Democrats In Brokeifornia Offer Legislation Requiring Insurance For Gun Owners To Protect The Taxpayer

Seriously. California is one of the brokest big governmental entities in the world, spending taxpayer money taken at the barrel of a jail cell willy nilly, yet…

(The Blaze) 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 following 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.”

Let’s see: Brokeifornia’s taxpayers are footing the bill for the far left leaning government’s lax policies on illegal immigration, which leads to the jails “hosting” a population that is over 1/3rd illegals, hospitals running in the red and seeing their emergency rooms close, and lots of crime. Their social services programs are over-run, as is the educational system.

Ting equated the idea to requiring vehicle owners to buy auto insurance. Gomez argued it would encourage gun owners to take firearms safety classes and keep their guns locked up to get lower insurance rates.

Getting some gun owners to take safety classes is not a bad idea. Heck, some need to be taught how to fire a gun correctly. How would the insurance carrier know about keeping the guns locked up? Might this be a way to have The Government visit and check out gun owner’s homes?

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.

And that’s the true point of the legislation. While one can actually purchase liability insurance already, we can surely bet that what would come from the government of California would be so expensive that many gun owners couldn’t afford it. And, really, this is legislation that goes after legal gun owners, punishing them for exercising a Constitutional Right, rather than focusing on those who shouldn’t have them.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

6 Comments

Comment by mojo
2013-02-06 10:24:59

And do you really want that burglar you plugged to get a million-dollar payout from the insurance? Because I guarantee that’s what will happen.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-02-06 11:28:40

This is a great idea. Let’s apply it to all rights. That means that members of legislatures would have to carry slander and libel insurance. News organizations would have to carry the same type of insurance.

Police would no longer have qualified immunity and be held accountable for bad arrests and procedures as they would have to have insurance as well.

The list goes on and on.

In other words, to the clowns that promote such ridiculous ideas as forcing people to have insurance on a God given or natural right, to them I say “you first.”

 
Comment by john
2013-02-06 12:23:11

California has been doing quite well the last 2 years under the Dem Govenor. 2 years with no deficits and doing very well with jobs. Your data is from years ago and you always believe the same people who told you that Romney was going to win, easily

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-02-06 13:09:54

Oh john, more companies have left California since 2005 than have come into the state. The state has a “balanced budget” if and only if revenues are met and there are lots of indications from economists that revenues still will not match spending.

And for the record, California has the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country.

Of course none of this deals with the idea of a state thinking it has the ability to tax a right, but then again, you always seem to want to move the goalposts and not address the real issue.

In this case, not only did you move the goalpost, you moved it to the land of ignorance in which your bridge resides.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-02-06 21:53:06

That’s liberalism/progressivism, mojo, where the actual criminal is considered the good guy. If you like scifi at all, there is a book called In Due Time by J.K. Jones. I usually do not like to mix heavy politics into my fiction, even with mystery/thrillers, but this one is really interesting in that it mixes time travel with creeping Progressivism, and what the outcomes are.

Excellent ideas, GC. Let’s add in that all these people who work for the government would have to personally purchase the insurance, particularly elected politicians, rather than having the taxpayer fund it.

What specific “data” is from “years ago”, John? You forgot to mention that.

 
Comment by ruralcounsel
2013-02-06 23:07:16

So can we require financial security insurance from any California resident who wanders outside of their state?
Seems to me that they pose a risk to the rest of us.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9037 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE