“Existing law provides that the Legislature finds and declares that it is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or handicap, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, and physical harm caused by the activities of violent groups and individuals.” I’m no Constitutional scholar but I don’t remember reading about a citizen’s right to be protected from fear, intimidation and physical harm. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled quite the opposite: the police have no obligation to protect citizens. Although there’s no text on AB-231 yet, we know . . .
This is the bill that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, introduced by Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco and Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles. Why? “There’s basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur,” Ting told foxenews.com, “I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing those bills.”
As we don’t have the text, we don’t know what kind of insurance Ting and his pals would impose on Californians looking to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Strangely, the bill’s summary doesn’t make any economic argument: “This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would ensure that Californians are not at undue risk of gun violence.”
I suppose getting shot by a cop is not undue, then. And I’d like to hear how forcing gun owners to buy insurance reduces their risk of encountering gun violence. Or anyone else’s risk, for that matter.
Not that buying insurance for your firearms or to defray legal costs for a defensive gun use is a bad thing. But making it mandatory is a clear infringement and an undue burden on the aforementioned right. As Martin Luther King said, a right delayed is a right denied.