The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.
Today’s question:
All San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance for their weapons under a new city ordinance proposed by Mayor Sam Liccardo on Monday.
QUESTION: Do you like this proposal, or do you think it’s a bad idea?
Talk about it….
84 comments
Another ploy to get money from honest folks to pay for illegal immigrant services. This is almost like “taxation without representation” again\!!
Have the perp pay for their own insurance if they get shot!
NO!! NO!!! NO!!
It would solve the problem, so I don’t think it matters one way or the other. This isn’t an insurance issue.
Wouldn’t solve the problem.
Exactly what problem do you think this will solve? Prevent mass shooters from purchasing guns? Gang members purchasing guns? Any other person from purchasing guns? Global warming? Inflation? What?
Again, this is only going to raise the cost of gun ownership for law-abiding gun owners. One problem I see her is that gun owners will simply not register their guns!
California loves to regulate the lives of it’s CITIZEN’S by raising “taxes” to such an extent that people can no longer do what they want to. It’s only a matter of time before they tax something you actually care about to the extent that you can no longer own or do it! Then I’m sure your opinion will change!
Reading comprehension isn’t your thing. What part of “wouldn’t solve the problem” (my own correction) don’t you understand? Are you that dense? Try reading both comments next time.
Settle down Kentucky…….I was responding to the original poster not you! Geeesh! A little testy!
That’s BS, and you know it. First of all, it’s under my post, not the original poster. Secondly, you asked “exactly what problem do you think this would solve?” Which is obviously a response to my post, not the first one. The first poster is talking about illegal immigrant services and taxation without representation, not problem solving.
If someone calls you on it, own it. Otherwise, you look like a liar. Because you are.
He doesn’t know what problem he is talking about, he just thought it would be a cool and progressive thing to write. Now stop attacking his words, bigot, because speech = violence.
It would mean if you unlawfully injure me with your gun I can at least get money from your insurance company to help repair the damage you’ve done…oh and I’m not an illegal as if that matters.
The logic of people on the site is that of a toddler. Your logic is the law won’t stop all mass shootings so it shouldn’t be passed. Please tell me one, just one, law that prevents ALL crimes. We outlaw murder and that still happens so by your logic it shouldn’t be law because it doesn’t stop all murders! Its simple people more guns=more mass killings.
“Your logic is the law won’t stop all mass shootings so it shouldn’t be passed.”
And liberal logic is a wall won’t stop all illegal border crossings, so we shouldn’t build one. The difference is that proposed laws will only affect those who abide by laws, and we’re talking about a constitutionally protected right. In your example, what rights are being violated by outlawing murder? Talk about logic of a toddler.
Likely to be found unconstitutional.
Are the bad guys going to have the insurance too?
You beat me to it.
Silly statement “Jus Sayin'” California has already shown that “bad guys” and ILLEGAL ALIENS are allowed to do whatever they want and to run around the state unchecked! But law-abiding citizens are hampered at every turn!
You’re better off moving to a gun friendly state than staying in CA. There are much better places to live without the nanny state socialism that exists in CA.
whata joke
yeah, law abiding gun owners are not the problem. If they required all the bad guys to show proof of insurance prior to breaking the law and possibly using a gun during the crime, then I’m all for it.
We already have laws regarding auto insurance, but it seems only the suckers buy that. Watch any of these police shows on television, 90% of the people they pull over are unlicensed/suspended, have no insurance, have drugs in the car and many have outstanding warrants. I doubt any of them would rush right out to comply with a new gun insurance requirement…
Agreed, we just need a ban on assault rifles, enough with trying to take money away from any citizen. I totally agree.
Possession of assault rifles by civilians has been virtually banned since 1986.
@Rollo Tomasi…
Assault Rifle ban was lifted by GW Bush in 2004 unfortunately. We need to re-enact that ban in particular.
Darryl,
The “assault weapons” ban was not lifted by George W. Bush. It had a 10-year sunset clause written into it when it went into effect in 1994.
@Darryl:
Possession of assault rifles by civilians has been virtually banned since 1986.
Absolutely YES, as well as more in-depth background checks, and taxing ammunition to pay for mandatory safety courses.
Gun owners already pay for their own training. If you think they need more so you’ll feel safer, then YOU can pay for it.
The Mayor isn’t concerned about gun safety, this is his way of disarming citizens by placing too many restrictions and making it too expensive for some folks to own a gun.
Gun liability insurance, like any other liability insurance may only cover accidents and unintentional acts, and not intentional or illegal acts. It isn’t any different than auto liability insurance, if you get into an accident and it is determined to be your fault, the insurance company will most likely deny the claim. Criminals who drive around in a stolen car don’t have insurance, and a criminal who is in possession of a stolen gun will not have insurance. Most criminals do use stolen guns.
In any case, if someone is intent on killing someone else with a gun, an insurance policy will not serve as a deterrent. Another thing, insurance companies can place limitations. If a person lives in a high crime neighborhood they could be forced to pay higher premiums or even be denied coverage. They may even require that the gun be kept at home, disassembled, and locked in a safe. They may not cover the use of a gun if it is used outside of the home.
This law is giving an outside agency (insurance companies,) too much power by making it impossible for some law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
@Dawg,
Auto insurance companies will NOT deny a claim because an accident is your fault. That’s why you have insurance. They might cancel you afterward, but they have to pay.
You are right Chicken Little, I used the wrong scenario. I was thinking about whether it will cover the drivers car, which it will not. It only covers the cost of the other drivers property and bodily injuries, minus the deductible.
total bs …..why are these tool politicians trying to get law abiding citizens to pony up for criminals
what about filed off guns ….oh yeah the ins fund will pay for them right …oooh sorry leftist
I love how these tool dem politicians use shiny objects to rile the voters and push words like violence and racism and anti to fulfill their agendas and force americans to give up their civil liberties one vote at a time
well done voters you’ve created 1930 germany …turmoil ripe for the Reich.
I am sure your very proud of yourselves …..the straws were the first to go down followed by the poor manhole cover …..
Why not have these people that ride their bikes in the road at 30-35mph get liability insurance? They cause wrecks too, but the car driver is the one who has to pay for it!
I agree. They want to “share the road” with cars, they can ride at speeds approaching that of cars, and they love to run stop signs. I say make them purchase vehicle licenses and insurance policies as well! Who else can we regulate to death? Come on folks, lets come up with some others that our worthless politicians can go after!
Fantastic idea. In addition you should have to wait in line to renew your gun-owner license every few years, renew your gun registration every single year ($100+ a pop per weapon), take eye exam, written test, get photographed and if you mess around, they impound your guns and you get the pleasure of having to recover them and pay through the nose to do so.
Is there another right protected by the Constitution that requires jumping through such hoops? You people go apoplectic at the mere mention of voter id. Wouldn’t all those requirements be an undue burden on low income individuals and other marginalized communities wanting to exercise their rights?
It’s cost would be a burden upon certain segments of the population and deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
Liberal justices claim requiring an ID to vote is a financial burden just to exercise a right guaranteed by the constitution, then so is this.
Would criminals with illegal guns have to purchase liability insurance for their guns too? Now that would be something!
Another dumb idea.
Is this Mayor aware of ANY insurance company that even writes gun owners insurance? Doubtful. Pretty sure negligent and careless operation would never be a covered risk even if available. Especially in lawyer laden California. And, NO, homeowner policies don’t provide the kind of protection he wants. Typical politician not knowing what he is really talking about, but still talking. Sad commentary.
@Sherrice McBride – I am aware of insurance companies that insure firearms for replacement coverage – theft, destroyed in a fire, etc. Not cheap insurance, that’s for sure. Cannot immediately recall any insurance company that writes liability coverage this Mayor wants.
Lloyds of London will insure anyone or anything
@Randy – Loyd’s of London is not an insurance company.
No not technically It’s a marketplace where insurance buyers and sellers come together. A major hub for buying and selling a variety of coverages, not just marine insurance so you can get coverage.
More BS. How do you enforce it? Go to someones house and forcefully take their guns for not having insurance? How do you check with illegal guns like , most gang bangers and criminals have. Do you really think they are putting insurance on a stolen gun??
Have to start somewhere. You can’t keep saying there’s nothing that can be done. Lot’s of complaining from some but no ideas.
At time of purchase register the gun and proof of insurance
Annual renewal each year (charge $1) to keep track of ownership
Register owner liable for their gun. Those with assets will get the insurance and/or report lost or stolen guns.
Insurance companies will figure it out. Premiums can be based on coverage.
The only purpose of gun registration is confiscation.
I’ll ask again – wouldn’t placing all those additional fees and expenses cause an undue burden on low income people exercising a Constitutionally protected right?
I wonder if gangs can get group rates.
. It’s unconstitutional !
Our rights are being infringed… I’d sue.
Many years ago I was part of an old west gunfighter troupe that performed in various local venues. We were required to have liability insurance and got it through membership in the NRA. I don’t recall if it was a benefit of membership or if there was an additional premium but it seemed pretty reasonable and none of us ever considered it any infringement on our Second Amendment rights.
Um, were you using live ammo?
I only plan on performing at home if my life depends on it.
No, we did not use live ammo, but in doing the gun safety aspects of the show we demonstrated the dangers involved in just using blanks. This was around the time a television actor had accidentally killed himself playing around with a gun loaded with blanks on the set of his show.
Did that policy have coverage for criminal liability? Because that’s what is being discussed here.
Clue – insurance companies don’t offer coverage for criminal liability. That’s a universal exclusion.
You might be off in left field discussing it, but that’s not what is being proposed. According to the Mayor’s press release, the insurance would cover “accidental discharge of the gun, and for the intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun.” It would not cover “liability of the policyholder for his or her own intentional conduct.”
“intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun.”
Criminal liability. Coverage doesn’t exist.
Read it again, RT, especially the last sentence. Note also that not all intentional acts are criminal, and not all criminal acts are intentional, and the notion that insurance companies universally exclude coverage for criminal acts is not true. There are situations where the insured may be held vicariously liable for the intentional or even criminal acts of a third party where the insured had been negligent in some manner.
Can you provide an example of coverage for criminal acts committed by a third party in regards to firearms? The insurance companies might produce a policy with such coverage, but the premiums would be astronomical. That being the case, please explain how an undue burden wouldn’t be thrust upon low income individuals exercising a constitutionally protected right.
Employers have a duty to exercise ordinary care. If workplace violence occurs, they may be liable for negligence if they knew or should have known of a potentially dangerous situation. Lawsuits could be based on negligent hiring, retention, training, or supervising of an employee who
A real-life example is the litigation involving the MGM Hotel, Zurich American Insurance and the victims of the Las Vegas shooting. Your arguments regarding low income individuals is, besides your typical movement of the goals posts when you’re wrong about a point, unfounded. Constitutionally-protected rights are not absolute.
The.MGM hotel had a liability policy in place to cover firearms owned by them? Interesting. Got a link?
Never mind, found it myself – and it’s enlightening. Your words:
“According to the Mayor’s press release, the insurance would cover “accidental discharge of the gun, and for the intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun.” It would not cover “liability of the policyholder for his or her own intentional conduct.”
The basis of the lawsuit filed against MGM is the perceived failure of MGM to identify and mitigate the danger presented by their guest Paddock. Notably, the basis is NOT the actions of Paddock himself – a material difference in insurance law.
Since you seem to feel like discussing violation of rights is akin to “moving the goalposts”, perhaps it will feel less so when done in a separate comment.
That said, “Constitutionally protected rights are not absolute”. Fair enough. How do you feel about voter ID laws?
Since this seems to be so difficult for you, let’s try another, this time hypothetical, scenario. Let’s say John Doe was an armed security guard employee of the MGM. Using an MGM-owned firearm, he gets in a dispute with his wife, shoots and kills her. Once again, MGM could be liable for negligence in allowing Doe access to the gun used to commit the crime. Now did MGM have a policy that covered that situation? I’m not exactly privy to their insurance practices but I strongly believe they would.
I have no problem with voter ID laws per se, and I doubt many do. The problem comes when segments of the eligible voting population are excluded from voting because of them in order to advantage one political party over the other. This country has a long history of doing just that.
I understand exactly what you’re getting at. It seems to be difficult for you to understand that there’s not an insurance company out there that will underwrite such a policy. Call around, give them the parameters, and ask for a quote. Hell, ask for a sample policy.
“The problem comes when segments of the eligible voting population are excluded from voting”
And how do voter ID laws accomplish that? Is it the nominal expense and fees required to get an ID?
At this point it’s hard to tell whether you are deliberately being dense or just truly don’t get it, but, in either event, I’m done.
Likewise in every way.
I don’t feel safe at school anymore. I’d feel a lot better if I could legally carry a weapon for self defense.
I can’t get behind mandating it, but depending on the coverage and price it might be good idea to protect yourself financially if you own gun(s). Worth checking out at least.
This law is specifically discriminatory towards people of color. On average, income of non-white people is lower than white people. Therefore, this ordinance will disproportionately affect non-white gun owners as they are statistically less likely to have disposable income.
” … non-white gun owners … are statistically less likely to have disposable income.” And, they are statistically more likely to use a gun in the commision of a crime.
So, will that insurance policy have a knife clause?
This post was removed by the State of California due to the inability of the poster to prove his/her/their insurance coverage in case his/her/their speech offended the feelings of others.
With regards to the “insured”, what is covered, and what is not covered by this so-called, “gun liability insurance”?
We need to have either liability insurance or some real laws with real enforcement for people who not properly store their firearms.
Rob,
How do you suggest that storage laws should be enforced? Random home searches by police?
If your gun was used in a crime you go to jail too. Own a gun I don’t care but damn secure it and let the right people know it’s missing.
There are no consequences for gun owners who let their gun get stolen and not report it or let a friend use it. Yes being a lazy a$$ and go to jail.
Responsible gun owners suffer for their stupidity
Actually, you’re wrong. It’s already a crime not to report a stolen gun, and may also be illegal to let a friend use it under some circumstances.
I’m not surprised, though, that you would blame the victims for stolen firearms.
@Chicken Little:
You can’t possibly expect the hand wringers to learn the truckload of laws already on the books, especially in CA. But if they can get just ONE MORE passed, it will be the magic one that actually has some effect.
Perhaps they should call it the “Make a Criminal or His Remaining Family Rich Policy.”
Perhaps what they are not saying is that there will be criminal enhancements for uninsured firearms used in crimes. Sounds silly but that could be a tool they are planning to introduce.
Terrible idea. Just raises the cost of legal gun ownership but does nothing about illegal/criminal gun ownership and crime.
I have it for liability purposes, but that is an individual decision and not one that should be mandated by the State.
A conversation you will NEVER hear:
Criminal 1: “Yo, dog, hop in the car..we’re gonna rob that liquor store down the street”
Criminal 2: “Sorry…I just checked the California handgun roster and my gun isn’t on the list. And besides, even if it were, I don’t have my CCW, so cannot carry my piece in the car loaded. And to top it off, I didn’t mail in my handgun insurance payment for the last two months. Go without me…you guys registered your guns and are current on your permits and insurance payments, so you can get away with that stuff. But not me..”
Caskydiver – is there a way you can post the exclusions in your liability policy here without compromising your personal info? I have a feeling the exclusions are legion in comparison to the covered perils.
Well…actually..now that I think about it, it isn’t really liability insurance. What I have is a combination of legal services should I have to use my handgun in self defense and umbrella insurance. Between them, I should be good for most anything for a self defense situation.
@caskydiver – got it. Those are fairly common. Not quite what the SJ mayor is proposing. Thanks.
Feels like a BS move to get around the second amendment that is probably unconstitutional. I wouldn’t follow it though.
Comments are closed.