Bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine

[SlyPokerDog]

There's been a surge of gun-control legislation in Congress in recent weeks. The latest efforts would require gun owners to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon or face a fine of up to $10,000.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, introduced Friday by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, N.Y., provides an exemption for service members and law enforcement officers.

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.

"An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives," she added. "Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur."

Earlier this month, Maloney introduced legislation that would require personal sellers to obtain background checks before transactions could be made at gun shows. Another effort, this one from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-NJ, would require federally licensed ammunition dealers to confirm the identity of those wanting to purchase ammunition online by verifying photo identification in person.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/gun_buyers_need_liability_insu.html

 

[MarAzul]

Imagine that! Another Democrat ignoring the Constitution or even overtly attempting to circumvent the protections citizens have under the Constitution.

 

[lawai'a]

Imagine that! Another Democrat ignoring the Constitution or even overtly attempting to circumvent the protections citizens have under the Constitution.

would you rather driving cars without liscensing and insurance pretty sure the insurance lobby is behind the driving one , not blasfemours of the constitution

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but this actually seems reasonable. Rather than trying to ban guns, simply have gun owners be licensed and insured just like car owners. I think I could get down with that.

Opponents--convince me otherwise.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

If I could convince people they were morons this issue would be easier to discuss.

If you believe the constitution grants the right to own guns and you think this is acceptable you are an idiot.

Let's skip all that and talk about this moron equating mandatory insurance with lower fatalities. Modern vehicle safety might just have a SMIDGE to do with it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Criminals will be the first in line to buy this insurance.

Seems like it is a means to hassle the law abiding gun owners, and literally an infringement.

Consider if women were forced to buy insurance before allowed an abortion. No pro choice person would get behind that.

 

[julius]

Criminals will be the first in line to buy this insurance.

Seems like it is a means to hassle the law abiding gun owners, and literally an infringement.

Consider if women were forced to buy insurance before allowed an abortion. No pro choice person would get behind that.

I bet if they make women buy insurance before being "allowed" to have an abortion, they'll allow people to marry goats!

 

[MarAzul]

would you rather driving cars without liscensing and insurance pretty sure the insurance lobby is behind the driving one , not blasfemours of the constitution

I don't know why you would even ask this question. I see nothing in the Constitution that would restrict States from requiring people to buy car insurance. So to that extent, the 10th amendment
pretty much grants Constitutional authority to the States to do it. I can seen no parallel between a car and a gun.

 

[MarAzul]

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but this actually seems reasonable. Rather than trying to ban guns, simply have gun owners be licensed and insured just like car owners. I think I could get down with that.

Opponents--convince me otherwise.

Golly, I can sure see why licenses and insurance requirement can be considered an infringement of a right.

 

[MarAzul]

Mr. Jefferson was spot on in my view when he told us that our rights come from the creator. When we understand this, then we also understand that no man has the authority to deprive us of our rights. The second amendment to the Constitution is rather straight forward reinforcement of the same concept, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This concept has been acknowledge as a right of men for much longer than our country has existed and is discussed in the Law of Nations. It makes no sense that thinking men would ever give up their rights for any reason. If a man is deprived the means to defend himself and his people, he has nothing.

 

[MARIS61]

90% of the active political gun confiscation lobby is made up of women.

The other 10% are of indeterminate sex.

0% of them can accurately quote The Second Amendment, the same number understand it's meaning and purpose.

But 99% of the funding for gun confiscation bills comes from the 1% crowd. Bloomberg alone has spent upwards of $4 billion to disarm the poorer masses.

 

[Jade Falcon]

There's been a surge of gun-control legislation in Congress in recent weeks. The latest efforts would require gun owners to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon or face a fine of up to $10,000.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, introduced Friday by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, N.Y., provides an exemption for service members and law enforcement officers.

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.

"An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives," she added. "Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur."

Earlier this month, Maloney introduced legislation that would require personal sellers to obtain background checks before transactions could be made at gun shows. Another effort, this one from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-NJ, would require federally licensed ammunition dealers to confirm the identity of those wanting to purchase ammunition online by verifying photo identification in person.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/gun_buyers_need_liability_insu.html

Yeah, because ya know: that insurance card in my glove compartment helped me to avoid that tree.

Cock sucking cow. Figures only some hag from NEW YORK would introduce shit like this.

I own 6 guns, and if you think I'm insuring even ONE of them, you are fucking retarded.

 

[donkiez]

Yeah, because ya know: that insurance card in my glove compartment helped me to avoid that tree.

Cock sucking cow. Figures only some hag from NEW YORK would introduce shit like this.

I own 6 guns, and if you think I'm insuring even ONE of them, you are fucking retarded.

Where do I get one of these cows?

Insurance is not meant to prevent anything, it just helps with the clean up.

 

[Natebishop3]

Where do I get one of these cows?

Insurance is not meant to prevent anything, it just helps with the clean up.

That's not what they're looking for though. They want to add more red tape to dissuade people from buying guns. The object is to circumvent the 2nd amendment. "Sure, they're legal, but you have to pay a bunch of money every month."

 

[MARIS61]

Gun laws in America are not "legal".

Their very existence is absolutely 100% forbidden by The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the The United States of America, and anyone promoting gun laws or attempting to enforce them on Real Americans is committing treason. The penalties for treason reflect the severity of the crimes.

 

[MARIS61]

That's not what they're looking for though. They want to add more red tape to dissuade people from buying guns. The object is to circumvent the 2nd amendment. "Sure, they're legal, but you have to pay a bunch of money every month."

Not if you're rich, like the people writing the bills and enacting them without our votes. They'll always have their guns. Their goal is to disarm the masses, whose right to bear will most certainly be infringed by cost. Their goal is to disarm the very people who put them in office, the poor, the minorities, the people they claim to represent.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Wouldn't it make more sense to insure the bullets?

 

[barfo]

Wouldn't it make more sense to insure the bullets?

Good point. The second amendment says nothing about bullets, so I think everyone would be fine with it if bullets were outlawed.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Bullets are "arms."

 

[MarAzul]

Bullets are "arms."

Geez! It is kind of embarrassing that you need to point the fact out.

 

[barfo]

Bullets are "arms."

Are they? Please provide evidence for your position.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Are they? Please provide evidence for your position.

barfo

A gun isn't armed without bullets. Duh.

Any militia without bullets is a sitting duck.

And it would be a violation of "shall not be infringed" to ... you know... infringe.

 

[MarAzul]

Arm/Arms A definition from a dictionary

noun

3. Any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting

Would anyone argue that a gun without bullets fills the above definition?

Verb

1. Prepare oneself for a military confrontation

I hope no one would consider being prepared, is armed without bullets?
But on the other hand, it does seem rather Progressive, and Democrat.

 

[barfo]

Arm/Arms A definition from a dictionary

noun

3. Any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting

Would anyone argue that a gun without bullets fills the above definition?

Verb

1. Prepare oneself for a military confrontation

I hope no one would consider being prepared, is armed without bullets?
But on the other hand, it does seem rather Progressive, and Democrat.

When was that dictionary written? If it was written after 1790, we can't accept it.

barfo

 

[barfo]

A gun isn't armed without bullets. Duh.

Any militia without bullets is a sitting duck.

And it would be a violation of "shall not be infringed" to ... you know... infringe.

You have not presented evidence that the founding fathers meant for those guns to be loaded.

No one calls ammunition 'arms'. In fact "Arms and Ammunition" is a rather frequently heard phrase. Do you think it means "bullets and bullets"?

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

You have not presented evidence that the founding fathers meant for those guns to be loaded.

No one calls ammunition 'arms'. In fact "Arms and Ammunition" is a rather frequently heard phrase. Do you think it means "bullets and bullets"?

barfo

I won't need bullets once I get my handy blaster. Try to regulate my frikkin lasers!

 

[riverman]

Insurance companies are just cashing in once again