StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

Would Justice Roberts call this a tax?

 

 

A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.

When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”

 

Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.

It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.

The bill would also make it a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone without insurance.

“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”

 

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told The Daily Caller that the bill is “ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right.”

“But it does reveal what Rep. McCarthy really thinks about honest people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms,” Cox said.

 

The bill defines “qualified liability insurance” as a policy that covers the “purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” Buyers would have to obtain insurance from a company licensed or authorized by a state insurance regulatory authority.

 

Exceptions would be made for law enforcement, military and employees of government departments and agencies.

 

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Barack Obama and top Democrats have been pushing to pass a gun control measure through Congress. A federal liability insurance mandate for gun owners, while debated in some states, is not a proposal that has been seriously considered on the Hill yet.

 

Others who have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation include: Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano, Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush, Massachusetts Rep. Nikki Tsongas, Massachusetts Rep. Stephen Lynch and Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

With many states requiring drivers to carry auto insurance, Maloney argues that, “We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products — and no one disputes that guns are dangerous.”

 

“While many individual states are debating this issue 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,” she said.

 

Posted By Alex Pappas

post #2 of 21
That would be a direct infringement on The People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

After all, if requiring a photo ID to vote is imposing an unconscionable hardship upon the poor and elderly, so would requiring citizens to purchase insurance to exercise their natural and constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms..

cwm8.gif
post #3 of 21
mental

illness
post #4 of 21
What would they do with the money?
post #5 of 21
teach other democrats how to wash their dicks?
post #6 of 21
Wonderful. So, rich folks can have guns. Poor folks, you're ****ed. Which also means, that if you could have sued someone for negligence, you would likely have recovered something from that person that can afford the insurance, but probably not from those that can't.

Of course, that assumes that the insurance required by the government would be reasonably available. Liability coverage for guns is quite limited at present, and available only through a few sources.

And, of course, this type of thing does absolutely nothing to address intentional shootings which are simply not insurable.

And, it gives another incentive to those inclined to obtain a gun through illegal means. $10,000 fine or not.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. You think they will obtain the insurance because of the fine?

Backdoor efforts to prevent folks from exercising a constitutional right.

I think everyone that votes needs to buy insurance. And, if you vote for an idiot, the rest of us get paid.
post #7 of 21

Join the NRA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny View Post

Wonderful. So, rich folks can have guns. Poor folks, you're ****ed. Which also means, that if you could have sued someone for negligence, you would likely have recovered something from that person that can afford the insurance, but probably not from those that can't.

Of course, that assumes that the insurance required by the government would be reasonably available. Liability coverage for guns is quite limited at present, and available only through a few sources.

And, of course, this type of thing does absolutely nothing to address intentional shootings which are simply not insurable.

And, it gives another incentive to those inclined to obtain a gun through illegal means. $10,000 fine or not.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. You think they will obtain the insurance because of the fine?

Backdoor efforts to prevent folks from exercising a constitutional right.

I think everyone that votes needs to buy insurance. And, if you vote for an idiot, the rest of us get paid.
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishinambition View Post

teach other democrats how to wash their dicks?

Changed my mind.


Edited by epanzella - 4/2/13 at 8:23pm
post #9 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny View Post

Wonderful. So, rich folks can have guns. Poor folks, you're ****ed. Which also means, that if you could have sued someone for negligence, you would likely have recovered something from that person that can afford the insurance, but probably not from those that can't.

Of course, that assumes that the insurance required by the government would be reasonably available. Liability coverage for guns is quite limited at present, and available only through a few sources.

And, of course, this type of thing does absolutely nothing to address intentional shootings which are simply not insurable.

And, it gives another incentive to those inclined to obtain a gun through illegal means. $10,000 fine or not.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. You think they will obtain the insurance because of the fine?

Backdoor efforts to prevent folks from exercising a constitutional right.

I think everyone that votes needs to buy insurance. And, if you vote for an idiot, the rest of us get paid.

It is also a backdoor way to get all firearms registered.

A I remember it ,SCOTUS has already ruled that a felon does not have to register a firearm as that would be self incrimination.

post #10 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by dena View Post

What would they do with the money?

who is they? evil insurance companies?

Guess they are only evil if they deal in medical insurance.

If they are helping eliminate gun ownership, then insurance companies are not evil.

SO it seems.
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthered View Post

Join the NRA

Please tell, what does that have to do with the OP?
post #12 of 21
These politicians are ******* morons. Every single one of them needs to be voted out of office. What gives them the right to **** with are rights and make us fight it in the courts to get back what shouldn't have been taken in the first place.

Tell ya what. I think we need a law that requires all members of congress to have Constitution Violation liability insurance so that each time one of these ridiculous laws get passed and then overturned, their insurance reimburses court expenses plus a penalty. Failure to have coverage is a $1,000,000 fine.
post #13 of 21
Insurance does not cover intentional acts. Gun crime is......intentional.
post #14 of 21
They don't care about criminal acts or accidents and victim compensation, they just want to make it as painful as possible to exercise your right to own a firearm.
post #15 of 21

What's next, knife insurance? Bat insurance? How about fart insurance? That stinks.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Graffiti
StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance