Gun Liability Insurance

Joe Steel

Class Warrior
Dec 11, 2009
1,052
97
83
St. Louis, MO
In keeping with rightists' well-known affection for personal responsibility, I offer this proposal for examination.

Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

HB0687 FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?
 
What you're proposing is a poll tax to negate the 2nd Amendment.

Meanwhile, you get back to me the moment Progressives are ever called to account for any of the damage they've done
 
Last edited:
In keeping with rightists' well-known affection for personal responsibility, I offer this proposal for examination.

Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

HB0687 FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?

I'm sure Johnny Crackhead is gonna run to his insurance agent's office to get his new policy just as soon as this is passed. So when he shoots your mom, at least you'll get $1,000,000, right? Or is it more likely your mom will still be dead, he won't have a policy, and he'll get an extra 3 years in jail on top of his life without parole because he didn't have that policy?

Yet another law that addresses the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal.
 
In keeping with rightists' well-known affection for personal responsibility, I offer this proposal for examination.

Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

HB0687 FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?


A gun owner who harms someone is already responsible for his actions, criminally and civilly.

The only purpose this bill serves is to funnel money to insurance companies and trial lawyers.
 
Wonder how you will ever get all the gun toting criminals who rob our service stations to run down and buy some of this insurance? Just another ploy to try and get unreasonable gun control in this country.
 
In keeping with rightists' well-known affection for personal responsibility, I offer this proposal for examination.

Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

HB0687 FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?

I'm not certain, but I think your home insurance covers this.

Aside from that, how is making people buy insurance going to curve crime and not curve a persons rights?
 
It's not intended to curve crime.

It's intended to reduce gun ownership by creating yet another hurdle (an expensive one at that) an individual must clear before he can own a gun.
 
Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?

I'm sure Johnny Crackhead is gonna run to his insurance agent's office to get his new policy just as soon as this is passed. So when he shoots your mom, at least you'll get $1,000,000, right? Or is it more likely your mom will still be dead, he won't have a policy, and he'll get an extra 3 years in jail on top of his life without parole because he didn't have that policy?

Yet another law that addresses the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal.

No. This law addresses the damage done by law-abiding citizens who make mistakes just like auto insurance.
 
Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?

I'm sure Johnny Crackhead is gonna run to his insurance agent's office to get his new policy just as soon as this is passed. So when he shoots your mom, at least you'll get $1,000,000, right? Or is it more likely your mom will still be dead, he won't have a policy, and he'll get an extra 3 years in jail on top of his life without parole because he didn't have that policy?

Yet another law that addresses the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal.

No. This law addresses the damage done by law-abiding citizens who make mistakes just like auto insurance.

No it doesn't. It only puts money into the hands of insurance companies. You know those evul insurance companies? For the actions of a very very small few?

Admit it. You want the right to bear arms gone. Be honest.

fyi; there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse.
 
Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?

I'm sure Johnny Crackhead is gonna run to his insurance agent's office to get his new policy just as soon as this is passed. So when he shoots your mom, at least you'll get $1,000,000, right? Or is it more likely your mom will still be dead, he won't have a policy, and he'll get an extra 3 years in jail on top of his life without parole because he didn't have that policy?

Yet another law that addresses the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal.

No. This law addresses the damage done by law-abiding citizens who make mistakes just like auto insurance.

Just another end run attempt at feel good legislation that really does nothing except make people afraid of guns feel better. The after affects of a "mistake" made by a law abiding citizen is already handled by criminal law and basic tort law.
 
Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?

I'm sure Johnny Crackhead is gonna run to his insurance agent's office to get his new policy just as soon as this is passed. So when he shoots your mom, at least you'll get $1,000,000, right? Or is it more likely your mom will still be dead, he won't have a policy, and he'll get an extra 3 years in jail on top of his life without parole because he didn't have that policy?

Yet another law that addresses the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal.

No. This law addresses the damage done by law-abiding citizens who make mistakes just like auto insurance.


B'loney.

Auto insurance is reasonable because we all share the public roads when we drive.

Gun owners either shoot at privately run gun ranges or hunt with government issued permits. Equating such to using public roads is sophistry.
 
I'm sure Johnny Crackhead is gonna run to his insurance agent's office to get his new policy just as soon as this is passed. So when he shoots your mom, at least you'll get $1,000,000, right? Or is it more likely your mom will still be dead, he won't have a policy, and he'll get an extra 3 years in jail on top of his life without parole because he didn't have that policy?

Yet another law that addresses the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal.

No. This law addresses the damage done by law-abiding citizens who make mistakes just like auto insurance.

No it doesn't. It only puts money into the hands of insurance companies. You know those evul insurance companies? For the actions of a very very small few?

Admit it. You want the right to bear arms gone. Be honest.

fyi; there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse.

"there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse."

I kind of doubt the accuracy of that statement.
 
No. This law addresses the damage done by law-abiding citizens who make mistakes just like auto insurance.

No it doesn't. It only puts money into the hands of insurance companies. You know those evul insurance companies? For the actions of a very very small few?

Admit it. You want the right to bear arms gone. Be honest.

fyi; there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse.

"there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse."

I kind of doubt the accuracy of that statement.

Growing up in Illinois, MO and Arkansas, I met more than enough people that do so.

There's aslo a lot of people that hunt more for fun than food.
 
No it doesn't. It only puts money into the hands of insurance companies. You know those evul insurance companies? For the actions of a very very small few?

Admit it. You want the right to bear arms gone. Be honest.

fyi; there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse.

"there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse."

I kind of doubt the accuracy of that statement.

Growing up in Illinois, MO and Arkansas, I met more than enough people that do so.

There's aslo a lot of people that hunt more for fun than food.

They feed their families on what they hunt?
Around here it is a 4 deer per year limit I think. And with limited hunting seasons and bag limits, I hardly think anyone would starve without what they kill.
Unless it is hogs and cattle and such.
 
"there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse."

I kind of doubt the accuracy of that statement.

Growing up in Illinois, MO and Arkansas, I met more than enough people that do so.

There's aslo a lot of people that hunt more for fun than food.

They feed their families on what they hunt?
Around here it is a 4 deer per year limit I think. And with limited hunting seasons and bag limits, I hardly think anyone would starve without what they kill.
Unless it is hogs and cattle and such.

There are a lot of hunting seasons. Dear is just the most popular.

Theres
hog
duck
quail
goose
buck/doe
dove/pidgeon
varmit
rabbit
coon
bear
elk
moose
elk


If you know how to hunt like country people know how to hunt, you rarely need to buy meat.
 
No. This law addresses the damage done by law-abiding citizens who make mistakes just like auto insurance.

No it doesn't. It only puts money into the hands of insurance companies. You know those evul insurance companies? For the actions of a very very small few?

Admit it. You want the right to bear arms gone. Be honest.

fyi; there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse.

"there are many, many people that feed their families by hunting year around. Do you want them to starve or turn to the government for aide? thus making things worse."

I kind of doubt the accuracy of that statement.

I'm not against guns but puleez!! That's a weak excuse. Unless you mean by "many" a tiny handful. If that is how you think MANY Americans feed their families then you need to get out more. I am a hunter but haven't recently because it isn't cost effective. The costs of hunting do not justify the actual value of the meat vs the grocery store for 99.999 per cent of Americans. Even farmers know that it makes more economic sense to raise a steer or a hog to put meat on the table than go hunting for the same meat value. Raising chickens is a very good food value. Two dozen eggs a week for a family of four is about four pounds of protein and you hardly have to feed chickens anything if they are free range..meaning they get to scratch around the yard for bugs and worms. A large dressed out deer only nets 100-200 lbs of edible meat...less than half the food value gained in a year than owning 6 laying hens. I know this because I grew up on a farm.

Guns? Why not? It's our Constitutional right. But please try and be honest as to why you want them.
 
In keeping with rightists' well-known affection for personal responsibility, I offer this proposal for examination.

Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?
This is a precondition to the right not inherent to that right. Thus, an infringement.
This infringement will never pass Strict Scrutiny.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top