A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

[The Rabbi]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

I wonder at the stupidity and ignorance of liberals. Then again it is no wonder. If they were informed and smart they'd be conservatives.
You cannot buy liability insurance for an intentional act. Most shootings are intentional acts and therefore uninsurable.
You're welcome.

 

[OKTexas]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

 

[kaz]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Honest citizens are a greater threat to government than criminals, that is the threat they are thwarting

 

[Star]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

 

[OKTexas]

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

BS, criminals and crazies won't buy your damned insurance or worry about the requirement, aren't they the ones you're trying to weed out? Insurance won't do it. God you really are stuck on stupid.

 

[Stephanie]

this woman and those like her are LIARS . And they don't care if they are misleading the people
get this BS she says:


Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

she's trying to make the claim that because people have car insurance FATALITIES HAVE DECLINED.

 

[Star]

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

BS, criminals and crazies won't buy your damned insurance or worry about the requirement, aren't they the ones you're trying to weed out? Insurance won't do it. God you really are stuck on stupid.

Do you have an alternative to private enterprise vetting and weeding out the mentally unstable, criminals and other high risk individuals?
.

 

[Stephanie]

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

BS, criminals and crazies won't buy your damned insurance or worry about the requirement, aren't they the ones you're trying to weed out? Insurance won't do it. God you really are stuck on stupid.

Do you have an alternative to private enterprise vetting and weeding out the mentally unstable, criminals and other high risk individuals?
.

that is all you need. stop trying to STEP Millions of innocent people RIGHTS because you and that Mahoney are too emotional to live your lives. or get some of that mental health to deal with it. leave the rest of along.

 

[OKTexas]

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

BS, criminals and crazies won't buy your damned insurance or worry about the requirement, aren't they the ones you're trying to weed out? Insurance won't do it. God you really are stuck on stupid.

Do you have an alternative to private enterprise vetting and weeding out the mentally unstable, criminals and other high risk individuals?
.

Do you really want private companies to have full access to your life history and all your medical records?

 

[BluesLegend]

Yet another gun control attack on the 2nd amendment. Lets make owning a gun so expensive and legally risky that law abiding people will give up their 2nd amendment rights. There's about 40 versions of this same gun control tactic floating around.

Here's the solution, use a gun in any crime instant death penalty and summary execution. That will empty prisons and thin out the Democratic party base.

 

[Stephanie]

Yet another gun control attack on the 2nd amendment. Lets make owning a gun so expensive and legally risky that law abiding people will give up their 2nd amendment rights. There's about 40 versions of this same gun control tactic floating around.

Here's the solution, use a gun in any crime instant death penalty and summary execution. That will empty prisons and thin out the Democratic party base.

I could go for that.

and any Congress person caught in a flat out lie be removed from office. No collecting a pension, severance: NOTHING. that will also clear out ALL of the Democrat Congresscrittes and a few Republicans too

 

[The Rabbi]

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

BS, criminals and crazies won't buy your damned insurance or worry about the requirement, aren't they the ones you're trying to weed out? Insurance won't do it. God you really are stuck on stupid.

Do you have an alternative to private enterprise vetting and weeding out the mentally unstable, criminals and other high risk individuals?
.

Why do we need to weed them out? We only need to weed out people committing actual crimes. And armed citizens do that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

this woman and those like her are LIARS . And they don't care if they are misleading the people
get this BS she says:


Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

she's trying to make the claim that because people have car insurance FATALITIES HAVE DECLINED.

That's the way a liberal mind works.

Scary.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

Yeah, professional criminals will never be able to create a bogus insurance card.

 

[The Rabbi]

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

And this stops criminals and crazies from stealing or buying guns on the black market how?

Right, it doesn't, it's nothing but a tax because lefties don't like guns. It will wind up disarming honest poor people who have a greater need for self protection and be a burden of the rest of the law abiding. Not to mention that it's a gift for insurance companies.

Requiring people to have gun insurance will:
The only people that will find it harder to get a gun are people with high risk backgrounds, for all the rest of us when we go into Cabela's or Walmart or-----or the trunk of some guy's car that we met on Craig's list - no background check, no waiting period, no hassle just show your insurance card, and voila you're the proud new owner of the gun of your choice.
.

Yeah, professional criminals will never be able to create a bogus insurance card.

They dont need to.
In Illinois you need an FOID card to own a gun. How many criminals in IL with guns have an FOID card?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence"

False comparison fallacy.

Unlike possessing a firearm, there is no right to own or drive a car.

Moreover, there is no evidence such a requirement would have the desired effect of compelling responsible ownership of firearms, manifesting as an undue burden to the Second Amendment right.

Last, it would detract from the true cause of gun violence and mass shootings: lack of effective, comprehensive mental health treatment.