Gunowner Liability

[jhjimbo]

I'm sure if you read the insurance it doesn't cover illegal acts. An insured person can't go shoot 15 people and the insurance company pays, no illegal activity is ever covered by insurance. Accidents are what, 600 per year, and how many of those are felons mishandling guns.

What the law does do is give some Californians glee for a few months as it makes it's way up however far in the courts it goes. I guarantee you, now is a real bad time for people to try to make new gun laws.

It seems, even in the legal use of a firearm like self defense, the shooter is confronted with a civil law suit. Am I wrong ?

[rock rat]

It seems, even in the legal use of a firearm like self defense, the shooter is confronted with a civil law suit. Am I wrong ?

You're right. But that's a legal use. I don't know what the incidence is, but I'd think 99% of (made up percent by me thank you very much) firearm death and injury is illegal.

[jhjimbo]

I'm sure if you read the insurance it doesn't cover illegal acts. An insured person can't go shoot 15 people and the insurance company pays, no illegal activity is ever covered by insurance. Accidents are what, 600 per year, and how many of those are felons mishandling guns.

What the law does do is give some Californians glee for a few months as it makes it's way up however far in the courts it goes. I guarantee you, now is a real bad time for people to try to make new gun laws.

It seems, even in the legal use of a firearm like self defense, the shooter is confronted with a civil law suit. Am I wrong ?

[Danbo]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...e-requirement/


Here is the legal challenge.

[labrador12]

I'm sure if you read the insurance it doesn't cover illegal acts. An insured person can't go shoot 15 people and the insurance company pays, no illegal activity is ever covered by insurance. Accidents are what, 600 per year, and how many of those are felons mishandling guns.

What the law does do is give some Californians glee for a few months as it makes it's way up however far in the courts it goes. I guarantee you, now is a real bad time for people to try to make new gun laws.

Except in NY and California where individuals have forfeited their rights to the Democrat Party!

Let's GO Brandon!!!

[rock rat]

I'm sure if you read the insurance it doesn't cover illegal acts. An insured person can't go shoot 15 people and the insurance company pays, no illegal activity is ever covered by insurance. Accidents are what, 600 per year, and how many of those are felons mishandling guns.

What the law does do is give some Californians glee for a few months as it makes it's way up however far in the courts it goes. I guarantee you, now is a real bad time for people to try to make new gun laws.

[FirstBubba]

The USCCA already provides to members legal representation in any litigation from gun liability.

...and their "membership" IS NOT cheap!

[Danbo]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/californi...lity-insurance

[Danbo]

San Jose has voted to require gunowners to have liability insurance on everyone in their household, and pay an annual fee that will be put toward a "gun violence reduction" program. The fee won't be much, but it's still a fee.

This will be challenged in the courts and will be struck down.

Cal Guns and 2cnd amendment foundation are on this bad law in San Jose.

These anti gun politicians throw a whole bunch of sh-t against the wall to see what sticks.
Most of it doesn't.

[jhjimbo]

The USCCA already provides to members legal representation in any litigation from gun liability.

[FirstBubba]

If this only pertains to gun owners, but includes a program to cover all people, this would certainly be challenged under a discrimination charge. It is amazing the BS these anti’s continue to reveal their idiocy with.

Yes, it only pertains to gun owners. It was on "NewsMax" this morning.

[bowhunter75richard]

San Jose has voted to require gunowners to have liability insurance on everyone in their household, and pay an annual fee that will be put toward a "gun violence reduction" program. The fee won't be much, but it's still a fee.

If this only pertains to gun owners, but includes a program to cover all people, this would certainly be challenged under a discrimination charge. It is amazing the BS these anti’s continue to reveal their idiocy with.

[MattM37]

San Jose has voted to require gunowners to have liability insurance on everyone in their household, and pay an annual fee that will be put toward a "gun violence reduction" program. The fee won't be much, but it's still a fee.