https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-jose-first-us-law-gun-owners-liability-insurance-annual-fee/ Whoo, horsey, did you see this? San Jose, CA just past a law requiring gun owners to have insurance and states gun owners should bear the cost of the havoc caused to society caused by guns. This should have been posted, ”In The News”.
I have moved your thread to the news section, @Bill Boggs . States are always looking for ways to tax people and get more income for the state, so I am not surprised that they decided to tax gun owners. As far as actually doing any good, i do not think that it will stop any criminals from shooting people when they are robbing them. They do not care any more about having gun insurance than they do about vehicle insurance when a criminal decides to rob or kill someone else. If the shooting is an accidental one, regular homeowners insurance covers accidents, as does medical insurance; so it is really not a necessary thing, just more government propaganda to take away people’ s rights .
I have a knife, someone else gets stabbed, and I gotta write a check??? That's pure Leftist logic right there.
I think this is a good idea. BTW, growing up on a farm-ranch, I grew up with guns. I got my 22 pump action rifle at age 11 as a birthday president, which I still have today. We didn't have hand guns, since, as Dad pointed out: “they are to kill people, and since we don't kill people, we don't need one. I recall intensive gun-education before I was allowed to use a gun on my own. Example: climbing through a fence, the gun is laid on the ground on the other side before the person climbs threw or over. One never fires the gun without knowing where the bullet will stop or is stopped; not into a bunch of willows for example. If ensured they would have to be registered, like automobiles. This might help to slow down illegal movement of guns into big cities.
How absurd. I don't know why the anti-gun crowd seems to think that criminals will also follow the ridiculous "laws." It will just mean hardship for regular citizens while the dregs of society will remain armed and dangerous.
I don't know. The War on Drugs has been such a roaring success in keeping them out of this country, perhaps banning guns can be just as efficacious. It's not as though our borders are porous or anything...
That's all the more reason to cleave California. (We just need to retain access to the Pacific ports.)
Can we hear a Yea or a shout of joy? https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/f...ownership-law-could-go-into-affect-next-month
Naturally it's in California. Personally, I think it's a crock. This guy said it best... William Kumler, another San Jose resident, agreed. “This unconstitutional tax on lawful gun owners must be forbidden. There is no reason that citizens who lawfully own guns should be responsible for the actions of criminals who obtain guns through nefarious means,” he said.
Finally someone is making certain that only the rich can afford to defend themselves. It's about time.
Total garbage! They'll both be found unconstitutional, as they should be. If they stand, we're all in trouble, as they'll spread.
The whole world basically has been in deep deep doo doo (more trouble than can be measured), for generations, Yes, trouble has deepened, widened, spread, and gotten exponentially worse in almost every way during our generation too. Whether constitutional or not, I don't know if that matters at all or would make any difference, eh ?