GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. IT IS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN. MOST GUN DEATHS ARE FROM CRIMINALS THAT DO NOT HAVE REGISTERED GUNS THAT ARE PROBABLY STOLEN. QUIT BLAMING IT ON THE GUN AND THE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE THAT OWN THEM. REDICULOUS LAW. DO YOU REALLY THINK CRIMINALS ARE GOING TO GO OUT AND BUY LIABILITY INSURANCE? AGAIN IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW THE LAW THAT PAY!
This nonsense will get struck down like every other impotent anti-gun initiative that has been struck down in California. They either can’t read or enjoy losing at the Supreme Court. During the Civil War, virtually all “gun control” laws were enacted in the slave states principally due to the fear of firearms in the hands of free blacks. Now they want to disarm the poorest among us living in the least safe neighborhoods. From Proposition H in San Francisco to multiple cities enacting ordinances banning gun stores from selling affordable self-defense handguns, which the ordinances defined as “Saturday Night Specials.”
Unconstitutional. And here we go again. The undue burden standard is a constitutional test fashioned by the Supreme Court of the United States which states that a legislature cannot make a particular law that is too burdensome or restrictive of one’s fundamental rights. Only a zealot blinded by an illogical drive to rid law-abiding citizens of the right to protect themselves while doing nothing to curtail violent gun crime would think that firearms owners should be required to carry liability, when coverage would not apply to the principal problems involved: criminals who aren’t sent to prison for weapons violations and are given inexpensive bail despite long rap sheets. Liability insurance doesn’t cover criminal acts. Because a fundamental constitutional right hangs in the balance, there will be strict scrutiny of these laws and because this liability insurance nonsense will do nothing to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and is clearly not narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest, it will fail like all the rest. Yawn.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. IT IS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN. MOST GUN DEATHS ARE FROM CRIMINALS THAT DO NOT HAVE REGISTERED GUNS THAT ARE PROBABLY STOLEN. QUIT BLAMING IT ON THE GUN AND THE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE THAT OWN THEM. REDICULOUS LAW. DO YOU REALLY THINK CRIMINALS ARE GOING TO GO OUT AND BUY LIABILITY INSURANCE? AGAIN IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW THE LAW THAT PAY!
This nonsense will get struck down like every other impotent anti-gun initiative that has been struck down in California. They either can’t read or enjoy losing at the Supreme Court. During the Civil War, virtually all “gun control” laws were enacted in the slave states principally due to the fear of firearms in the hands of free blacks. Now they want to disarm the poorest among us living in the least safe neighborhoods. From Proposition H in San Francisco to multiple cities enacting ordinances banning gun stores from selling affordable self-defense handguns, which the ordinances defined as “Saturday Night Specials.”
Unconstitutional. And here we go again. The undue burden standard is a constitutional test fashioned by the Supreme Court of the United States which states that a legislature cannot make a particular law that is too burdensome or restrictive of one’s fundamental rights. Only a zealot blinded by an illogical drive to rid law-abiding citizens of the right to protect themselves while doing nothing to curtail violent gun crime would think that firearms owners should be required to carry liability, when coverage would not apply to the principal problems involved: criminals who aren’t sent to prison for weapons violations and are given inexpensive bail despite long rap sheets. Liability insurance doesn’t cover criminal acts. Because a fundamental constitutional right hangs in the balance, there will be strict scrutiny of these laws and because this liability insurance nonsense will do nothing to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and is clearly not narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest, it will fail like all the rest. Yawn.