As Cooolone said above.what if all the insurance companies do not offer it ..
NY outlawed it, and CA wants to make it mandatory.how does this work if no insurance company that offers this type of policy, this is unconstitutional, period
so if a drunk steals my car and kills a family, Im I still liable
No, these are two very different things. What California wants is liability insurance that would cover any incident that might happen relating to any firearm you own, whether it was your fault or not.NY outlawed it, and CA wants to make it mandatory.
It's almost like the gun grabbers have no clue what they're doing.
They're both insurance that covers you if someone sues you over a gun related issue.No, these are two very different things. What California wants is liability insurance that would cover any incident that might happen relating to any firearm you own, whether it was your fault or not.
What New York banned was legal insurance that would cover your legal fees in the event that you used your gun in self defense. This insurance would not cover a ND or any act committed by someone if they stole your gun.
will this apply to your car if your car is stolen by a drunk and kills someone, 'cause that where this is headedNo, these are two very different things. What California wants is liability insurance that would cover any incident that might happen relating to any firearm you own, whether it was your fault or not.
What New York banned was legal insurance that would cover your legal fees in the event that you used your gun in self defense. This insurance would not cover a ND or any act committed by someone if they stole your gun.
Precisely why the rightful owners of the guns that the criminals stole and are shooting people with should be liable !The indigenous urban inhabitants don't pay taxes nor will they get gun owners insurance.
In either case why should the government be allowed to intervene in a private contract between two parties that fully want to agree to said contract? Seems like more power grabbing bullshit to me.I disagree. What California wants is a policy that would pay out even if your gun was stolen and used in a crime. Only if you reported it stolen before the crime would you not be liable for it.
What New York banned would only pay your attorney fees for your defense in an act of self defense.
What would happen is you would be named in a lawsuit in any case your gun was used, and the insurance company would be dragged kicking and screaming into court, because they have the deep pockets.I disagree. What California wants is a policy that would pay out even if your gun was stolen and used in a crime. Only if you reported it stolen before the crime would you not be liable for it.
What New York banned would only pay your attorney fees for your defense in an act of self defense.