mandatory firearms insurance

A recurring demand of gun control groups is mandatory insurance for gun owners to cover injuries caused by our nasty guns. My friend, Prof. George Mocsary has pointed out that this is a bogus position, because insurers already exclude criminal acts from being insurable risks, and people who are the bulk of criminal misusers are seldom insured for ANYTHING, as any of you who has had a traffic accident in Los Angeles have already discovered.

So imagine my surprise, reading through CRPA's bimonthly newsletter to see this:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1602

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2020, prohibit an insurance policy from covering a loss related to the use of a firearm, except for loss of, or damage to, property related to the use of a firearm. The bill would exclude an automobile insurance policy, a homeowners’ insurance policy policy, or a commercial insurance policy from that prohibition, if specified criteria are met. ...

CHAPTER  4. Firearm Insurance
12130.
 (a) A policy of insurance issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2020, shall not cover a loss related to the use of a firearm, except for loss of, or damage to, property.

Insurers may still insure commercial firearms dealers, but if I am reading this correctly, it apparently prohibits purchasing insurance coverage of liability in civil injuries.  When my wife and I used our political muscle to get CCWs issued in California, I contacted my homeowners' insurer to see if I needed a rider to cover liability associated with a firearms accident while carrying concealed.  To my utter amazement, CSAA informed me that this was already covered under my current policy.  Stolen firearms can still be covered, but not injuries caused to others.  It would appear that the goal of AB 1602 is to make the risk of CCW so high as to discourage it.

The next time someone gun banner insists that they want gun owners to carry insurance to cover public safety costs, AB 1602 would seem evidence that they not only do not want to require it, they want to actively prevent an injured party from seeking payment except from the fool who had an accidental or negligent use.  This effectively sews shut the deep pockets that might be available for someone seriously injured.