Am I understanding Senate Bill 758 correctly?

[OLDNEWBIE]

Must have liability insurance for each firearm? Must have proof of insurance for each firearm to purchase ammo for said firearm? Must verify the person you sell firearm to has insurance for that firearm and contact that insurance company of sale?

It's hard to decipher the legal wording but this is registration. The more you read the worse it gets. I'm trying to formulate a reply of opposition to this fecal matter disguised as a bill but honostly dont know where to start.

This one is so foul I feel a blanket "NO MORE ANTI-GUN BILLS" E-mail wont do.

Read More

 

[elsie]

It looks more like a personal (family/household) liability rather than a per firearm policy, probably a homeowner's or renter's insurance rider. I didn't read it word for word after about halfway through, but I didn't like the section that appeared to be an admission of liability without an exemption for self-defense or caused by an outsider.

I'm against it as a whole though. It sounds like the same thing they're doing in California.


elsie

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

It looks more like a personal (family/household) liability rather than a per firearm policy, probably a homeowner's or renter's insurance rider. I didn't read it word for word after about halfway through, but I didn't like the section that appeared to be an admission of liability without an exemption for self-defense or caused by an outsider.

I'm against it as a whole though. It sounds like the same thing they're doing in California.


elsie

You must mean Section 5, "A person that owns a firearm that discharges and causes injury is strictly liable."
These Representitives of ours just won't quit, Theyr'e like a turd that wont flush! You may be right about the gun specific insurance I'll try to read it again but it's making my eyes bleed.

 

[pokerace]

Here is what the NRA Alert says about the bill.




Senate Bill 758, sponsored by "F-rated" state senators Jackie Dingfelder (D-23) and Ginny Burdick (D-18) and state Representative Dembrow (D-45), would require that anyone who owns firearms that are located in Oregon possess discriminatory liability insurance for their firearms.
This egregious bill requires that law-abiding gun owners keep evidence of their coverage with them or available for "immediate inspection at all times during which the person uses, carries, transports, stores or otherwise has access to the firearm." Even more outrageous is the $10,000 civil penalty for EACH firearm not covered by this absurd liability insurance mandate.
Under SB 758, a person cannot sell or transfer firearms or ammunition to another person without verifying that they also have firearm liability insurance. The minimum amount of liability held must be $250,000 payable to each person physically injured or killed, and to each person whose property is damaged by the discharge of a covered firearm, and $100,000 for each person that is injured in "any way" by the discharge of a covered firearm.
This legislation is a clear affront to law-abiding gun owners—one is not required to carry insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. It is also economically discriminatory—insurance is expensive and such a mandate could make firearm ownership unattainable for thousands of law-abiding Oregon residents.

Currently, no other state has a firearm liability insurance law. Misguided legislators behind this effort would subject their constituents and tens of thousands of law-abiding Oregonians to a discriminatory and burdensome law that especially penalizes those who might not be able to afford such insurance.
While SB 758 has not yet been referred to a committee, please contact your state Senator and urge him or her to oppose SB 758. You can find your state Senator and his or her contact information by clicking here.

 

[Felt Lizard]

You should ask the sponsor of the bill himself. Rep Dembrow will be in NE Portland this Saturday. I plan to ask a few pointed questions and make an observation or two.

Dembrow says:

I hope you'll join me this Saturday (March 2nd) morning for coffee and conversation. We're now just over three weeks into the session, and very close to the release of the Co-Chairs Budget proposal, which will frame our discussions moving forward. There's lots to talk about, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
We'll be meeting at 10 AM at the Hollywood Senior Center (1820 NE 40th), in the classroom space just to the right after you enter. We'll have local, Ristretto Roasters coffee for your enjoyment.
See you then,
Michael"

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

You should ask the sponsor of the bill himself. Rep Dembrow will be in NE Portland this Saturday. I plan to ask a few pointed questions and make an observation or two.

Dembrow says:

Can't make it all the way to Portland this time but as Nancy Pelosi once said, "We have to pass the bill before we can see whats in it." or somethin along thos lines if I remember right.

 

[Roger65]

This would work just like auto insurance, where you are required to carry a proof of insurance card with information on the specific gun covered, as well as expiration dates

An explicit description of or reference to each covered firearm by model name or number and serial number or any other permanent markings or characteristics that would enable a person to distinguish the covered firearm from another, similar firearm;

Also get this, if your gun is stolen, you have to maintain insurance on it for ONE YEAR after it is stolen, which means you are liable for the actions of the criminal who stole it for a whole year

SECTION 3. (1)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, a person that
16 owns a firearm that is located in this state shall obtain and maintain in effect a liability in-
17 surance policy that covers the firearm and that complies with the provisions of sections 2
18 to 13 of this 2013 Act.
(B) One year after the date on which the person reports the loss or theft of the firearm to a law enforcement authority.

 

[accessbob]

Oh, the crap they come up with. Makes me want to beat my head against my desk until I am no longer conscious.

 

[hermannr]

I think this could be countered in court as a civil rights violation. What this does is make self defense (a constitutional RIGHT) more expensive for the poor and "undesireables". The Democraps have never changed, they still are the party of the elitists, that use the poor to their advantage, with your money.

Oh, if you did not know, in the South they call these laws "Jim Crow" laws..look it up...

 

[hermannr]

To add another of the "Jim Crow" attacks on the 2A...think about the attack on the "Saturday Night Special" guns of a few years ago. Just like the assault on the semi-auto's today...the anti's picked out a small chunk of the firearm market, demonized them, and then got laws passed that made certain physical characterists illegal.

Well, what was a "Saturday Night Special"? (for you young guys) It was small, INEXPENSIVE handgun that was easy to conceal. Who did it disproportionally effect? The Poor and the "undesirables"...Yep, right back to the reconstruction era in the south, where Jim Crow laws were passed to disenfranchise the poor whites, and the freedmen, so the wealthy white democrats would be in complete control.