Colorado Bill Would Place New Requirements On Firearm Ownership
On February 13, three state Democrats in Colorado introduced legislation that would require gun owners to maintain liability insurance for accidental shootings. This proposal has been met with criticism by a local news outlet, The Denver Gazette, which accused the Democrats of pushing a "backdoor gun tax." The editorial board argued that the bill is simply a guise to limit legal gun ownership and would also benefit the insurance industry.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Steven Woodrow, defended the legislation, saying that it would encourage responsible firearm ownership in light of escalating gun violence. He cited a study that found the cost of gun deaths and injuries in Colorado to be nearly $12 billion each year. However, the Gazette's editorial board remains skeptical of the true intentions behind the bill.
The Gazette further pointed out that the proposed legislation does not provide an exception for firearms safely locked in an owner's home. This means that gun owners would have to obtain insurance even if they are not actively using their firearms. Additionally, the bill requires gun owners to be denied insurance at least twice or prove that they cannot afford it before they can be granted an exception. The Gazette criticized this aspect of the bill, calling it "considerate" for the authors to require gun owners to go to court in order to plead poverty.
This is not the first time such a proposal has been introduced. In January, a Maryland Democrat proposed similar legislation that would prohibit gun owners from carrying unless they had at least $300,000 in liability insurance. The bill's sponsor, Del. Terri Hill, called it "common sense gun legislation."
In California, Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a bill into law that will add an 11% excise tax on gun and ammunition sales on top of an existing 10% or 11% federal tax. He cited the nation's gun violence as a reason for the tax, saying "The carnage, it's too much. We can't normalize it, we can't accept it."
Critics of these gun control policies argue that they do not effectively reduce violence and instead violate the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association's Western Regional Director Dan Reid called the California law a "blatant and egregious attack" on the rights of law-abiding citizens. He added that it is a calculated maneuver to dismantle the Second Amendment.
The bill's sponsors, Rep. Woodrow, Rep. Jodeh, and Sen. Hansen, did not respond to requests for comment regarding the legislation. As the proposal makes its way through the state legislature, it is likely to face more scrutiny and criticism from those who believe it is an infringement on the rights of gun owners.
Supporters of the legislation argue that it is a necessary step towards reducing gun violence and promoting responsible gun ownership. They believe that the cost of gun injuries and deaths is too high and that implementing measures like liability insurance will help prevent accidents. However, opponents fear that these policies will only burden responsible gun owners and do little to address the root causes of gun violence.
As the debate continues, it is evident that there are strong opinions on both sides of the issue. While some see it as a necessary measure for public safety, others view it as a violation of constitutional rights. The outcome of this legislation will likely have implications beyond the state of Colorado as similar proposals have been introduced in other states.
It remains to be seen whether this "backdoor gun tax" will pass, or if gun owners will continue to fight against what they see as an attack on their rights.