Mandatory gun insurance before lawmakers in 4 states

[oknow]

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said at the time of the bill's introduction.

Well, last time I checked owning a car or driving a car was a "privilege", not a "Right". If we need insurance to exercise our Second Admendment Rights, will the media be required to have insurance before exercising their First Amendment Rights?

"The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise."

What a bunch of horse hockey, just as many cars die today, insuring them has not eliminated their deaths...

Seriously, auto related deaths have to do with advancements in safety and technology, not auto insurance...

It feels a lot like April 1775...

For those not familiar, April 1775 was when the British army attempted to disarm the Colonists...

Guess since that she wants ton compair cars and guns I guess since we have a license to carry concealed in our state we should be able to cc in any state like you do driving

 

[rdb241]

There has been a push for a Federal CCL for years.

 

[nammac]

We should have reciprocity, all states and territories... Want to put a dent in terrorism, allow constitutional carry everywhere Ole Glory flies, trains, buses and airplanes included.

Good guys with guns aren't the problem...

 

[tionico]

the answer is to either already own so many guns you'll never need to buy another, or to buy them "off book". If the requriement is to have insurance before you can BUY, then set yourself up so you never have to buy again.

Bottom line, setting any requirement or cost as a precondition to the free exercise of a RIGHT is to infringe. And THAT is illegal, no matter what these commie hacks try and tell you. How can Los Angeles city impose such a law? Do they think they can fine anyone passing through on the Number Ten or the Five? Silly dummies.....

 

[erudne]

I've heard Washington could be a red state with about 200,000 votes, don't know if that's true or not, but some counties seem to have blue majorities that could be rendered impotent with just a few thousand votes.

Exactly why those "refugees" are being stealth settled in Red areas
http://anncorcoran2016.org/

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/

 

[coyote223]

Yup, sounds like a nice "registration" scheme using the insurance companies. Find out in general who owns guns. But then if you want some discounts to lower the premium, how about some more detailed info on your arsenal that will be made available to the corrupt JBT's,,,

DemokkkRats, the party of treason,,,

 

[Repairguy]

Are they out of their friggin mind !!! You DO NOTpay for Constitutional Rights !!!

 

[Repairguy]

Mandatory gun insurance before lawmakers in 4 states
Lawmakers in four states are considering measures that would require gun owners to maintain liability insurance or face a fine of up to $10,000.

Current gun liability insurance efforts are underway in Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York and Los Angeles. The measures are similar to one introduced last year in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY. Maloney's bill, the Firearm Risk Protection Act, would require proof of liability insurance before someone is allowed to purchase a gun. Failure to have the insurance could result in the fine.


View attachment 277168

Bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine

There's been a surge of gun-control legislation in Congress in recent weeks. The latest efforts would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon or face a fine of up to $10,000.

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said at the time of the bill's introduction. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise."
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/mandatory_gun_insurance_before.html

The FBI Crime stats are CLEAR also Violent crime INCLUDING murder is down
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1
This is a red herring THE GOVERNMENT plays on the Citizen people to keep us divided.

 

[Al Clemens]

Gun insurance?--Of course this is just a "backdoor" to easy gun ownership records & Insurance companies would love this LOW risk revenue stream-bet they'll be lobbying the dimwits in full force

 

[Jamie6.5]

Gungrabbers have learned the feds (ATF/FBI/DOJ etc) are forbidden under the '86 FOPA law to build, maintain or store a database of guns and gun owners.
So they're attempting yet another scheme to create a surrogate method. They're already using the states' databases whenever possible. They're trying to use medical records when/wherever possible.

Using insurance companies is just one more cog in the wheel, if they can accomplish it.

 

[nammac]

There's a way to deal with this...

First, cast your votes carefully in the primaries and even more carefully in November... Let's work together to unseat the zealots...

Second, don't comply... Make sure you have what you want and need , do it sooner rather than later... Then simply don't comply...

 

[Joe13]

Straight outa Compton, crazy M...

Maybe I won't post the rest of the words to that song

 

[SOrez]

Mandatory gun insurance is just another way to make you give your money to insurance companies like odumbocare.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

Mandatory gun insurance is just another way to make you give your money to insurance companies like odumbocare.

not quite..... we have the choice to own guns which may or may not require insurance, but obamacare is govt extortion, you have NO choice with obamacare ....pay the insurance companies or go to jail because you dont pay the ensuing fines

 

[PaulB47]

"Gungrabbers have learned the feds (ATF/FBI/DOJ etc) are forbidden under the '86 FOPA law to build, maintain or store a database of guns and gun owners."

So... you think that is stopping them?

Ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

 

[boogerhook]

I will volunteer to insure everyone. That's a 90 million insured members business. Brilliant. Premium is 100$ a year. Total revenue is 9B$ a year. Payout? 500 mass shooting and accidental discharge victims? Huge business ...

 

[Simonpie]

I see this as a huge boon for the NRA. They already sell some small insurance plans, so they're set up. If insurance is mandatory, the NRA slides in to fill the gap. I could see their membership going from 5% of shooters to 50% pretty easily. People would freak out at a 10X stronger NRA.

 

[Koda]

I see this as a huge boon for the NRA. They already sell some small insurance plans, so they're set up. If insurance is mandatory, the NRA slides in to fill the gap. I could see their membership going from 5% of shooters to 50% pretty easily. People would freak out at a 10X stronger NRA.

This is not concealed carry insurance, what the NRA already offers is not the same thing. This is liability insurance in case you accidentally shoot someone or something unintentionally. To pay for medical or property damage you will be held liable for civilly if your negligent with your firearm.

 

[nammac]

This is not concealed carry insurance, what the NRA already offers is not the same thing. This is liability insurance in case you accidentally shoot someone or something unintentionally. To pay for medical or property damage you will be held liable for civilly if your negligent with your firearm.

Or even if you are forced into utilizing it to save your bacon.... Ridiculous...

 

[Hawaiian]

Read the new thread about Justice Thomas' question today in another case. It says a lot.

"Ms. Eisenstein, one question," Thomas said. "This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"

Until then, it had been business as usual for the first 50 minutes of the hourlong session in Voisine v. United States. The court was considering the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

None of the other justices visibly reacted to Thomas' remarks.

Eisenstein noted that violating other laws can, in some cases, limit a person's free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

"OK," Thomas said. "So can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?"

Nice to see someone reminding the anti's that we are dealing with a constitutional right. One that actually states, "shall not be infringed."