|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
2020 AB-1602 Use of firearm insurance.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01920200AB1602
Stops insurance from "covering a loss related to the use of a firearm", insurance would only be able to cover damage to property. Last edited by abinsinia; 05-27-2020 at 6:29 AM.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
In other words, if you carry for defense in California and this passes, talk to a WY attorney about putting any significant assets in a WY domestic asset protection trust.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
This is bull****. First they say you should be insured, then they say you can't. How ridiculous.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
They are trying to increase risk, cost and anything that prices people out of owning...
Aholes...
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Note that this bill would ban any coverage for ANY firearms related injury, even negligence. They complain about the cost of paying the medical costs of persons injured by firearms, but then they turn around and purport to ban the medical payments provisions of my HO or auto policy from covering an injury due to a negligent discharge, or the liability portion from picking up the rest? This makes sense why, exactly? Oh, I get it, it is too risky to own a gun because of the potential liability, so people will give up their firearms. Um hmm. I wonder what "rational basis" supports this bill--on its face it doesn't have one. I wonder what the Calif Supreme court will think of it if it is enacted.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Make sure to kill him....
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
This one will be dead on arrival; it's an attention seeker, and quite sure even the most illogical tyrant will see the stupidity of it. It would come back to haunt them should insurance not pay out on an obvious negligent act, and then the same could be applied to so many other products, machines, vehicles, and such.
Negligence is negligence, and if it's not illegal, this will get nowhere with the insurance industry or past anyone else - even with a Democrat's squirrel's sized brain, of course accept for the diptard that authored this nonsense. For that matter; there are actually a lot of people in the insurance industry that are very 2nd Amendment/firearm collector/generally gun friendly AND conservative, so much so I would say a majority. As it would also limit the entertainment industry in their unethical use of percussive/prop firearms to promote and glorify inappropriate firearm handling and gun violence it's also likely to die long before appropriations committee - (even though many now utilize CGI for simulating guns firing due to accidents on set). This is one bill that the entertainment industry would not be able to be excepted.
__________________
----------------------------------------------- Quote:
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Asset protection is an important but complicated aspect of estate planning, and many options are available depending on your individual and family situation, and how serious you are: Nevada, other states (even right here in California), offshore, or a multi-jurisdictional hybrid approach.
__________________
David R Duringer JD LL.M (Tax), CA/WA/TX atty, @guntrust on social nets. Protective Law Corporation *Estate Planning for Gun Owners* (zoom or office) Become an affiliated attorney/advisor: http://guncounsel.com CRPA Mag Must Retract Erroneous Bulletin Slamming Gun Trusts Radio ads: http://Protect.FM FREE training: http://guntrust.org FREE design meeting: http://Protect.LIFE |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
My current understanding is this bill is not going to move in the legislature and is dead for now.
It is very bad public policy, the proposed bill was very poorly drafted, and the negative consequences from such a bill were significant. This bill would have harmed responsible gun owners that spent substantial sums of money on insurance to protect themselves and third parties that might get injured due to negligence, and it would also have harmed legitimate victims of negligence by preventing them from obtaining compensation for injuries. If someone is shot due to negligence it would be incredibly sad if they could not obtain compensation from the insurance pool for what are potentially very serious injuries. It would be a little like banning auto insurers from paying compensation to victims of drunk drivers. The difference is drunk driving is a choice people make, whereas accidental shootings are due to ordinary negligence not intentional conduct. Last edited by Elgatodeacero; 05-28-2020 at 11:55 AM.. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I can not think of any previous cases of a law being in place to prevent someone from purchasing insurance that a insurance company was willing to write. Passing such a law would set a dangerous precedent and if could be done for firearms what would be next.
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Pretty much sums up the whole ball of wax. Additional comment is adopted. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
There is a ban, by statute, on any insurance company indemnifying anyone for intentionally wrongful conduct, and including punitive damages.(Which is of course why the prior bills that would have3 required mandatory gun owner liability policies of $1 million were so silly, since a) criminals won't buy such policies, and b) the carrier is prohibited from paying for injuries arising from intentional acts.)
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But when unintentional acts or even negligent acts get swept into the same game as intentional ones, then we have a problem. By in large insurance serves only to provide (1) a defense and (2) a deep pocket that will allow a case to be settled without bankrupting the targeted defendant. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
While I somewhat agree with Dirtlaw’s comment, it goes deeper than a defendant avoiding bankruptcy.
The plain fact is that most people (99% or close to it) have zero or close to zero in assets in the context of a person being negligently injured in an accident/incident. Without insurance (lots of people paying a small amount of money into a collective pool for everyone to potentially recover from) no one would ever be compensated for serious injuries resulting from negligent behavior. We all pay insurance premiums in the hope we never need to collect and in the hope we never momentarily act negligently and seriously injure someone else. The entire purpose of insurance is to make sure injured people can be compensated for their losses to physical and mental health and do not become wards of the state (taxpayers). If any of us were to accidentally injure another person with our car, with a gun, or any other tool or machine we would want to be able to look to our insurance company and say “I made a mistake, pay that person full and fair compensation.” Insurance companies will try every trick and corny argument in the universe to avoid paying, but after they exhaust all other options or after a jury forces them to, they then pay the injured person. How terrible it would be to hurt someone and ruin their health and body and have no way to compensate for it. I don’t like the cynical and evil practices of insurance companies but I think insurance as a concept is a good thing and part of what allows our complex society to function. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|