Mandatory insurance to exercise 2A rights

“The only San Jose gun owners who are exempt from the insurance requirement are police officers and those with concealed carry permits, according to city documents. Low-income gun owners may apply for a waiver.”

Hard to imagine California gun laws if Reagan hadn’t paved the way when he was governor. Outlawing open carry when the Black Panthers decided to exercise their rights against corrupt cops laid the foundation for all this nonsense. Whacko points out the obvious, but it’s still a step in the wrong direction, especially when the boys in blue (who seem to have more accidents than most) are exempt, even after retirement. Just my humble opinion.

Second article.
 
“The only San Jose gun owners who are exempt from the insurance requirement are police officers and those with concealed carry permits, according to city documents. Low-income gun owners may apply for a waiver.”

Hard to imagine California gun laws if Reagan hadn’t paved the way when he was governor. Outlawing open carry when the Black Panthers decided to exercise their rights against corrupt cops laid the foundation for all this nonsense. Whacko points out the obvious, but it’s still a step in the wrong direction, especially when the boys in blue (who seem to have more accidents than most) are exempt, even after retirement. Just my humble opinion.

Second article.
Your humble opinion is pretty spot on
 
That's cute, what happens when nobody exists to underwrite the insurance? Sounds like a pretty direct infringement/ban.

ETA: when this idea was pushed by linstain (several times i might add) in MA, local insurance industry group basically said "how about no". I forget the details but @Buck F might know what i was referring to. I don't think insurers want to be involved in that garbage. Especially considering at this point a federal court could basically outlaw it.
 
This was proposed after the Gilroy Garlic Festival. That was a criminal act and no insurance, homeowners, ior firearm's specific would cover it.

It was a terroerist attack aimed apparently at White people. Guess that doesn't meet their needs as it was quietly allowed to fade away.

The shooter in that incident, Legan made two posts to the account, one of which complained about the event congesting the countryside with "hordes of mestizos ( Mestizo is a term used for racial classification to refer to a person of mixed European and Indigenous American ancestry. In certain regions such as Latin America, it may also refer to people who are culturally European even though their ancestors are not.) and Silicon Valley white twats" and instructed people to read the book Might Is Right, a pseudonymous proto-fascist manifesto.[18][35]

Doi a quick review of the San Jose homicide suspects and they aren't the type to buy insurance, or care about the laws in place.
 
This is nothing new.
The way it really works is you can sue anybody you want the problem is it’s not worth sueing anybody who doesn’t have anything.

If this proposed law was anything other than a gun grab, it would say, if you’re a f***ing loser, you need insurance to cover any stupid f***ing thing you might do.

I don’t even get collision on my vehicles. Why the f*** would I buy insurance for something that I do on purpose like shooting somebody.

Basically they wanna have insurance in case of an accident happening. In Massachusetts any accident is actually a crime when it involves guns, so how does that work again?
 
That's cute, what happens when nobody exists to underwrite the insurance? Sounds like a pretty direct infringement/ban.

ETA: when this idea was pushed by linstain (several times i might add) in MA, local insurance industry group basically said "how about no". I forget the details but @Buck F might know what i was referring to. I don't think insurers want to be involved in that garbage. Especially considering at this point a federal court could basically outlaw it.
Their Only objective is to make thing tougher on gun owners which is why they have zero clue what they’re doing. At most, homeowners/renters insurance will provide liability coverage if you negligently shoot someone in your home who’s not a household member. If a child shoots themselves w mom’s gun, homeowners insurance does squat. If they shoot a friend who’s over, it would generally provide coverage. If that happens, the least of your problems are higher premiums & going into the assigned risk pool.

No insurance covers criminal or intentional acts. Ok, self defense would be an intentional act but technically that’d be a defense against being civilly liable for bodily injury. Sure, you’ll probably get sued but your insurance Co will use self defense to get out of paying a claim.

These morons think that they’re going to get insurance companies to somehow “incentivize” gun safety via higher premiums or denial of coverage and none of that is going to happen.
 
As I think about this.. There’s some kind of insurance the NRA pushes that if you get injured on your way to a sanctioned shoot, On your way home, or at the event you get some coverage. I doubt it’s ever paid out.

I understand possibly getting injured on the way there or back in a car accident but you’re already insured.. I couldn’t imagine, filing an insurance claim for negligently shooting myself..

Even if somebody else shoots you, it’s probably not worth it.. Unless it was in the torso, I’d let it slide… If it’s in the head, well, that problem solves itself
 
“The only San Jose gun owners who are exempt from the insurance requirement are police officers and those with concealed carry permits, according to city documents. Low-income gun owners may apply for a waiver.”

Hard to imagine California gun laws if Reagan hadn’t paved the way when he was governor. Outlawing open carry when the Black Panthers decided to exercise their rights against corrupt cops laid the foundation for all this nonsense. Whacko points out the obvious, but it’s still a step in the wrong direction, especially when the boys in blue (who seem to have more accidents than most) are exempt, even after retirement. Just my humble opinion.

Second article.
I also believe it's a step in the wrong direction. I was just pointing out the fact that moat people would already have the insurance if they have property insurance. I just always think it's best to know all the facts.
 
As I think about this.. There’s some kind of insurance the NRA pushes that if you get injured on your way to a sanctioned shoot, On your way home, or at the event you get some coverage. I doubt it’s ever paid out.

I understand possibly getting injured on the way there or back in a car accident but you’re already insured.. I couldn’t imagine, filing an insurance claim for negligently shooting myself..

Even if somebody else shoots you, it’s probably not worth it.. Unless it was in the torso, I’d let it slide… If it’s in the head, well, that problem solves itself
My memory is a little fuzzy , but didn't that turn into a shitshow and end up going out the window (The insurance)
 
My memory is a little fuzzy , but didn't that turn into a shitshow and end up going out the window (The insurance)
They did sell it for a while.. But if you actually read it, it basically didn’t pay..
There is all kinds of stipulations for the travel portion of that that if you were already covered by another policy that you didn’t get paid by this policy so basically you were just buying nothing. I don’t remember the specifics but yes, it was a shit show. I’m not sure if they still offer it because it never made any sense and only an idiot would have bought it.
 
Back
Top Bottom