Posted on 01/26/2022 8:13:18 AM PST by Olog-hai
I think it would be more helpful if they required criminals to carry liability insurance so victims could actually recoup their losses. But then again, that would probably come at the expense of tax payers picking up the tab for low income criminals.
It’s all because the founders did not define “shall not be infringed” in the Constitution......./s
The media . . . liberal to their rotten core.
“FIRST” U.S, city in the headline/article implies that it is a good breakthrough with more to hopefully follow.
Let’s Go Brandon!
Just another “fundraising activity” by a bloated local bureaucracy.
1 Require insurance
2 Ban said insurance in the state
Voila! No firearms! Until the court cases are decided.
Would this be termed an “infringement”? Why yes, I think it would.
Does the insurance help to protect CA gun owners from the crooked CA legal system (could have must said CA legal system - without changing meaning)?
That state is sooooooo ready for a counter revolution. Dear intelligent CA residents (e.g., conservatives), we promise to look the other way when you “take care” of your DemocRATs.
Dang, this is going to be expensive for criminals. They’ll have rob an extra gas station or two just keep up with the premiums....
Yeah, that was sarcasm
Can individuals be required to obtain liability insurance before attending a protest?
Another reason to not go to California. I am sure all criminals will register their firearms and pay!
Well it's unconstitutional so I think it's more of a marketing program from progressives. Look how the media has latched onto the story.
I think Adam Schitt needs to do one of his famous investigation specials to find out what kind of kickback the bastard politicians are getting from the “insurance” companies.
Talk about opening a can of worms. Automobiles are next.
The First Amendment will be the second to fall.
If there’s a problem at SCOUTUS, Roberts will fix it.
The legal justification for automobile liability insurance rests on the use of cars directly on the surfaces of public venues, roads. What is the public venue which firearms attach to which justifies the requirement of liability insurance?
This kind of crap was already tried by those bastards from Chicago with their red light cameras. It didn't fly
The demo-commies also insisted on a poll tax to vote aver a century ago - which was struck down. Same idea here.
Are the youth gangs going to buy liability insurance so they have a clear conscience when they perpetrate drive by shootings and God knows what else?
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.