The stupid, it burns:
"[T]he mayor of San Jose, Calif., on Monday proposed what is being called a first-in-the-nation move to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons."
Really?
And how would that work?
Oh:
"[T]he insurance would cover any accidental discharge of a firearm and any intentional acts carried out by a person who has stolen or borrowed the gun. It would not cover the policyholder for any intentional discharge that he or she carries out."
So let me get this right: I would be forced to buy an insurance policy (that does not, in fact, actually exist) to cover the illegal actions of a person who steals my firearm? Do I have that correct? How many pills did you actually take?
We've written about the concept of CCW insurance and the like for quite a while. Here for instance:
"The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) provides a policy for its members designed to provide immediate assistance after an incident."
The "catch," of course, is that it protects only the licensed CCW holder, and even then only for his or her intentional act of self defense.
In other words, Hizzoner wants to require legal gun owners to buy a product that if it actually existed would be of zero benefit to themselves.
And how does he justify this?
Pure rocket surgery:
"Liccardo said that his plan is based on similar laws in California that make it illegal to drive a vehicle without insurance."
No, it does not. Like every other state, it requires one to have insurance if, and only if, one intends to drive on public thoroughfares. I would also love for him to identify which Constitutional penumbra relates to driving a car.
I'll wait.
"[T]he mayor of San Jose, Calif., on Monday proposed what is being called a first-in-the-nation move to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons."
Really?
And how would that work?
Oh:
"[T]he insurance would cover any accidental discharge of a firearm and any intentional acts carried out by a person who has stolen or borrowed the gun. It would not cover the policyholder for any intentional discharge that he or she carries out."
So let me get this right: I would be forced to buy an insurance policy (that does not, in fact, actually exist) to cover the illegal actions of a person who steals my firearm? Do I have that correct? How many pills did you actually take?
We've written about the concept of CCW insurance and the like for quite a while. Here for instance:
"The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) provides a policy for its members designed to provide immediate assistance after an incident."
The "catch," of course, is that it protects only the licensed CCW holder, and even then only for his or her intentional act of self defense.
In other words, Hizzoner wants to require legal gun owners to buy a product that if it actually existed would be of zero benefit to themselves.
And how does he justify this?
Pure rocket surgery:
"Liccardo said that his plan is based on similar laws in California that make it illegal to drive a vehicle without insurance."
No, it does not. Like every other state, it requires one to have insurance if, and only if, one intends to drive on public thoroughfares. I would also love for him to identify which Constitutional penumbra relates to driving a car.
I'll wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment