Dems push for $10K fine for gun owners who don't buy liability insurance

[tinydancer]

Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times

All these people need to be voted out of office. They're freaking looney tunes. As if gang violence in any city is going to be curtailed by this new law.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. When purchasing a weapon illegally in the city of Chicago, the gun runner is going to demand the gang member purchase liability insurance.

Rep. Maloney is one hell of a dumb bitch to think that for one moment this is going to stop gun violence. Sheesh. Where do these fools come from?


A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

“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,” the text of the bill states.

Ms. Maloney says her bill would shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon. Gun rights groups call that logic ridiculous, however.

“[The bill] is ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, to The Daily Caller.



Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times

 

[martybegan]

Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times

All these people need to be voted out of office. They're freaking looney tunes. As if gang violence in any city is going to be curtailed by this new law.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. When purchasing a weapon illegally in the city of Chicago, the gun runner is going to demand the gang member purchase liability insurance.

Rep. Maloney is one hell of a dumb bitch to think that for one moment this is going to stop gun violence. Sheesh. Where do these fools come from?


A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

“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,” the text of the bill states.

Ms. Maloney says her bill would shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon. Gun rights groups call that logic ridiculous, however.

“[The bill] is ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, to The Daily Caller.



Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times

And the attempted end runs around the constitution continue.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.

 

[g5000]

They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.

About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.

About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.

Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.

 

[g5000]

Here is the actual bill if you want to read it for yourself:
Full Text of H.R. 1369: Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us

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.

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

Another insurance mandate.

 

[g5000]

Don't worry. The bill has been sent to the House Judiciary committee where it will die a quiet death.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The insurance companies must love democrats. First Obama forces everyone in the country to give them money, now they're forcing gun owners to give them money.

 

[M14 Shooter]

(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.

How will the government know if I have insurance?
First, it has to know I have a gun.
How will the government know I have a gun?
Universal registration.

 

[eflatminor]

While I do not except such a blatantly unconstitutional bill will become law, it is yet another example of gun grabbers making rules to keep firearms from the hands of poor people.

Shame, shame, shame...

 

[tjvh]

Don't worry. The bill has been sent to the House Judiciary committee where it will die a quiet death.

That's hardly the point, the idea that elected officials are wasting our time introducing ridiculous measures like this makes one wonder if they shouldn't be doing something a bit more constructive.

 

[auditor0007]

They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.

About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.

Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.

No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting. So if you come to my house and I accidentally shoot and kill you while I'm showing you my gun, your spouse should not be able to collect anything for my negligence? The thought process for those on the right leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[martybegan]

About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.

Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.

No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting. So if you come to my house and I accidentally shoot and kill you while I'm showing you my gun, your spouse should not be able to collect anything for my negligence? The thought process for those on the right leaves a lot to be desired.

No you sue the person in question using the courts. If the person was negligent, it should be a simple matter to get compensated.

The concept behind auto insurance is that there are so many accidents, that ajudicating every single one would require a massive court system that would still be bogged down due to the sheer number of cases involved. The number of gun accident cases does not warrant this.

The real reason behind requiring insurance is to price people out of owning firearms, pure and simple.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times

All these people need to be voted out of office. They're freaking looney tunes. As if gang violence in any city is going to be curtailed by this new law.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. When purchasing a weapon illegally in the city of Chicago, the gun runner is going to demand the gang member purchase liability insurance.

Rep. Maloney is one hell of a dumb bitch to think that for one moment this is going to stop gun violence. Sheesh. Where do these fools come from?


A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

“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,” the text of the bill states.

Ms. Maloney says her bill would shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon. Gun rights groups call that logic ridiculous, however.

“[The bill] is ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, to The Daily Caller.



Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times

Will they be including and "uninsured gun owner" clause as well, similar to the "uninsured motorist" insurance?

 

[auditor0007]

Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.

No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting. So if you come to my house and I accidentally shoot and kill you while I'm showing you my gun, your spouse should not be able to collect anything for my negligence? The thought process for those on the right leaves a lot to be desired.

No you sue the person in question using the courts. If the person was negligent, it should be a simple matter to get compensated.

The concept behind auto insurance is that there are so many accidents, that ajudicating every single one would require a massive court system that would still be bogged down due to the sheer number of cases involved. The number of gun accident cases does not warrant this.

The real reason behind requiring insurance is to price people out of owning firearms, pure and simple.

Good luck suing someone with very few assets. Most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Suing them won't get you a dime, but it'll keep the lawyers wealthy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting.

Explain to us exactly how a requirement to have insurance before you can exercise a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution does not constitute an infringement of that right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting. So if you come to my house and I accidentally shoot and kill you while I'm showing you my gun, your spouse should not be able to collect anything for my negligence? The thought process for those on the right leaves a lot to be desired.

No you sue the person in question using the courts. If the person was negligent, it should be a simple matter to get compensated.

The concept behind auto insurance is that there are so many accidents, that ajudicating every single one would require a massive court system that would still be bogged down due to the sheer number of cases involved. The number of gun accident cases does not warrant this.

The real reason behind requiring insurance is to price people out of owning firearms, pure and simple.

Good luck suing someone with very few assets. Most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Suing them won't get you a dime, but it'll keep the lawyers wealthy.

Why do you want to deny poor people the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[auditor0007]

No you sue the person in question using the courts. If the person was negligent, it should be a simple matter to get compensated.

The concept behind auto insurance is that there are so many accidents, that ajudicating every single one would require a massive court system that would still be bogged down due to the sheer number of cases involved. The number of gun accident cases does not warrant this.

The real reason behind requiring insurance is to price people out of owning firearms, pure and simple.

Good luck suing someone with very few assets. Most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Suing them won't get you a dime, but it'll keep the lawyers wealthy.

Why do you want to deny poor people the right to keep and bear arms?

Why do you want to deny yourself recourse in the event of an accident that takes one of your loved ones?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times

All these people need to be voted out of office. They're freaking looney tunes. As if gang violence in any city is going to be curtailed by this new law.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. When purchasing a weapon illegally in the city of Chicago, the gun runner is going to demand the gang member purchase liability insurance.

Rep. Maloney is one hell of a dumb bitch to think that for one moment this is going to stop gun violence. Sheesh. Where do these fools come from?


A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

“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,” the text of the bill states.

Ms. Maloney says her bill would shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon. Gun rights groups call that logic ridiculous, however.

“[The bill] is ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, to The Daily Caller.



Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times

Car insurance hasn't stopped car accidents...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good luck suing someone with very few assets. Most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Suing them won't get you a dime, but it'll keep the lawyers wealthy.

Why do you want to deny poor people the right to keep and bear arms?

Why do you want to deny anyone recourse in the event of an accident that takes one of your loved ones?

Don't avoid the question.
Why do you want to deny poor people the right to keep and bear arms?