gun.jpgState Assemblymen Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, and Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, introduced legislation today 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

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Agreen2k

    Absurd. If someone steals your car and subsequently injures another person with it, are you liable for the criminal misuse of your (stolen) property? Of course not. You need insurance to operate a vehicle on a public road, but last I checked, very few California civilians are licensed to carry a gun in public. You need neither a drivers license nor insurance to operate a motor vehicle on private property. So you can’t really use the car argument for something kept in a private home, intended for use only on private premises, such as a shooting range, or for home defense.
    Mr. Ting’s argument falls apart once you start thinking about it. His bill should be defeated.

  • Agreen2k

    Absurd. If someone steals your car and subsequently injures another person with it, are you liable for the criminal misuse of your (stolen) property? Of course not. You need insurance to operate a vehicle on a public road, but last I checked, very few California civilians are licensed to carry a gun in public. You need neither a drivers license nor insurance to operate a motor vehicle on private property. So you can’t really use the car argument for something kept in a private home, intended for use only on private premises, such as a shooting range, or for home defense.
    Mr. Ting’s argument falls apart once you start thinking about it. His bill should be defeated.