Here is an article that will surely get your goat! This is an example of the continuing attempts to alter our Bill of Rights and the freedom and liberty granted us by our Founders therein.
The author of the article eludes to the fact that attempts to exact a requirement for having liability insurance for damages caused by your guns has been going on since 2003. The great amount of tension that exists today on this subject could make chances for passage of such ridiculous laws a possibility.
I would suggest that your homeowners insurance would cover any liability you might have concerning injuries to others while they are on your property. There is no need for separate insurance. There sure as heck is no need to have insurance to protect perpetrators of crime who happen to have made the mistake of coming on to your property with the specific intent of doing you or your family members grievous harm. Its time that Americans got really serious about life and stop suggesting such stupid regulations.
U.S. courts need to tell perpetrators of criminal acts that injuries they receive related to the planning and commission of illegal acts are their responsibility and that the taxpayers are not going to fund their stupidity. Freedom is about one’s ability to make choices while at the same time being able to enjoy the results of those choices, good or bad.
Write, call, and visit your representatives in Washington and in your State and let them know in no uncertain terms that you do not want legislation requiring any type of liability insurance for injuries resulting in the exercise of freedom and liberty granted us in our Bill of Rights.
Creating the requirement for additional insurance will serve to fatten the wallets of the insurance industry who will in turn fatten the wallets of those in government who are visited by the insurance companies lobbyists. This would surely be a conflict of interest. Also, this is another example of government telling the People what they must do. Hello!, our country belongs to the People, not the government.
When the People determine that something is needed for the good of our citizens we will tell our representatives, that we elected to represent us, what we want them to do.
Keep fighting to win, People. It is the only way we can win!
Joseph D. Hollinger
God Bless America!
Own a gun? Time to buy violence liability insurance, California Democrats say
Published February 06, 2013
- Jan. 23, 2013: Employees demonstrate gun safety to clients at the Los Angeles gun club in Los Angeles. (Reuters)
Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.
Similar bills have been introduced in other states after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.
“I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country,” said Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced AB231 along with Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles. “There’s basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. … I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing those bills.”
Ting equated the idea to requiring vehicle owners to buy auto insurance. Gomez said it would encourage gun owners to take firearms safety classes and keep their guns locked up to get lower insurance rates.
No state has enacted the requirement despite repeated previous attempts, said Jon Griffin, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Bills have been offered unsuccessfully in Massachusetts and New York since at least 2003, when the conference began keeping track, he said. Similar bills were proposed in Illinois in 2009 and in Pennsylvania last year. Lawmakers are introducing the bills this year in even more states after the recent shootings.
Some proposals would require buyers to show proof of insurance before they could purchase a weapon. The proposal in California would apply to anyone owning a weapon, Ting said, though the bill’s details are still being worked out.
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said most gun owners already act responsibly and can be sued for damages if they don’t.
He said the proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to “price gun owners out of existence,” particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law, he said.
Moreover, he questioned whether it is constitutional to require someone to buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right.
“If they don’t address it in committee, I’ll guarantee they’ll have to address it in court,” Paredes said.
Ting said he and Gomez plan to work with gun owners and opponents to craft a constitutional bill. It will not require insurance companies to offer gun insurance, but will encourage them to enter the market.
He noted that the National Rifle Association itself already offers its members the chance to buy liability insurance, despite its opposition to requiring gun owners to buy such policies.
Ting also introduced AB232, which would give a state income-tax credit of up to $1,000 to anyone who turns in a firearm to a local gun buyback program. The amount of the credit would be determined based on the value of the weapon