comment: >
  
  Because it's unconstitutional for the government to put a financial barrier in the way of citizens exercising a right.
context: TBH, it astounds me that there isn't strict CRIMINAL liability for adults who, through their own negligence, allow children under 12 to get their hands on guns and use them to injure anyone else.
  For example, the parent(s) of the 6-year-old in Newport News, VA who shot his teacher a couple of months back should be IN JAIL and that child in the legal custody of other family members. >
  
  Agreed. Except now a poor-ish school district will be sued. >
  
  The school should be sued; did you hear what happened? Three times faculty was told the 6 year old had a gun and no one did anything… >
  
  That wasn’t my point. The point is a poor funded district loses more money and what do people think will happen? Staff are going to body search elementary kids? Metal detectors in school? Zero tolerance policies? All the things people complained about a few years ago. The parents of the kid need to held just as responsible as the school. If not, then the schools hands are tied and these disasters continue. >
  
  
  The parents of the kid need to held just as responsible as the school.
  
  So you do think the school should be sued. >
  
  If you are negligent and lose your gun or have it stolen because it was not secured, you should be charged whenever that gun is used in a crime.  If you illegally sell your gun, you should be charged whenever that gun is used in a crime.  Neither of these thoughts stops you from having a gun.  Neither of them restrict your right to weapons.  But both these thought make you responsible for them.  This should become law. >
  
  Same for your car? What about that rock in your front yard.. if I steal it and throw it though your neighbors window, it’s your fault? Okay... >
  
  We already have completely different laws for gun and car ownership.  This is a terrible analogy. >
  
  Car to gun analogies are often poor, but they do have a point in this case. In California you can be charged if you’re car is in involved with a crime that you didn’t commit. It typically happens in hit and run scenarios with no apprehension during title transfer period or hit and runs with your stolen car before it’s been reported as stolen.
  You will often times need to defend yourself in court in these situations and prove that you’re innocent. >
  
  
  In California you can be charged if you’re car is in involved with a crime that you didn’t commit.
  
  Citation needed. >
  
  Google it on your own time. I learned about it at the dmv when I was transferring a title. >
  
  Already did, that's how I know you're incorrect. >
  
  Do a better job next time >
  
  
  "Criminals are not likely to buy gun insurance, and so putting the onus on the lawful gun owner to pay for all the ills associated with firearms, is being considered unfair," Clark said. 
  
  and it's not unfair for people that don't own guns to have to pay for gun violence? >
  
  
  and it's not unfair for people that don't own guns to have to pay for gun violence?
  
  Yes, people who aren't directly responsible for the violence shouldn't have to pay for it. >
  
  
  Yes, people who aren't directly responsible for the violence shouldn't have to pay for it.
  
  So who pays? >
  
  Everyone. The same as any other crime we have to pay for. Think there should be specific fund for these victims, increase the sales tax. We can all pay into it. >
  
  Or... we let the gun owners pay for it just like car owners do. >
  
  Except its not like cars at all. Cars aren't an enumerated right. Cars have issues with very high rates of accidents and that is not the issue with firearms. The issue with firearms is intentional criminal violence, which insurance generally doesn't cover. Cars only require the insurance to operate on public roads, you do not need insurance to simply own a car. 
  So no. >
  
  I hope this passes and serves as a model for other states. >
  
  I have never heard any arguments that it is about covering negligence. It is always presented as a solution to murders and violent crime usually by making gun ownership more expensive. >
  
  I guess you're hearing them now. >
  
  I actually have not. Everyone in this thread has been talking about intentional gun violence or the fee causing less gun ownership in general. >
  
  Putting a proof of insurance on as a requirement for ownership will probably not pass a Constitutional test, but I am all for suing gun owners/retailers/manufacturers whose irresponsible actions harm the rest of us. >
  
  
  Putting a proof of insurance on as a requirement for ownership will probably not pass a Constitutional test
  
  why? the 2nd says well regulated and insurance is a pretty standard regulation. and it doesn't stop you from owning a gun, just like a small yearly fee. and most home owners liability insurance covers this; so if you are home owner or have renters insurance, you are probably covered. >
  
  "A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy life, the right to own and consume cereal, shall not be infringed".  
  Is it a requirement to eat a well balanced breakfast in order to own or eat cereal?
  You could probably put "insurance" on public carry though.  Realistically it would be money paid I to a pool to help victims of gun violence. >
  
  Correct except the public carry portion. The amendment also says "bear" ... This means carrying which would prevent an insurance scheme from being constitutional >
  
  True, but that may be able to be argued away along the lines of public safety and that bearing can still happen on private property.  It certainly wouldn't be without opposition, but I think making suppressors, SBS, and SBR normal items would get much support.  Also having full reciprocity of carry permits. >
  
  Not even remotely constitutional, more would actually do anything. >
  
  
  Not even remotely constitutional
  
  Why? >
  
  Poll tax. >
  
  That’s specifically about voting and doesn’t relate to any other right. They even had to pass the amendment years later because it was initially constitutional.  Did you know there is a specific tax for buying guns? >
  
  But not for simply owning guns.
  Please, by all means try and pass such legislation. Not that you could, because anti gunners have no power, and it would be struck down by the USSC.
  Some people need a hobby I guess. >
  
  
  Please, by all means try and pass such legislation. Not that you could, because anti gunners have no power, and it would be struck down by the USSC.
  
  Those are different things, and in the case of "no power" regarding the SCOTUS, it's entirely due to corruption. >
  
  Goddamn. I understand why insurance is a thing, but the government making it law to have it is wild. They’re driving profits toward a private company. I’d really like a law that holds the rich and powerful responsible for the things they do. 
  You hope to never use the gun. Paying insurance on it is a straight up scam and it’s unconstitutional to prohibit someone from getting a gun unless they pay a private company first >
  
  This is a bullshit tactic to keep guns out of the hands of the working class by nickel and diming into poverty. >
  
  The headline says gun owners, not manufacturers. Also, car companies? What would ever happen if we had to start having liability insurance on driver's? >
  
  It’s liability on what someone does after they stole your car. You understand that right? It’s already against the law for someone misuse a firearm.... you can already be sued.. >
  
  Yes, and you are required to carry insurance for a car. Just like this proposes that you would need insurance to own a gun >
  
  If the owner failed to properly secure the gun, yes they are responsible. >
  
  They already have a law(s) about that. Especially in CA. >
  
  Yeah huh... can’t wait to see all the criminals that will never have this, be convicted. Lol sorry I can t keep a straight face. No criminal lol will ever be charged with this. This isn’t for criminals, it to make regular people into criminals. Next you’ll need insurance to exercise your first amendment. lol >
  
  Can't even get people in Cali to pay rent, lol. >
  
  Seems like that’s all we pay. >
  
  Excellent. If gun fetishists had to pay for the actual costs of their sordid obsession, the number of guns in America would plummet. >
  
  We hold auto drivers financially (and criminally) responsible for negligence.  We hold doctors financially (and criminally) responsible for malpractice.    We even hold lawyers financially (and criminally) responsible for legal fraud.
  We hold folks who yell FIRE in a crowded theater financially and criminally responsible even though there is a 1st amendment.  
  See no reason why gun owners can't follow suit. >
  
  
  We hold auto drivers financially (and criminally) responsible for negligence.
  
  On public roads and because accidents with cars are common. This really doesn't translate to firearms since the issue with firearms isn't accidents, but intentional homicides. 
  Also driving isn't an explicitly enumerated right. 
  
  We hold folks who yell FIRE in a crowded theater financially and criminally responsible even though there is a 1st amendment.
  
  Ah yes, a litmus test for how informed people are on constitutional jurisprudence. The case that coined the yelling fire in a theater argument was overturned with Brandenburg v. OhioThere is no prior restraint on yelling fire in theaters. Only if you directly caused harm would you be held criminally or civilly liable. You don't need to pay a fee, tax or insurance just because you might abuse your free speech right. And similarly there is no reason why prior restraint on exercising 2nd amendment rights is constitutional. So the reasoning you are using here is downright awful. >
  
  On public roads and because accidents  with cars are common. This really doesn't translate to firearms since the issue with firearms isn't accidents, but intentional homicides...................Same result
  2nd amendment has already been modified.  Several times.  It will be abridged because it already has been.  Reasoning?  You can't even grasp the present.  Let alone the reasonable end to open carry, anywhere, anytime, with no training or license. >
  
  Great I’m responsible if my car causes damage >
  
  As it should be.  Every gun owner says they are responsible but they all refuse to take responsibility. >
  
  A great idea.  Each gun requires a liability insurance like each car.  With insurance industry assessing a human life at $2m per, gun liability insurance would be higher the larger the magazine capability of the weapon.
  Only 30% of Americans have guns and most of those have large arsenals and ammo stockpiles.  
  The real problem will be the insurance industry in writing policies on weapons. >
  
  That would probably not be how a risk would be assessed.  It would be based around how likely each gun was going to take a life or cause injury.  This would make pistols and revolvers more expensive than long guns (since they are carried more and used for self defense and crimes).  It would also depend a bunch on the person and their assessed likelihood of use (which would need safeguards against racial discrimination).
  As a note though, cars only require insurance when driven on public roads.  So this would be more equivalent to carry guns needing to be insured (which MIGHT have more than a snowball's chance in hell of passing).  There are some things that could be thrown into the bill to garner support as well, namely deregulation of silencers, SBSs, and SBRs. >
  
  
  As a note though, cars only require insurance when driven on public roads.
  
  Analogy doesn't work.  Kids taking guns to school and killing people for example because their parents bought the gun to kill people (the "self defense fantasy") so the kid mimics. 
  If someone truly locks the guns up (you'd be surprised how many lock boxes kids quickly learn where the key or combo is) with a retinal scan and breathalyzer (drunks with guns are dangerous) would get lower insurance.
  But that still doesn't protect from them having a fight at work and shooting up the place in revenge.
  Every gun has a lethality rating based on type of ammo and magazine capacity. How many people could an average gun owner kill with the weapon (life valued at $2M) and that is the necessary liability insurance. >
  
  That same reasoning could be applied to EVERY object though.  Having poisonous chemicals doesn't need insurance despite being capable of killing hundreds.  A sword is capable of killing dozens (and is made specifically for killing).  Bows and arrows are similar to swords and are ranged. 
  At what point do we say an item is too dangerous?  What constitutes alternative uses?  
  Insurance isn't determined by the maximum possible damage, it is determined by the likelihood of damage and the expected amount of damage. >
  
  
  That same reasoning could be applied to EVERY object though.  
  
  Nope.
  Guns are for killing people. No other function. >
  
  So they are the same as: swords, bows, crossbows, spears, certain knives, most martial arts weapons.  
  All of those things have "no other function" either.  Unless we are counting sport or hunting, but then guns also have another function. >
  
  Why isn't this already law everywhere in the US?