Posted on 05/16/2013 7:06:41 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The D.C. Council is considering requiring people to purchase liability insurance before they can get a license to own a gun.
The bill would mandate that prospective gun owners maintain at least a $250,000 policy. The policy would cover damages from negligent acts or intentional acts that arent undertaken in self-defense.
A handful of states are considering similar measures, but none has passed such a law....
(Excerpt) Read more at washington.cbslocal.com ...
Actually, it was NOT ruled unconstitutional, the Constitution was amended to ban it, and the ban only covers Presidential, Senatorial, and House elections.
Furthermore, Congress has the power to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" over DC, so, except for a poll tax for Presidential elections, they could charge whatever they wanted.
Next up, $500,000 insurance for all birth parents...
Okay. Under what Amendment?
Guess who will be the first to inform the Perps or their families lawyers, that the person defending themselves has big bucks to sue for?
How much is book insurance?
Rules for Radicals??
Sure, when criminals start marching to the police station to present their insurance certificates.
Home rule should be rescinded for DC. They are doing a terrible job and consistently violating the people’s rights. Or, alternatively, the Congress should pass a law which abrogates the right of the DC City Council to legislate in the area of guns. As many states have done to reign in their big city libtard politicians and citizens.
XXIV, ratified 1964.
Imagine if they tried to pass the same rule for abortion clinic customers.
Thanks.
California will pass one, but it will be for one million.
The D.C. Council is considering requiring people to purchase liability insurance before they can get a license to work for newspapers or broadcast media.
The bill would mandate that prospective journalists maintain at least a $250,000 policy. The policy would cover damages from negligent acts or intentional acts that arent undertaken in self-defense.
It's no different legally or morally from taxing the possession of firearms. I imagine they would still object, but it's about their selfish perspective, not morals or values.
Truthfully, D.C. should have long ago been purchased by eminent domain. It is 68 square miles of land and water, and if it was entirely US government land, except for foreign embassies, it would have some huge advantages.
1) All transport in the district except for VIP and foreign embassy vehicles would be public transport. A secure supply truck route would preclude truck bombs. So almost no traffic and far less air pollution. Heavy trafficked areas would have covered moving sidewalks similar to many airport concourses. Therefore there could be significantly greater public access.
2) The Watergate hotel district, restaurants and other retailers would all be by concession.
3) All the ghettos would be bulldozed, so there would be abundant room for parks, memorials, amphitheaters, and underlying all would be new infrastructure.
4) Since no one could legally loiter in the district, street crime would be reduced significantly, though not much would change with white collar crime.
5) Management of the district would no longer be done by a corrupt government, but by an appointed city manager.
I used to see signs similar to this one in cell phone refurbishing factories when I was a human resources staffer.
I’ve always wondered why? I see not Right to vote (only that it cannot be denied based on Race, Sex, etc.). Also, aside from the House (and then the 17th Amend.), there is no need for the FED to meddle otherwise; it’s a State issue. Elect. Coll. for Prez, States for the Senate, The People for the House....or that’s how it was.
Now, how is mandating a license NOT an infringement?? Much like the Poll Tax, you need to spend $$, let alone get permission from the gov’t, State or otherwise...That equates to a privilege in my book.
Here is where you and I couldn't be farther apart. Owning a gun is a right affirmed to me by the Second Amendment - unfettered, to use a recently overused word.
IMO, that amendment PRECLUDES the Federal Government from mandating ANYTHING about personal ownership of weapons, even the 1934 NFA and additions in 1964.
As for the states requiring licenses, etc. it is more of local matter and these states at least at some point had the approval of its constituents to do it. I don't like it, but there it is and I have learned to live with it because in my state doesn't screw with you over it. You can bet your bippy Georgia would never get an insurance requirement mandate passed.
As far as the Fed goes, if they mandate it, I'll ignore it, just like I would any registration requirement. They'll have to come and get them if they can find them.
And I’ll have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.
The Constitution is not the purveyor of Rights. Nor does the 2nd A grant States SQUAT. Either Rights are Inalienable or they are privileges bestowed upon We the People by their gov’t...There is no if, ands or buts.
The simple language of ‘shall not be infringed’ filters down to every Free man, woman and child; regardless of ‘permission from their constituents’. Our Republic, Freedom and Liberty knows NO ‘permission’ bounds; in fact, it is the antithesis of Democracy (majority rule).
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.