California city wants to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance.

By |2019-08-13T07:36:30-08:00August 14th, 2019|Categories: News|Tags: , , , |11 Comments

This just makes good sense.

Courtesy of CNN:

In the wake of mass shootings around the country, the mayor of one California city wants to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons — or pay a fee to help shoulder the public costs of gun violence.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo proposed the local ordinance on Monday, and if passed by the city council, it could become the nation’s first such requirement. Similar state legislation is also being considered in Massachusetts and New York.

The proposal comes just two weeks after a shooting left three people dead and injured more than 12 in Gilroy, California — about thirty miles away from San Jose.

Offering just “thoughts and prayers” was not enough for the San Jose mayor after two families in his city lost children in the Gilroy shooting.

“While this is far from a complete solution, it is something we can do to reduce the harms of firearms, without waiting for Congress to take action,” Mayor Liccardo said in a press release.

According to Liccardo’s proposal, 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 requirement will not apply to sworn employees of law enforcement agencies.

Why is this not already a thing all around the country?

I have liability isnurance on my car. 

My homeowner’s insurance exists just in case some fucking moron slips on the ice on my front porch and cracks his head open on the driveway, but you don’t have to have insurance in case your instrument of death does the thing that it was created to do? 

How does that make any sense? 

This would by no means solve gun violence, but it would certianly be a good start in holding these idiots responsible for owning something that places all of us in danger. 

About the Author:

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.


  1. Beaglemom August 14, 2019 at 3:04 am

    That makes a lot of sense to me.

  2. Anonymous August 14, 2019 at 4:33 am

    “I have liability isnurance on my car. ”

    Your car is a privilege not a legal right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    • CorningNY August 14, 2019 at 5:37 am

      So we should only be careful with privileges, not rights? That makes zero sense. Also, did you forget that the second amendment says “well-regulated”? Having insurance is part of being regulated.

    • Anonymous August 14, 2019 at 9:17 am

      Let me quote the second amendment, “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.” Are you a police officer? In the army? Then I’m fine with you being armed to the teeth.

      Otherwise, owning weapons of mass destruction and terrorizing people with open carry should be a privilege, not a right. If you’re not using those weapons in a police officer or military capacity, you should have to prove yourself worthy and pay for the privilege.

      • Anonymous August 14, 2019 at 9:43 pm

        The supreme court has ruled on this already. certain to be challenged again and again.

        Question, what Amendments to the Constitution are you willing to let go?

  3. anon August 14, 2019 at 4:55 am

    Require the evangelicals to use condoms. That is insurance against stupidity.

  4. anon August 14, 2019 at 9:08 am

    Holding these idiots responsible? So you’re implying all gun owners are idiots? I would support sensible gun regulations. One idea that has been floated and may be a law in some countries would be that require some types of weapons to be held for owners and checked out when they want to access same. I own a sling load of firearms. Some are used for harvesting game for my table and a list of acquaintances that are happy to get a share of the abundance of Alaska. Some are used for blasting targets at the range and some are just valuable investments. I don’t consider myself an idiot. However people that make broad assumptions about persons they don’t know, could possibly be thought of as idiots. Even tho I don’t really know those people personally I might be inclined to consider that person an idiot.

    • anon August 14, 2019 at 10:45 am

      What was the last book you read?

      • anon August 14, 2019 at 11:16 pm

        The last book I read was Titled On Ancient wings. What’s your point? I was reading when I was four years old.

  5. Paul August 14, 2019 at 9:55 am

    If this is passed, insurance companies would probably:
    1) Limit the types of guns they would insure;
    2) Limit the quantity of guns any one person could own;
    3) Require that all insured guns have trigger locks;
    4) Require the gun owner to demonstrate a knowledge of gun usage and safety.
    These are all points that any reasonable gun law would cover, but due to the NRA’s control of the republican party, none of these are in place. Insurance companies, however, are answerable not to the NRA but to their stock holders and state insurance regulators, so they can place these limitations provided republicans don’t pass legislation banning such limitations.

Comments are closed.