Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Bill Would Require Gun Owners To Have Liability Insurance Or Face $10,000 Fine
govtslaves ^ | 5/30/2015 | Lydia Wheeler

Posted on 05/30/2015 1:49:45 PM PDT by thomasryan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 last
To: thomasryan

There needs to be a companion bill requiring homosexuals to have liability insurance or face a fine. Hopefully inserted into a big appropriations bill in the middle of the night, anonymously.

Imagine the hilarity if it was passed and signed by Obama.


61 posted on 05/30/2015 3:40:21 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomasryan

Democrat war on poor people.


62 posted on 05/30/2015 3:44:34 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomasryan; All
As mentioned in a related thread …

A so-called federal requirement for gun owners to have liability insurance is unconstitutional for the same reason that Obamacare-mandated health insurance is unconstitutional imo.

More specifically, the Supreme Court had clarified in Paul v. Virginia that insurance is a contract, not commerce, regardless if the parties negotiating contract are in different states. So regardless what FDR’s thug justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, the feds have no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate insurance of any kind imo.

”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)

63 posted on 05/30/2015 3:48:28 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

i think you’d have to pose that question to the politician in NY who floated the idea. don’t expect a reasonable, logical answer though.


64 posted on 05/30/2015 3:50:47 PM PDT by TangibleDisgust (The Parmesan doesn't go like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

And a backdoor to registration and eventual confiscations.


65 posted on 05/30/2015 3:57:02 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thomasryan

Yeh that’ll happen. Not. Be more concerned about the EPA filling in your goldfish pond in your yard.


66 posted on 05/30/2015 3:59:46 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I wonder which insurance companies just donated money to the senators who proposed this legislation?


67 posted on 05/30/2015 4:10:33 PM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thomasryan

It’s a contrivance, that has extant to its intent limiting guns in the hands if good citizens and creating “A List” of gun owners.

Not effing gonna happen...


68 posted on 05/30/2015 5:24:08 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomasryan

This so called Law will never see the light of day...

The House and Senate are Republican controlled and anyone voting for this will be replace and quickly.

This is another scam for Insurance businesses...just like auto, home, life, medical and any other insurance..you think you have coverage until you need to use it...

WAKE UP VOTERS...THE LADY WHO ENTERED THIS IS FROM NEW YORK...ENOUGH SAID AND SHE IS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT...


69 posted on 05/30/2015 7:44:37 PM PDT by haircutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomasryan

Unconstitutional. It violates the 2nd Amendment, and violates the 14th by restricting ownership of firearms to the rich.


70 posted on 05/31/2015 10:19:22 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

pretty sure illegal immigrants are exempt from both.


71 posted on 05/31/2015 8:20:31 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson