|
|
|
Uploaded: Friday, February 15, 2013, 6:56 AM
Updated: Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 7:01 AM
State Assembly eyes laws on gun liability, buy-back programs
Legislation would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance
|
Photo
 | State Assemblymen Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) have introduced legislation that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Assembly Bill 231 would require the owners to cover damages incurred from incidents stemming from their firearms.
"The government requires insurance as a condition of operating a car -- at the very least we should impose a similar requirement for owning a firearm," Ting said in a statement.
Gomez said under the legislation, individuals would receive a more affordable policy if they use a trigger lock for their firearms and take part in training courses.
Ting today also introduced Assembly Bill 232, which would provide state income tax credits for people who participate in local gun buyback programs, with a cap of $1,000.
"Gun buyback programs are an effective way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and lower the risk of intentional or accidental damage
by these weapons," Ting said.Jamey Padojino, Bay City News — Bay City News Service Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Charlie Brown , a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2013 at 8:25 am Let's see, the government makes us buy insurance to operate a car; how many deaths has that eliminated? Now they want a person to purchase insurance as a condition of owning a gun, how many deaths will that stop? It appears to be just another way to get legal gun owners to register their guns, and I'm sure all the criminals will be the first to run out and buy the insurance.
Didn't we just got forced to purchase health insurance, what's next. Maybe we should have to purchase insurance to own sugar, there by reducing the risk of tooth decay.
It's nice to have a nanny watching out for us,
|
|
Posted by Mr Soccer, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2013 at 8:51 am Mr. Brown
You hit the ball out of the park on that one!! I couldn't have put into a simpler term as to what they are trying to do. Why is it that the government feels they needs to micro manage OUR lives when, from the outside looking in to their lives, they can't manage OUR money. They are just trying to take more away from us and give themselves more. If we let this go on it will soon be they will be the only ones who can own a gun and a car for that matter. Insurance? For what? They will take the money and us it for what? To educate people about how to properly use their guns, to help those injured from guns, or to line their own pockets to get re-elected to write some more restrictions for our own good? They can't even take care of our own military personnel properly when they have full control of what they do for the time they are enlisted. Why would we want them to take more from us? What do we think it will really accomplish?
Mr. Soccer
|
|
Posted by Ptown native, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2013 at 8:55 am Good grief Charlie Brown. You hit the nail on the head.
They cannot and will not answer your question. They
know we're right, but they will push it through, if they can, anyway.
(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff) I don't understand the logic. They want us law abiding
citizens to be defenseless under their tyranny. It's coming if we
don't fight it. The devil is very subtle. Like the camels nose under
the tent.
|
|
Posted by Ski, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2013 at 10:41 am All this law is going to do is make the insurance companies rich. It does nothing to curb shootings but it does screw the general public.This is now the democrats at work they have become communists and are subverting the US constitution as fast as they can and the un knowing women of this state and country are halping them do it
|
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2013 at 12:16 pm Do you think that a person that turns in a gun needs tax credits? Want to bet these people don't even pay taxes.
What do they serve at the state capitol cafeferia, idiot pills? It seems our elected officals are getting dumber the longer they are in office. And we keep electing them!
|
|
Posted by Citizen, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2013 at 4:18 pm I need insurance when I forget to bring my reusable bags to the store!!
|
|
Posted by $$$$$, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2013 at 1:19 pm Actually, having shooter pay the county hospital bills for repeated patchups is not a bad idea.
However, I've never understood the buyback concept. Just a way to blow lots of excess money, if we have excess. Anybody who doesn't want their guns won't be shooting them anyway, and the crooks would just use the $$ to upgrade to a better model. Most likely Oakland street shoots wouldn't turn in anyway, might be traced to their last murder.
|
|
Posted by Tea Party Proud, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm Its like car insurance. I buy it till its reported to DMV, then I cancel it. I drive free without nanny obummer state breathing down my throat. Goverment off our backs now!!
|
|
Posted by Mavis, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 18, 2013 at 9:44 am Glad to see that some people are starting to realize some of the repercussions of electing left wing loons to the Legislature. Its tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend. The loons want to tax you into poverty so you are dependent on the goverment so they can control you. At the same time, they use the money to foster their insane agenda.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
