Bay City News Service
State Assemblymen Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) introduced legislation Tuesday that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Assembly Bill 231 would require the owners to cover damages incurred from incidents stemming from their firearms.
"The government requires insurance as a condition of operating a car - at the very least we should impose a similar requirement for owning a firearm," Ting said in a statement.
Gomez said, under the legislation, individuals would receive a more affordable policy if they use a trigger lock for their firearms and take part in training courses.
Ting on Tuesday also introduced Assembly Bill 232, which would provide state income tax credits for people who participate in local gun buyback programs, with a cap of $1,000.
"Gun buyback programs are an effective way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and lower the risk of intentional or accidental damage by these weapons," Ting said.
Copyright © 2013 by Bay City News, Inc. - Republication, rebroadcast or any other reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited.
Do you agree that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance? Tell us your opinion in the comments below.
In the 60's scientists in Livermore came up with the "Flying Crowbar." http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html A nuclear powered Mach 3 low altitude ramjet missile carrying multiple nuclear warheads. Does the 2nd Amendment cover that too? I didn't see it in there.
My statement however is about the effectiveness of voluntary gun buyback programs, not actual gun control. The article you cite relates to "a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons." which is not what I nor this article is about. The ONLY good thing about the buyback program in discussion here is that it is voluntary. These are my thoughts.
It makes as much (or more) sense to disarm the police as it does to disarm the citizenry. The simple reason is that the people need it for the same reasons, self defense. Self defense is a responsibility of each person and not a privilege or gift of the state.
Where did the money come from? this could not have been cheap.
1994 was a high point on the number of deaths by guns, when 17,000 deaths were accounted in the US. In 1995 (the nearest year with data) there were 41,800 deaths due to automobile accidents. In 2004, there were only 11,000 deaths by guns. That same year, there were 42,800 deaths due to automobile accidents. 2009 was a low year for auto accidents with only 33,800 deaths. When comparing automobiles to guns, automobiles are far more dangerous and cause far more deaths. Maybe it's automobiles that should be facing limits on it's use. When it comes down to it, there is no comparison between automobiles and guns. They are far different, treated different, and have different purposes. Forcing liability insurance is an attempt to limit guns through financial means and really only benefits the insurance industry. Previous posters are correct in that most guns sued to commit murder are used by people that will not care about the liability insurance. If someone is bold enough to attempt to shoot someone else, they sure are not going to be bothered by a minor issue as insurance. This will only affect the law abiding citizen, and not in a positive way.
The insurance idea is a joke, since most homeowners/renters insurance would cover accidental firearm discharge, as along as it's not an 'intentional' act.
We have a right to defend ourselves against criminals and must be as well armed as they are to do so. We won't pay taxes to keep a COP on every block so keeping a gun is the next best thing. A Deringer can be just a deadly as an AK 47 but is less intimidating and you you might just have to use the Deringer wher the AK 47 may never ever be fired. Just like small women get raped but big muscular ones are left alone. Criminals never want to take on more than they can chew. They are cowards and use guns to give them the fortitude they lack in themselves. Less than .001 % of guns are ever used in crimes. That is less than homeowner's DOGS biting someone, yet the Dog is covered by your homeowners insurance and the Gun is not?
"liabilty " portion of their policy..