Posted on 01/26/2022 7:57:08 AM PST by artichokegrower
San Jose on Tuesday is believed to be the first city in the nation to approve liability insurance and a fee for San Jose gun owners.
I am sure that the gangs and criminal class will buy liability insurance and report their guns. /sarc
That will be challenged, since it’s unconstitutional.
Good, the more the pro 2nd rulings the better for precedent.
Here comes that slew of boating accidents.
Sounds fair. Liability insurance builds a pot where ‘victims’ can take from. It should be insurance for legal representation.
I’m sure San Jose will soon follow by requiring all print, radio, television, and internet reporters to have Libel liability insurance before they are allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights within the city limits.
It discriminates against poor people.
You’re an idiot
What if I can’t afford it?
Violation of the Second amendment!
Will they require liability insurance and licensing for reporting the news? Speaking your mind? Gathering peacefully to express grievances and redress the government? Attend a church, mosque, synagogue or temple?
How about insurance and license for those who want to remain silent when questioned by government officials?
Pretty certain that it is on it’s face unconstitutional. Not that the nine black robed DC Lawyers will say as much.
‘This was no boating accident!’
Not sure I understand this. I already carry insurance through USCCA.
Anyway, making life harder for the very people who need self-defense safety equipment (courtesy of Ayoob) in the face of increasing violent crime and a thriving black market for firearms never has made much sense to me.
Let the lawsuits begin for this act that’s unconstitutional as a poll tax.
Legal gun owners are notoriously dangerous.
Illegal ordinance. Embarrassing
Expect about 0.00000001 percent compliance.
I was just thinking of the similarity to a poll tax. This has no chance even with our lousy Supreme Court. A “minority” group will challenge this and even the lefty woke judges will see that it is in essence an wealth test as a pathway to ownership.
Since CA has mandatory gun registration for any firearm purchased through a licensed dealer, they know who has them, for the most part.
REAL liability insurance is generated from data by actuarials.
*IF* ‘they’ look at the gun owner data, ‘they’ will uncover there is little risk in insuring gun owners. Millions of guns out there LEGALLY owned, and little legal liability.
I already have a level of insurance via USCCA. Having a $1M rider for (gun-related) risks on my existing liability coverage is not the worst idea. **IF** it is produced from good data.
The back door on this is if an ‘accident’ occurs and it’s a gun you didn’t list on the policy, you’re not covered AND you are pinged doubly for not having required coverage/ failure to disclose. Back door registration in other words.
It’s like a jewelry rider. You didn’t list that high dollar watch? It ain’t covered.
I would be OK with ‘firearm use’ liability coverage, but NOT coverage requiring listing of property, AKA a gun registry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.