The Second Amendment doesn’t grant a person the right to bear arms—the Second Amendment recognizes an individual’s God-given right to self-defense, and prohibits the American government from infringing upon that right.

Well in other news that isn’t news, Commiefornia is ignoring all that law and precedent; on Friday, Democrat Assemblyman Mike Gipson put forth a bill that would require insurance companies to ask a litany of very specific questions regarding personal firearms an applicant may or may not have. Then, these insurers would need to hand this information over to state agencies and lawmakers. From AWR Hawkins at Breitbart:

The bill, AB 3067, says: ‘This bill would require an insurer, by January 1, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessory structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy.’

Here are the questions from the text of the bill itself, via Hawkins:

In addition to existing regulations, an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance shall include questions regarding all of the following:

(1) Whether there are firearms kept in the household, including in any accessory structures, and if so, how many.

(2) Whether the firearm, if any, is stored in a locked container in the home, including any accessory structures, while not in use.

(3) The number of firearms kept in a vehicle located on the property subject to the applicable insurance policy, and if any, whether they are stored securely in a locked container while not in use.

Mind you, these are the same Democrats who think law enforcement asking about a person’s citizenship status, or an employer asking a job candidate if he/she has a criminal history, are unacceptable lines of inquiry. The state just wants to know if you have guns or gun safes and how many, and how you store said firearms—for your safety of course!

To Democrats, the idea of privacy only applies in certain scenarios:

• if you want to have a private discussion with your doctor about whether to murder the child in your womb or not;

• if you’re a parent who wants to “transition” your child with cross-sex hormones and surgery without the scrutiny of naysayers or any visits from Child Protective Services;

• or, if you’re a minor struggling with mental health issues like “gender” confusion—then you should have total privacy over your “health” and away from the prying eyes of a parent who may want to get you psychiatric and emotional help.

This proposed legislation is just another attempt by the government to violate its legal constraints, and use the “private” sector to do its bidding; like the Bidenites and Obama holdovers who schemed with social media companies and other Silicon Valley bigwigs to censor legitimate information and news stories, so too is creating a de facto gun registry database by compelling insurance companies to obtain the data and hand it over.

A “capitalist” economy constrained and rigidly regulated by big government? “Private” companies doing the bidding of the state? This is the fascism they kept promising would manifest under Trump.

Image generated by AI.