byron
.308 Win
![www.yahoo.com](https://s.yimg.com/cv/apiv2/social/images/yahoo_default_logo-1200x1200.png)
Op-Ed: My city's new gun control laws will help more than waiting on Congress to do something
San Jose will soon require gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to pay annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives.
LEO's are already insured via indemnification by the dept.When we retire we are required to jump thru all the hoops everybody else has to.Watch every LEO a will be expect from this.
It was supposed to say exempt from the insurance liability law.LEO's are already insured via indemnification by the dept.When we retire we are required to jump thru all the hoops everybody else has to.
Yeah, I got that, I was just pointing out that there is no reason to "exempt" LEO's , when active they are covered by insurance, its called indemnified,basically insurance.Once retired we have to abide by the same laws a non LEO does.It was supposed to say exempt from the insurance liability law.
Can we require voting insurance ?![]()
Op-Ed: My city's new gun control laws will help more than waiting on Congress to do something
San Jose will soon require gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to pay annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives.www.yahoo.com
Too late. Shit already gone down.Can we require voting insurance ?
In case a bunch of morons elect some dimwit that crashes the economy ?
You did better than me. I wouldn't even read it.I couldn't make it through the whole article.
I think it's just getting started.Too late. Shit already gone down.
Can we require voting insurance ?
Correct, but many LEO’s have personal firearms while actively employed and I don’t think that insurance or indemnity transfer to LEOs when not working?Yeah, I got that, I was just pointing out that there is no reason to "exempt" LEO's , when active they are covered by insurance, its called indemnified,basically insurance.Once retired we have to abide by the same laws a non LEO does.
You are indemnified if you use an approved weapon, on duty or off.Back in the days when we carried revolvers we could request approval to carry a semi off duty,if approved you'd be indemnified with that weapon off duty.Correct, but many LEO’s have personal firearms while actively employed and I don’t think that insurance or indemnity transfer to LEOs when not working?
Sounds like a tall order to get this past SCOTUS. Analogous to making those who want to exercise 1st amendment pay into a fund each year that covers civil cases for libel.two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives.
Sounds like a tall order to get this past SCOTUS. Analogous to making those who want to exercise 1st amendment pay into a fund each year that covers civil cases for libel.
As I already said, there is no need to give leo an exemption.At least not with most depts.I have heard that some depts require you to have a CCW permit, in my case, I wasnt allowed to have any kind of permit,even had to surrender my NYC rifle permit.Technically, if I was to use a gun off duty that wasnt officially approved, as long as I legally owned it,and the only way to legally own it is via the job, when it all washed out as long as it was a good shoot, I'd be indemnified.A bad shoot with your duty weapon would not be covered.I dont have any knowledge about depts that require a permit or allow their members to have one or how they are indemnified.As far as kid in the house getting his hands on one, he better have gotten it out of a lock box or secured safe or you will not be indemnified.Not trying to knock Leo's but it's horseshit if they're exempt if they own personal firearms. When they're using their personal weapons off duty they're the same as a civilian as far as this bullshit law is concerned. A kid could get his hands on one just the same as he could in a civilian home. They could have an accidental discharge and hit someone. Those things aren't likely but they're also not likely to happen in a civilian home if the owner has at least some common sense - which is obviously something this mayor does not have
Sure, in a decade SCOTUS will strike it down.Sounds like a tall order to get this past SCOTUS. Analogous to making those who want to exercise 1st amendment pay into a fund each year that covers civil cases for libel.