A few weeks back, we discussed a proposed Massachusetts law to mandate liability insurance for gun owners, much as drivers are now required to possess such insurance in California and many other states. Well, since then, Maryland, Connecticut, and California have all started similar efforts.
Many a personal injury attorney has had to deal with the often tragic cases when guns go off in an unsafe or unauthorized fashion. The results of these gun accidents can range from the horribly tragic to the fairly minor. (Many of you will recall the incident in 2006 where then Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally sent birdshot into the face of a friend with fairly minor injuries, and much mirth from late night comics, resulting.) We also occasionally see cases involving intentionally self-inflicted and usually fatal wounds. Especially in cases where the guns are improperly secured and then stolen by a younger or less stable member, they can be among the saddest cases most personal injury lawyers ever see.
Introduced by Assemblymen Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles and Philip Ting of San Francisco, the law is sure to receive fire from the NRA and other gun rights activists. It's also presents a pretty interesting legal/constitutional matter in that the law's foes can make the case that the law is mandating insurance for a constitutional right. If these laws manage to pass, which we think is possible at least in a state like California that has seen more than its share of gun violence, it seems to us that this a case that's very likely to make it to the Supreme Court. It's a fairly classic case of conflicting rights -- the right of victims to be compensated versus 2nd Amendment rights to gun ownership, a somewhat muddy and hotly debated matter partially because of the "well regulated militia" clause in the amendment. Of course, it''ll be a constitutional lawyer, not a personal injury lawyer, trying the case on both sides, but we'll be watching this one closely.
No comments:
Post a Comment