Having gotten away with forcing Americans to purchase insurance as the price of breathing, the Democratic Party is trying to force Californians to purchase insurance as the price of exercising their Second Amendment right of self-defense.
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 after 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.”
We’re all already paying that cost in the taxes we pay to keep law enforcement, hospitals etc going.
Other states have tried similar laws before, but none have succeeded. But that was before the current gun hysteria — in which another 10-year-old has been snared, by the way — and before the coward John Roberts decided that we all could be forced by our benevolent masters to buy a product as the price of living. So it’s a hysterical, far from brave new world now, and some people are going nuts and others stand ready to take advantage of them.
This policy would hurt the poor, mostly, who live in rough neighborhoods and need a firearm to defend themselves and their families. They would face a choice between putting food on the table or maintaining their self-defense, or going rogue. Women who need a firearm to secure themselves from stalkers and the like would now face what amounts to a tax on their predicament.
But when it comes to attacking the Second Amendment, all is fair game to many Democrats. Pricing people out of gun ownership, followed by confiscation, is the ultimate goal.
Sen. Jamin Raskin is pushing similar insurance legislation in the MD General Assembly as we speak. As a smoke screen, he is saying that this will enable actuarial analysis to identify and eliminate risk factors in gun ownership. In a pig’s eye,of course. Who’s writing this stuff for these pinheads? Soros?
Jamin Raskin, given his ethnic and religious heritage, obviously still hasn’t learned the lessons of the Holocaust.
Note: these are the same people who argue that a voter id is an undue burden and tax on a constitutional right
Bingo.
More importantly, these are hypocrites who say that the working poor, minorities, college kids, the elderly and other people on fixed incomes cannot possibly afford state IDs that are by law provided FREE OF CHARGE to anyone who says they can’t afford the right to vote.
But they can afford the THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS yearly that firearm liability insurance to anyone who says they want to exercise their right to bear arms.
I hope California’s Democrat-only super majority passes such nonsense. It will drive the last conservatives out of the state, and the crime rate will increase exponentially as women are raped and killed by the thousands because sexual predators know women won’t be able to afford firearm liability insurance and criminals will know the working poor won’t have any way to protect themselves except through illegal means.
It’s a guaranteed situation where “only outlaws will have guns.” Let’s try this experiment, shall we?
A couple hundred thousand fewer Californians would do the US a world of good.
So these legislators hope to use insurance companies to achieve what they are constitutionally prohibited from doing. And believe the Justices won’t see through their brilliant scheme.
First, are their damages that have been assessed upon various gun owners that are going unpaid in our normal tort system? If so, trot them out. Of course, if you attach liability to an object, then it is easy to argue liability for other objects such as cars, cell phones, etc. Should you not be liable for damages if someone steals/borrows your car and then uses it to run people over or violate traffic laws? What if they steal your cell phone and use it to detonate a IED? Or perhaps they just throw it at someone? What if someone grabs your steak knife at a restaurant and stabs someone else or themselves. Is not the object liable for the damage it causes?
In regards to the 10 yr old, most 10 yr olds start thinking adults are morons, Alexandria is actually confirming it.
Best comment:
Undue burden, like a poll tax.
Clearly, illegal aliens, as a class, when made citizens despite not having the financial resources required of other immigrants, should also pay an extra tax so as to prevent a burden being imposed upon the taxpayer.
And I’m sure the Crips, Bloods and Tongs will be among the first to sign up for the coverage. Idiots.
My guns are incapable of hurting anyone or doing damage so the cost of this insurance will be zero.
Along that line, one can argue that outlawing features like the pistol grip disproportionately discriminates against shooters with less upper body strength (e.g,. many women) as well as older shooters with arthritis.
– know their own state Insurance Code.