Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by titsonritz, Aug 8, 2015.
over and out
Wow. In too many words to say its wrong. Wow.
More legislation that hurts the poor who wouldn't be able to afford the insurance.
It would possibly leave them unable to afford having a gun for protection and ever more dependent on Police and Government.
The Progressive Dems must be defeated!
They are trying to make it so hard and expensive for any gun owners that they will be discouraged and no even try!!!!
Just like Wa did with the cigarette tax (don't even start with "its bad for you anyways", not the point) it's a blatant attack on anyone who does not follow their agenda.
Again, this would be a line in the sand for me. Id happily die fighting this BS and the "tax" they want to impose in Seattle.
This is unconstitutional. It's like attaching the freedom of speech to a high school diploma. If you want to apply a licensing/insurance scheme to firearm ownership (comparable to the licensing of motor vehicles), you first need to repeal the second amendment.
The anti-gunner strategy of the day is pretty obvious: anything that makes it harder to own or (worse) enjoy firearms is under attack.
Purely a political move to say in her district she tried to do something. The bill is already dead.
The Dems will just do what they always do. Tell the sheeple it is insurance to gain political support. Then, when arguing in front of the Supreme Court , or any court for that matter, say it is a tax. That's how social security was passed and Low and behold they did it agin with obamacare. They could pull it off again because people are stupid lefties are great liars.
Registration, Registration, Registration, to insure you have to register. There is nothing else that is accomplished.
and yet there are still gun owners that believe these are "common sense" gun laws and no one is trying to take them away.
There are way too many unregistered firearms in circulation to use a registry for confiscation. A confiscation scheme would have to go in one of two ways: (1) door to door searches & seizure (2) voluntary surrender of firearms. In both cases laws would have to threaten extreme punishment for any possession after the deadline. The registry would not help as we already have a 1:1 proliferation. Guns are everywhere. Quite frankly, I am not concerned about a registry. I just don't believe it will help much in curtailing crime. Most of these efforts avoid addressing the underlying causes of violence and crime that's why I don't support them.
Does the NRA support this crap? I got a mailing a few years ago from them about this, but I can't recall if it was part of their constant spam program, or an official NRA publication.
Carolyn Maloney is a nutcase:
"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.
So improvements to car safety, like more airbags, ABS, lane departure warnings, automatic braking systems, tire pressure monitoring, etc. have done nothing, its all insurance????
She is actually crediting people for getting smarter??
so I glanced at the article.....
" provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser"
what exactly are the "losses" that result from using a firearm?
The problem with insurance is they wont insure you unless they know exactly what you have... which will have to be registered...
And if you are caught with any that aren't registered, its a felony, so they can confiscate everything you have... and the felony will limit your job opportunities... and your ability to ever own guns again...
And yet it sounds like just the kind of "common sense" gun law that Bloomberg and his paid Politicians would try to pull here in Oregon after their success shoving SB941 down our throats.
Look for something similar tied in with a mandatory Safe storage Law here locally if KB and Prozanski stay in office.
Yet one more step to total Registration without having to officially call it registration.
Excuse me for playing devil's advocate here - but If you're made a felon through such an unjust law, then you wouldn't have much more to loose by ignoring the law after that point unless they made it a life sentence, or a capital offense. But the libs don't like executing criminals, so absolute worst case for an individual might be life in prison. But so many felons wander the streets now with anything they want stuffed into their pants, and little to nothing is done about them. It's only the law abiding that get hurt. Once they make you into a lawless felon - there's little point in obeying their unjust laws anymore. If the lefties were serious about curbing crime - as opposed to controlling people - violent criminals would be locked away for life in solitary confinement with no chance of parole. They don't like doing that. They won't do that, they won't address criminals rather they address tools that sometimes criminals use. More criminals possess automobiles, and automobiles are almost always used for transportation to and from committing violent crimes - but any 16 year old kid can legally possess and use a car, even if they're a convicted felon. And even those who the law has told cannot legally operate or possess a vehicle - they continue to do so with little more than a slap on the wrist. There's a guy in Oregon City who is notorious for having something like 20 DUII convictions. He is lifelong revoked. So he buys cheap cars or has family members straw-purchase vehicles for him and drives anyway. The law catches him, he goes to jail for a short time he's back out and doing it again. You cannot stop a motivated man from doing something short of confining him to a cage forever or killing him.
Someone might run with that idea...
but she might not be successful
Insurance is based on risk. What is the risk that I a gun owner for the last 41 years will some how be involved in some sort of claim? And if say 99.9% of the time all my firearms are locked up securely.
it is extremely low, especially if you trust Lott's newest study
He concludes in the states of FL and TX, CPL holders are 6x less likely to be convicted of a misdemeanor or felony compared to .... yes... police officers. And of course they in turn are much more law-abiding than the average population.
Separate names with a comma.