply

A. Depending on price it will make ownership and, therefore, the 2nd A a right for those wealthy enough to afford it.
B. Will be a de facto ban for those who can't afford it.
C. Sounds good to me!

'eph' those who think everyone should have guns.

#4 | Posted by Brennnn at 2023-01-27 04:06 PM | Reply

It is not clear to me one way or another whether such a law would pass constitutional muster. It might. Especially in this day and age of mass shootings. It is easy to imagine the courts being willing to decide that financial responsibility is an intrinsic part of the right to bear arms.

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-27 04:27 PM | Reply

This might work better on a county level.

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2023-01-27 04:36 PM | Reply

It is not clear to me one way or another whether such a law would pass constitutional muster. It might"

Noy with the corrupt, sold out right wing garbage siyying on the Supreme Court today. They will ptotect their bread and butter till they die sitting on that court screwing America every chance they get. Those sick ghouls shouldn't be sitting on any court anywhere.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2023-01-27 04:54 PM | Reply

" It is easy to imagine the courts being willing to decide that financial responsibility is an intrinsic part of the right to bear arms."

And why not?

Compare it to the first amendment: speech has no inherent cost in and of itself. But people ARE responsible for their own egregious use of the right, like when someone yells "fire" for no reason, and the resulting panic causes injury or death.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-27 05:31 PM | Reply

Insurance for gun owners? OK by me.

Meanwhile in Virginia, a six-year-old, given a gun by his pops, is going to skate after firing on his teacher, in a classroom full of children. And pops will skate too because he, well he owns a gun, so must be OK. If there are a homeowner's policy with a rider for a gun in the home, that gun would not be in the home...

#9 | Posted by catdog at 2023-01-27 05:51 PM | Reply

And pops will skate too because he, well he owns a gun, so must be OK.

It's interesting that the cops don't seem to want to talk about that aspect.

#10 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-27 07:50 PM | Reply

#5 | POSTED BY MODER8

Like it or not, SCOTUS precedence exists.

If you're all for discarding it simply because you disagree with it, then you're no better than the justices who overturned Roe.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-27 11:29 PM | Reply

If I may ask...

Why is it easier to buy and use a gun than it is to obtain a license (and insurance) and drive a car?

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-27 11:33 PM | Reply

But people ARE responsible for their own egregious use of the right, like when someone yells "fire" for no reason, and the resulting panic causes injury or death.

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You're always taught (in any self-defense instruction I've read/watched/listed to) that you're responsible for every single bullet you send down range. There's a reason why ammunition is designed to penetrate one target and one target only, whether that be a person or a wall.

Problem is people who are negligent with firearms usually get off scot free because "it was an accident," even though it's not an "accident" 99% of the time.

I've always been a big proponent of passing a law that makes negligent firearm incidences the minimal felony needed to strip the perp of their right to own a firearm. Doesn't even need to be a severe punishment (steep fine and community service/probation) that includes jail time. Just the loss to legally own a firearm.

You'll weed out the most irresponsible people who shouldn't own firearms permanently while punishing them the most severe way possible for them-taking away their guns.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-27 11:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why is it easier to buy and use a gun than it is to obtain a license (and insurance) and drive a car?
#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Canned answer is one is a right and the other is a privilege.

More realistic answer is enough people have made it a life goal to make sure it doesn't happen.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-27 11:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is hilarious ...

Can't wait to see this being enforced against an armed robber.

#15 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-27 11:51 PM | Reply

Why is it easier to buy and use a gun than it is to obtain a license (and insurance) and drive a car?
#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Its not difficult to obtain a license, 1 Million undocumented immigrants have done it.

#16 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-27 11:52 PM | Reply

@#16 ... Its not difficult to obtain a license ...

So your comment seems to agree (aside from its lame deflection attempt) that it is easier to obtain a driver's license than it is to obtain a gun permit.

Thanks for confirming that.

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-01-28 12:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Especially in this day and age of mass shootings. It is easy to imagine the courts being willing to decide that financial responsibility is an intrinsic part of the right to bear arms.

I seriously doubt any individual liability policy would cover a mass shooting or any other criminal use of a firearm. It's against public policy because insuring against such conduct would encourage rather than discourage the conduct.

As to constitutionality, JPW pointed out the equal protection problem between the poor and those that could afford it. It's effectively a tax on a right that some can't afford.

Then there's a strict scrutiny analysis of how it's sold vs. what the policy will actually cover. It's being sold as something to address mass shooting and gun violence in general. While the required coverage is like car insurance and only "covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm ..." In other words the required coverage is not narrowly tailored to address gun violence thus fails strict scrutiny.

#18 | Posted by et_al at 2023-01-28 12:13 AM | Reply

Especially in this day and age of mass shootings. It is easy to imagine the courts being willing to decide that financial responsibility is an intrinsic part of the right to bear arms.

As to constitutionality, JPW pointed out the equal protection problem between the poor and those that could afford it. It's effectively a tax on a right that some can't afford.

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2023-01-28 12:13 AM | Reply

Oops.

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2023-01-28 12:13 AM | Reply

Sweet seems we agree then that a cost to exercise a right doesn't matter if it's for the public good. Let's get those voter ID cards.

#21 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2023-01-28 10:56 AM | Reply

"Make the premium's ten thousand dollars a year per gun, with a sliding scale so the rich pay more. Lots more."

It's California. You never know ... ... .

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-28 11:13 AM | Reply

"I seriously doubt any individual liability policy would cover a mass shooting or any other criminal use of a firearm."

Correct. Criminal and intentional acts are typically excluded.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-28 11:15 AM | Reply

Rich people (LOL) already have insurance for this.

It's included in your homeowners insurance.

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-28 11:19 AM | Reply

"It's against public policy because insuring against such conduct would encourage rather than discourage the conduct."

Oh I see.
Malpractice insurance encourages malpractice.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what happens to your brain when you are a gun addict.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-28 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Sweet seems we agree then that a cost to exercise a right doesn't matter if it's for the public good."

Well, now that you mention it:

This is certainly the case when it comes to First Amendment protected paid political advertising.

The cost doesn't matter. You have as much freedom as your bank account can afford.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-28 12:27 PM | Reply

"It's against public policy because insuring against such conduct would encourage rather than discourage the conduct."

Oh I see.
Malpractice insurance encourages malpractice.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what happens to your brain when you are a gun addict.

#25 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Haven't you noticed how mandatory car insurance encourages more car crashes??

No?

(Me either)

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-28 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Stupid idea. This will open that oft used door called whaitee suppemercy. Gag me wid a gawddam burdock.

#28 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2023-01-28 01:07 PM | Reply

"This will open that oft used door called whaitee suppemercy."

Republicans have that door propped open with the rotting corpse of Lee Atwater.

Do you know who Lee Atwater was, or do you not have electricity in your home?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-28 01:39 PM | Reply

"It's against public policy because insuring against such conduct would encourage rather than discourage the conduct."

Of course, you meant "criminal" conduct.

And yes, if that's true, then yes.

But non criminal conduct would be what's insured. Like with any other torts.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-28 02:38 PM | Reply

Civil liability is an entirely different matter than criminal liability.

Ask OJ Simpson since you're inapable of learning it from anyone here.

Even though you know damn well I'm right.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-28 03:00 PM | Reply

Little known fact about OJ.

When he was acquitted on the criminal charges......that meant his homeowners insurance had to step up and defend him in the wrongful death civil suit.

It paid the policy maximum......I think entirely on defense costs. It wouldn't pay any damages.. just defense.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-28 03:16 PM | Reply

What does the woke ChatGPT say?

...

Why is it illegal to require US gun owners to purchase insurance?

It is illegal to require US gun owners to purchase insurance because it would be a form of taxation on gun ownership. The U.S. Constitution protects citizens' right to keep and bear arms, and any form of taxation on that right would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, the insurance requirements could potentially prevent those who cannot afford insurance from owning a gun, thus infringing on the right to bear arms.

#33 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-29 08:47 AM | Reply

What does the woke ChatGPT say?

...

Why is it legal to require US gun owners to purchase insurance?

It is not currently legal to require gun owners in the United States to purchase insurance. Some states may have restrictions on types of firearms that require insurance, but it is not a federal requirement.

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-29 08:48 AM | Reply

SCTOUS will, if you do not mind the pun, shoot this law down if it passes..

#35 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2023-01-29 11:01 AM | Reply

"Why is it illegal to require US gun owners to purchase insurance?

People are 'taxed' when they purchase a weapon. It's called "Sales tax". I guess I just destroyed your lame ass perspective/argument.

#36 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2023-01-29 11:21 AM | Reply

You can buy a 200 dollar shotgun and pay 14.50 sales tax in my state.
You can buy a 1900 dollar shotgun and pay 137.75 sales tax in my state.

If insurance were required insurance on both would be the same price. So no sales tax doesn't destroy the argument.

#37 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2023-01-29 11:33 AM | Reply

Require firearms to be secured at all times so if your gun is stolen and used the gun owner has liability

#38 | Posted by visiter at 2023-01-29 12:58 PM | Reply

Autos:

Insurance required = CHECK
Seat belts required = CHECK

This is a common sense measure. Gun owners will be more careful to lock up their guns so they aren't stolen. Which is how criminals get their hands on guns outside of straw purchases that, for instance, allow straw buyers to simply drive over the border to Indiana to buy all the guns they want to.

#39 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2023-01-29 01:24 PM | Reply

As I read the various comments the question forms in my mind: Why would any reasonable person in society NOT want gun owners to be insured for accidents and other mishaps that occur with their gun?

The insane desire to protect and guarantee under any circumstances the possession of a firearm, no matter how irresponsibly used should be morally anathema to any decent human being.

#40 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-29 02:10 PM | Reply

-It is illegal to require US gun owners to purchase insurance because it would be a form of taxation on gun ownership

That doesn't hold water.

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-29 02:28 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY MODER8

I view it like the requirements to have insurance for automobiles. It's what insane to me people don't buy auto insurance.

The government doesn't enforce it. I've had uninsured, unlicensed drive hit me from being sitting at a stop light.

Cops didn't care, exchange info and move on.

So if you want to get it you can, but it's not enforced, so why for guns?

#42 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-29 02:37 PM | Reply

And for anyone to argue that requiring proof of financial responsibility for any person who chooses to possess a firearm constitutionally fails under a strict scrutiny analysis is simply being dishonest. If ever a constitutional issue passes strict scrutiny muster for it's impact on the common safety, it is the responsibilities in the bearing of firearms in America today.

#43 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-29 02:45 PM | Reply

And oneironaut, you are wrong. As a public defender in court pretty much every date of the week I see people being ordered to pay fines in excess of $1000 for failing maintain auto insurance. Happens constantly. Just because you are unaware of something does not mean it does not happen.

#44 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-01-29 02:48 PM | Reply