California gun owners may soon have to carry liability insurance to own a gun.
Last week two state senators introduced amended legislation to require such insurance for the negligent or accidental discharge of a gun.
The amended Senate Bill 8 was introduced by Sens. Nancy Skinner, D-Oakland and Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, following the mass shootings across the state in January.
“Victims of gun violence and their families suffer severe harm — economic, mental and physical — but have little to no recourse to be compensated for that harm,” Skinner said in a statement.
Skinner added, “Insurance is the method our society uses to compensate those harmed by, for example, car accidents, medical malpractice, or faulty consumer products. Requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance puts the burden where it should be — on the gun owner.”
If SB 8 becomes law, California would be the first state in the nation to enact such a law.
San Jose has a gun insurance law, the first such law in the nation. SB 8 will be modeled after San Jose law, which went into effect at the beginning of this year.
Statewide, 31 people have died this month in mass shootings that have occurred in Oakland, Half Moon Bay, Monterey Park and among others Goshen, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which tracks the numbers. Twenty-four more people were injured in those shootings, according to the same source.
“This bill is a commonsense approach to improve community safety,” Blakespear said. “Under current laws, gun violence victims and society at large are the ones who suffer the cost of gun violence. This needs to change.”
Blakespear added, “Firearms are similar to cars in that they are inherently dangerous and are in wide circulation. If a car accidentally causes injury to a person or property, the insurance policy will compensate the victim. The same approach should apply to injuries caused by guns.”
SB 8 would be like car insurance. Gun owners would be civilly liable for property damage, injury or death caused by their gun. Gun owners would also have to have proof they own the gun and keep that with them. If asked by police, a gun owner would have to show the officer the proof.
Blakespear introduced a version of SB 8 last year. The latest version of SB 8 will be like last year’s SB 505, which was crafted by Skinner. Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, will also be a principal author of the latest version of SB 8.
58 comments
Illegal.
All my guns were lost in a boating accident. They’re at the bottom of a lake.
Mine too!
Wow, what a coincidence! Mine too!
They just don’t make these boats like they used to.
This is nothing but a money grab.The people committing these crimes are not going to have insurance anyway.I’m not paying it.
I cannot help but wonder what part of the Second Amendment our Democrat leaders do not understand.
“Being necessary to the security of a FREE state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED.” Maybe they need to look up the definition of “free,” and “infringed.”
Which well regulated militia do you belong to?
@Chuq: where does the Constitution say that only militia members can keep and bear arms? Here, I’ll help you out:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It very clearly states THE PEOPLE, not just militia members. In other parts of the Constitution where it refers to THE PEOPLE, which specific groups is it referring to?
“We the People. All able-bodied citizens of the United States.” When the Constitution was written, the founding fathers were aware that a federal army can be used as a means of a tyranny. They created a system to prevent the army from ever threatening the freedoms and liberties of American citizens. “A well regulated militia.” The Constitution derives its power from the people, and the people are the well regulated militia. One thing to remember, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution was written in 1791, and the term, “well regulated” didn’t have the same meaning as it does today.
I hope I answered your question.
How does being held responsible for one’s own actions equate to an infringement?
Being liable for an action is not limiting one’s ability to keep or purchase more guns.
You are now required to pay an extra $100 a month in DUI insurance if you own a car. Even if you have never had a DUI.
@ DI ~ The obvious reason to pass this load of BS is to make the cost of ownership higher & higher to further limit the number of people who can afford to buy a gun for self defense.
Owning a gun is the most basic form of life insurance.
Remember, when seconds count…. the Police are only minutes away.
Every individual will now be required to pass an exam on economics, the Constitution and government before being allowed to vote. Just a way to make sure people are accountable for the choices they make.
@ Rollo….. actually, I’ve been advocating exactly that for years. Allowing complete idiots to decide who will govern us is insanity.
Newsflash. You’re already responsible for your own actions. This doesn’t make anybody safer. It just adds an expense for gun owners, creates a new revenue stream for insurance companies, and gives thousands of sleazy lawyers something to do.
Great idea! I’m sure criminals will get liability insurance right away on their stolen guns…just in case a robbery goes sideways. They need that piece of mind.
There is a reason all their laws target the law abiding and not the criminals. They don’t care about the criminality, they fear the People, and want them disarmed. Raising the costs of exercising the 2A right is just one more method of achieving that.
Great idea! I’m sure criminals will get liability insurance right away on their stolen guns…just in case a robbery goes sideways. They need that peace of mind.
.
Unconstitutional.
.
See you at the SCOTUS.
.
Money grab. all political flash to make it look like they’re doing something, criminals will buy insurance? … they’ll want serial numbers, type and calibers, etc. Any legislature I know that backs this gets a no vote from me.
This seems to be a modern version of a poll tax – requiring payment to exercise a right.
Illegal as hell. I’m surprised that San Jose hasn’t already been sued over this.
I haven’t watched it closely, but I’m guessing no one has been charged under that law yet. No lawsuits until someone has standing.
Here we go again with another knee-jerk law regarding firearms. Were the recent killings horrific? Yes, absolutely. Will forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance for their guns or requiring them to carry proof of gun ownership with them prevent any of the types of shootings that are occurring? Absolutely not. And anyone who is naive enough to believe that needs a reality check. But it is much easier to try to pass a “feel good, we did something” law than to address the real issue which appears to be a breakdown of society which is a lot harder to fix. There are plenty of laws pertaining to gun ownership on the books. Responsible gun owners follow the rules. But you have the other segment of society who don’t give a rat’s a** about gun laws. So what has been accomplished? Absolutely nothing except perhaps drive more people out of California. Of course, California will have the honor of being the “first” state in the country to pass such an insurance law, and isn’t being the “first” what California is all about?
Agreed, this will not solve our crime issues. CA has the toughest gun laws per Everytown for Gun Safety yet leads the nation in mass shootings. It’s worth noting that while politicians pushing these initiatives compare gun ownership to car ownership, driving is a privilege whereas gun ownership is a right under 2A. Responsible gun owners are arming themselves as defense against the rampant crime we experience everyday, not to overthrow the government as Biden has repeatedly pushed. The local police are doing their best but are understaffed and might not be able to respond as quickly as necessary for a home invasion. Rather than create more red tape for responsible gun owners, try enforcing laws already on the books. Try creating a task force to go after the numerous felony criminals that fail a background check each year trying to buy firearms. When Police arrest felons with guns and drugs, convict them vs catch and release. Finally, read the fine print on these proposed “liability policies”. No insurance policy will cover against criminal or negligent use.
Nothing more than a new lucrative source of revenue for pursuers of emergency medical transport vehicles.
.
“Funny” that gun regulation pushers show no outrage about the 35 gun-related homicides in Chicago already this year.
.
.
“Let no (gun-related) crisis go unexploited” – Barack Obama
Nearly all of the recent killings were perpetrated by gang members and other lifelong criminals. The sheer insanity of these new bills is astonishing. I only have a few more years till retirement. When I leave the state, I will never set foot here again.
uncle sam always finding away to make more $$$ lol
I love how these clueless idiots always want to compare gun ownership to vehicles. One – owning a vehicle is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Two – the insurance requirement for vehicles only applies if the vehicle is used on public property.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. After the Civil War, Democrats across the South instituted Poll Taxes to suppress the black vote, for example charging $2 each to vote. Finally in 1964, the 24th Amendment declared Poll Taxes unconstitutional since it stopped people from exercising a Constitutional right. And now, the Democrats are at it again. To them, gun owners are the new blacks.
So let’s get this straight. Some of the dead are victims of gang shootings, but those are now classified as mass shootings.
Now a couple do DemocRATs want to penalize hub owners by requiring insurance. And which victims get paid? Those of the drive by, or those of workplace violence?
How is San Jose (as others already stated) getting away with taxing (insurance is theoretically required) someone who wants to practice their 2A rights?
I am not, currently, a gun owner but I am now thinking about going to Nevada to purchase a couple of items with cash.
If you’re talking about purchasing guns, that would be highly illegal. Let me know if you find a Nevada FFL that will sell you a firearm.
Rollo
I am talking about buying guns, but I actually do not know the laws associated with buying a firearm in another state. My comment was only intended to mean I would buy the firearm in another state so I don’t have to pay the California fees associated with it and that California would not know about it. I would not do anything illegal around a firearm. I would I buy a sidearm, I would only be riding shotgun for home defense – well maybe two, his and hers
OK. Under federal law, you cannot legally buy and take possession of a firearm in a state other than the state where you reside. It’s possible to buy it, but it would then have to be shipped to a FFL holder in your home state where the requisite background check and waiting period (if applicable) would be completed and a record of the sale created. All of this assumes that the gun you purchased is on the CA roster of legal firearms.
I’ve done that many times. Perfectly legal & proper.
ya i just up and lost all my guns SUCK MY …. NEWSOM
This will undoubtedly be more expensive if you own more than one gun… right?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Better get a special permit & insurance for ammo as well !
That is gun registration.
“Firearms are similar to cars. B.S. Cars are not in the 2nd Amendment what do those anti American, state senators not understand about ” Shall Not Be INFRINGED…. They took an oath of office. Time to Impeach them.
I have a better idea. How about all Politicians be required to carry liability insurance for all the psychotic legislation they create that is useless, idiotic, illegal or unconstitutional. Anyone affected negatively by their liberal nonsense will be eligible to collect.
Where’s the liquor liability insurance? Should need insurance in order to buy liquor. How about insurance to be able to buy Tobacco? All are responsible for exponentially more deaths than firearms also neither are rights.
“If a car accidentally causes injury to a person or property, the insurance policy will compensate the victim.”
How exactly does a car accidentally cause injury or damage? Does it start itself, drive out of the driveway, and careen around the roads hitting pedestrians and people willy nilly, then quietly return itself to the driveway? Do these people have any idea how stupid they sound? Worse yet, do the people that vote for them know how stupid they are?
“This bill is a commonsense approach to improve community safety,” Blakespear said.
Yeah, sure. This bill would improve community safety about as much as having car insurance will keep you from being involved in an accident.
You know when they use the word “commonsense” that the legislation they’re trying to inflict on us is completely devoid of any.
They can have my insurance money from my cold dead hand!
Maybe the same should be done with the use of cell phones while driving. Cell phones cause more carnage than firearms. Criminals probably won’t abide by this either or driving without a license or insurance.
I did not see one negative comment on this thread. Who is the person that that gives the thumbs down ? My guess is that they can’t make a good case or they would make it.
Democrat playbook- take an issue that polls well with your constituency, propose ANY law that sounds like it will do something for that thing. Regardless of legality. Bonus points if the law involves some oversight that you won’t be able to fund making the law unenforceable. Bonus Bonus points if the law relies on non-criminals bearing the burden of compliance bc they don’t want to break rules. Finally, smith data to claim efficacy of your law bc it didn’t address a problem to begin.
Insurance will make the community safer…. will they listen to themselves? I think I’ll create an insurance company that targets selling gun insurance to street gangs. Think I’ll be successful?
I must be stuck in a Dopamine feedback loop.
I have insurance for an event with an uninsured motorist, will they then require non-gun owners to carry insurance for events with uninsured gun owners?
It’s just another diversionary tactic by liberal California democrat government to hide the fact that they zero ability to mitigate and solve the real problems here in the state.
Well since we are busy legislating: How about requiring progressive protesters to carry and show proof of civil disobedience insurance prior to being admitted to mostly peaceful city burning, brick throwing events.
I plan on calling my insurance carrier for a quote on a hate-speech liability policy. It’s only a matter of time before I offend an ultra sensitive progressive. I understand opposing opinions can scar some people for life.
BTW – The NRA already offers members Personal Firearm Liability Insurance, you receive coverage to help protect against the costs associated with hunting and shooting accidents, accidental discharge, lost or stolen firearms and lawful personal defense. Cost begins at $75 per year for $250,000 coverage.
So you’re going to put the burden of insurance on the shoulders of the law abiding citizens, while the criminals are free to do what they want? You MIGHT get my vote if you aimed this at concealed carry owners. Or if it was an option to gun owners, but not a requirement.
One of the most idiotic statements, “Gun Violence”
A gun is a weapon. An object that requires a trigger be pulled by the person operating it!
If there were more law abiding citizens carrying guns on our streets it may make the criminals think twice about committing the violence to begin with.
Idiot politicians
Likewise.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Since we are on our own for protecting ourselves, I’m not waiting Minutes when it’s Seconds at stake.
Sorry, not doing and not paying for some grifters pet bill. This reminds me of the socialistic crap ‘Buddy Wicks’ tried to pull last year. TAKE A HIKE!!!
PS: When will the gun shops begin running peoples Voting history when doing back ground checks……we don’t need any Hypocrites protecting themselves, let them deal with the cesspool They have created.
Comments are closed.