Insurance Move Aimed at Pricing Guns Out of Existence

California, as usual, is leading the Left in wackiness as liberals see their chances for eliminating guns fading after the Newtown slaughter.

When the latest nut job massacred a score of youngsters, the Left saw an opportunity to reach their long-held goal of eliminating guns, using a road paved with the bodies of children to achieve their dictatorial goals.

What they didn't count on was resistance from the majority of Americans, including many who identify themselves as Democrats.

The result has been that their dream bill, introduced by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, faces increasingly slim chances of passage.

So California Democrats have joined liberals in five other states to throw a legislative hail Mary pass in the form of a proposal to require gun owners to take out liability insurance.

"I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country," said Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced AB231. "There’s basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. … I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing those bills." The legislation is co-sponsored by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles.

Followers of politics should see multiple red flags here. First, any legislation originating in San Francisco and Los Angeles is trouble out of the gate. Second, any time a politician, particularly a liberal, leads off with his family, whatever follows is going to be nothing but spin to ingratiate himself to the people he hopes to screw over. Third, whenever a Democrat starts expressing concern about taxpayer costs, you can be 100 percent certain he's proposing a plan to increase costs for those taxpayers.

Obviously, Adam Lanza wasn't going to be stopped by any insurance plan, so this proposal isn't about gun owners' responsibility, cutting taxpayer costs or any of the other excuses liberals will use to justify another government mandate to require people to buy something.

Ting's recent election campaign received significant donations from a number of insurance PACs, insurance associations, government insurance regulators and individual insurance brokers. Gomez's recent election campaign received more than $20,000 from the insurance industry.

It doesn't take much work to connect the dots here and see the insurance companies counting the potential profits gained by your loss of rights. It also doesn't require much of a leap of imagination to envision the outcome of the effort to force gun owners to buy insurance.

The more liberals push their fascist gun-grabbing agenda, regardless of the justifications, the more likely they'll find those guns being put to use as the Founding Fathers envisioned, to stop an out-of-control government.


  • JD

    I don't understand what this insurance is supposed to do. They don't pay out for the malicious or deliberate acts of a policy holder. If I intentionally run someone over with my car, my insurance will not pay. Or do they want to bankrupt the insurance industry with lawsuits in the hundreds of millions.

  • Paul Brown

    Just another way for the insurance companies to raise rates and grab more money from everyone, this we can thank the morons who voted for these a*sholes over and over again.

  • wfwilson6

    The taxpayers already foot the hospital bills for those people (innocent or guilty) shot by gang-bangers in Chicago and else-where, for those drug users who need treatment, for HIV and AIDS treatment for people who do anal sex or use dirty needles, for illegal immigrants who get sick or hurt, for people injured in sports accidents, etc. When you require these folks to have extra insurance for their risky habits or actions, come talk to the NRA about gun-owners insurance.

  • azmtnman

    No doubt someone's already pointed this out. I'm late to the fight. These degenerate government scumbags have it absolutely 180 degrees backward. If a person or home is armed, liability insurance should go DOWN, since it is unquestionably safer than the unarmed one down the street.

  • Victor Magilke

    Leave it to the corrupt Insurance companies to get involved. If five states agreed to Feinstein's proposal many more will follow. Next there will be a two hundred dollar license fee per weapon.Then add to that the tax they will levy on the ammo and they've won.
    They know that most people won't be able to afford these horrendous fees. I'm sure Eric Holder and the Obama team helped orchestrated this. They will do anything to achieve victory. We found that out with Obamacare. This is just a back door underhanded way to circumvent the constitution and get the weapons from law abiding Americans. I hope Americans and legislators are wise enough to reject this angry wpmans proposal. This would be a precedent used as a legal decision that sets a standard for cases in every state. "The way to defeat and humble the people is to disarm them." This has worked throughout history. Americans need to stand tall and fight this tyranny.
    “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
    Edward Abbey

  • fwiw

    At some point along the way, this "regulation by legislation" needs to be recognized for what it is - an effective ban on the ownership of weapons. I don't think it matters if they call it a "tax" as the end result is to cause American citizens to be unable to exercise their rights. If a "poll" tax is unconstitutional, so should anything like this. Call it what you want, it's wrong.