Calicrats fixing to require insurers to obtain information about personal firearms, then turn the information over to the Daddy Gov

American Thinker ^ | 02/20/2024 | Olivia Murray

[SeekAndFind]

The Second Amendment doesn’t grant a person the right to bear arms—the Second Amendment recognizes an individual’s God-given right to self-defense, and prohibits the American government from infringing upon that right.

Well in other news that isn’t news, Commiefornia is ignoring all that law and precedent; on Friday, Democrat Assemblyman Mike Gipson put forth a bill that would require insurance companies to ask a litany of very specific questions regarding personal firearms an applicant may or may not have. Then, these insurers would need to hand this information over to state agencies and lawmakers.

From AWR Hawkins at Breitbart:

The bill, AB 3067, says: ‘This bill would require an insurer, by January 1, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessory structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy.’

Here are the questions from the text of the bill itself, via Hawkins:

In addition to existing regulations, an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance shall include questions regarding all of the following:

(1) Whether there are firearms kept in the household, including in any accessory structures, and if so, how many.

(2) Whether the firearm, if any, is stored in a locked container in the home, including any accessory structures, while not in use.

(3) The number of firearms kept in a vehicle located on the property subject to the applicable insurance policy, and if any, whether they are stored securely in a locked container while not in use.

[SeekAndFind]

Mind you, these are the same Democrats who think law enforcement asking about a person’s citizenship status, or an employer asking a job candidate if he/she has a criminal history, are unacceptable lines of inquiry. The state just wants to know if you have guns or gun safes and how many, and how you store said firearms—for your safety of course!

To Democrats, the idea of privacy only applies in certain scenarios:

• if you want to have a private discussion with your doctor about whether to murder the child in your womb or not;

• if you’re a parent who wants to “transition” your child with cross-sex hormones and surgery without the scrutiny of naysayers or any visits from Child Protective Services;

• or, if you’re a minor struggling with mental health issues like “gender” confusion—then you should have total privacy over your “health” and away from the prying eyes of a parent who may want to get you psychiatric and emotional help.

[nonliberal]

The answer to this question is ALWAYS “no.”

[Old Grumpy]

California OF COURSE, the state of creeping communism.

[Bob434]

NY tried that for awhile- going to a health clinic the person had to fill out a form with a question about whether they had guns in the home or not- supposedly it was a ‘mental health’ assessment requirement- it didn’t last long however and was deemed unconstitutional-

[dfwgator]

We live in Post-Constitution America.

[ByteMercenary]

It’s Commifornia so the law will probably pass. So starting next January insurance companies will be required to ask and submit firearm data.

Now the law will probably be challenged in court by several parties and eventually overturned. But the legal process will take months if not years. That means CA will be able to collect firearm data on anybody whose policy comes up for renewal in the interim.

So even if the law is overturned, thousands of folks will have their ownership data become the property of the state ie CA and the FedGov. Even if the order to destroy the collected data is declared, does anyone really think it will be?

[Brian Griffin]

“The answer to this question is ALWAYS”

---

[Brian Griffin]

“The answer to this question is ALWAYS”

a short horizontal line

[Brian Griffin]

California, the state controlled by communist creeps

[Brian Griffin]

Just leave all non-critical fields blank, including the zip code and state.

If applying in person, just wave your hand in a flinging motion.

[Brian Griffin]

“In addition to existing regulations, an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance shall include questions regarding all of the following:
(1) Whether there are firearms...
(2) Whether the firearm, if any, is...
(3) The number of firearms kept in a vehicle located on the property...”

“is”[present tense], “are”[present tense], “on”

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Sacramento: another City of Evil.

[Lockbox]

Isn’t there a law against government using a private enterprise to collect data that the government is not allowed to collect themself?

[Texas resident]

Isn’t there a law against...

We are all in a selective law enforcement environment.

[HKMk23]

NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN THE HOME   GFY  

[VanShuyten]

“ The answer to this question is ALWAYS “no.”

Denial of a claim is the threat here, in addition to the state gun registry. Your house burns down and an undeclared firearm is found in the ashes, the insurance company won’t pay.

[ScottinSacto]

Yep. And most insurers have a limit on firearms coverage anyway. $1000 is my homeowners policy limit. So if it’s not covered, and I am not seeking a rider policy, I don’t need to answer that question. Can’t wait to get out of here.

[Lockbox]

Yep, only the laws they want to enforce are used…..

[MachIV]

I decided years ago if I am ever asked about firearms by either my insurance or doctors I am simply going to not only lie about it but proactively lie about supporting gun control groups as a form of diversion and worry about the moral implications of that later.