In this YouTube video, Jarhead6 discusses the concept of mandatory gun liability insurance. In his opinion, this concept is an attempt to control gun owners unnecessarily.
The fact is though, however, that if a person uses their firearm in self-defense, afterward, that person can find themselves defending their decision either in criminal or civil court.
Sometimes a person in this situation faces both a criminal and civil lawsuit. The defense fees can be costly. So, it begs the question, should a person be made to carry liability insurance for owning a firearm?
In the concept in question, the State of California has proposed to enforce gun owners to carry insurance or pay a fee to help defray the cost of gun violence in their states. For many in the gun community, this proposal doesn’t make sense.
The logic carries over into whether someone likes to own shoes or handbags as a hobby, whether that person should pay a cost for participating in that hobby enforced at a state level. It’s the opinion of Jarhead6 that each person should choose whether they should have gun liability insurance, for how much, and for how long. The decision should not be made mandatory for a gun owner by any state.
