San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance

[evenflow1969]

Blatantly unconstitutional.

No insurance can cover criminal acts done by the insured.

At most if you had your gun stolen it could cover you, but again, a person is not responsible for the acts done by their stolen property.

Well you are currently required to have automobile insurance. How is it any different? I am personally not for it but don't think they are going to get rid of it from a constitutional basis.

 

[Donald H]

It is close to accidental. It is a shitty deal if your stupidity gets you into something you have to shoot your way out of. If truly stupid and naive, you can accidentally get yourself into something unexpected.

As that pertains to Rittenhouse or some other shooters, it would be hard to believe that they accidentally got themselves into the situation. Some, not specifically one in particular, would have intentionally got themselves into the situation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Instead of debating any particular point, you've become a pest.

Thank you for proving, yet again, that you have no intention of discussing an issue beyond the point where your position is effectively challenged, you are challenged to support your claims with something other than your opinion, and/or you are not allowed to take the conversation past a point you know you cannot defend.

I, again, accept your concession.

 

[Canon Shooter]

A possibility of negative blowback in that a law-abiding gun owner who intends to use his gun to kill, would purchase the insurance in case he was held liable for the damage he intends to cause with his gun(s).

Otherwise a positive move forward on some measures that could reduce the impact of gun crime!

Yeah, I can certainly see this guy strolling into his local Nationwide Insurance office to get liability insurance:

 

[Donald H]

Yeah, I can certainly see this guy strolling into his local Nationwide Insurance office to get liability insurance:

Insurance is sold based on the risk and the experience. He would get the gun insurance the same as he would get health care insurance. Very high cost in both cases according to the risk of a very high payout.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Insurance is sold based on the risk and the experience. He would get the gun insurance the same as he would get health care insurance.

Why do you refuse to understand insurance does not pay out for intentional criminal acts?
Why do you refuse to understand a person's homeowner's/renter's insurance covers accidents?
Why do you refuse to understand this insurance requirement is an unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the right to own a gun?

 

[White 6]

As that pertains to Rittenhouse or some other shooters, it would be hard to believe that they accidentally got themselves into the situation. Some, not specifically one in particular, would have intentionally got themselves into the situation.

He was just young and dumb. I didn't go there to shoot somebody any more than the man in the moon. I think he now knows it was a mistake going there as an armed teenager.
He is still trying to get his weapon back, with intention to destroy it. This too is a mistake. I would not destroy that weapon. It is just a tool, one that worked, one that worked and most likely save his little misguided butt. If he feels strongly enough, sell it, donate to a worthy cause or museum for display, but destroying is senseless destruction that will benefit nobody.
Oh, by the way. He was found not guilty in a court of law for his actions in self defense, no matter what anybody says. I can totally guarantee the weapon did nothing wrong, he is now of legal age anywhere in the country and should have already had the weapon returned. I got a big problem with the government keeping legal weapons, confiscated as evidence or at the scene of an event once charges have been cleared. They'll do it every time they get a chance to get their hands on one and it is not right.

 

[Donald H]

He was just young and dumb. I didn't go there to shoot somebody any more than the man in the moon. I think he now knows it was a mistake going there as an armed teenager.

Interesting POV! You must have info I don't have.

He is still trying to get his weapon back, with intention to destroy it. This too is a mistake. I would not destroy that weapon. It is just a tool, one that worked, one that worked and most likely save his little misguided butt. If he feels strongly enough, sell it, donate to a worthy cause or museum for display, but destroying is senseless destruction that will benefit nobody.

I have no interest in his weapon or what he does with it. Is it even his?

 

[White 6]

Interesting POV! You must have info I don't have.

I have no interest in his weapon or what he does with it. Is it even his?

Yep. It is his. He should have it back to do with as he pleases. This keeping guns thing by law enforcement is pretty common and about the only way to get them back, once cleared is to lawsuit, but at what cost in legal fees. Not right.
I know a guy that was licensed to carry, but drank liquor after the bar he was bouncing for closed for the night, then got nabbed on the way to his truck. He was arrested. Did not blow higher than legal limit, but he was carrying. He paid a fine, and lost his permit to carry. OK. Fine. He can't carry, even in a state that has constitutional carry, due to the weapons charge. There was nothing in the court judgement about forfeiture of the weapon, nor was he in any way barred from owning one or many, if he chose. Still, if he wanted it back, he would have to bring suit. Unless you are loaded, and it is a matter of principle, the cost of a lawsuit far exceeds the $700 plus price of his weapon, and they know this. I just have a problem with that crap.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

The way the insurance could work is that say someone kills 4 people. The families of the victims sue him. Guy's insured so his insurance pays out.

Poor people can afford insurance, or they aren't savvy enough to get it, so if they're caught with a gun, they'll be uninsured and face a fine.

I'm really not sure why the city government things this will affect anything.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Insurance is sold based on the risk and the experience. He would get the gun insurance the same as he would get health care insurance. Very high cost in both cases according to the risk of a very high payout.

Only a complete fucking retard would believe the guy in the photo I posted would bother to get insurance in the first place.

That was my point, and it seems to have sailed effortlessly over your head...

 

[Canon Shooter]

The way the insurance could work is that say someone kills 4 people. The families of the victims sue him. Guy's insured so his insurance pays out.

Not if the shooting was illegal. Insurance probably won't pay out then.

This is nothing more than another glaring example of anti-gun jerk-offs trying to make themselves feel good by passing legislation they will then convince their idiot constituency is needed to cut down on crime but, in actuality, will have almost no positive impact...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The way the insurance could work is that say someone kills 4 people. The families of the victims sue him. Guy's insured so his insurance pays out.

Poor people can afford insurance, or they aren't savvy enough to get it, so if they're caught with a gun, they'll be uninsured and face a fine.

I'm really not sure why the city government things this will affect anything.

Are you TRYING to prove you are stupid? Insurance does not pay for CRIMINAL acts by the insured.

 

[Polishprince]

San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.

The proposed ordinance would require gun owners to pay an annual fee of roughly $25 as well as administrative costs to the city. Gun owners would also be required to maintain liability insurance in the event their gun is used for violence or a crime.

Mayor Sam Liccardo, who introduced the two proposals last June after a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee killed nine of his co-workers and himself, likened the insurance requirement to motorists having car insurance.

Tuesday Morning News Roundup

San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual...

www.sfgate.com

The mass shooter who spawned this law was a well-paid, law-abiding employee up until the point he went apeshit and shot dead 9 of his coworkers.

He would've just bought the insurance.

Or maybe that's what the law is for? To provide compensation to the victims?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

The purpose of the law is to hassle law abiding gun owners so they will abandon the idea of defending themselves.

Not to collect fees, or make sure the the injured are covered.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Are you TRYING to prove you are stupid? Insurance does not pay for CRIMINAL acts by the insured.

If they write it into law, it would.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If they write it into law, it would.

If insurance companies decided to write polices for it.

 

[marvin martian]

As that pertains to Rittenhouse or some other shooters, it would be hard to believe that they accidentally got themselves into the situation. Some, not specifically one in particular, would have intentionally got themselves into the situation.

Rittenhouse was acquitted in court. It was self defense. I'm shocked you haven't heard this yet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rittenhouse was acquitted in court. It was self defense. I'm shocked you haven't heard this yet.

He has.
He chooses to ignore it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If they write it into law, it would.

No it wouldnt it would take a Federal law to force Insurers to foolishly pay for illegal acts no city can do it.

 

[toobfreak]

San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual fee on their weapons under an ordinance the city council is expected to approve this week.

I have a better idea:

• Charge $10,000 to all criminals or likely criminals for the harm they have done or might do in the future committing crimes. Then deduct a few dollars for every year they remain crime free.

​

​

​

Makes about as much sense or more than charging lawful people for something they are likely never to do.