Home>Articles>Three LA City Councilmen Propose Mandatory Firearm Liability Insurance and Fees

Los Angeles City Hall. (Photo: City of Los Angeles, Twitter)

Three LA City Councilmen Propose Mandatory Firearm Liability Insurance and Fees

If passed, LA would be second city to enact an insurance-based gun ownership ordinance

By Evan Symon, February 3, 2022 2:23 am

Los Angeles City Councilmen Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, and Mitch O’Farrell introduced a motion on Wednesday that could lead to Los Angeles implementing an ordinance to require all gun owners in the city to have firearm liability insurance, as well as pay an annual fee.

The proposal would be nearly identical to San Jose’s firearm liability insurance and firearm ownership fee ordinances passed last month. Under LA’s plan, gun owners would need to purchase firearm liability insurance through their homeowner’s and renter’s insurance. Also like San Jose’s ordinance, an ownership fee would be instilled. However, while San Jose’s fees are to go to programs aimed at preventing gun violence, giving support to families and victims of gun violence, and suicide prevention, LA’s fees would go towards more generic evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm.

LA’s proposal is also currently in early stages and fails to address many details, such as what the punishment would be for not getting insurance or paying the fee, or if it would cover those who need firearms as part of their job, such as police officers and security guards.

The proposal itself is also in it’s early stages going through the Council, as it was only a motion asking the City Attorney to explore the implementation of an ordinance like San Jose’s in LA.

The Three Councilmen said on Wednesday that the ordinance would treat guns like cars insurance-wise to create more gun safety, as well as save taxpayers money by reducing the economic burden of firearm accidents, injuries, and deaths. In the press release, the three also pointed to LAPD statistics showing that 1.17 new firearms were registered in the state in 2020, with handgun sales alone jumping up 65.5% from the year prior. Also shown were the increase of homicides in the city in 2021, moving up 11.8% from 2020 and 53.9% from 2019, as well as a 54.2% rise in firearm shootings in the city from 2019 to 2021.

“Not every household has a gun, and while not all communities experience high levels of gun violence, we all bear the economic burden of injuries and deaths caused by firearms,” said Councilman Koretz on Wednesday. “Insurance-based systems can encourage firearm owners to take safety classes, ensure guns are safely stored, install trigger locks, or utilize loaded chamber indicators. Just like auto insurers use risk-adjusted premiums to reward good driving and encourage the use of airbags and other safety features, reducing per-mile auto fatalities by 80 percent in four decades, we need a similar approach to address the risks posed by guns.”

Firearm insurance motion statement from Councilman Paul Koretz. (Photo: Office of Councilman Paul Koretz)

Councilman O’Farrell added that “Gun violence in Los Angeles inflicts a catastrophic and unnecessary toll on people’s lives, in addition to costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year. We must bring the epidemic of gun violence under control, and that means looking at every possible reform. Angelenos deserve a safe City.”

Opposition against the proposal

Opponents against the proposed ordinance quickly spoke up against it on Wednesday, with many gun groups, professionals that rely on weapons as part of their jobs, and home protection advocates in the city.

“This ordinance would scare people away from have a gun for home protection through needless fees and insurance,” explained Jamie Diaz, a local neighborhood watch leader in southern Los Angeles. “All it does is punish those people that legally have weapons, as you know people with illegal weapons won’t be affected. Plus,, for many, especially Latinos and African Americans, the fees and higher insurance costs could stop many from having the needs to protect their homes and families. That’s not exactly a good look for the city.

“We also share the worry of many in San Jose that believe this violates the second amendment. All around, this is a bad idea.”

The proposed ordinance is expected to be built up into a full proposal in the coming months. If passed, Los Angeles would be the second city in the country with an insurance-based gun ownership law.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Evan Symon
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

14 thoughts on “Three LA City Councilmen Propose Mandatory Firearm Liability Insurance and Fees

  1. Let me guess. And with the hand behind their back, they will force the insurance companies to demand unconstitutional compromises. Firearm liability is included in a homeowners liability policy. This law seeks to carve it out, and force owners to put it back in via de facto registration.
    The democrats want the private sector to do what they cannot legally do – extend criminal liability of the use of stolen weapons to the original owners.

  2. What’s the purpose of this buffoonish and idiotic proposal? Reducing gun-related crimes and homicides by gangsters that don’t register their guns and won’t pay for and obtain insurance? Or is it to alienate law abiding citizens who ARE NOT the problem? They better answer that question before going any further.

  3. Just like metastatic cancer, bad ideology spreads quickly.
    It gets passed by progressive loons in San Jose, Ca and soon spreads to LA and beyond.
    Bottom line, it is virtual signaling and should get thrown out in court.

  4. Thousands of stolen guns are used in crimes every year. I am surprised that they did not tack on criminal liability on original owners as well.

  5. will san jose require knife insurance since their crimes with knives outnumber crimes with guns….
    and did they even think of asking insurance companies if they would even offer such coverage for firearms?

  6. The NorCal idiocy and virtue-signaling cancer is metastasizing to SoCal…

    They cannot think of the implications beyond the virtue signal….

    Gotta love emotion-driven Democrats…

  7. Won’t this be racist if the colored people can’t afford the insurance to enjoy the rights afforded under the Second Amendment?

  8. The stupidity of these officials is astounding. Instead of tackling the issues Californians care about like high taxes, high housing costs, poor quality education, rampant homelessness, wide open illegal immigration, repressive regulations, etc, these assholes concentrate on disarming the law abiding, tax paying, hard working Americans that live here. It’s so disheartening to realize how many I’ll advised low info voters continue to put people like this in positions of power. Power that is constantly working to remove the freedoms that made this country great. I fear for this great nation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.