Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: New Backdoor to Gun Control - Federally Mandated "Firearms Liability Insurance"

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    New Backdoor to Gun Control - Federally Mandated "Firearms Liability Insurance"

    A blurb just received from the Daily Caller -
    "A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress are proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced this legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is 'the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.' Maloney’s 'Firearm Risk Protection Act' requires gun buyers to have 'a qualified liability insurance policy' before being able to legally purchase a firearm. It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect. '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 bill text reads."
    This places an unreasonable financial burden upon future gun owners, for a couple of obvious reasons.
    1. It's simply another means of infringement, and
    2. Some people won't be able to afford the insurance, and
    3. It's an open door for insurance companies to charge outrageous rates!
    If it is so important that new gun owners are forced have this bogus insurance - or face a huge fine - why does it not apply to all existing gun owners? A gun is a gun is a gun. And how much can the insurance industry extort from gun owners for said insurance when the firearms enthusiast faces the possibility of a $10K fine without that insurance? And, if the courts think that having a $3-$5 photo ID at the voting booth is discrimination against "poor people", how about a $200-$500 insurance fiat?

    The attitude of the lame and liberal left seems to be, "If we can't simply outlaw guns, let's make them too expensive for most people to own!" In this case "most people" is everybody but them and their elitist friends. Any thoughts?

    Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Insurance is a gun grab....this is from the brady foundation ...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Vehicle insurance is a vehicle-grab. If car insurance is required, poor people won't be able to own a vehicle. Vehicle ownership has been on the rise for decades. Let's not compare apples to oranges, right.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Vehicle insurance is a vehicle-grab. If car insurance is required, poor people won't be able to own a vehicle. Vehicle ownership has been on the rise for decades. Let's not compare apples to oranges, right.
    There are hundreds of thousands of individuals and families in the US who don't have a car because they can't afford both car and insurance payments, and hundreds of thousands more who have a car but don't have car insurance because they can't afford it.

    You are right though, it is comparing apples and oranges, what people forget though is that there is nothing wrong with comparing apples and oranges as long as you don't try to say they are both exactly the same.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Here's an idea...
    How about requiring every journalist, reporter, news reader, blogger and writer-to-the-editor to have the same umbrella coverage in such case that what they write turns out to be untrue and caused financial damage or leads to physical harm to any reader?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Here's an idea...
    How about requiring every journalist, reporter, news reader, blogger and writer-to-the-editor to have the same umbrella coverage in such case that what they write turns out to be untrue and caused financial damage or leads to physical harm to any reader?
    As long as they are required to not quote out of context...I'm down with that. then again, lying pieces of sh*t ought to have a voice as well.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    As long as they are required to not quote out of context...I'm down with that. then again, lying pieces of sh*t ought to have a voice as well.
    Those lying pieces do have a voice - many, actually. They are the federal government, and their "voice" is the liberal, left-wing media. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    registeration scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    A blurb just received from the Daily Caller - This places an unreasonable financial burden upon future gun owners, for a couple of obvious reasons.
    1. It's simply another means of infringement, and
    2. Some people won't be able to afford the insurance, and
    3. It's an open door for insurance companies to charge outrageous rates!
    If it is so important that new gun owners are forced have this bogus insurance - or face a huge fine - why does it not apply to all existing gun owners? A gun is a gun is a gun. And how much can the insurance industry extort from gun owners for said insurance when the firearms enthusiast faces the possibility of a $10K fine without that insurance? And, if the courts think that having a $3-$5 photo ID at the voting booth is discrimination against "poor people", how about a $200-$500 insurance fiat?

    The attitude of the lame and liberal left seems to be, "If we can't simply outlaw guns, let's make them too expensive for most people to own!" In this case "most people" is everybody but them and their elitist friends. Any thoughts?

    Pax...
    The main thrust of this is to get all guns registered one way or another. When you have to buy insurance that means that you have to list your guns so that the insurance company will know how much to charge you. The more guns you have the more liability insurance you'll need. Once the insurance companies have the lists of owners and their guns, they just turn that list over to the gov'mint. Biff Bam Boom: instant registration.
    roN

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    New Backdoor to Gun Control - Federally Mandated "Firearms Liability Insurance"

    Insurance doesn't stop motor vehicle collisions. It does make whole those who suffer FINANCIAL loss from an MVC.
    Gun insurance wouldn't stop violence made more effective by the presence of a gun. Death and injuries can be compensated for only partially by money. Why don't they simply require people to install and use a gun safe? Why not require all new homes to have a safe built in under the building code?

    Obviously, this isn't about stopping violence, it's about penalizing people for the exercise of an enumerated right.
    Last edited by nonameisgood; 04-05-2013 at 12:12 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Insurance doesn't stop motor vehicle collisions. It does make whole those who suffer FINANCIAL loss from an MVC.
    Gun insurance wouldn't stop violence made more effective by the presence of a gun. Death and injuries can be compensated for only partially by money. Why don't they simply require people to install and use a gun safe? Why not require all new homes to have a safe built in under the building code?

    Obviously, this isn't about stopping violence, it's about penalizing people for the exercise of an enumerated right.
    I wouldn't be ok with that either. Not their business to tell me how I have to store my property.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Insurance doesn't stop motor vehicle collisions. It does make whole those who suffer FINANCIAL loss from an MVC.
    Gun insurance wouldn't stop violence made more effective by the presence of a gun. Death and injuries can be compensated for only partially by money. Why don't they simply require people to install and use a gun safe? Why not require all new homes to have a safe built in under the building code?

    Obviously, this isn't about stopping violence, it's about penalizing people for the exercise of an enumerated right.

    ......land of the free....right.....when people even think it's ok to suggest requiring people to do things like this....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    New Backdoor to Gun Control - Federally Mandated "Firearms Liability Insurance"

    My point only being that IF they wanted to stop theft of guns and curb illegal transfers, they would do that kind of thing. NOT suggesting that we do this.

    As to "home of the free", we all have to do things we don't really want to do. We have to pay for property we want because someone else owns it. We have to abide by building codes to protect those who would be unnecessarily harmed by the decisions of others (that are often made without good knowledge of the consequences)

    Freedom carries responsibilities. As a gun owner, one of my responsibilities is to prevent unauthorized use and theft of my guns. I have a safe for that purpose, others may choose a different method.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    I might could go along with it if the safes were given to us, but if I have an extra $1000 laying around I'm probably gonna buy a gun, not a box to put them in. lol

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    New Backdoor to Gun Control - Federally Mandated "Firearms Liability Insurance"

    I didn't take you as a "give me free stuff" sort of person. The argument would be that if you can afford a gun, you can afford a basic method of keeping it safe. (No one said $1000, mine was $200 and it is adequate for the typical crook.)

    I'm not suggesting that we require safes. I'm saying that people should be taking reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access. So if you know there are children around, lock them up. If you know a burglary is likely, don't leave them laying about, or at least make an effort to keep people out (and a cheap lock on a cheap door isn't going to do it.)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    I didn't take you as a "give me free stuff" sort of person. The argument would be that if you can afford a gun, you can afford a basic method of keeping it safe. (No one said $1000, mine was $200 and it is adequate for the typical crook.)

    I'm not suggesting that we require safes. I'm saying that people should be taking reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access. So if you know there are children around, lock them up. If you know a burglary is likely, don't leave them laying about, or at least make an effort to keep people out (and a cheap lock on a cheap door isn't going to do it.)
    I don't want anyone to give me a safe, but if it is required then IMO it should be on them to provide me with one. There may be some cheaper ones available then $1000, but most of the ones I see that are actually safes that are large enough to store all my firearms (most are long guns so I would need a tall one) are usually in the $1000 range. I could find one for just my pistol for $200 but it would be silly to force me to lock up my pistol but not my other firearms. I don't keep my firearms locked up because they are of no use in a safe if something happens and it's needed. Since my kids are young I simply keep my guns unloaded and it's impossible for my kids to rack the slide on my pistol to chamber a round (my wife can barely do it...for some reason that .45 glock is really stiff) and when they get older I hope to instill good gun safety knowledge to my kids. When I was growing up I was frequently around unlocked firearms in my home, and times where I was home alone with them, but I was taught about guns and allowed to use them with supervision so I knew not to touch them. Knowledge is the best tool when it comes to firearm safety IMO. As far as a burglary..I don't think it's my responsibility to protect against a criminal act by an unknown party breaking in my home. Also about the safe, what if you inherited your fathers firearms and was forced to keep them in a safe, but you couldn't afford one? That's a circumstance that happens quite often (at least in the south) where you couldn't say "if you can afford a gun, you can afford a safe".

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    New Backdoor to Gun Control - Federally Mandated "Firearms Liability Insurance"

    You don't think you should keep your guns safe from theft? Interesting perspective.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    You don't think you should keep your guns safe from theft? Interesting perspective.
    Do I want my guns stolen, no. Do I want to spend x amount of money to potentially keep that from happening, not really. Am I against gun safes? Absolutely not, I have actually looked into getting one on more than one occasion, but haven't yet due to the price and lack of space for one large enough to store my long guns. To protect my guns from theft, I currently use the same safeguards as I do to keep anything else I own safe from theft. I lock my doors and windows and I don't post all over facebook anytime I leave the house. I keep lights on and have a dog that really enjoys barking at things he sees in the yard.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585
    If they can force you to buy health care insurance, then they can probably force you to buy gun insurance.

    Thing is, I don't believe they have the power to force us to buy health care insurance, but unfortunately John Roberts disagrees with that. I guess he would say this is just a tax.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •