the only way an insurance company would EVER write a policy for something that stooopid, is if the premium was $250,000...
Posted on 05/31/2013 8:07:59 AM PDT by neverdem
District of Columbia: NRA Submits Testimony Opposing Mandatory Liability Insurance Bill for Gun Owners
Today, the National Rifle Association submitted written testimony(PDF) in opposition to Bill 20-170, the “Firearm Insurance Amendment Act.” Sponsored by city Councilor Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), B20-170 would require D.C. residents to purchase liability insurance -- of no less than $250,000 -- before being allowed to purchase a firearm. The liability insurance policy would specifically need to cover any damages resulting from negligent acts, or willful acts that are not undertaken in self-defense, involving the use of the insured firearm while it is owned by the policy holder. Under B20-170, individuals who currently possess firearms in D.C. would have to purchase liability insurance within thirty days of its effective date.
The misguided city Councilmen who are championing this bill are doing so in spite of the fact that D.C. already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet consistently has one of the highest violent crime rates. Not only will criminals certainly avoid purchasing liability insurance, there are other problems with mandating liability insurance for firearms owners including:
It is critical that you continue contacting members of the city Council Committee on Business, Consumer, and Regulatory Affairs and respectfully urge them to oppose B20-170.
Business, Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Committee:
Councilor Vincent Orange (D) (At-Large), Chairman
(202) 724-8174
vorange@dccouncil.us
Councilor David Grosso (I) (At-Large)
(202) 724-8105
dgrosso@dccouncil.us
Councilor Jim Graham (D-Ward 1)
(202) 724-8181
jgraham@dccouncil.us
Councilor Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3)
(202) 724-8062
mcheh@dccouncil.us
Councilor Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7)
(202) 724-8068
yalexander@dccouncil.us
How about mandatory liability insurance for homosexuals in case they infect someone with a sexually-transmitted disease?
Every instance of the Queeran too.
They're not misguided, they're spiteful vicious little tyrant wannabes who lost one round and are now trying to get their revenge against gun owners as best they can. People like this are the true reason for the 2nd amend.
How about mandatory liability insurance for individual reporters? A single picture of that child molester mohammed can cause far more damage than any of my guns ever could.
How about representatives at the federal & state levels take out mandatory liability insurance to cover the cost of the fxcked up laws they implement.
I’d advise the NRA to save their money; instead, let Washington, DC, be the example of a entity out of legislative control. Let the Liberals make the “criminal” headlines.
We have a winner. This is the real goal of the DC Councilcritters.
How about adding an amendment to the bill:
Require ALL violent felons to purchase the same liability insurance, whether they own a registered firearm or not.
the only way an insurance company would EVER write a policy for something that stooopid, is if the premium was $250,000...
“No insurance company will write a policy to cover the intentional or criminal misuse of a firearm. Since the insurance policy B20-170 seeks to mandate does not exist, this could lead to an all-out gun ban in the District of Columbia.”
Am I the only one who thinks this is the plan...though hopefully, some judge will have enough brains to see such a blatant attempt at a gun ban for what it is.
Thanks neverdem, and thank you NRA.
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.