.

New Law Could Require Gun Owners to Have Liability Insurance

Two state assemblymen argue that if car owners are required to own it, so should gun owners.

Bay City News Service

State Assemblymen Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) introduced legislation Tuesday that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

Assembly Bill 231 would require the owners to cover damages incurred from incidents stemming from their firearms.

"The government requires insurance as a condition of operating a car - at the very least we should impose a similar requirement for owning a firearm," Ting said in a statement.

Gomez said, under the legislation, individuals would receive a more affordable policy if they use a trigger lock for their firearms and take part in training courses.

Ting on Tuesday also introduced Assembly Bill 232, which would provide state income tax credits for people who participate in local gun buyback programs, with a cap of $1,000.

"Gun buyback programs are an effective way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and lower the risk of intentional or accidental damage by these weapons," Ting said.

Copyright © 2013 by Bay City News, Inc. - Republication, rebroadcast or any other reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited.

Do you agree gun owners should be rquired to have liability insurance? Tell us your opinion in the comments below.

Stay informed on the latest news important to your neighborhood - follow Patch!



Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in San Carlos--Sign up for our daily newsletter | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter| Start a blog


Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in Belmont--Sign up for our daily newsletter|Like Belmont|Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Start your own blog

Common Sense February 07, 2013 at 08:45 PM
Good idea. Let's punish all of the responsible gun owners that have obtained them legally and forget all about all of the illegally owned guns that are doing the majority of the damage in our society. More rhetoric to distract from what is really happening to our country. Sad.
Jon Freeman February 07, 2013 at 09:31 PM
I bet he gets tons of money for his re-election from the insurance companies....
Denny Lawhern February 08, 2013 at 03:24 AM
enough is enough. what needs to be done is to go after the elected bastards who want to continue to punish law abiding citizens. they are the real scum of America. we need to send them off to some place so far that they will never come back. I really hope the NRA gets a hold of them!!!!
Ed February 08, 2013 at 03:56 PM
Let's look at it as a question of rights. We know, for example, that the 1st Amendment protects Patch's right to publish, and to do so without prior restraint (i.e. no need to get approval from a government bureaucrat). There are a few limits to this right, perhaps the biggest being that Patch has no right to defame anyone. Heller and MacDonald settled the question that the 2nd Amendment is also a fundamental right like the 1st, and fundamental rights cannot be subject to prior restraint or licensing schemes. Insurance requirements would easily fall under either prior restraint or licensing schemes. So, for this proposal to pass muster, it would stand to reason that we can now mandate, prior to publication, that Patch obtain an arbitrary amount of insurance to guard potential, unknown victims, against the possibility that it will publish defamatory material. Instead of insurance being a business decision on the part of Patch, it now becomes a government prior restraint on Patch's 1st Amendment right of speech and press. I know we wouldn't go for the idea of prior restraint on newspapers, so how could any reasonable person go for the idea of prior restraint on any other fundamental right?
George Robinson February 08, 2013 at 06:31 PM
Well, they need to ad skiing, baseball/softball, archery, tennis, golf, etc. to the bill since in each case you could injure another person. In the photo, I wonder if that is part of the 1 billion handgun rounds purchased by various departments of the federal government last year, or could it be the 20 million rounds DHS is currently buying? No one is questioning why they need enough bullets to shoot every person in this country 3+ times and none of those bullets have military applications.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »