The concept of insurance mandates for gun owners isn't a new thing. Tons of people have pushed this idea over the years. Their goal is basically to set the insurance industry on the gun industry in a "let them fight" kind of thing.
The problem is that the insurance industry doesn't have gun insurance, which isn't stopping anyone, apparently.
In fact, a few places already have such a mandate, and now, West Hollywood, California, is looking to do the same.
West Hollywood’s City Council unanimously introduced a groundbreaking ordinance on May 19, 2025, to bolster gun safety, reinforcing the city’s legacy as a trailblazer in combating firearm violence. The three-part measure, which requires gun owners to carry liability insurance, restricts firearm dealer locations, and bans guns in city spaces, reflects a bold local response to a national crisis, with 48,000 firearm-related deaths reported in the U.S. in 2022.
Holy crap, could this writer betray his bias any harder?
It's like he's asking to have the city council's baby at this point. "Groundbreaking ordinance" that retreads ground that's been discussed for decades? The city's "legacy as a trailblazer" for the same? "Bold local response to a national crisis" while citing fatality numbers that have no bearing on the issue?
Yeah, all of that. If he sucked up any harder, physicists would detect a new black hole in Southern California.
The ordinance, introduced for its first reading, mandates that all gun owners in West Hollywood obtain firearm liability insurance, mirroring a San Jose model upheld by federal courts. Effective six months after adoption, the insurance—costing $39 to $300 annually and often covered by homeowners or renters policies—addresses losses from unintentional shootings, which account for over a third of gun injuries nationwide. Owners must keep an attestation form with their firearm, enforceable via administrative citations ($250–$1,000 penalties).
So what does this have to do with firearm fatalities?
I mean, sure, I can see the argument that it covers unintentional shootings, but a different way to phrase things is that at least two-thirds of all shootings are intentional, meaning that most people who are shot won't get any benefits from this.
Further, the numbers for unintentional shootings come from the Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project and account for what the emergency room is told. These aren't criminal statistics. That means it's likely inflated to some degree by those who claim they accidentally shot their friend to try and cover for their very intentional act. That fact didn't bother the gun control group Brady when they cite these numbers.
Moving on...
Additionally, the ordinance prohibits firearm dealers within 1,000 feet of alcohol-serving establishments, such as bars or liquor stores, adding to existing zoning rules that separate dealers from other gun shops, schools, daycare centers, and parks. City Attorney Lauren Langer highlighted data linking heavy alcohol use to gun homicides and suicides, noting that 30% of gun homicide victims drank heavily before their deaths. The Planning Commission endorsed this change, despite no current firearm dealers operating in the city’s 1.9-square-mile boundaries.
So, in short, the author here forgets that there's a mandatory 10-day waiting period in California, which means some drunk dude can't leave the bar, buy a firearm, then shoot and kill someone.
Moreover, gun dealers aren't generally going to sell to someone who is drunk in the first place.
"But 30% of murder victims were drunk!"
And? These are the victims, not the perpetrators, and I guarantee you that none of the killers had just run over to the gun store next door to get a firearm and kill the drunk dude hitting on his girlfriend. The author even acknowledges that there aren't any gun stores in the city as it is, which means this is a non-issue.
And this is what he's tripping all over himself to celebrate?
Gun control is useless, but this is even more useless. Insurance mandates don't make anyone safer. At best, it helps fund the medical treatment for a victim, which the negligent party would be on the hook for anyway, and nothing else being talked about here would do anything either.
But hey, you've got to love a good sycophantic reporter, don't you?
