Legislature Considers Statewide Gun Insurance Requirement Like San Jose’s

Following San Jose’s lead, the California Senate is considering legislation to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance to own a gun.

Two state senators last week introduced amended legislation to require such insurance for the negligent or accidental discharge of a gun.

If SB 8 becomes law, California would be the first state in the nation to enact such a law.

San Jose has a gun insurance law, the first such law in the nation. SB 8 will be modeled after San Jose law, which went into effect at the beginning of this year.

The amended Senate Bill 8 was introduced by Sens. Nancy Skinner, D-Oakland and Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, following the mass shootings across the state in January.

“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,” Skinner said in a statement.

Skinner added, “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.”

Statewide, 31 people have died this month in mass shootings that have occurred in Oakland, Half Moon Bay, Monterey Park and Goshen, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which tracks the numbers. Twenty-four more people were injured in those shootings, according to the same source.

“This bill is a commonsense approach to improve community safety,” Blakespear said. “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,” he said. “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.”

The state plan would be like car insurance, he said. Gun owners would be civilly liable for property damage, injury or death caused by their gun. Gun owners would also have to have proof they own the gun and keep that proof with them. If asked by police, a gun owner would have to show the officer proof of insurance.

Blakespear introduced a version of SB 8 last year. The latest version of SB 8 will be like last year's SB 505, which was crafted by Skinner. Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, will also be a principal author of the latest version of SB 8.




  1. Is it in any way surprising that contempt for the Constitution, intimidation as well as harassment of gun owners, evasion of the reality of crime, false analogy and fallacious low-IQ pretense at reasoning with insurance and the motor vehicle insurance analogy, which fools nobody competent or principled, is limited merely to one badly run city in this physically and morally declining state?

    They’re being degenerate in office elsewhere, too, with state-wide scope.

  2. Just an Observation

    No contempt for the constitution. Just requiring proper management and responsible ownership. Just like a car, you need to take steps to mitigate damages either for injuries or property when your gun is used inappropriately.

    The insurance company will have the right to test fire a bullet to have a database of bullet fingerprints. Since they are not an agency of the government, but a PRIVATE company. Thus no 2nd amendment issues there. That will be used with a proper subpoena to track a bullet to the gun that fired it. Thus no 4th amendment issues there either.

    And if that means it solves a crime, so be it. If it also results in the possibility that one is in the business of providing firearms to other illegally, that will also be good. We need to get rid of ghost guns and this way will at least force people to get them form out of state.

    My hopes are we can get this done nationally, so that there is no more loopholes in the illegal or negligent use of firearms. Just look at the 6 yr old that shot the teacher!!!!

  3. Allow the drug addled & mentally ill to trash and corrupt all public spaces while harassing the law abiding gun owner is just another insult added to the cost of living among childish leftists.
    I think it’s called ‘Anarcho-Tyranny’ and its expected fruit is apathy.

  4. “Firearms are similar to cars in that they are inherently dangerous and are in wide circulation,” he said. “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.”

    This quote from the article really sticks out to me – as it’s the old game of comparing two completely different issues, but leaving out important details that don’t fit the narrative of the person speaking.

    If we are going to treat cars and guns the same – then why not facilitate a background check for every driver license? Why not have people wait 10-days before they can pick up their new car while the background check processes? Why not issue a background check every-time someone purchases gasoline (this happens with Ammo)? Why not cap the amount of gasoline people can purchase? We are taking the same approach, right?

    And what a complete joke to say somehow guns are in wide circulation compared to cars. Each home has an average of 2-cars – there are FAR more cars than firearms associated with each home, and you don’t get in a firearm 4 times a day and drive on a road with thousands of other firearms.

    So, if we are going to create such nonsensical policies, at least have the policy stand alone on its merits/efficacy, as opposed to comparing it to another policy associated with another completely different product that is apples to oranges. It just sounds goofy.

  5. Victims of hate speech and slander and their families suffer severe harm — economic, mental and physical — but have little to no recourse to be compensated for that harm, requiring speakers to carry liability insurance puts the burden where it should be — on the speaker.
    This bill is a commonsense approach to improve community safety, under current laws, victims of hate speech and society at large are the ones who suffer the cost. This needs to change.
    Free speech is similar to cars in that it is inherently dangerous and is 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 harm caused by free speech.
    The state plan would be like car insurance, he said. Public speakers would be civilly liable for harm caused by their speech. If asked by police, a speaker would have to show the officer proof of insurance.
    – If it’s good for the Second Amendment, it’s good for the First.

  6. Just an Observation,

    Actually the first Amendment protects free speech, but if you incite violence or spread defamation, that is NOT protected. So unfortunately it is a bad comparison. Look at what happened to Alex Jones.

    Sorry but your distractive what aboutism is not going to change the topic. It is time for proper regulations, which are part of the 2nd amendment, and this is likely going to kill any challenges regarding this approach of mitigating damages.


  7. You are talking about two different issues. Alex Jones was sued in civil court, while someone inciting violence would be charged criminally. Apples to oranges – and no one said speech doesn’t come with consequences.

    Also, why not enforce existing laws as opposed to creating new ones? For example, red flag laws. States with the most restrictive laws typically have red flag laws – and many of those states FAILED to enforce those laws, including the mass shooting in San Jose – and that failure ultimately made mass shootings possible by allowing deranged people to keep guns after exhibiting serious issues. Colorado and Illinois are two examples of mass shooting incidents where red flag laws also failed because they weren’t used/enforced.

    I’d prefer to see existing laws that could actually prevent mass shootings be used before we put arbitrary measures like this in place. It will ultimately solve nothing – but again, using existing laws could actually prevent some incidents of gun violence. You’re just virtue signaling.

  8. with the court’s makeup, this will lose a challenge.

    waste of time by the city and state and obviously an infringement

    nothing new from the clown show

  9. JUst an Observation,

    EXISITING laws do not work, because too many people violate them, its like using a sand dam against a tsunami. Your theory “could” does not apply here. Stop trying to misinform anyone here.
    Show me where the existing laws does what you claim?

    The fact is the current laws as they stand do not prevent anything regarding violence and accidents. That is why we need to address this problem.

    As far as Virtue Signalling., that is defined as:

    “According to the Cambridge Dictionary, virtue signalling is “an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media… indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings”. The expression is often used to imply by the user that the virtue being signalled is exaggerated or insincere.”

    As far as I know there is no evidence to support critics of this policy will succeed, only opinions. I am being transparent, and demonstrating the false arguments that are being made here. So this is just name calling because you have no evidence to support your argument.

    If you want to DEMONSTRATE with evidence please do so?

    In any event, so far the local law is in effect. Until there is a court decision no one here can be in authority to proclaim it to be not valid.

    In fact this may wind up becoming a national standard. Which is good because the larger the pool of insured gets, the less costly it will be for the insured.

  10. “Why not cap the amount of gasoline people can purchase? We are taking the same approach, right?”

    Indeed, and that’s what some would seek on a way to a gasoline ban as a method of getting rid of cars more quickly and attacking drivers and car owners even sooner and more strongly than with a future ban on vehicle sales. Unlike ammunition and handloading, home refining of gasoline would not be happening, though some interest might be revived in alcohol fuel substitutes going all the way back to the first oil shortage and TAB books and other sources on the subject of making one’s own substitute fuels.

    These gun control people, too cowardly and dishonest to say that’s what they want, use euphemistic weasel substitute words and phrases, instead, are on the losing end of both facts and morality, thus it’s no wonder they’re not highly opposed and they have support of many in “progressive” California, whose Herd now also likely still believes Kamala Harris should be the next President..

    They deserve to go down in flames in court over this, and then lose sovereign immunity when it comes to any action taken against gun owners who resisted, especially with any guns taken or damaged or destroyed.

  11. Car ownership is not a right that’s protected by the Constitution. Gun ownership is. This law is an infringement on the 2A. What if I refuse to comply? Is the state going to impose a fine and/or confiscate my gun? What if I can’t afford insurance? Will they waive that requirement for poor people? How I s this not an infringement as well as a violation of equal protection under the law? This BS is flawed in so many ways that it will never survive a SCOTUS review.

  12. Can’t they fix that SCOTUS review problem with another law making it a law license violation to provide information about such a lawsuit to a patient — oops, I mean potential client?

  13. I guess you don’t know/understand the insurance part of this. In San Jose, at the time they discussed this absurd idea, there were no insurance companies that offered the insurance. The fee imposed on LEGAL gun owners was going to go to a nonprofit (they hadn’t formed one yet). That nonprofit, per Liccardo, would have NO oversight by the City and zero accountability to the Mayor or Council.

    When the topic of ghost guns came up, the Council were stone cold silent. THAT is where the crime & deaths are occurring, yet all but one just stared.

    Either that same night or the next, Liccardo went in various TV shows touting his accomplishment. It was all for show for Liccardo’s to put on his resume for his next gig.

  14. “What if I can’t afford insurance? Will they waive that requirement for poor people?”

    Interesting you should ask. They discussed that. The answer to your question, as I recall, was that their may be waivers for those who can’t afford it.

    It stinks on so many levels that I’m sure it will go to the SCOTUS at some point.

  15. OH!! The kicker (to my last comment) was that the yet-to-be-formed nonprofit could use the fee they receive “anyway they choose” without any accountability, per Liccardo.

  16. Just an Observation,

    Too many whatabouters here.

    Gasoline is not a lethal weapon by design. So that makes that comparison ridiculous.

    I see no reason why an insurer cannot make a profit either. If gun owners are responsible, the cost of it will be VERY LOW, and there will be LOWER expected costs of claims.

    The ACCOUNTABLILTY is ultimately on the owner of the weapon. This is what we are talking about WEAPONS.

    And again an insurer is not a STATE AGENCY, so the 2nd amendment does not apply at all. So stop trying to make up stories.

  17. Yes, Mayor Liccardo went on teevee to burnish his political credentials about this illegitimate and ridiculous insurance (and non-profit) scam on law-abiding people who happen to have guns. They aren’t his constituency, obviously.

    Consider not only this idiotic unconstitutional scheme and scam but who liked and likes it once it made the news, and the state legislature’s related behavior now. The state continues its decline, including moral, with these people instead of competent adults in governments state-wide, and their supporters.

  18. Just an Observation,

    Just understand, the San Jose law is in effect right now. So far I have not seen any indication of any success regarding your claims of unconstitutionality. read this (https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/challenge-san-jose-gun-insurance-fee-law-can-proceed-2022-10-03/)

    “(Reuters) – A gun rights group’s legal challenge to a San Jose, California, city ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase insurance and pay a fee to a non-profit aimed at preventing gun violence can go forward, a federal judge has ruled.

    U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman on Friday granted much of the city’s motion to toss the case, brought by the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights, but said the group could re-file most of the dismissed claims.

    Labson also dismissed a similar lawsuit by two other groups, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, in its entirety, also with leave to refile.”

    This happened in October, WHERE IS THE REFILE?

    In fact wasn’t the San Jose Spotlight pointing out how gun shops are mot inspected to check if they are in compliance with gun sales laws too (https://sanjosespotlight.com/audit-shows-sloppy-san-jose-gun-shop-inspections/)

    You all are just ranting, and not having any constructive conversation, when presented with objective proof against your argument, you get personal. This is surely an indication that you have no proof as of yet to claim this will not stand up.

    Maybe if you all could get good legislative candidates that have an alternative solution, you might have better performance in Sacramento,. Given that registered Republicans are a minority of the state

    Among registered voters, 46.8% are Democrats, 23.9% are Republican, and 22.7% say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”).

    If you have ANY better solution sell it!!! Otherwise your use of an echo chamber like this one is not getting you anywhere. Or better yet, if you really don’t like the state, move?

  19. The first rule for you Steven, remains to stop digging, else deeper you’ll go.

    That also applies to governments ,if they want to recover or regain respect.

  20. Just an Observation,


    Why can’t you provide a better solution?

    Why are you just using insults and threats?

    A government that follows the proper procedures and has laws that are not overridden by the courts MUST BE RESPECTED AND FOLLOWED. Otherwise you will be held accountable.

    You cannot pick and choose what laws to follow in a country and state that has EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS REQUIRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF EVERY CITIZEN being in the constitution. Otherwise you can be labeled as an enemy of the PEOPLE.

    That is not going to persuade anyone other than your friends to consider your position, in fact it violates the Carnegie Laws of Politics namely

    “How to Win Friends and Influence People”

    You are doing:

    “How to Gain Enemies and Alienate People”

    No wonder this echo chamber doesn’t seem to get any decent conversations

    This also demonstrates how weak the value of this forum is to the general public, it seems to fly complete4ly under the radar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *