Insurance for gun owners?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,500
    God's Country
    It will be interesting to see how this one goes.
    San Jose to vote to make it mandatory for gym owners to have insurance

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/25/us/san-jose-gun-law/index.html


    Could end up proving that law abiding gun owners are not the financial strain on society that anti gun politicians would have us believe. Criminals aren’t going to buy gun insurance? We probably should then require every citizen buy uninsured firearm user coverage too. So when a criminal illegally possess and uses a firearm against an innocent person, the uninsured firearm fund pays….
     

    StaFrosty

    Active Member
    Feb 20, 2011
    326
    Not in MD anymore!!
    Could end up proving that law abiding gun owners are not the financial strain on society that anti gun politicians would have us believe. Criminals aren’t going to buy gun insurance? We probably should then require every citizen buy uninsured firearm user coverage too. So when a criminal illegally possess and uses a firearm against an innocent person, the uninsured firearm fund pays….

    THIS!!!!
     

    Kman

    Blah, blah, blah
    Dec 23, 2010
    11,988
    Eastern shore
    Could end up proving that law abiding gun owners are not the financial strain on society that anti gun politicians would have us believe. Criminals aren’t going to buy gun insurance? We probably should then require every citizen buy uninsured firearm user coverage too. So when a criminal illegally possess and uses a firearm against an innocent person, the uninsured firearm fund pays….

    No thanks. The responsibility is on the gubmint to support their position and legislature to impose burdens on us subjects.
    Don't let them take guesses and inaccurate stabs in the dark that dick or freedoms as an experiment to show them they effed up and didn't do their jobs. Then we are still stuck with laws,permits and fees that will never be rescinded.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    You can't make a fundamental right contingent on a financial transaction.
     

    adit

    ReMember
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 20, 2013
    19,514
    DE
    San Jose, CA, Becomes First U.S. City To Approve Forcing Gun Owners To Carry Liability Insurance

    On Tuesday, San Jose, California, became the first city in the United States to approve a law requiring all gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance.

    “The Silicon Valley city’s council split the vote into two parts: the first approving the bulk of the proposal, including the insurance provisions, and the second approving the fee provisions. The insurance vote passed 10-1, while the fees vote passed 8-3. The ordinance must be approved next month at its final reading in order to take effect in August,” CNN reported.

    “Under San Jose’s proposed law, gun owners would be charged an annual $25 fee directed to a nonprofit set up to distribute funds to gun crime prevention and to victims of gun violence. The measure also would require gun owners to obtain liability insurance that would cover damage caused by their weapon,” CNN added.

    Prior to the vote, Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights and executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights and an opponent of the proposed law, told CNN, “We’ve opposed this ordinance every step of the way and we will see this through to the end. … If the San Jose City Council actually votes to impose this ridiculous tax on the Constitutional right to gun ownership, our message is clear and simple: see you in court.”

    After a mass shooting at a public transit rail yard in San Jose in May 2021 in which eight workers were killed, the San Jose city council unanimously approved drafting the ordinance calling for the restrictions on gun owners.

    San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo, a Democrat, wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed last week:

    We anticipate that a barrage of lawsuits from the firearm industry and gun rights advocates will follow. … Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common horrific reports of shootings throughout the nation do little more than elicit a performative parade of prayers and platitudes from Congress. Because problem-solving must be elevated over political posturing. …

    Requiring every gun owner in my city to carry liability insurance will better compensate unintentional shooting victims and their families for medical and related expenses. More importantly, insurance can also incentivize safer gun ownership. Risk-adjusted premiums will encourage owners to take gun-safety courses, use gun safes or install child-safe trigger locks to reduce the annual toll of accidental gun harm. …

    Gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. To be sure, the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens to own guns, but it doesn’t require the public to subsidize gun ownership. …

    Critics say that criminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates — and they are right. But these ordinances create a legal mandate that gives police the means for at least the temporary forfeiture of guns from dangerous law-breakers.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/san-...rcing-gun-owners-to-carry-liability-insurance
     

    Growler215

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 30, 2020
    2,172
    SOMD
    I'm ready for "the big one" to finally cause CA to fall into the Pacific Ocean.

    San Diego just passed a ghost gun ban which, amongst other things, bans "unserialized parts" which could be used in building a ghost gun. So theoretically a Glock 19, since it has an unserialized barrel and slide, falls under that ban. And how do you serialize a spring?

    This insurance/fee thing, if it survives, will probably show up in Annapolis in a few years. . .
     

    roadking

    Active Member
    Mar 11, 2019
    315
    Baltimore, MD
    I'm ready for "the big one" to finally cause CA to fall into the Pacific Ocean.

    San Diego just passed a ghost gun ban which, amongst other things, bans "unserialized parts" which could be used in building a ghost gun. So theoretically a Glock 19, since it has an unserialized barrel and slide, falls under that ban. And how do you serialize a spring?

    This insurance/fee thing, if it survives, will probably show up in Annapolis in a few years. . .


    I have to believe (hope?) it would show up in DC sooner...

    I know that a ban on ghost guns is probably against the literal reading of 2A. And I think we all understand why they want to make such a ban. But putting aside whether we agree with it or not, let’s say a ban on unserialized guns (not parts) passes. What are they proposing as penalties? I ask this because here in MD they won’t pass a law that makes stealing a firearm a felony. It’s a misdemeanor. So would owning a ghost gun be a misdemeanor or a felony? At the end of the day, I would think the legislature would view the purpose of owning a ghost gun and a stolen gun to be the same: criminal activity. So I’m really curious what the penalties will be for these ghost gun laws. Are they going to pass them as misdemeanors? I realize may be asking too much - for consistency from one law to the next. And yes, I know most 2a’ers are against ghost gun laws. But I guess I believe they will eventually pass in MD so I’m looking ahead to see what teeth (if any) they plan to put into them and if there will be any consistency in penalties.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

    roadking

    Active Member
    Mar 11, 2019
    315
    Baltimore, MD
    Could end up proving that law abiding gun owners are not the financial strain on society that anti gun politicians would have us believe. Criminals aren’t going to buy gun insurance? We probably should then require every citizen buy uninsured firearm user coverage too. So when a criminal illegally possess and uses a firearm against an innocent person, the uninsured firearm fund pays….


    There is precedent for this sort of thing in MD.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

    Growler215

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 30, 2020
    2,172
    SOMD
    I have to believe (hope?) it would show up in DC sooner...

    I know that a ban on ghost guns is probably against the literal reading of 2A. And I think we all understand why they want to make such a ban. But putting aside whether we agree with it or not, let’s say a ban on unserialized guns (not parts) passes. What are they proposing as penalties? I ask this because here in MD they won’t pass a law that makes stealing a firearm a felony. It’s a misdemeanor. So would owning a ghost gun be a misdemeanor or a felony? At the end of the day, I would think the legislature would view the purpose of owning a ghost gun and a stolen gun to be the same: criminal activity. So I’m really curious what the penalties will be for these ghost gun laws. Are they going to pass them as misdemeanors? I realize may be asking too much - for consistency from one law to the next. And yes, I know most 2a’ers are against ghost gun laws. But I guess I believe they will eventually pass in MD so I’m looking ahead to see what teeth (if any) they plan to put into them and if there will be any consistency in penalties.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    The MD legislature's proposed bill for ghost guns has a 3 year max sentence (plus some cash), so a conviction makes one a "prohibited person" irregardless of the actual sentence given or whether it's a misdemeanor. Not good.
     

    roadking

    Active Member
    Mar 11, 2019
    315
    Baltimore, MD
    The MD legislature's proposed bill for ghost guns has a 3 year max sentence (plus some cash), so a conviction makes one a "prohibited person" irregardless of the actual sentence given or whether it's a misdemeanor. Not good.


    Yeah, and there are plenty of prohibited persons walking around with guns... they get caught and released all the time here in Charm City.

    So this would be a law to get votes, nothing more.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

    Growler215

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 30, 2020
    2,172
    SOMD
    Yeah, and there are plenty of prohibited persons walking around with guns... they get caught and released all the time here in Charm City.

    So this would be a law to get votes, nothing more.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    For a criminal, agree, no big deal.

    But for one of us? Pretty sure they'd come take all of a person's other firearms if they got convicted (even the serialized ones). And not let us buy more (legally.) So if this passes I'd think twice about taking my homemade firearms to the range. . .
     

    roadking

    Active Member
    Mar 11, 2019
    315
    Baltimore, MD
    For a criminal, agree, no big deal.

    But for one of us? Pretty sure they'd come take all of a person's other firearms if they got convicted (even the serialized ones). And not let us buy more (legally.) So if this passes I'd think twice about taking my homemade firearms to the range. . .


    That’s true. I wasn’t going down that road of thought. I was just trying to understand what they were going to implement and how it may help (?) address the crime issue. It won’t. But you’re right. There are many other consequences and side effects - none of which they care about.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,940
    Messages
    7,259,685
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom