proposed mandatory insurance for owning firearms and carrying them


longslide10

longslide10

New member
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.

Link Removed
 

longslide10 said:
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.

Link Removed
Click to expand...

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:
Mandatory ins to own gun = poll tax to vote. Latter has already been struck down as unConstitutional.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
BC1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jrs said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gunnerbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
My reply..."Guns? What guns? I don't own any guns. They've all been lost or stolen or sold or given away. I got rid of them all cause they're just too dangerous!"
 
jg1967 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point....they want to ARTIFICIALLY make it too expensive....BUT if the premium were based on ACTUAL EXPERIENCE (ie: far less gun related accidents than pool accidents), a pack of gum would be more expensive than what the actual risk based premium would be!!
 
gunnerbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think down the road they're gonna figure out a way too. Like Obama care... it wasn't constitutional until they made it a tax.
 
Most insurance companies already have a problem with this plan. The insurance is based on a illegal act being done, hence you can't insure it.
CT thought about doing it and was not enacted. I would worry less about this than other outrageous proposed laws.
 
lessthan0 said:
Most insurance companies already have a problem with this plan. The insurance is based on a illegal act being done, hence you can't insure it.
CT thought about doing it and was not enacted. I would worry less about this than other outrageous proposed laws.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Can you imagine... "hello Prudential? I intentionally crashed my car into someone. Will you fix it?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 189 (members: 0, guests: 189)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,545
Messages
611,262
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top