Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-27-2020, 6:24 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default 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..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-27-2020, 6:28 AM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Not in California
Posts: 2,124
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-27-2020, 6:32 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Looks like this was already posted on,

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...highlight=1602
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-27-2020, 6:33 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,363
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

This is bull****. First they say you should be insured, then they say you can't. How ridiculous.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-27-2020, 1:04 PM
MEGSDAD's Avatar
MEGSDAD MEGSDAD is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So.. armed perp breaks in. I have to shoot him and he lives. I may wind up having to pay his medical bills? Under this bill my insurance wont cover it?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-27-2020, 1:57 PM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-27-2020, 2:02 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,112
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Death by a thousand cuts...again.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-27-2020, 2:34 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-27-2020, 5:46 PM
NorcalGSG NorcalGSG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,051
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The insurance industry should slam this. If passed this will be a very slippery slope for their industry.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-27-2020, 5:57 PM
WWDHD? WWDHD? is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 1,914
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

LEO's & a bunch of other special groups exempt?
__________________
NRA & CRPA member
semi-docile tax payer
amateur survivalist

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-27-2020, 6:46 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,488
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEGSDAD View Post
So.. armed perp breaks in. I have to shoot him and he lives. I may wind up having to pay his medical bills? Under this bill my insurance wont cover it?
Make sure to kill him....
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-27-2020, 7:11 PM
Cactus_Tim's Avatar
Cactus_Tim Cactus_Tim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,313
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
Make sure to kill him....

Stop the threat.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-27-2020, 7:15 PM
Skip_Dog's Avatar
Skip_Dog Skip_Dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

As stated above, I bet leos and other "specials" will be exempt. Sucks. My move out of Ca. will come sooner than later.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-27-2020, 9:27 PM
GI Combat GI Combat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 412
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

If I have a right to keep and bear arms, I should have a right to insure myself should the unexpected happen...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-27-2020, 10:33 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,367
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-28-2020, 11:30 AM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Grover Beach, CA
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milsurp1 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners
Virtually unlimited FREE Front Sight training: http://guntrust.org
Click here to read my July 2019 article on gun trusts and AB1292
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-28-2020, 11:48 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 606
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-28-2020, 12:20 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-28-2020, 12:23 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmy View Post
They are trying to increase risk, cost and anything that prices people out of owning...

Aholes...

Pretty much sums up the whole ball of wax. Additional comment is adopted.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-28-2020, 1:01 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
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.
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.)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-28-2020, 1:14 PM
Dirtlaw Dirtlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OC
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
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.)

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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-28-2020, 1:49 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 606
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-28-2020, 7:27 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
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.)
The statue you cite is not the same as a law that would prevent someone from purchasing coverage that is available. Also some insurance companies use the intentionals act as a excuse to deny claims they don't want to pay, for example you intentionally break a window to escape a burning building and I would bet no insurance co would deny replacing the window. but you shoot a home invader the insurance co will deny the claim even though you were not convicted of doing anything illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-28-2020, 7:36 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
The statue you cite is not the same as a law that would prevent someone from purchasing coverage that is available. Also some insurance companies use the intentionals act as a excuse to deny claims they don't want to pay, for example you intentionally break a window to escape a burning building and I would bet no insurance co would deny replacing the window. but you shoot a home invader the insurance co will deny the claim even though you were not convicted of doing anything illegal.
No, it does not prevent the purchase of insurance for negligently inflicted gun shot injuries, but that wasn't my point. The point was that the former proposed law requiring the purchase of mandatory liability insurance, since coverage is limited by statute to unintentional acts, would do very very little to reduce the state's cost of paying for gunshot injuries suffered by uninsured individuals, since the vast majority of injuries being treated are for excluded intentional acts. and this law would make it worse since not even negligent acts would be covered.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:17 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical