If it:
Looks like an infringement.
Smells like an infringement.
Feels like an infringement.
Has the effect of an infringement.
Then it must be an infringement.
Posted on 02/22/2013 9:32:34 AM PST by EXCH54FE
Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy auto insurance. Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.
“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he added.
Groups representing gun owners oppose efforts to make insurance mandatory, arguing that law-abiding people should not be forced to buy insurance to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. But some groups, including the National Rifle Association, endorse voluntary liability policies for their members. And as several states pass laws making it easier for people to carry concealed weapons and use them for self-defense, some gun groups are now selling policies to cover some of the legal costs stemming from self-defense shootings.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yeah, I’ll bet the local State Farm Agent in Compton will make a fortune. /s
Bingo.
I think so too so that it will be easier to go straight to your house when they decide to confiscate guns. Does anyone truely beleive this is not aniother ploy to take our guns and constitutional rights to keep and bear arms? remember when Obama and Holder said they had a plaçn to controll guns?
I always said they wouldn’t take our guns directly door to door, but would tax and regulate guns and ammunition until they are no longer affordable by most people.
That is the plan and they are going full bore to execute the plan.
Another mandate that I will not comply with.
Won’t register my AR’s and will not insure any of my weapons, at least not the type of manner suggested by the writer here.
Will not buy ammo in NY either
And abortion clinics in red states will now require $10 billion of liability insurance.
I am sure their proposed laws will have a requirment to have proof of insurance when in possession of a firearm, like at the range or hunting or stopped by some storm trooper on the highway for a vehicle check. Interestingly, some propose to make it a felony to not have insurance. I see, illegals driving cars with no insurance are not a menace, me going to the range is? F em.
I wonder if it hurts to be stupid?
We have no Constitutional law, but a communists form of Government. In order for this new law to be effective they will have to pass another law requiring listing all guns we have and house inspection will be enacted. Communism, like Nazi Germany is here. Fight this.
Sounds like these assclowns need to read “shall not be infringed” again, if they’ve EVER read it....
Let me guess: 99% of these jerks are DEMOCRATS.
I am against any insurance requirement for anything. Imposed insurance is killing our nation and our liberty.
If it:
Looks like an infringement.
Smells like an infringement.
Feels like an infringement.
Has the effect of an infringement.
Then it must be an infringement.
These gun grabbing sons of witch’s are a determined lot.
They will use any excuse, any ruse to screw over gun owners.
They will eventually win. Almost any law can be passed if you keep bringing it up year after year after year.
The stupid ignorant fools aren’t smart enough to realise that they are playing into the hands of tyrants.
$200 to $300 is ridiculously high for gun insurance. There are about over 20% more guns than cars in the US and there are about 10 million auto accidents every year causing about 40,000 deaths and costing around $300 billion.
There are only about 14,000 to 19,000 non-fatal accidental shootings each year, resulting in about 600 deaths.
If we go by fatalities, car insurance (for liablity, this does not include collision to cover your own car) should be about 80 times more expensive than gun insurance.
If you go by total accidents, it auto insurance she be about 640 times more expensive. If we average those, a reasonble mutiple would be about 360.
So, if a fair premium for gun insurance is $200 per year, auto liability premiums shold be about $72,000 per year. Even using the most conservative estimate (based upon fatalities), it should cost $16,000 per year.
A fair price for gun insurance would be more on the order of $5 or $10 dollars per year.
This doesn’t even take into account the fact that auto accidents typically cause far more property damage than gun accidents.
This is becoming a bunch of idiots standing up and proclaiming that they have a new idea. “Listen to my idea!”...”No listen to my idea” ... “oh I have an idea”. They are just going back and forth seeing who can come up with a ‘fix’ and be crowned a genius for ‘saving the children’.
The only ‘fix’ is to make sure that whenever some lunatic starts shooting, there should be an armed citizen there to take him out. Otherwise the lunatic just keeps on shooting until he runs out of unarmed victims.
Or you could use democrat logic and just devise a new tax. That should fix it. (rolleyes)
Agree -- homeowner's insurance usually covers firearms accidents, and my insurance company doesn't even think the risk is high enough to ask me about any guns. They do put a ceiling on theft claims of firearms. But they don't seem to think it's much of a liability risk.
No guns? No need for insurance. What guns?
Can't. Hurts "the poor."
So they're saying we have to PAY CASH to keep our second amendment rights? Without giving someone a certain amount of money, we lose that right?
Believe it or not, I’m seeing more so-called “Liberals” talk of Free-speech being limited.
We are in truly scary times…
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.
