comment: >
  
  Poll tax.
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?