Proposal: MANDATORY LIABILITY INSURANCE for gun owners

Law abider said:

Are you sure?

Click to expand...

Well, if Obama care can invoke a "tax" for not having insurance, wouldn't this mean that forcing one to have insurance/tax in order to exercise a protected right be unconstitutional?

As Grapeshot has said, I fear that dog won't hunt.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Another back door attempt at registration > confiscation. Expect this to gain little traction.

Click to expand...

Law abider said:

Are you sure?

Click to expand...

Yep and I don't stand alone on my thinking either.

New York Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney showed her allegiance to some of her biggest campaign backers Friday by proposing legislation that would require gun owners to buy blatantly unconstitutional liability insurance:........
....Maloney has a proven track record of being dishonest, and a record of hating the right to bear arms, including another bill recently to build a de facto database of gun owners.

Fortunately, the congresswoman’s bills have no chance of getting anywhere in a Republican-dominated House and Senate.

http://bearingarms.com/house-democr...ompanies-pushes-mandatory-gun-insurance-bill/

If I may go slightly astray from the OP:

It strikes me that liability limits for gun owners--especially those who are victims of theft or who act in lawful self-defense--might be worth considering as a legislative goal.

Does anyone know of any States with any such liability limits?

Federal law provides protections for manufacturers against being held liable for the illegal use of their products.

I believe Utah law provides protection against civil suits if it is determined a person acted lawfully when he used his gun.

I need to go look for citations. Does anyone have any cites to what might be model language?

Thanks

Charles

MORE FOOLISHNESS:

:banghead::banghead:

Stuck on stupid: Capitol Hill antis unveil another ‘smart’ gun scheme

Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was joined yesterday by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey for the introduction of yet another so-called “smart gun” scheme, this one dubbed the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which mandates the exclusive manufacture of so-called “personalized handguns,” according to The Hill.

http://www.examiner.com/article/stuck-on-stupid-capitol-hill-antis-unveil-another-smart-gun-scheme

Grapeshot said:

Yep and I don't stand alone on my thinking either.

New York Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney showed her allegiance to some of her biggest campaign backers Friday by proposing legislation that would require gun owners to buy blatantly unconstitutional liability insurance:........
....Maloney has a proven track record of being dishonest, and a record of hating the right to bear arms, including another bill recently to build a de facto database of gun owners.

Fortunately, the congresswoman’s bills have no chance of getting anywhere in a Republican-dominated House and Senate.

http://bearingarms.com/house-democr...ompanies-pushes-mandatory-gun-insurance-bill/

Click to expand...

Once again wealthy lobbyists in this case our insurance companies using our premium monies are trying to get more government mandated business. Thus at the same time Dems see this as a way to register our guns. Right, Grapeshot?

Dave Workman said:

MORE FOOLISHNESS:

:banghead::banghead:

Stuck on stupid: Capitol Hill antis unveil another ‘smart’ gun scheme

Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was joined yesterday by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey for the introduction of yet another so-called “smart gun” scheme, this one dubbed the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which mandates the exclusive manufacture of so-called “personalized handguns,” according to The Hill.

http://www.examiner.com/article/stuck-on-stupid-capitol-hill-antis-unveil-another-smart-gun-scheme

Click to expand...

Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was joined yesterday by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey for the introduction of yet another so-called “smart gun” scheme, this one dubbed the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which mandates the exclusive manufacture of so-called “personalized handguns,” according to The Hill.

This is the second time in a week that Maloney has floated a gun control measure that, according to critics, is a non-starter. That measure would require every gun owner to carry liability insurance.

Why is it that the right to bear arms, the one that specifically says "shall not be infringed", seems to be the only right it's ok to infringe? Licenses and permits, registries and regulations. Now they want insurance? If you use your firearm justly and legally no one will be able to file a claim, if you use it unjustly and illegally you're already made to pay in money, your time (jail for the slow folks), and possibly your life. What does insurance do, but place another barrier in the way of those who would follow the law to begin with? No criminal is going to buy insurance for the gun they can't legally have to begin with.

JustJack said:

.... What does insurance do, but place another barrier in the way of those who would follow the law to begin with? .

Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of the legislation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk