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

[CrusaderFrank]

Since gun insurance would inevitably be very expensive (few people would buy it, and payouts would be during tragedy, thus, expenisve- like hurricane (flood) insurance on the coast).......then only wealthy people would have guns in theory.

Hmmm. Only the rich have guns.

A Republican's wet dream!!!!!

How many Obama posters do you have in your room?

 

[auditor0007]

Lets require an insurance policy for free speech too.

Free speech never accidentally killed anyone, at least not that I know of. Talk about simple minded. Amazing.

Since hardly any firearms deaths are accidental, your attempted diversion is of no avail. People are in fact injured by the exercise of 1st Amend rights. Lets require libel and slander insurance before allowing people to exercise their 1st Amend rights. That work for you?

Getting your feelings hurt by what someone says is not quite the same as not being able to ever walk again or being placed six feet under. Yes, financial harm can come from slanderous statements, but it's not the same as being physically injured. You guys are grasping at straws because you don't have a valid or reasonable argument against a requirement to have liability insurance if you are a gun owner. It really is that simple.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Free speech never accidentally killed anyone, at least not that I know of. Talk about simple minded. Amazing.

Since hardly any firearms deaths are accidental, your attempted diversion is of no avail. People are in fact injured by the exercise of 1st Amend rights. Lets require libel and slander insurance before allowing people to exercise their 1st Amend rights. That work for you?

Getting your feelings hurt....

You REALLY need to Google libel and slander.

...Yes financial harm can come from slanderous statements...

And you should be able to fine a claim aginst insurance in order to make good on that harm; given your support for the previous premise, it is impossible for you to argue otherwise.

And you still haven told us why you want to deny poor people the right to arms.

 

[foxyladi]

I can see the Insurance Companies rubbing their hands together in glee at this prospect.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Funny that you can see that, but cannot see it is no different than requiring someone spend money to acquire a Voter ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.

That is why any voter ID that is going to pass would be one that allows for a free ID in the case that someone is obtaining one ONLY to vote. I assume that you already knew that and that pretty much everyone supporting voter ID laws agree to this tenant so I have to ask why are you lying about the equivalency here? It is not your usual style.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Answer the original question.

When a poor person can afford a gun, they can buy one, but they should have insurance just like everyone else. I find it hilarious how you guys scream about personal responsibility but then argue that nobody really needs to be responsible for themselves. You argue against people being required to do anything, even when it costs everyone else to pay for their irresponsibility.

You apparently have no concept of what personal responsibility actually entails.

I’ll let you in on a secret, it is NOT the government forcing you to get insurance that will ensure that you never actually have to take responsibility (aka pay the price) for your actions. There is nothing about insurance that is ‘personal’ responsibility and the idea of getting insurance for weapons is asinine. There is nothing that type of insurance would do.

Most accidental shootings do NOT result in other people outside of your home being injured. Usally, the injured party is YOU. Insurance useless there. In murders, such is useless. Those are not going to be following the law anyway. In lawful shootings the man shot is not going to get compensation anyway. All in all, this is an asinine requirement.

Further, you HAVE to realize that, as others have pointed out, demanding that one pay to exercise a constitutional right is completely unconstitutional. Do you not understand that? Adress that before asking anymore asinine questions.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Since gun insurance would inevitably be very expensive (few people would buy it, and payouts would be during tragedy, thus, expenisve- like hurricane (flood) insurance on the coast).......then only wealthy people would have guns in theory.

Hmmm. Only the rich have guns.

A Republican's wet dream!!!!!

You must not be very knowledgeable in this area.

1st, it really depends on the nature of the insurance required. If it is to cover liability for negligent acts by you or someone you have authorized to use the firearm, insurance would be cheap so long as the limits on liabilty are not insane. For example, a policy with a $2,500 cap on liability come complimentary with NRA membership... and NRA memberships are $40/year and include subscription to American Rifleman plus access to various NRA sponsored events... of course excess coverage for accidents is provided and there is even a "self defense rider" that covers the expense of hiring a lawyer if you shoot someone in self defense. .

NRA Endorsed Insurance Program Excess Personal Liability

Second, the idea of gun control has always focused on depriving the poor and minorities of firearms. The most strict gun control laws in the nation are not found in rural Utah, but in downtown Chicago. This is just another example of making the exercise of a right more and more expensive so that the poor and minorities would not be able to exercise that right.

3rd, this legislation is BS and has zero chance of passing. The text of the legislation is found here:

http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr1369/113hr1369ih_pdf.pdf

It appears that, other than the 10,000 fine Representative Maloney has as of yet failed to iron out many of the details.

Finaly, and for the purpose of exposing the congress critters who have signed on as co sponsors to this bill, they are as follows:


Rep. Ellison, Keith [D-MN-5] 03/21/2013;
Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], 3/21/2013;
Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7], 03/21/2013;
Rep. Moran, James P. [D-VA-8] 03/21/2013;
Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1] 03/21/2013;
Rep. Tsongas, Niki [D-MA-3], 03/21/2013;
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8],03/21/2013;
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3], 03/21/2013

H.R.1369 - Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013 - Cosponsors | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Hmmm, for being a Republican Wet Dream it appears to have only sponsors from the Democratic Party. Why do they hate the poor?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Answer the original question.

When a poor person can afford a gun, they can buy one, but they should have insurance just like everyone else. I find it hilarious how you guys scream about personal responsibility but then argue that nobody really needs to be responsible for themselves. You argue against people being required to do anything, even when it costs everyone else to pay for their irresponsibility.

You apparently have no concept of what personal responsibility actually entails.

I’ll let you in on a secret, it is NOT the government forcing you to get insurance that will ensure that you never actually have to take responsibility (aka pay the price) for your actions. There is nothing about insurance that is ‘personal’ responsibility and the idea of getting insurance for weapons is asinine. There is nothing that type of insurance would do.

Most accidental shootings do NOT result in other people outside of your home being injured. Usally, the injured party is YOU. Insurance useless there. In murders, such is useless. Those are not going to be following the law anyway. In lawful shootings the man shot is not going to get compensation anyway. All in all, this is an asinine requirement.

Further, you HAVE to realize that, as others have pointed out, demanding that one pay to exercise a constitutional right is completely unconstitutional. Do you not understand that? Adress that before asking anymore asinine questions.

Its very clear that his interest here lies only in limiting the exercise of the right to arms to the wealthy.

 

[eflatminor]

You guys are grasping at straws because you don't have a valid or reasonable argument against a requirement to have liability insurance if you are a gun owner.

You might be able to make an argument that a state (not the Feds) could enact a law requiring personal liability insurance (which anyone with a renter's or homeowner's policy has) if you want a conceal carry permit while carrying on public property.

That would be akin to a state requiring insurance to drive on public roads.

However, no state (nor the Feds) requires insurance (or a driver's license) to buy a car. Similarly, one does one need insurance or a license to operate that car on private property. States can choose to require a license and insurance for cars driven on public roads. I suppose they can require the same thing for carrying a firearm in public.

But let's be honest. The requirement for a license/insurance does NOT stop millions of drivers from operating a vehicle illegally (over 25% of California drivers prove that every day). Similarly, an insurance requirement will have ZERO effect on gun crime.

But hey, this is about what FEELS right, right?

 

[auditor0007]

Since gun insurance would inevitably be very expensive (few people would buy it, and payouts would be during tragedy, thus, expenisve- like hurricane (flood) insurance on the coast).......then only wealthy people would have guns in theory.

Hmmm. Only the rich have guns.

A Republican's wet dream!!!!!

It wouldn't be that expensive. If this were to ever pass, I imagine there would be a minimum requirement that would be quite affordable. Approximately 50 million Americans own guns. I imagine insurance rates would be very reasonable.

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance

Since I first wrote about gun liability insurance in the wake of the Newtown massacre, three states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — have introduced bills to require that gun owners purchase liability insurance.

The proposal is designed to protect both owners and society from the misuse of firearms.

As some gun owners and lobbyists maintain, this is a covert way of banning or confiscating guns. This is untrue. In fact, you would be able to buy as many guns as you wanted. Like a house or car, you’d need an insurance policy to own them.

Would this prevent anyone from purchasing a gun? Again, no, because the insurance company wouldn’t make that decision, nor would any governmental agency. The risk pricing component of this transaction would be thoroughly privatized.

Would guns still have to be licensed and background checks performed? Of course. That’s the case today, but the process could be vastly improved and President Obama has championed better background checks.

What about the second amendment? There’s nothing about this proposal that would prevent you from buying guns. Again, there’s no restriction imposed by the government. You could buy an arsenal. The insurance requirement is analogous to buying a home and getting a mortgage. No lender will give you a mortgage unless you insure the home. That’s to protect them from a loss. Gun insurance protects you from a loss. The constitution says nothing about what can or can’t be insured.

Wouldn’t this penalize responsible gun owners? The opposite is true. If they had gun locks, training or safes for their weapons, insurance companies would likely give them premium discounts. So they’d be rewarded for responsible practices. I imagine hunters and collectors would receive the biggest discounts. It’s akin to getting homeowner policy discounts for smoke detectors, being near a fire hydrant, etc.

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance - Forbes

I know, I shouldn't use left wing sources like Forbes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Since gun insurance would inevitably be very expensive (few people would buy it, and payouts would be during tragedy, thus, expenisve- like hurricane (flood) insurance on the coast).......then only wealthy people would have guns in theory.

Hmmm. Only the rich have guns.

A Republican's wet dream!!!!!

It wouldn't be that expensive. If this were to ever pass, I imagine there would be a minimum requirement that would be quite affordable. Approximately 50 million Americans own guns. I imagine insurance rates would be very reasonable.

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance

Since I first wrote about gun liability insurance in the wake of the Newtown massacre, three states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — have introduced bills to require that gun owners purchase liability insurance.

The proposal is designed to protect both owners and society from the misuse of firearms.

As some gun owners and lobbyists maintain, this is a covert way of banning or confiscating guns. This is untrue. In fact, you would be able to buy as many guns as you wanted. Like a house or car, you’d need an insurance policy to own them.

Would this prevent anyone from purchasing a gun? Again, no, because the insurance company wouldn’t make that decision, nor would any governmental agency. The risk pricing component of this transaction would be thoroughly privatized.

Would guns still have to be licensed and background checks performed? Of course. That’s the case today, but the process could be vastly improved and President Obama has championed better background checks.

What about the second amendment? There’s nothing about this proposal that would prevent you from buying guns. Again, there’s no restriction imposed by the government. You could buy an arsenal. The insurance requirement is analogous to buying a home and getting a mortgage. No lender will give you a mortgage unless you insure the home. That’s to protect them from a loss. Gun insurance protects you from a loss. The constitution says nothing about what can or can’t be insured.

Wouldn’t this penalize responsible gun owners? The opposite is true. If they had gun locks, training or safes for their weapons, insurance companies would likely give them premium discounts. So they’d be rewarded for responsible practices. I imagine hunters and collectors would receive the biggest discounts. It’s akin to getting homeowner policy discounts for smoke detectors, being near a fire hydrant, etc.

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance - Forbes

Let’s try this again shall we. Slower this time.

IT… IS… UNCONSTITUTIONAL… TO… REQUIRE… PEOPLE… TO… PAY… TO… EXERCISE… A… CONSTITUTIONAL… RIGHT.

Period. You cannot charge someone to exercise a constitutional right.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lets require an insurance policy for free speech too.

Free speech never accidentally killed anyone, at least not that I know of. Talk about simple minded. Amazing.

What's amazing is the simple minded folks who place limitations on our constitutional rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You guys are grasping at straws because you don't have a valid or reasonable argument against a requirement to have liability insurance if you are a gun owner.

You mean other than the fact that it violates the constituton?


As I said, and as you did not respond to because you do not understand it:
An effective remedy exists for such things; because there is such a remedy, you cannot show a compelling state interest for the creation of this requirement.

/story

 

[legaleagle_45]

Getting your feelings hurt by what someone says is not quite the same as not being able to ever walk again or being placed six feet under.

You obviously do not have a clue... ever consider the harrasment which causes people to commit suicide? Liability will attach, and I assure it involves people being "6 feet under".

Yes, financial harm can come from slanderous statements,

So, you don't mind if we require you to have libel and slander insurance before you can post any further on this board? Cool!!

but it's not the same as being physically injured.

Who says? You? Probably because you are cheap and don't want to be required to pay for libel and slander insurance, huh?

You guys are grasping at straws because you don't have a valid or reasonable argument against a requirement to have liability insurance if you are a gun owner. It really is that simple.

You are grasping at straws because you are trying to explain why you don't have to have libel and slander insurance for injuries you may cause while demanding that insurance coverage be maintained for the exercise of another constitutional right.

 

[RoadVirus]

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

And the attempted shredding of the Constitution continues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since gun insurance would inevitably be very expensive (few people would buy it, and payouts would be during tragedy, thus, expenisve- like hurricane (flood) insurance on the coast).......then only wealthy people would have guns in theory.

Hmmm. Only the rich have guns.

A Republican's wet dream!!!!!

It wouldn't be that expensive. If this were to ever pass, I imagine there would be a minimum requirement that would be quite affordable. Approximately 50 million Americans own guns. I imagine insurance rates would be very reasonable.

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance

Since I first wrote about gun liability insurance in the wake of the Newtown massacre, three states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — have introduced bills to require that gun owners purchase liability insurance.

The proposal is designed to protect both owners and society from the misuse of firearms.

As some gun owners and lobbyists maintain, this is a covert way of banning or confiscating guns. This is untrue. In fact, you would be able to buy as many guns as you wanted. Like a house or car, you’d need an insurance policy to own them.

Would this prevent anyone from purchasing a gun? Again, no, because the insurance company wouldn’t make that decision, nor would any governmental agency. The risk pricing component of this transaction would be thoroughly privatized.

Would guns still have to be licensed and background checks performed? Of course. That’s the case today, but the process could be vastly improved and President Obama has championed better background checks.

What about the second amendment? There’s nothing about this proposal that would prevent you from buying guns. Again, there’s no restriction imposed by the government. You could buy an arsenal. The insurance requirement is analogous to buying a home and getting a mortgage. No lender will give you a mortgage unless you insure the home. That’s to protect them from a loss. Gun insurance protects you from a loss. The constitution says nothing about what can or can’t be insured.

Wouldn’t this penalize responsible gun owners? The opposite is true. If they had gun locks, training or safes for their weapons, insurance companies would likely give them premium discounts. So they’d be rewarded for responsible practices. I imagine hunters and collectors would receive the biggest discounts. It’s akin to getting homeowner policy discounts for smoke detectors, being near a fire hydrant, etc.

The Myth of Gun Liability Insurance - Forbes

I know, I shouldn't use left wing sources like Forbes.

Epic Fail.

The insurance requirement is analogous to buying a home and getting a mortgage.

Difference is that this is a requirement you agree to when enterting into a contract with a private party. nt a requirement placed upon you as a condition of exercising your rights
Thus, there's no analogy.

Again, there’s no restriction imposed by the government.

The requirement for insurance is a restriction put in place by the government.

 

[Sallow]

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

That's an outstanding idea!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Since gun insurance would inevitably be very expensive (few people would buy it, and payouts would be during tragedy, thus, expenisve- like hurricane (flood) insurance on the coast).......then only wealthy people would have guns in theory.

Hmmm. Only the rich have guns.

A Republican's wet dream!!!!!

Then why are you Obamunists pushing it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's an outstanding idea!

Exact same argument can be made for proof of liability insurance before you exercise your right to free speech, since you might slander someone and cause them harm.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know, I shouldn't use left wing sources like Forbes.

Another lying MSNBC moron. (They run Forbes online.)

{Would guns still have to be licensed and background checks performed? Of course. That’s the case today, but the process could be vastly improved and President Obama has championed better background checks.}

Guns have to be licensed?

Really?

And we should accept the expertise of this fool?