House Bill to Require Gun-owners to Have Liability Insurance

[Don]

http://thehill.com/regulation/243425-house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance#

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, unveiled Friday, would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.

Driving is a privilege; owning firearms is a right.

It strikes me that this is just a ploy to make it too expensive to own a firearm.

 

[carpro]

It'll go nowhere but down the toilet.

 

[poncho]

“If even one segment of legislation, regulation, or executive order survives the public’s backlash, then they’ve still made some progress. In this case, they won’t succeed in banning this ammunition, but they will come back with something less concerning; they will say ‘be reasonable, let’s meet halfway on the issue.’”

http://www.infowars.com/obama-announces-draconian-unconstitutional-gun-regs-by-executive-fiat/

 

[InTheLight]

Driving is a privilege; owning firearms is a right.

So since owning a firearm is a right, the government should not be able to make you pay to exercise that right? Or what are you saying?

 

[Don]

So since owning a firearm is a right, the government should not be able to make you pay to exercise that right? Or what are you saying?

That's the question, isn't it? Should we be denied something clearly defined in the Constitution as a right, simply because we don't want to buy insurance for it?

 

[Rolfe]

That's the question, isn't it? Should we be denied something clearly defined in the Constitution as a right, simply because we don't want to buy insurance for it?

Less regulation is better.

 

[InTheLight]

That's the question, isn't it? Should we be denied something clearly defined in the Constitution as a right, simply because we don't want to buy insurance for it?

Not sure where you stand on photo voter ID, but that is also a constitutional right, and if you have to purchase an voter ID (as Ohio has proposed) then in order to be consistent you must condemn that proposed law as well.

 

[Don]

Not sure where you stand on photo voter ID, but that is also a constitutional right, and if you have to purchase an voter ID (as Ohio has proposed) then in order to be consistent you must condemn that proposed law as well.

Not a fan of having to purchase additional identification for voting. Agree with verification of identity (which, related to this subject, everyone is supposed to do when they buy a firearm); just not an additional alleged revenue-generation method.

So - your thoughts on mandatory firearm insurance?

 

[carpro]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dg...embers-buy-gun-insurance-will-stop-shootings/

Democrat Congresswoman Says Making Gang Members Buy Gun Insurance Will Stop Shootings


If insurance is so great at stopping bad things from happening, can we get politician insurance?

For a mere $5.95 a month, you too can be insured against the risk of electing morons whose only two functions in life are stealing money and trying to run your life.

 

[InTheLight]

So - your thoughts on mandatory firearm insurance?

Not in favor of it. If people want to voluntarily buy it, be my guest.

But then, my default position on any piece of new legislation is not to be in favor of it. LOL.