2023 SB 8: Mandatory Gun Insurance Bill

[Lanejsl]

//
Bill page is https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB8

Text is a placeholder on 1-26

// Librarian

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan. 26, 2023
CONTACTS: Heather Resetarits for Sen. Blakespear, Heather.Resetarits@sen.ca.gov
Robert Gammon for Sen. Skinner, Robert.Gammon@sen.ca.gov
Senators Blakespear and Skinner Announce New Bill Requiring Gun Owners to Have Insurance
State Senators Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, and Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, today announced new legislation, SB 8, that would require California gun owners to obtain liability insurance for the negligent or accidental use of their firearms. If enacted, the bill would make California the first state in the nation to adopt such legislation.
The new legislation follows the recent mass shootings in Monterey Park, Half Moon Bay, Goshen, Oakland, and other California communities.
“This bill is a commonsense approach to improve community safety. Under current laws, gun violence victims and society at large are the ones who suffer the cost of gun violence. This needs to change. Firearms are similar to cars in that they are inherently dangerous and are in wide circulation. If a car accidentally causes injury to a person or property, the insurance policy will compensate the victim. The same approach should apply to injuries caused by guns,” said Senator Blakespear.
“Victims of gun violence and their families suffer severe harm — economic, mental and physical — but have little to no recourse to be compensated for that harm. Insurance is the method our society uses to compensate those harmed by, for example, car accidents, medical malpractice, or faulty consumer products. Requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance puts the burden where it should be — on the gun owner,” said Senator Skinner.
January is already the deadliest month for mass shootings in California in at least a decade. To date, 27 people have been killed in five mass shootings in January, and another 20 have been injured.
The language of SB 8 will be modeled after the City of San Jose’s gun insurance law, the first of its kind in the country. That law went into effect on Jan. 1. The state of New York has also considered gun insurance legislation. Senator Blakespear and Senator Skinner’s bill is to be amended into SB 8, which was introduced late last year by Senator Blakespear. The legislation will also be similar to a bill, SB 505, that Senator Skinner introduced last year.
Senator Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, will be joining as a principal co-author of SB 8.
In the past decade, gun deaths have soared more than 80% nationwide. And despite the recent spate of mass shootings in California, research shows that gun control laws are effective. California has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, and since 2005, gun deaths have declined in our state by 10%. By contrast, Texas and Florida have some of the weakest gun laws in the nation, and their gun deaths have shot up 28% and 37%, respectively, during the same period. Polls and surveys have also shown more than 80% of Americans support tougher gun safety legislation.
Under SB 8, gun insurance in California would be similar to car insurance. Gun owners would:
 Be held civilly liable for property damage, injury, or death resulting from the use of their firearms
 Have to obtain liability insurance that covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm, including property, damage, injury or death
 Have to obtain proof of gun insurance, keep that proof with their firearm, and produce it when asked by a peace officer during the course of a lawful detainment.
“Gun violence costs our country over $280 billion a year. SB 8 will ensure that gun owners — not victims and their families — shoulder their fair share of that burden,” Senator Skinner added.
Sen. Catherine Blakespear represents the 38th Senate District, and Sen. Nancy Skinner represents the 9th Senate District.

[Squatch]

Anyone using a gun for nefarious reason most likely did not aquire said gun legally. And they sure as he'll ain't going to get insurance for it. So again, yet again, another law to burden the law abiding citizen while solving zero problems.

That said where do y'all get your freedom of speech insurance? My premium has gotten too high and I need to switch. I'll probably include my 4th Amendment rights in that policy as well.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Citadelgrad87]

NONE of the mass shootings was an "accident".

It is presently illegal to sell a policy of insurance in California that promises to cover an intentional act like this. If you run someone over on purpose and admit it, your insurance will not pay a dime.

Therefore, this will do nothing to help the victims of violent crime.

Oh, and stop scotch taping "commonsense approach" and "reasonable restriction" to draconian attempts to infringe on specific, enumerated constitutional rights.

[9Cal_OC]

Never let a tragedy go to waste.

^ I agree with your statement CG89. Not sure why they’re equating car insurance and gun insurance in the same category.

[redhead]

“ “Victims of gun violence and their families suffer severe harm — economic, mental and physical — but have little to no recourse to be compensated for that harm. Insurance is the method our society uses to compensate those harmed by, for example, car accidents, medical malpractice, or faulty consumer products. Requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance puts the burden where it should be — on the gun owner,” said Senator Skinner.”

Is Skinner being disingenuous or stupid or both? It’s been pointed out before that no insurance company sells insurance to cover deliberate misuse of a firearm. No insurance will provide compensation to victims of “gun violence.” Liability insurance will not reduce “gun violence.”

[The Gleam]

Entirely unneccsessary and an overeach.

By mandating insurance apply to a specific risk/physically indentifiable object and scenario, an interesting and likely unintended consequence of this could arise.

Insurance companies already provide such personal liability for negligence on homeowners, renters, and business-related insurance policies in legal ownership and use of firearms.

However, this would open up the door for them to adopt exclusions for firearms on these basic forms of insurance policy, because not everyone has firearms - and then they would create a separate policy form to sell to gun owners, just as these idiots are proposing - i.e., your homeowners or renter's insurance does not provide Auto liability coverage.

These fools who know neither anything about firearms or insurance, should really keep their stupid mouths shut.

We have idiots who know nothing about firearms, hate firearms, have an irrational fear of firerams, or want to outright abolish the 2nd Amendment - authoring legislation on firearms; and now they are combining their ignorance of insurance to author legislation about insurance for firearm ownership.

--

[Fjold]

A mandatory insurance law for a Constitutional right? It would disproportionally affect the poor. Since racial minorities are have a higher instance of poverty, the law would be deemed racist.

[jcwatchdog]

From the last time they tried this.


Although intended to provide a means of recovery for victims of gun crimes, this bill is likely unconstitutional, only burdens the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, and will have a discriminatory impact. First, the bill imposes strict liability on the exercise of a Constitutional right. The California Supreme Court has already recognized that when a tort claim implicates a Constitutional right, the Constitutional “amendment has abrogated the common law of strict liability.” (Blatty v. New York Times Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1033, 1042 (citing, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 347.) Moreover, “The discharge of firearms is not considered an ultra-hazardous activity in this state.” (Orser v. Vierra (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 660, 672–673.) As strict liability for the lawful use of firearms has never been permitted, it is not consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (U.S., June 23, 2022, No. 20-843) 2022 WL 2251305, at *3, rejecting “any means end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny” and instead placing the burden on the state to establish that a given regulation “is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.”) In short, strict liability is not an available policy choice because it infringes the Second Amendment.

[jcwatchdog]

It would also behoove them to wait and see how the San Jose law plays out in court before wasting their time.

[gforce357]

“This bill is a commonsense approach to improve community safety”.

^ This statement is is so very tiresome, and worn out now.

[GarlicDude]

You don't need insurance to use your other rights.

[cdtx2001]

IF this passes, I'll make sure to ignore it.

[NorcalGSG]

This is hilarious after they already ran out the insurance programs for CCW etc in CA like the NRA one that wasn't allowed here

[JohnCCW]

This "law" wouldn't stand 10 minutes of arguments in front of today's SCOTUS.

Problem is, it would take 30 years to travel through California courts before they see it.

[JohnCCW]

This "law" wouldn't stand 10 minutes of arguments in front of today's SCOTUS.

Problem is, it would take 30 years to travel through California courts before they see it.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by NorcalGSG

This is hilarious after they already ran out the insurance programs for CCW etc in CA like the NRA one that wasn't allowed here

Not exactly: the fault there was that the NRA was promoting, advertising, and acting as an agent/broker/seller of the policy/program without an insurance license to do so.

Now I have no doubt that the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd went after the NRA solely because of their agenda and that was an easy thing to target, but the facts are that lacking an insurance license was still the real problem.

And then when this happened, the insurance company backing the program was uncomfortable with all the 'negative' and anti-NRA press, so they quietly canceled all future offerings of it (not to mention that they were going through some other financial struggles).

But there was never a situation where the program wasn't allowed here or any state, unless it was a license issue to do business here in CA.

Regardless: such insurance should only ever be optional, not mandatory.

One would be smart to carry insurance for negligence with a firearm due to this crazy litigious commonality we now live in, but it should never be mandatory, any more than being required to have insurance to simply walk down the street.

---

[p7m8jg]

Originally Posted by redhead

<snip>

Is Skinner being disingenuous or stupid or both?

<snip>

I'm voting BOTH

[RJR45]

For people who constantly whine about gun industry "blood money", they sure love finding new or increased sources of revenue associated with the ownership of firearms.

[chris]

I knew this would come to pass after San Jose did it. It was only a matter of time and of course the mass shooting the state wants to get stuff like this passed. Not hard though Newsom hasn't vetoed one gun bill anyway.

It will pass anyway and during that time while it languishes for years in court gun owners will get shafted.

[chris]

Originally Posted by cdtx2001

IFWhen this passes, I'll make sure to ignore it.

FIFY. All gun control related legislation here passes and will 100% be signed by Newsom.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by chris

I knew this would come to pass after San Jose did it. It was only a matter of time and of course the mass shooting the state wants to get stuff like this passed. Not hard though Newsom hasn't vetoed one gun bill anyway.

It will pass anyway and during that time while it languishes for years in court gun owners will get shafted.

Actually, there might be a bright side if homeowner policies were prohibited from excluding coverage for damages caused by accidental or negligent discharges. What do others think?

[EM2]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Actually, there might be a bright side if homeowner policies were prohibited from excluding coverage for damages caused by accidental or negligent discharges. What do others think?

They will simply raise rates to cover the additional exposure.

Corporate America cares not about these regulations, they simply pass along the cost.
A tangential benefit for the existing companies is that it becomes more difficult for new competitors to get a foothold.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by EM2

They will simply raise rates to cover the additional exposure.

Corporate America cares not about these regulations, they simply pass along the cost.
A tangential benefit for the existing companies is that it becomes more difficult for new competitors to get a foothold.

Thanks for your reply. As far as passing along the cost, that is the way insurance works. While I have no direct experience or knowledge, I would imagine that it would take a huge amount of cash to enter into the insurance business.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Actually, there might be a bright side if homeowner policies were prohibited from excluding coverage for damages caused by accidental or negligent discharges. What do others think?

At this point, none exclude it anyway.

However, if there is legislation that defines it as a specialty coverage, you're sure to see a specialty response by the insurance industry. The old scenario of 'give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile' certainly applies.

While the actual risk won't change, this will give their actuaries, statiticians, and prognosticators plenty of slack and free hoplophobic publicity to pump it up, market it as a dire issue (scary stories) and do as they please - capitalizing on the fabricated 'threat' and falsified increased risk.

They'll raise rates, or charge additional premium to add it as a 'feature' or endorsement, or simply carve it out entirely and make you purchase a separate policy.

---

[michaelh1951]

I think insurance should be required before anyone exercises their first amendment right to free speech. This is only common sense.

People might say something upsetting. Victims of free speech can suffer horribly if something disagreeable is heard.

This epidemic of free speech needs to end

[bootcamp]

This state is so FUBAR due to the idiots that weaseled their way into office

[Librarian]

So, now it has text, as threatened at the press conference:

SECTION 1. Section 3343.8 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

3343.8. (a) (1) A person who owns a firearm shall be civilly liable for each incidence of property damage, bodily injury, or death resulting from the use of their firearm.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the firearm is lost or stolen and the owner has complied with Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 25250) of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to the use of a firearm in justified self-defense or defense of another person.
(b) A person who owns a firearm shall obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy from an insurer that is authorized to do business in this state, specifically covering losses or damages resulting from the use of that firearm, including, but not limited to, death or injury to another, including without limitation a household member, guest, or invitee, and property damage.

Also adds Usual Suspects Skinner and Portatino to the authors.