San Jose Mayor: require all gun owners to have liability insurance

[ThePreBanMan]

why do I have to "help shoulder the public costs of gun violence" when my guns have nothing to do with "gun violence". F YOU

They should have plenty of money to stop gun violence. They can use all the money they saved from defunding the police...


Aside from that, requiring liability insurance is a way of means testing access to constitutional rights and denying access to the poor. It's also racist, because a larger percentage of minority ethnic groups live in poverty than whites. So we've been told by the very people advocating this insurance requirement. What next are you going to put a tax on voting or going to church?

 

[NotaCop]

Insurance tort law prevents agencies from underwriting a liability policy for firearms. You can add them to your homeowner's insurance but that's strictly a LOSS policy and not a LIABILITY policy.
A simple internet search for the topic will bring you to the Insurance Information Institute where they talk about this issue at length.

And apparently no one's gonna mention that CA has a preemption law that specifically prevents any moonbat communities from promulgating their own firearms laws so Liccardo can't do shit anyways. He even admitted that these regulations won't do anything to combat crime and that he purposely targeted the law abiding.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Insurance tort law prevents agencies from underwriting a liability policy for firearms. You can add them to your homeowner's insurance but that's strictly a LOSS policy and not a LIABILITY policy.
A simple internet search for the topic will bring you to the Insurance Information Institute where they talk about this issue at length.

And apparently no one's gonna mention that CA has a preemption law that specifically prevents any moonbat communities from promulgating their own firearms laws so Liccardo can't do shit anyways. He even admitted that these regulations won't do anything to combat crime and that he purposely targeted the law abiding.

You are correct, though preemption would never be enforced in a state in which the vast majority of people would support a complete ban on the ownership of firearms.
Gun laws in California - Wikipedia
In California, those who impose such local bans are seen as heroes to the electorate.

Similarly, people like Liccardo can directly target firearm ownership to the exclusion of any pretense of being concerned about safety because that, too, endears them to the electorate. The crux is that whereas to non-fudds a _problem_ might be defined as actual crime, such as murder, which may or may not involve the use of a firearm, to Californians the fact that anyone outside of government can even possess firearms at all is the fundamental problem. It's similar to Massachusetts in that, given the hearts-and-minds situation regarding the RKBA, it is a complete lost cause. Before anyone starts braying about the constitution, 2A already is nullified in Massachusetts, and Californians oppose 2A in their pursuit of Utopia. SCOTUS never will turn that around, no matter how many lawsuits the FPC files.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Insurance tort law prevents agencies from underwriting a liability policy for firearms. You can add them to your homeowner's insurance but that's strictly a LOSS policy and not a LIABILITY policy.
A simple internet search for the topic will bring you to the Insurance Information Institute where they talk about this issue at length.

And apparently no one's gonna mention that CA has a preemption law that specifically prevents any moonbat communities from promulgating their own firearms laws so Liccardo can't do shit anyways. He even admitted that these regulations won't do anything to combat crime and that he purposely targeted the law abiding.

My homeowners policy has an exclusion for "intentional acts unless taken with the intent to protect persons or property" (like getting sued for pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming bus), but the only firearms exclusion is for loss by theft or mysterious disappearance. What is not coverable is the consequences of an intentional criminal act (although there seems to be a broad based exception to this concept for OUI liability). I don't believe you can find a policy that will payout if you go out an do a mass (or individual) murderous shooting, but can be insured for things like "your Serbu 50 blew up while a friend was shooting out of spec rounds through it", "someone stole your gun and used it in a crime" or even "you had an accidental discharge and hurt someone".

In fact, the iii does indeed talk about how firearms are covered in general, but nobody writes specific firearms liability policies:

Background on: Gun Liability | III

 

[NotaCop]

My homeowners policy has an exclusion for "intentional acts unless taken with the intent to protect persons or property" (like getting sued for pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming bus), but the only firearms exclusion is for loss by theft or mysterious disappearance. What is not coverable is the consequences of an intentional criminal act (although there seems to be a broad based exception to this concept for OUI liability). I don't believe you can find a policy that will payout if you go out an do a mass (or individual) murderous shooting, but can be insured for things like "your Serbu 50 blew up while a friend was shooting out of spec rounds through it", "someone stole your gun and used it in a crime" or even "you had an accidental discharge and hurt someone".

In fact, the iii does indeed talk about how firearms are covered in general, but nobody writes specific firearms liability policies:

Background on: Gun Liability | III

And let's not forget that an "accidental" discharge is actually a "negligent" discharge and here, you can be criminally charged for it, rendering consequential firearm coverage null and void.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

And let's not forget that an "accidental" discharge is actually a "negligent" discharge and here, you can be criminally charged for it, rendering consequential firearm coverage null and void.

Not necessarily, since it is not an intentional crime. Read the policies carefully - it is usually an exclusion for "intentional acts with reasonably expected outcomes" There have been payments for such incidents. This is similar to claims that home done un permitted electric work allows insurers to deny claims - oft claimed, but nobody seems able to provide a documented example.

Funny though - auto insurance companies cannot deny a claim because the insured was committing the crime of OUI, fleeing the police, etc.

 

[Waher]

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/varadmehta/status/1410714344741117955

 

[Brewer]

Can't tax what they don't know about.