(Editor’s note: The following is written testimony of David B. Kopel on Colorado House Bill 24-1270, which mandates gun owners to carry liability insurance, submitted to the Colorado House Business Affairs Committee.)
Summary
- Based on the title, one might think that HB24-1270 is only about insurance law. To the contrary, HB24-1270 allows the police to demand that anyone, anywhere, anytime hand over a copy of their homeowner’s insurance.
- Because people normally do not carry their homeowner’s insurance policy on their person in public, the opportunities for police abuse are nearly limitless.
- The bill is written as if the only people in Colorado who owned firearms were middle- or upper-class, who are presumed to already have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. In fact, some poor people, who live with someone else are neither a homeowner nor a leaseholder, and therefore cannot obtain homeowner’s insurance or renter’s insurance.
- The bill’s very narrow safety valve is only accessible to persons who can afford to file a case in civil court. Obviously, poor people will have difficulty doing so, since they will not be able to hire an attorney. Legal Aid does not cover all civil cases involving indigents.
- As for people who do have homeowner or renter insurance, HB24-1270 is purely redundant, since existing insurance policies do, and always have, covered accidents in the home. Home/renter policies cover accidents whatever the item. Policies do not list specific items, such as bathtubs, chainsaws, or firearms.
Liberal Democrats of yore versus regressive attitudes today
HB24-1270 highlights the differences between the liberal Democrats who served in the Colorado legislature in the last third of the twentieth century, compared to the more regressive attitudes today.
- Most liberal Democrats were not against “gun control” in general, but they had no animus against people who owned long guns for sports[1]
- Most liberal Democrats — including my father, Jerry Kopel, who served 11 terms in the House — supported the Fourth Amendment.
- They opposed Fourth Amendment infringements far milder than HB24-1270, which allows the police to demand “Show me your papers” to anyone, anytime, anywhere, even though normal people do not carry around their homeowner’s/renter’s insurance policies.
- Most liberal Democrats strongly favored consumer protection. For example, Jerry Kopel was prime sponsor of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, having made the issue the key theme of his 1970 campaign.
- Liberals certainly did not support weaponizing the Insurance Code against consumers, especially not weaponizing the Insurance Code against poor people, nor Insurance Code weaponization that does nothing to improve insurance.
- All the more so when the leading victims will be people of color and poor people.
Justice Thurgood Marshall
Half a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the waiver of a bankruptcy filing fee for poor people.[2] At the time, the fee was $50, equivalent to $364.23 today.[3]
Three hundred dollars is far less than the fees for the several hours of attorney time that are necessary to bring even a basic civil case today, plus whatever filing fees are involved.[4] For poor persons victimized by HB24-1270, the costs of seeking judicial redress will be hundreds of dollars or more for even the simplest cases.
For middle class families, such an unexpected expenditure may be a harsh burden. For poorer families, such an expenditure may be impossible.
Dissenting in the 1973 Kras case, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote:
“It may be easy for some people to think that weekly savings of less than $2 [about $15 today] are no burden. But no one who has had close contact with poor people can fail to understand how close to the margin of survival many of them are. A sudden illness, for example, may destroy whatever savings they may have accumulated, and by eliminating a sense of security may destroy the incentive to save in the future. A pack or two of cigarettes may be, for them, not a routine purchase but a luxury indulged in only rarely. The desperately poor almost never go to see a movie, which the majority seems to believe is an almost weekly activity. They have more important things to do with what little money they have—like attempting to provide some comforts for a gravely ill child, as Kras must do.
It is perfectly proper for judges to disagree about what the Constitution requires. But it is disgraceful for an interpretation of the Constitution to be premised upon unfounded assumptions about how people live.”[5]
Poor people come in all colors. Disproportionately, people of color are more often poor. Although the terms “systemic racism” or “structural racism” are used in diverse ways, the definition can include the creation of structures or systems by people who personally are not racially prejudiced. Sometimes, the systems or structures created without specific racial intent end up being particularly harmful to people of some races.
Because HB24-1270 falls so heavily on poor people, it can be said to be structurally racist. The bill is “premised upon unfounded assumptions about how people live.”
‘Show me your papers’
A common feature of fascist, communist, and other dictatorial regimes is police authority to demand, “Show me your papers,” to anyone, anytime.
Under HB24-1270, a gun owner must have a homeowner’s, renter’s, or other insurance policy.[6] The proof of having such a policy is the “declarations page” provided by the insurance company.[7]
A firearms owner must always carry the insurance declarations page with him. At any time, a peace officer may request that the owner present his insurance papers. If the owner does not have his papers with him, that is “prime facie” evidence that the owner is breaking the law.
From the bill: (3) TESTIMONY OF THE FAILURE OF A FIREARM OWNER TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A COMPLYING POLICY IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT WHEN REQUESTED TO DO SO BY A PEACE OFFICER IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE FIREARM OWNER HAS VIOLATED SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION.
HB24-1270 puts no limits on when peace officers may demand papers. There is no requirement that the individual be in possession of a firearm at the moment.
The bill allows peace officers to go a shooting range and walk down the line, demanding every person produce her or his insurance papers.
The bill allows peace officers to do the same to any hunter.
The HB24-1270 system is far more oppressive than the law requiring that automobile drivers must show proof of auto insurance during a traffic stop.[8]
- First, traffic stops are not allowed merely to ask for proof of auto insurance.
- Traffic stops are only allowed when a violation of traffic laws has been observed, or for other reasons based on specific circumstances involving crime.
- In contrast, HB24-1270 allows demands for insurance papers for any reason, from anyone, anywhere.
- Second, an automobile insurance card is only needed when one is driving an automobile.
- But the firearm owner — or suspected firearm owner — can be required to show his papers regardless of whether he is carrying a firearm.
Auto insurance companies issue small cards showing proof of coverage, and the cards can be kept an automobile glove compartment, since the only time the card is needed is when the automobile is being driven.
In contrast, proof of gun insurance can be demanded anytime, anywhere. Under HB24-1270, however, an officer may demand identification with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Officers could walk through gun shows demanding identification of random patrons. Or, perhaps not so randomly, mainly focusing on people of color.
People do not carry their insurance policies on their persons at all times
Who will be able to comply with the officer’s demand under HB24-1270? Nobody. Unlike automobile insurance companies, home/rental insurance companies do not issue portable cards, because the insured property is inherently immobile. The company simply sends the entire written policy to the insured homeowner or renter.
Nobody carries around their homeowner’s insurance policy outside the home. Thus, HB24-1270 guarantees that every gun owner who is questioned by a police officer will be unable to comply with the officer’s demand for proof of gun insurance. Everyone who is questioned by the police will automatically be put into the prosecution system, and that fact will be permanently recorded in the records that are shared among law enforcement agencies.
Perhaps advocates of will argue that today, anyone can carry their homeowner’s insurance policy declarations on their cell phone.
This argument admits that HB24-1270 can be used by police officers to demand individuals to hand over their cell phones — anywhere, anytime.
Homeowner’s and renter’s policies already cover all accidents.
In 2013, the District of Columbia Council was considering a bill like HB24-1270. The deputy commissioner of the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking explained why the Mayor Vincent Gray opposed the bill as unnecessary:
“However, most homeowners’ policies cover injuries sustained as a result of negligence or the accidental discharge of a firearm.”[9]
A homeowner’s insurance policy does not necessarily include the word “firearm.” An accident insurance policy covers accidents in general. Insurance policies do not attempt to list every item that might cause injury, such as toasters, blenders, laundry detergent, furniture, drills, saws, nail guns, or toys.
In Colorado, fatal firearms accidents are very rare compared to other fatal accidents.
In Colorado from 2000 through 2022, there were 57,339 accidental deaths. Of those, 155 were firearms accidents. Firearms are 1 in 370 of fatal accidents.
| Population | Accidental Deaths | per 100k | Accidental deaths by firearms | per 100k | |
| 2000 | 4,326,921 | 1715 | 39.6355746 | 5 | 0.11555561 |
| 2001 | 4,425,687 | 1702 | 38.4573062 | 11 | 0.24854898 |
| 2002 | 4,490,406 | 1803 | 40.1522713 | 9 | 0.20042731 |
| 2003 | 4,528,732 | 1783 | 39.3708438 | 5 | 0.11040618 |
| 2004 | 4,575,013 | 1791 | 39.1474298 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 4,631,888 | 1928 | 41.6244952 | 9 | 0.19430522 |
| 2006 | 4,720,423 | 1888 | 39.9964156 | 6 | 0.12710725 |
| 2007 | 4,803,868 | 2029 | 42.2367975 | 3 | 0.06244968 |
| 2008 | 4,889,730 | 2159 | 44.1537672 | 8 | 0.16360822 |
| 2009 | 4,972,195 | 2141 | 43.0594536 | 7 | 0.14078289 |
| 2010 | 5,047,539 | 2102 | 41.6440566 | 7 | 0.13868145 |
| 2011 | 5,121,900 | 2317 | 45.237119 | 11 | 0.21476405 |
| 2012 | 5,193,660 | 2404 | 46.287204 | 13 | 0.25030518 |
| 2013 | 5,270,774 | 2423 | 45.970478 | 5 | 0.09486273 |
| 2014 | 5,352,637 | 2413 | 45.0805837 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 5,454,328 | 2724 | 49.941991 | 3 | 0.05500219 |
| 2016 | 5,543,844 | 2838 | 51.1919167 | 11 | 0.19841828 |
| 2017 | 5,617,421 | 3029 | 53.9215416 | 3 | 0.05340529 |
| 2018 | 5,697,155 | 3006 | 52.7631774 | 8 | 0.14042096 |
| 2019 | 5,758,486 | 3075 | 53.3994526 | 9 | 0.15629108 |
| 2020 | 5,785,219 | 3628 | 62.7115413 | 6 | 0.10371258 |
| 2021 | 5,811,596 | 4197 | 72.2176834 | 6 | 0.10324186 |
| 2022 | 5,841,039 | 4244 | 72.6583062 | 10 | 0.17120242 |
Nationally, fatal firearms accidents are lower than ever.
The highest rate of fatal gun accidents per 100,000 population was 1.47, in 1967. The rate has now fallen to 0.14 — a decline of over 90 percent.
In 1967, there were 2,896 fatal gun accidents in America. Today, the U.S population is much larger, and the number of fatal gun accidents has fallen to 458.
The same trends are true for fatal gun accidents involving children, ages 0-14. The peak number was 598 in 1967. Since then, the number of fatal accidents has fallen to 54. The fatal accidents per 100,000 population rate was 1.09. The rate has fallen to 0.09. Again, declines of over 90 percent.
Meanwhile, the number of guns per capita in 1967 was about 1 gun per 2 persons. Today, the figure has risen to over 1 gun per person.[10]
| Year | Population (in 1,000s) | Total gun stock | Guns per capita | Fatal gun accidents | FGAs for ages 0-14 | Population age 0 to 14 (in 1,000s) | FGAs per 100,000 persons | FGAs per 100,000 persons for ages 0-14 |
| 1948 | 146,091 | 53,203,031 | 0.36 | 2,270 | 1.55 | |||
| 1949 | 148,666 | 55,406,460 | 0.37 | 2,326 | 1.56 | |||
| 1950 | 151,871 | 57,902,081 | 0.38 | 2,174 | 451 | 40,853 | 1.43 | 1.10 |
| 1951 | 153,970 | 59,988,664 | 0.39 | 2,247 | 520 | 42,065 | 1.46 | 1.24 |
| 1952 | 156,369 | 61,946,315 | 0.40 | 2,210 | 519 | 43,377 | 1.41 | 1.20 |
| 1953 | 158,946 | 63,945,235 | 0.40 | 2,277 | 498 | 44,759 | 1.43 | 1.11 |
| 1954 | 161,881 | 65,558,052 | 0.40 | 2,281 | 527 | 46,266 | 1.41 | 1.14 |
| 1955 | 165,058 | 67,387,135 | 0.41 | 2,120 | 522 | 47,867 | 1.28 | 1.09 |
| 1956 | 168,078 | 69,435,933 | 0.41 | 2,202 | 508 | 49,449 | 1.31 | 1.03 |
| 1957 | 171,178 | 71,416,509 | 0.42 | 2,369 | 549 | 51,080 | 1.38 | 1.07 |
| 1958 | 174,153 | 73,163,450 | 0.42 | 2,172 | 538 | 52,699 | 1.25 | 1.02 |
| 1959 | 177,136 | 75,338,188 | 0.43 | 2,258 | 542 | 54,345 | 1.27 | 1.00 |
| 1960 | 179,972 | 77,501,065 | 0.43 | 2,334 | 544 | 55,971 | 1.30 | 0.97 |
| 1961 | 182,976 | 79,536,616 | 0.43 | 2,204 | 507 | 56,046 | 1.20 | 0.90 |
| 1962 | 185,739 | 81,602,984 | 0.44 | 2,092 | 456 | 56,019 | 1.13 | 0.81 |
| 1963 | 188,434 | 83,834,808 | 0.44 | 2,263 | 538 | 55,946 | 1.20 | 0.96 |
| 1964 | 191,085 | 86,357,701 | 0.45 | 2,275 | 500 | 55,835 | 1.19 | 0.90 |
| 1965 | 193,457 | 89,478,922 | 0.46 | 2,344 | 494 | 55,619 | 1.21 | 0.89 |
| 1966 | 195,499 | 93,000,989 | 0.48 | 2,558 | 535 | 55,287 | 1.31 | 0.97 |
| 1967 | 197,375 | 97,087,751 | 0.49 | 2,896 | 598 | 54,890 | 1.47 | 1.09 |
| 1968 | 199,312 | 102,302,251 | 0.51 | 2,394 | 527 | 54,492 | 1.20 | 0.97 |
| 1969 | 201,298 | 107,111,820 | 0.53 | 2,309 | 455 | 54,089 | 1.15 | 0.84 |
| 1970 | 203,798.7 | 111,917,733 | 0.55 | 2,406 | 506 | 53,803 | 1.18 | 0.94 |
| 1971 | 206,817.5 | 116,928,781 | 0.57 | 2,360 | 481 | 53,835 | 1.14 | 0.89 |
| 1972 | 209,274.9 | 122,304,980 | 0.58 | 2,442 | 554 | 53,700 | 1.17 | 1.03 |
| 1973 | 211,349.2 | 128,016,673 | 0.61 | 2,618 | 541 | 53,450 | 1.24 | 1.01 |
| 1974 | 213,333.6 | 134,587,281 | 0.63 | 2,513 | 532 | 53,163 | 1.18 | 1.00 |
| 1975 | 215,456.6 | 139,915,125 | 0.65 | 2,380 | 495 | 52,895 | 1.10 | 0.94 |
| 1976 | 217,553.9 | 145,650,789 | 0.67 | 2,059 | 428 | 52,605 | 0.95 | 0.81 |
| 1977 | 219,760.9 | 150,748,000 | 0.69 | 1,982 | 392 | 52,325 | 0.90 | 0.75 |
| 1978 | 222,098.2 | 156,164,518 | 0.70 | 1,806 | 349 | 52,060 | 0.81 | 0.67 |
| 1979 | 224,568.6 | 161,888,861 | 0.72 | 2,004 | 372 | 51,523 | 0.89 | 0.72 |
| 1980 | 227,224.7 | 167,681,587 | 0.74 | 1,955 | 316 | 51,369 | 0.86 | 0.62 |
| 1981 | 229,465.7 | 173,262,755 | 0.76 | 1,871 | 298 | 51,275 | 0.82 | 0.58 |
| 1982 | 231,664.4 | 178,218,890 | 0.77 | 1,756 | 279 | 51,367 | 0.76 | 0.54 |
| 1983 | 233,792.0 | 182,273,263 | 0.78 | 1,695 | 243 | 51,458 | 0.73 | 0.47 |
| 1984 | 235,824.9 | 186,683,867 | 0.79 | 1,668 | 287 | 51,580 | 0.71 | 0.56 |
| 1985 | 237,923.7 | 190,658,136 | 0.80 | 1,649 | 278 | 51,616 | 0.69 | 0.54 |
| 1986 | 240,132.8 | 194,182,072 | 0.81 | 1,452 | 234 | 51,592 | 0.60 | 0.45 |
| 1987 | 242,288.9 | 198,526,508 | 0.82 | 1,440 | 247 | 51,965 | 0.59 | 0.48 |
| 1988 | 244,499.0 | 203,306,821 | 0.83 | 1,501 | 277 | 52,604 | 0.61 | 0.53 |
| 1989 | 246,819.2 | 208,489,609 | 0.84 | 1,489 | 273 | 53,405 | 0.60 | 0.51 |
| 1990 | 249,438.7 | 212,823,547 | 0.85 | 1,416 | 236 | 54,065 | 0.57 | 0.44 |
| 1991 | 252,127.4 | 216,695,946 | 0.86 | 1,441 | 227 | 55,352 | 0.57 | 0.41 |
| 1992 | 254,994.5 | 222,067,343 | 0.87 | 1,409 | 216 | 56,297 | 0.55 | 0.38 |
| 1993 | 257,746.1 | 228,660,966 | 0.89 | 1,521 | 205 | 57,203 | 0.59 | 0.36 |
| 1994 | 260,289.2 | 235,604,001 | 0.91 | 1,356 | 185 | 57,918 | 0.52 | 0.32 |
| 1995 | 262,764.9 | 240,599,526 | 0.92 | 1,225 | 181 | 58,380 | 0.47 | 0.31 |
| 1996 | 265,189.8 | 245,003,546 | 0.92 | 1,134 | 138 | 58,850 | 0.43 | 0.23 |
| 1997 | 267,743.6 | 249,261,384 | 0.93 | 981 | 142 | 59,217 | 0.37 | 0.24 |
| 1998 | 270,248.0 | 253,771,440 | 0.94 | 866 | 121 | 59,659 | 0.32 | 0.20 |
| 1999 | 272,690.8 | 258,490,668 | 0.95 | 824 | 88 | 59,955 | 0.30 | 0.15 |
| 2000 | 281,421.9 | 263,208,364 | 0.94 | 776 | 86 | 60,301 | 0.28 | 0.14 |
| 2001 | 285,317.6 | 267,335,304 | 0.94 | 802 | 72 | 60,566 | 0.28 | 0.12 |
| 2002 | 287,973.9 | 272,180,680 | 0.95 | 762 | 60 | 60,764 | 0.26 | 0.10 |
| 2003 | 290,809.8 | 276,813,674 | 0.95 | 730 | 56 | 60,911 | 0.25 | 0.09 |
| 2004 | 293,655.4 | 281,683,638 | 0.96 | 649 | 63 | 61,012 | 0.22 | 0.10 |
| 2005 | 296,507.1 | 286,837,125 | 0.97 | 789 | 75 | 60,953 | 0.27 | 0.12 |
| 2006 | 299,398.5 | 292,555,450 | 0.98 | 642 | 54 | 61,023 | 0.21 | 0.08 |
| 2007 | 301,621.2 | 299,017,274 | 0.99 | 613 | 65 | 61,295 | 0.20 | 0.11 |
| 2008 | 304,059.7 | 305,894,116 | 1.01 | 592 | 62 | 61,570 | 0.19 | 0.10 |
| 2009 | 307,006.6 | 314,862,296 | 1.03 | 554 | 48 | 61,883 | 0.18 | 0.08 |
| 2010 | 308,745.5 | 322,919,506 | 1.05 | 606 | 62 | 61,201 | 0.20 | 0.10 |
| 2011 | 311,556.8 | 332,416,908 | 1.07 | 591 | 74 | 61,168 | 0.19 | 0.12 |
| 2012 | 313,830.9 | 345,552,564 | 1.08 | 548 | 58 | 61,113 | 0.17 | 0.09 |
| 2013 | 315,993.7 | 361,543,774 | 1.10 | 505 | 69 | 61,067 | 0.16 | 0.11 |
| 2014 | 318,301.0 | 373,798,736 | 1.17 | 461 | 49 | 61,053 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
| 2015 | 320.635.2 | 386,743,952 | 1.20 | 489 | 48 | 60,999 | 0.15 | 0.08 |
| 2016 | 322,941.3 | 403,002,346 | 1.25 | 495 | 74 | 60,997 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
| 2017 | 324,985.5 | 415,334,094 | 1.28 | 486 | 62 | 60,968 | 0.15 | 0.10 |
| 2018 | 326.687.5 | 428,138,336 | 1.31 | 458 | 54 | 60,820 | 0.14 | 0.09 |
Constitutional law and statutory precedents
HB12-1270 compares itself to a certain type of historic law.
SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly finds and declares that:
(a) Beginning in the 1830s, U.S. jurisdictions enacted surety laws that required certain firearm owners to post a surety bond that would be forfeited if the firearm owner failed to keep the peace;
(b) Historical surety laws did not prohibit anyone from possessing or carrying arms but incentivized responsible firearm possession by requiring a surety that the owner would forfeit in the event that the owner breached the peace;
(c) At least ten U.S. jurisdictions enacted similar, if not identical, surety laws during the nineteenth century; and
(d) The historical surety laws are analogous to modern liability insurance that does not prohibit firearm ownership or use.
The historic Surety-of-the-Peace statutes from the nineteenth century required a firearms carrier to post a bond for good behavior only after a court found that he had been threatening to breach the peace.
As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, the statutes “typically targeted only those threatening to do harm.” “[T]he surety statutes presumed that individuals had a right to public carry that could be burdened only if another could make out a specific showing of ‘reasonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace.’” New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 55-56 (2022).
In contrast, HB12-1270 imposes its burdens on every gun owner. This is the opposite of the fault-based surety system.
One contemporary court has upheld a San Jose, California, law partly similar to HB24-1270. The court agreed that the surety statutes were good enough for analogy to a modern universal insurance mandate.[11] To the San Jose court, there was not a crucial legal difference between an old law punishing people who had been acting dangerously versus a modern law punishing everyone.
The San Jose law did not have any provision like the “Show me your papers!” of HB24-1270. So the court did not make any decision about Fourth Amendment issues.
Besides surety statutes, there are some even closer historical analogies for HB24-1270. During the nineteenth century, several slave states that later became Jim Crow states — Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina — enacted personal property tax statutes that singled out handguns and some knives for punitive tax rates.[12] The laws were aimed at free people of color (most of whom were poor) and at poor whites.
The purpose of the Jim Crow property taxes and of HB24-1270 is to discourage ownership by poor people by raising expenses. Under HB24-1270, the only poor people who can get out from under its thumb are those who are wealthy enough to hire a private lawyer for a civil case, a catch-22.
Neither liberal nor progressive, HB24-1270 is an heir of Jim Crow’s illiberalism.
David B. Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.
[1] “Gun control” was the honest term in use at the time, before 21st-century gun prohibition lobbies used focus groups to invent a euphemism.
[2] United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973).
[3] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=50&year1=197301&year2=202402. Calculated from Jan. 1973, when Kras was decided, through Feb. 2024.
[4] The standard filing fee in county court for matters involving under $1,000 is $85. C.R.S. § 13-32-101(1)(c)(lII.5)(A).
[5] Kras , at 645-46 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
[6] “A RESIDENT OF COLORADO WHO OWNS A FIREARM SHALL OBTAIN AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT HOMEOWNERS , RENTERS , OR OTHER LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY.” Proposed C.RS. § 18-12-116(1)(a).
Actually, other than a homeowner’s or renter’s policy, there is no other policy that would cover accidents. Some companies do sell policies for legal liability involving firearms, but these only cover self-defense or sports, not home accidents. See George A. Mocsary, Insuring Against Guns? 46 Connecticut Law Review 1209, 1224-27 (2014) (describing various policies).
[7] “(b) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, AN INSURANCE POLICY DECLARATIONS PAGE PROVIDED TO A FIREARM OWNER BY AN INSURER THAT DESCRIBES COVERAGE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION IS EVIDENCE OF A POLICY.”
[8] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-2-115.
[9] D.C. Council Holds Hearing on Gun Owner Insurance Proposal, Insurance Journal, May 17, 2013, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2013/05/17/292505.htm; Hearing on B. 20-170, The Firearm Insurance Amendment Act of 2013 Before the Comm. on Business, Consumer, and Regulatory Affairs, 2013 Council 3 (D.C. 2013) (testimony of Chester A. McPherson, Deputy Comm’r of the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking).
[10] Sources for the national table data: Gun supply figures through 1994 are from Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns 96-97 (1997) (providing citations for all the data). Additions to the gun supply from 1995 through 2018 are from the 2020 edition of ATF’s Firearms Commerce in the United States ex. 1-3, plus the 2018 ATF Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report. National population from 2010-19 from Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (2019). Fatal gun accident data are from Centers for Disease Control, Compressed Mortality File, http://wonder.cdc.gov/mortSQL.html (run query), CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 69, No. 13, tbl. 6 at 38, (Jan. 12, 2021), CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 68, No. 9, tbl. 6 at 35, (June 24, 2019), and Kleck, Targeting Guns 323-24. Population age 0-14 for 2000-09 from Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Five-Year Age Groups, 2010 version, and for 2010-19 from Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019.
[11] National Association for Gun Rights v. City of San Jose, Case No. 22-cv-00501-BLF, 2023 WL 4552284 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2023). San Jose Code § 10.32.210.
[12] David B. Kopel & Joseph G.S. Greenlee, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 Journal of Legislation 93, 96, 106 (Notre Dame Law School, forthcoming 2024), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4393197.
