mojo84 wrote:I would like to see a specimen of the liability policy they want to mandate. If it is the regular homeowners policy, there are limited triggers in the standard policy for coverage from gun liability. Intentional acts are not covered. Therefore, only unintentional acts and accidents/negligence for which someone is held liable will trigger coverage.
Intentional shootings whether justified or not will not be covered.
Intentional pistol whippings whether justified or not will not be covered.
I doubt liability from guns that are have been sold and then used in a crime will be covered either.
Therefore, I don't think they are really that concerned about the coverage, but just the additional cost and hoop that law abiding citizens will have to jump through and incur in order to own a gun and be legal.
This is past ridiculous.
Here it is. No insurer affords coverage for injuries inflicted by intentional acts. Only injuries suffered as a result of negligence are covered, or could be.
If I take a baseball bat and go next door to beat my neighbor senseless for playing his TV too loud, or dissing my daughter on the sidewalk, no homeowners insurance, and no other liability policy is going to protect me.
You can't expect the dimbulbs who run for Congress to understand this, especially if it stands in the way of something that seems popular, especially since they can't seem to get the concept of "shall not be infringed."