Knowing that their attempts to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens are destined to fail, some of those on a crusade to make a mockery of the Second Amendment are looking for backdoor methods. Among them are lawmakers who seem to be uninterested in what their very own constituents think of their goals.
On Feb, 5, 2013, Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation stating that California gun owners should be required to purchase liability insurance to cover any damages or injuries that are caused by their weapons.
A number of other states have unsuccessfully proposed this same type of legislation, including Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. Some of the proposals have even included the requirement that gun buyers show proof of this insurance before they are allowed to purchase a weapon.
I’ve provided a link below to a story from Fox News that I think does a nice job of conveying the facts, including an opposition opinion.
Sam Paredes, the executive director of Gun Owners of California, spoke on behalf of gun owners everywhere when he responded to this proposed legislation by claiming that gun owners already act responsibly and that anyone who doesn’t can be sued for damages. Parede says that this type of legislation is just part of the ongoing effort to price gun owners out of existence.
How do you feel about this? Should gun owners have to acquire this type of insurance, in much the same way that drivers are required to do in most states? Or do you agree with Sam Paredes that this is merely an attempt to punish gun owners for the “crime” of legally owning a gun? I’d really like to hear from you about this controversial topic.