For anyone not already aware, this would constitute a de facto ban on firearm ownership. While there are some insurers for self-defense, and some insurers for accidents, there are no insurers for "anything that results from gun use" because no one insures wilful, non-defensive gun use. E.g. murdering someone, discharging a firearm into the air, brandishing, etc are all covered by precisely zero insurers.
“Guns kill more people than cars,” -State Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley)
I wouldn't be surprised if this idiot actually believes that BS statement.
I scanned the Second Amendment and do not see any exceptions allowing this, any more than I see exceptions to the Constitutional ban on a Head Tax. The government is not allowed to use taxing authority to effectively outlaw something that is considered an enumerated fundamental right.
ATF tax stamps laugh at your functionally defunct constitution
Oh logic, dear logic, when did you die?
Carrying liability insurance for something does not make you liable.
(post is archived)