Gun Rights Group Sues to Block First U.S. Firearms Insurance Law

[Dial H For Hero]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-27/gun-rights-group-sues-to-block-first-u-s-firearms-insurance-law

A gun rights organization sued San Jose, California, arguing a first-of-its-kind city ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance is unconstitutional.

The National Association for Gun Rights filed the suit Wednesday in federal court in San Jose, a day after the law was passed. The group seeks a court order blocking the ordinance.

The law requires gun owners to carry a gun-liability insurance policy that would cover losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of the firearm, including death, injury or property damage. Gun owners will also be required to pay a $25 annual fee.

Calling it a first of its kind in the U.S., San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said in a statement that “gun-harm reduction fees” from firearms owners will be invested in “evidence-based initiatives” to reduce gun violence. The law, set to take effect in July, is a “constitutionally compliant path” toward achieving its aim, according to the statement.

[spanone]

1. Of course they did.

[Hoyt]

2. Hope your "gun-rights" group fails.

[rockfordfile]

6. I agree

[marie999]

3. We are against any law that allows the government to know what weapons we have.

The reason for us is we are Jewish. Look at Jewish history, look at all the countries that welcomed Jews and later killed them or deported them.

[Dial H For Hero]

4. I suspect this law will be found unconstitutional. Time will tell.

[rockfordfile]

7. This has nothing to to do with that. Actually it's Neo-Nazis that would want to hide weapons

Right-wing domestic terrorist and Russia are the main threat to our democracy.

[marie999]

8. The fee would allow the government to know who has weapons.

Anti-semitism is growing here and abroad. Republicans are the greatest threat to our democracy.

[Dial H For Hero]

10. California already has state wide firearms registration.

[marie999]

12. And I'm sure that all the White supremists have all their weapons registered.

[Xolodno]

23. We already have national registries on gun ownership.

It's ironic, but the NRA and other gun associations have current and past member logs. So its safe to assume their members own a gun. What we don't know, are people who own guns, but only for hunting, recreation, collecting, etc. and refuse any membership to a gun association.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

5. Murder and Mass Mayhem Organization Sues for Rights to Bloodshed...corrected headline.

This isn’t nazi germany, yet, where every citizen not complying with state police is in danger of death and mass arrest without cause, is it?

Or is there a zombie apocalypse Twitter hasn’t mentioned?

Just as the Jesus freaks keep pushing and pushing on abortion, need the same stubborn pushing on ridding America of first counting, controlling and restricting, finally reducing….400 million guns…with full due process rights.

Radical, eh?

[Captain Stern]

9. The law seems like a good idea. It probably does no harm, and maybe some good.

However, the mandatory liability insurance they are proposing that gun owners have wouldn't have covered anything that the mass shooter at their rail yard did.

In my opinion the $25 annual fee for any gun owner is going to kill this law in court.

I think they shouldn't have tied those two things together.

[onethatcares]

11. the challenge may be based on

the gun owner, after buying guns that cost more than a weeks' wages, can't afford the $25.00 fee thereby throwing an obstacle into the free and unobstructed ownership of said guns.



just my thoughts, not based on anything but my thoughts.

[gratuitous]

13. The NAGR should lose, and lose badly

Guns don't have rights. And people shouldn't be reduced to penury from medical bills or funeral expenses just because some whackaloon with a firearm injures or kills them. There needs to be some responsibility, at long last, for firearms manufacturers, distributors and users to pay for the grievous harm their product and its use inflict on society.

[ripcord]

14. Nothing but symbolic fluff

A gun owner who refuses to register his weapon or get insurance will face no penalties.

[WarGamer]

15. de facto 2A restriction... won't survive it's first trip to Court.

[crickets]

16. So, is mandated auto insurance also unconstitutional? nt

[Angleae]

19. Auto ownership isn't a constitutional right.

[crickets]

20. So what? Liability is liability, whether from cars or guns. nt

[former9thward]

21. Not everything in life is covered by specific liability insurance.

If you strike someone riding your bicycle should you have to have liability insurance?

[Angleae]

22. The courts long ago said you can't place a tax specificially on a constitutional right.

and requiring insurance is a de-facto tax

[NutmegYankee]

24. The insurance for cars is to exercise the privilege of driving on public roads.

No example exists in legal tradition to merely have an object in your home.

[Emile]

17. Sounds like they don't want to be responsible gun owners!

[Happy Hoosier]

18. Easy solution....

California needs to pass a law so that anyone without insurance can be sued by private individuals who will be awarded no less that $10,000. Wanna play silly games? Fine. Let's dance.

[sakabatou]

25. I'm not surprised by this

[Xolodno]

26. This is going to depend on how it is worded.

If you are out in the woods and accidently shoot someone you thought was an elk...you will be liable. Your homeowners or renters policy already covers personal liability and will pay for that...to a certain limit. Now if the law is just asking for coverage above that or separating between gun owners and non gun owners for premium charges, I can easily see this standing. Negligent and accidental use does require emergency services, damage, restitution to the injured parties, etc. But if its targeted to make gun ownership prohibitive, it will likely fall.

But insurance carriers have to be watching this like a hawk. Segmenting policy holders is a huge trend as of late, but have avoided the issue because of it being politically sensitive. But if there is data to suggest non gun owners deserve a premium discount....well...