There a bill hearing on 3-19-13 regarding Insurance mandates?????

I saw a posting on ccdl but I don't and won't have a FB account .... the posting did not state the bill number or committee it's going to be before ..

Anyone have info on this?

That's why you have to put bill #'s on subject lines ...

LibertyUberAlles said:

H.B. 6656

Click to expand...

Thanks! The Insurance committee website has not been updated.

LibertyUberAlles said:

H.B. 6656

Click to expand...

AN ACT CONCERNING LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR FIREARM POSSESSORS OR OWNERS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2013) (a) Any person who possesses or owns a firearm, as defined in section 53a-3 of the general statutes, shall procure and maintain (1) excess personal liability insurance that provides coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by the use of a firearm, and (2) self defense insurance that provides coverage for civil and criminal defense costs and provides for reimbursement of criminal defense costs if such person uses a firearm in self defense. Any person subject to this subsection who does not procure and maintain such insurance shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a person who possesses a firearm on a temporary basis while on the premises of a rifle or gun club.

(b) The Insurance Commissioner shall adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of the general statutes, to implement the provisions of this section, including, but not limited to, minimum coverage amounts of such insurance policies, form and filing requirements for such policies and any permissible exclusions under such policies.
Statement of Purpose:
To require any person who possesses or owns a firearm to procure and maintain excess personal liability insurance and self defense insurance, and to require the Insurance Commissioner to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this section.

Yes, this bill is meant to:

a) be a means of registration

b) be a means of confiscation

Its main purpose is confiscation

I have a little bit of optimism that this proposal is so far out there, and so obviously unconstitutional, that it will never make it out of committee. But then again, you never know with these politicians now that they see the opportunity to unleash their life-long adgenda of gun control on all of us.

Testimony I prepared HV 6656

INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NOT PAY

“does not cover illegal acts… President of the Insurance Institute.” (pg 1 of exhibits)

GOAL IS REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS

The bill requires that firearm owners provide a list of the firearms (type & serial #) to the state through their insurance companies. “Property tax databases would be modified to accommodate variable firearms records per dwelling”. (pg.3 of exhibits)

ULTIMATE GOAL OF CONFISCATION

“Gun owners .. would protect their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Owners unwilling to pay liability premiums would remove the burden by either eliminating or refusing to acknowledge possession of firearms. Absconders are far more likely to abuse second amendment rights”. (pg 2 of Exhibits) Since when do people need to perform an affirmative act to “protect” a constitutional right? What’s next? Getting insurance to pay for damage in case of an illegal search of a person’s home, and if home owners do not get it then they waive their 4th amendment guarantees against unwarranted searches?

RESULT – SWAT TEAMS DESENDING UPON HOUSEHOLDS

If a citizen forgets to pay a premium they will be arrested and their guns taken away and will lose $50,000 in fines and lawyers fees (the insurance company won’t pay) and spend one year in jail, lose their jobs, and have their life’s ruined. Just for having a gun that is our right. Clearly the Connecticut democrats are willing to go to these lengths.

IS THIS BILL THE RESULT OF ILLEGAL AND SECRET MEETINGS??

There are complaints pending in the Freedom of Information Commission that oversees illegal meeting legal complaints. It appears as if secret meetings between legislators that have been meeting in secret this session in respect to the production of anti-gun bills (the basic premise behind the FIC complaints). Is this bill one of many that are the result of such meetings held outside of a public venue as required by Connecticut General Statues Chapter 14 provisions?


You can send e-testimony to: instestimony@cga.ct.gov if unable to make the 1:00pm meeting

Watch the hearing here. No idea when 6656 will come up.

The committee is taking votes on raised bills and will hold public hearing on HB6656 at 1:00.

Sen. Beth Bye is testifying now. Wow! She says that guns are no different than cars. We have to register and insure our cars so why not guns? She does insist though that she would never want to infringe on anyone's rights -- of course not.

LibertyUberAlles said:

Sen. Beth Bye is testifying now. Wow! She says that guns are no different than cars. We have to register and insure our cars so why not guns? She does insist though that she would never want to infringe on anyone's rights -- of course not.

Click to expand...

I was going to add on to the end of my testimony that "Hey, idiots! Mandatory insurance on vehicles does not exist in this state!" Which is true .... you can also post a bond instead.

AND she basically admitted to having secret meetings - a point I did touch on and accused Bye of doing....illegal meetings. She's already the subject of one violation of our open meeting laws.

Oddly enough, when my buzzer buzzed, they stopped me ASAP. Well...they just lost a friend...no Xmas cards for them this year form me.

LibertyUberAlles said:

Sen. Beth Bye is testifying now. Wow! She says that guns are no different than cars. We have to register and insure our cars so why not guns? She does insist though that she would never want to infringe on anyone's rights -- of course not.

Click to expand...

I stuck my tongue out at her ... was this on the broadcast?

davidmcbeth said:

Oddly enough, when my buzzer buzzed, they stopped me ASAP.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah -- they obviously didn't want to touch your accusations of secret meetings with a 10 foot pole. When is the proper time for you to raise that administratively or judicially?

LibertyUberAlles said:

Oh yeah -- they obviously didn't want to touch your accusations of secret meetings with a 10 foot pole. When is the proper time for you to raise that administratively or judicially?

Click to expand...

This is done through the freedom of information commission..an admin agency

Oddly enough, I filed a complaint in respect to Bye about 2 hrs before the hearing ... I guess I'll be filing another since she "spilled the beans" in an open and recorded hearing.

davidmcbeth said:

I stuck my tongue out at her ... was this on the broadcast?

Click to expand...

Atta boy Davey...that'll show 'em......WTF!? Your part of the reason the anti's think we gun owners are just a bunch of irresponsible, uneducated, embreds.

Let us not forget she ( Bye ) is the same one who was caught surfing on FB during some of the testimonies a couple weeks back.

davidmcbeth said:

"Hey, idiots! Mandatory insurance on vehicles does not exist in this state!" Which is true .... you can also post a bond instead.

Click to expand...

since when? vehicle insurance is definitely mandatory in CT

motoxmann said:

since when? vehicle insurance is definitely mandatory in CT

Click to expand...

Nope nope nope ... you CAN post a bond ... its a 25K bond (yonkers!) but it relieves you of having insurance ...

So, technically, one does not have to have insurance....I talked to one legislator today about it and he grumbled "ok"

interesting. I'll have to look into this. I'd discuss it more in here, but it's obviously OT for this website lol

motoxmann said:

interesting. I'll have to look into this. I'd discuss it more in here, but it's obviously OT for this website lol

Click to expand...

And an interuption of the thread - such discourages people from following the OP topic

so, back on topic; people argue car insurance is mandatory, so gun insurance should be too.
but in many states, including here in CT, car insurance is NOT mandatory. Also, driving a vehicle is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, and is a privilege not a right. whereas owning/carrying guns IS protected by the Constitution, and IS an inalienable right, Not a privilege