Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

[Ronin13]

So we had them attempt it here, and now they're attempting it at the Federal level. The woman who proposed this infuriates me so much she should be walked up to the gallows post-haste for even suggesting this! [Mad]

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

A New York Democratic lawmaker is behind a national push that would force gun owners to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine.


The Firearm Risk Protection Act, pushed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney and seven co-sponsors, follows efforts at the state level to create the controversial new kind of insurance for gun owners.


"For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence," Maloney said in a written statement. "My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons."


The likelihood, though, of Maloney's bill gaining any traction is slim. Republicans control the House, and even states where Democrats have sizeable majorities have not approved the insurance idea.
Six states -- California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania -- have all introduced gun liability insurance legislation over the past few months. None has produced any results.


In Illinois, the House rejected a measure 34-74 that would require people carrying concealed weapons to also carry $1 million in liability insurance. Chicago Democrat Kenneth Dunkin was behind the defeated bill. He said an insurance policy would cost between $500 to $2,000, but Illinois Republicans successfully argued the costs were too high for citizens exercising their constitutional right to carry a gun, and the bill was defeated.
Last week, a similar measure in Connecticut was withdrawn following a two-hour hearing on the issue. Connecticut's proposal would require firearm owners to maintain excess personal liability insurance and self-defense insurance.
In Maryland, a bill that sought mandatory firearm liability insurance for gun owners was also recently withdrawn.
Because there have been so many setbacks on state levels, many have argued that trying to pass a liability insurance mandate on a national level would be near impossible.
Still, Maloney maintains she won't back down from the fight.


"We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products -- and no one disputes that guns are dangerous," she said in her written statement. "While many individual states are debating this issue right now, it makes more sense for Congress to establish a national requirement to allow the insurance markets to begin to price the risks involved consistently nationwide."
Maloney also supports proposed bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.


The push in Congress for a renewed assault weapons ban has faltered. Though it is expected to get a vote as an amendment to a broader gun control package, few expect it to pass. The debate in Congress lately has centered on whether lawmakers can agree to a system of near-universal background checks.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/#ixzz2PKNFjafd
Luckily it isn't expected to pass. Maloney was quoted as saying, though not in this story, "We'll make the premiums so high that they'll be forced to turn their guns in." Yeah, bitch, keep thinking that... You [pileoshit]

[Robb]

How long before it passes at the state level in a Libtard Navy Blue state like Calif or New York, or Colorado?

[speedysst]

I searched but did not find another post on this but here goes! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/

[HBARleatherneck]

http://www.ar-15.co/threads/97423-Democrats-push-bill-in-Congress-to-require-gun-insurance-under-penalty-of-fine

[Dave_L]

Mandated insurance=gun registry.

[ChuckNorris]

Mandated insurance=gun registry.

You got it!

[sniper7]

You don't have to have insurance on anything.

[Mtn.man]

The gun IS the insurance.

[Ronin13]

Mandated insurance=gun registry.


You got it!
And, to add salt to the wound- not many mainstream companies will provide an individual "gun owner liability" policy... I checked with 4 of the companies we represent and none of them would even do instructor liability... So either extremely pricey surplus lines or an entirely new industry would be needed and it's just a big headache, especially for regulatory purposes. It's just bad bad bad, no matter what way you look at it.

[Great-Kazoo]

The gun IS the insurance.

WINNER

[speedysst]

In the immortal words of General McAuliffe, "NUTS!"
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/97423-Democrats-push-bill-in-Congress-to-require-gun-insurance-under-penalty-of-fine

[SuperiorDG]

And, to add salt to the wound- not many mainstream companies will provide an individual "gun owner liability" policy... I checked with 4 of the companies we represent and none of them would even do instructor liability... So either extremely pricey surplus lines or an entirely new industry would be needed and it's just a big headache, especially for regulatory purposes. It's just bad bad bad, no matter what way you look at it.

$10,000 fine = Tax

[theGinsue]

Merged

[Chad4000]

incredible.... how many tries do you think before something like this actually get passed?

[Byte Stryke]

I will buy my insurance right after they mandate the poll tax

[sabot_round]

The gun IS the insurance.


WINNER

+1,000,000

[Jumpstart]

Mandated insurance=gun registry.
Universal Background check = gun registry by proxy.

[Clint45]

I can understand (but not agree with) the idea of wanting CCW holders to be insured or bonded. I do not think it is a good idea, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind it. I also do not think it should be mandatory. If it were mandatory, it should cover the CCW holder's legal fees in full, as well as shield him from lawsuits, as long as he acted appropriately and within the law.

I cannot understand mandatory insurance simply for owning a gun in your own home. There is NO valid justification for that at all. It is simply punitive.

[Mtn.man]

I can understand (but not agree with) the idea of wanting CCW holders to be insured or bonded. I do not think it is a good idea, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind it. I also do not think it should be mandatory. If it were mandatory, it should cover the CCW holder's legal fees in full, as well as shield him from lawsuits, as long as he acted appropriately and within the law.

I cannot understand mandatory insurance simply for owning a gun in your own home. There is NO valid justification for that at all. It is simply punitive.

Oh Boy...

[Dave_L]

Universal Background check = gun registry by proxy.

Yup. They're going for it in every avenue possible and hoping one sticks.

[RYAN50BMG]

You don't have to have insurance on anything.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhh.....Obamacare?

[Mtn.man]

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhh.....Obamacare?

And who is going to enforce that? LOL

[Gman]

"We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products -- and no one disputes that guns are dangerous,"
Criminals are far more dangerous than a piece of metal...but politicians don't seem to care about keeping the law breakers off the streets. Criminals don't follow the laws, so how 'bout you wastes of oxygen called politicians stop trying to fix the problem with something that obviously doesn't work?

[sniper7]

I question why they don't prosecute illegals without car insurance, they get a ticket, and that's about it.

[Kraven251]

they just want to go after the gun owners ...fuck em.

[buckshotbarlow]

i don't own any guns...just some plastic pieces, different types of metal...lead, copper and brass...2 name a few!

[Jumpstart]

Can we just all agree to change the words "Liberals", "Democrats", "Progressives", to one simple word like "Traitors", "Motherless Fucks", "Douche Bags", "Vaginas", or my favorite..."Doss C...U..N...T...S" It would save us all a bunch of time and simplify our communication. Newspapers/TV could then just eliminate all those confusing words and make it all much more simple for us. So instead of liberal progressive democratic Congressperson Ms. Carolyn Maloney we could just call her Motherless Fuck Maloney or Traitor Maloney. See? Much simpler.
Agreed and seconded.

[Great-Kazoo]

I can understand (but not agree with) the idea of wanting CCW holders to be insured or bonded. I do not think it is a good idea, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind it. I also do not think it should be mandatory. If it were mandatory, it should cover the CCW holder's legal fees in full, as well as shield him from lawsuits, as long as he acted appropriately and within the law.

I cannot understand mandatory insurance simply for owning a gun in your own home. There is NO valid justification for that at all. It is simply punitive.

You should have left it at that. Either you do or do not Understand. Make up your mind so you understand, before not understanding, it is what you think you understand. You're one of those reasonable Gun Guys aren't you ?

[JMBD2112]

[Pop]

[Great-Kazoo]

[Pop]

fuck the popcorn, make a nice pot o chili and enjoy.

[Irving]

The very reason insurance exists is to protect yourself and your livilyhood. The reason insurance was made mandatory, was because people think insurance exists to protect other people.
I giggle when I see stuff talking about a ,andatory liability limit of $1,000,000. 99.99% of the auto claims I've ever handled have not had liability limits anywhere near that. In fact, I've NEVER seen limits that high. Some people get their limits that high by adding an additional umbrella policy. Also, I believe the state minimum for auto liability insurance in California is .... $5,000.

[BPTactical]

Why do you think they pulled the "Assault Weapon Responsibility Act" here so quickly?
They knew the Fed would be doing the heavy lifting.

[Ronin13]

I can understand (but not agree with) the idea of wanting CCW holders to be insured or bonded. I do not think it is a good idea, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind it. I also do not think it should be mandatory. If it were mandatory, it should cover the CCW holder's legal fees in full, as well as shield him from lawsuits, as long as he acted appropriately and within the law.

I cannot understand mandatory insurance simply for owning a gun in your own home. There is NO valid justification for that at all. It is simply punitive.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, if you are found to be justified in use of force you are protected by state law from civil and criminal liability (Castle Doctrine). I remember reading through some stuff so I could have better tools in my classes that it was decided with Castle Doctrine that you should never feel you are "backed against a wall." If your only option is deadly force, you can't be sued or charged with a crime for defending yourself... as I understand it, again, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. [Coffee]

[Dingo]

Somebody with a CCW has already passed a fairly extensive background check and attended training. Good Samaritan laws protect somebody from litigation when acting in good faith, and that should be sufficient for a CCW holder as well. It's not like Jamal can swagger into the courthouse and pick up a rhinestone-encrusted ccw badge to wear in his next garage rap video, hoping to boost his street cred more than all those petty shoplifting charges did.

[Mtn.man]

I used to watch Matlock.

[losttrail]

So we had them attempt it here, and now they're attempting it at the Federal level. The woman who proposed this infuriates me so much she should be walked up to the gallows post-haste for even suggesting this! [Mad]

Luckily it isn't expected to pass. Maloney was quoted as saying, though not in this story, "We'll make the premiums so high that they'll be forced to turn their guns in." Yeah, bitch, keep thinking that... You [/FONT][/COLOR][pileoshit]

Turn in what guns? I don't have any guns, :) I just like the conversations on here.

[Clint45]

Alright, I'll try to explain. First, I think gun insurance is a stupid idea that won't do any good and it is unnecessary and unreasonable. However, I can understand why some people would think it would be a good idea for private citizens who regularly carry loaded guns in public to be insured or bonded. I disagree with their reasoning, but I can understand why they believe what they do.

Castle Doctrine does shield citizens of Colorado from prosecution or lawsuits if they defend themselves within their own home, but not all states recognize Castle Doctrine, and it will not cover your legal fees or lost wages due to court dates. Outside of one's home, many states require that a citizen either make an attempt to retreat or use "the minimum force necessary" . . . then the burden of proof is on the gun owner to show he did both of these things and had no other choice . . . that is irrational and completely wrong, but it is also the way the individuals making these laws think.

While I can understand the reasoning behind wanting to require CCW holders to be insured, I don't think it is necessary or workable. Here are a few of the problems I foresee: The insurance would require disclosure of make, model, and serial number of all firearms covered, creating de-facto registration. Additional charges would apply for additional firearms. People who used a gun that was not insured/registered could face fine or criminal prosecution. The cost of insurance would be prohibitively high, or would increase based upon factors such as age, location, profession, traffic tickets, or credit rating. If you miss a payment you could have your insurance revoked and face fines or confiscation. It is like the UBC thing . . . politicians can present it in such a way that the general public believes it is a good idea . . . on the surface . . . but their true intent is to go well beyond what they've presented and sneak in dozens of over-reaching restrictions that the public would've opposed if they were fully informed about the ramifications.

So I'm opposed to mandatory insurance because it is a "feel good" measure that won't do any good, puts conditions on a right, and gives enemies of that right yet another opportunity to sneak a number of new restrictions into the small print.

[Irving]

I think liability insurance is great idea, bit not in the way it is being presented by the people proposing the law, nor for the same reasons. Fortunately, most people understand insurance as little as they understand guns; and this includes the politicians. Also fortunate, is that insurance companies have lots ofoney to fight for their interests. On the flip side, there are lots of examples of stupid insurance related laws that have been put into place by stupid voters.

[johnyfive]

Things bode well for now, but let's not forget how well paid our lawmakers are and how much of their portfolio is invested in insurance. Even if they can't be bought outright by a corporation (as we're willing to believe is largely the case with Bloomburg and other legislation) it would serve the self-interest of anyone invested in insurance companies. Although making the premiums so high that everyone would have to surrender their guns would be the furthest from the goal of any gun owner liability insurance act. That would be bad business.

[Irving]

Considering the rarity of law abiding people actually shooting someone, this coverage would be a gold mine.

[Zundfolge]

Here's an angle I don't think people are thinking of.

The 1986 FOPA prohibits the Federal Government from keeping a registry of guns or gun owners.

Nothing in the law prohibits the Fed.Gov from keeping a registry of insurance owners.


Forced insurance is back door registration.

[centrarchidae]

Liability insurance is a ghetto lottery ticket waiting to be scratched. It's a signal to every bottom-feeding ambulance chaser that you're suddenly worth going after, in hopes that the insurance company will write a check because that's easier and cheaper than actually defending.

Unless spqrzilla knows something about this that I don't, anyway.

[Ronin13]

Liability insurance is a ghetto lottery ticket waiting to be scratched. It's a signal to every bottom-feeding ambulance chaser that you're suddenly worth going after, in hopes that the insurance company will write a check because that's easier and cheaper than actually defending.

Unless spqrzilla knows something about this that I don't, anyway.
I'm no lawyer, but I have worked in insurance for the last 2 years, family has owned an independent insurance brokerage, and yes, you hit the nail on the head. In our current litigious society, you're not going after the person, you're going after their insurance company, who has coffers full of billions of dollars! [facepalm]

[Kraven251]

so these idiots are going to try to get shot to sue you?

not a lottery ticket I would want to scratch

[centrarchidae]

More likely, Pookie is going to get shottified while he's trying to turn his life around and get his GED so he can go to school and become a rocket surgeon. Then, his estate will sue you.


so these idiots are going to try to get shot to sue you?

not a lottery ticket I would want to scratch

[Dingo]

More likely, Pookie is going to get shottified while he's trying to turn his life around and get his GED so he can go to school and become a rocket surgeon. Then, his estate will sue you.

Lol... nice. True.

[Eggysrun]

Next thing you know we'll need insurance to use the first amendment.

[Irving]

That's called Errors and Omissions insurance.

[Chad4000]

Next thing you know we'll need insurance to use the first amendment.


lol exactly.. pen has always been mightier then the sword.. lol