proposed mandatory insurance for owning firearms and carrying them
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: proposed mandatory insurance for owning firearms and carrying them

  1. #1

    proposed mandatory insurance for owning firearms and carrying them

    The last one surprised me. My state and I hadn't heard of it. This idea is absolutely asinine. Anyone see the myriad of problems? Insurance company influence on court cases.

    6 States Plotting Insurance Attacks on Gun Owners | Wall St. Cheat Sheet
    "Those who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
    "The original point and click interface was a Smith & Wesson".

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Topeka, KS
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by longslide10 View Post
    The last one surprised me. My state and I hadn't heard of it. This idea is absolutely asinine. Anyone see the myriad of problems? Insurance company influence on court cases.

    6 States Plotting Insurance Attacks on Gun Owners | Wall St. Cheat Sheet
    This is one of the "legs" the gun grabbers are trying to use to force people out of gun ownership. They say, you have to have insurance to drive a car so it makes sense to require you to have insurance as a gun owner. DC says they want to do this to discourage gun ownership. Since when is it a legislative right to enact laws to discourage a constitutional right? There is no "constitutional right" that spells out you can own and drive a car. I would think, by their admission of the purpose of the law, they are guaranteeing a probable overturn of the law on any appeal.
    - -California had proposed this action along with their new law that requires a $50 fee every time you buy ammo. They want it to be too expensive for the average Joe to own or use a firearm. Hopefully, the ammo fee will be appealed as overly restrictive taxation. The insurance argument would be hard to make work. I doubt if any libby has thought far enough to answer who the insurance is to protect. It is only to keep guns out of citizens hands.
    - -If I take out a policy, I assume I would have to have every firearm I own covered. Then, if someone steals one of my firearms, does my insurance protect the thief from damages when he injures or kills someone? Why should I have a claim against me for something a criminal did? What is this insurance supposed to cover? Who is it to protect? Would my insurance be liable only if I am found guilty of a crime? What about LE who injure innocent bystanders or property? I would like to see the figures on this but believe I am accurate that there are a significant number of injuries or deaths of innocent bystanders from police officer's guns each year. Certainly more than the 350 deaths from long guns each year. What was it last Fall at Times Square in NY, something like 14 bystanders wounded by PO weapons and none by the gun wielding criminal on the sidewalk. These libtards have no idea what any liability insurance would do and how to set it up to operate. They are not after fair, they are after punitive laws. As with the entire pro gun control arguments, the only ones paying the fees are the 99.97% of legal gun owners that are not causing any problems. The felons, the illegal guns, etc. will never be touched by these laws and it will only affect law-abiding citizens, not law breakers. It will have little effect on gun crime (what the libbies claim they are addressing).
    It is my humble opinion that many of these new laws, including restricting common rifles and magazines, requiring insurance and unreasonable fees, would not be upheld in court challenges. The problem the libtards have created is having to file actions in each state to overturn the laws. Anyone with half a brain and no agenda would recognize right away all these gun laws will not work. Ask Chicago and NYC how their laws are doing in reducing crime!
    Last edited by dgifted; 06-14-2013 at 07:56 PM. Reason: additional info
    Dave "The said Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Mandatory ins to own gun = poll tax to vote. Latter has already been struck down as unConstitutional.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Unconstitutional. Would not carry it.

  6. #5
    Remind me again, isn't the second amendment the only one that states in the actual text that it shall not be infringed on? Why did the Founding Fathers put that line there?
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    This won't pass constitutional muster. Heller ruled that certain restrictions can be put on gun ownership as long as they aren't a complete denial to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment does not say the right shall exist only for those fortunate enough to afford insurance.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  8. #7
    If they do require insurance, AND if the rates are based on 'experience rating' rather than an arbitrary number conceived by the political left, the premiums would be nominal.
    Just think of how many accidents and/or deaths there are from pool ownership...many more than gun related accidents or deaths...then look at the difference it makes in your homeowners liability premium....next to nothing.
    So, if they have an Actuary figure out the "actual risk", it would cost more for the ink to print the policy than what the premium would be.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    This won't pass constitutional muster. Heller ruled that certain restrictions can be put on gun ownership as long as they aren't a complete denial to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment does not say the right shall exist only for those fortunate enough to afford insurance.
    But it's okay to require people to have the money and time to take a CCW course, as well as pay the taxes thereof to carry? Something's off here... what's to say they won't pass this slowly, over time? There is already a financial requirement to "legally" carry a weapon in most states. This isn't too far fetched BC, it really isn't. Will it pass right now...? Probably not, but down the road....? I think it may.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by jrs View Post
    If they do require insurance, AND if the rates are based on 'experience rating' rather than an arbitrary number conceived by the political left, the premiums would be nominal.
    Just think of how many accidents and/or deaths there are from pool ownership...many more than gun related accidents or deaths...then look at the difference it makes in your homeowners liability premium....next to nothing.
    So, if they have an Actuary figure out the "actual risk", it would cost more for the ink to print the policy than what the premium would be.
    Pool ownership can actually be quite dangerous ... a good many people drown in them.

    And the premiums will NOT be reasonable because the whole point of this exercise is for them to be too expensive for Joe Plumber to own guns.
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnerbob View Post
    But it's okay to require people to have the money and time to take a CCW course, as well as pay the taxes thereof to carry? Something's off here... what's to say they won't pass this slowly, over time? There is already a financial requirement to "legally" carry a weapon in most states. This isn't too far fetched BC, it really isn't. Will it pass right now...? Probably not, but down the road....? I think it may.
    You have to remember that the state does have the right to make sure that the militia is "regulated". That means trained, not controlled. That would fit the course work. But as you point out, the rest is just another illegal tax.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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