Posted on 05/29/2015 12:47:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance.
The Firearm Risk Protection Act, unveiled Friday, would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.
We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said in a statement. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.
Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners.
An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives, she said. Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur."
This is the second time Maloney, who is one of the biggest gun control advocates in Congress, has introduced the legislation. A few weeks ago she reintroduced legislation that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows.
The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, long championed by former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general.
but, we have no insurance from moonbats ant they are a plague on American society
You can see the crack epidemic in your chart!
Can I buy insurance against a Commie like Maloney trying to abridge my 2nd Amendment rights?
Um, that chart only goes up to 2004. It’s 2015. The “last decade” would start in 2006.
I did not catch that the first time. You can have our Colorado Chickenpooper if you want.
Some sort of “intellectual liability” insurance as well -
if you spout ideas, and those ideas get implemented, and cause harm, you are liable.
It’s not technically a lie ... it’s bullshit.
She doesn’t know the facts, she doesn’t care about the facts. She just says stuff that will support her agenda. Truth or falsehood is irrelevant to her.
“The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade”
What an idiot!
As though car fatalities have declined due to liability insurance....
U.S. Conceal Carry Association has insurance for its members.
The 2nd Amendment is a Right from our Creator, and not the control freaks in government that want to disarm the public.
What is one of the first thing all criminals do? They make sure no one is armed before things get real bad. Remember too this coming from the same congress that says it's legal for them to insider trade.... even though there is no such law. However, it's illegal for the average American to do it. Thus, they believe they are above the law. Laws only apply to the little people.
Although I have no doubt that many Republicans will probably think this is a great idea!
I’d send the Pooper down to the Supermax south of Denver somewhere.
NO! NO! NO!
This would open everyone up to being sued by the damn idiot who kicked in your front door, when you then had to shoot them!
This is simply ASININE!
keyboard spew alert
Im sure most gang-bangers and criminals are going to run like the Flash to the nearest insurance agency and buy a policy after the law is passed.
Yep. Can you imagine all of the youth gangs proceeding to the insurance office to buy an insurance policy??? Sheesh.....
But, consider if this became law. What would the reaction of liberals and race baiters be, if the cops started arresting gang members for not having insurance on their guns????
Insurance prevents accidents just like helmets do.
I think that’s what democrats call ‘statistical analysis’.
Shall not be infringed.
should we require gay men to have liability insurance in case they give a deadly and incredibly costly disease to someone?
Mightn’t this end up being de facto Registration?
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 FDRs thug justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congresss 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.)
The Logic-Free-Zone comes up with more intelligent, productive legislative ideas....to cost the law-abiding citizen more money to realize their Constitutional rights and discourage those rights at the same time.
Absolute crap.
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.