Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

[jakerz]

WTF over?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/d...owners-who-dont-have-insurance/#ixzz2PJLZGKaW

A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.

When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”

Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.

It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.

The bill would also make it a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone without insurance.

“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told The Daily Caller that the bill is “ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right.”

“But it does reveal what Rep. McCarthy really thinks about honest people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms,” Cox said.

The bill defines “qualified liability insurance” as a policy that covers the “purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” Buyers would have to obtain insurance from a company licensed or authorized by a state insurance regulatory authority.

Exceptions would be made for law enforcement, military and employees of government departments and agencies.

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Barack Obama and top Democrats have been pushing to pass a gun control measure through Congress. A federal liability insurance mandate for gun owners, while debated in some states, is not a proposal that has been seriously considered on the Hill yet.

Others who have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation include: Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano, Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush, Massachusetts Rep. Nikki Tsongas, Massachusetts Rep. Stephen Lynch and Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

With many states requiring drivers to carry auto insurance, Maloney argues that, “We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products - and no one disputes that guns are dangerous.”

“While many individual states are debating this issue now, it makes more sense for Congress to establish a national requirement to allow the insurance markets to begin to price the risks involved consistently nationwide,” she said.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/d...owners-who-dont-have-insurance/#ixzz2PJZ8aylL

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

This is such BS. No way this will make it through, too many gun owners & this is a obvious move to cripple people & force them to get rid of their firearms or suffer penalty. I guess they just ignore the anger they are stirring up across the country with all their Liberal efforts to neuter our ability to protect ourselves. They keep pushing they will not be happy when the people have enough & push back. I guess they forget history class & the fact history repeats itself. We will fight back when cornered.

 

[n2sooners]

So she wants to compare it to auto insurance? Auto insurance only covers insured drivers of that vehicle. It only covers accidents. The vehicle is only covered when it is stolen if you have full coverage, and even then it only covers the vehicle itself, not any damage caused by that vehicle. And it doesn't cover you if you are committing a crime with the vehicle. And you only need auto insurance if you are driving that vehicle on public roads. If it is only operated on private property you don't need a tag or insurance (unless required by your lender). They want you to buy insurance that doesn't exist and isn't likely to exist unless the government itself creates it. And the kicker, which they ignore, keeping and bearing arms is a right, driving on public property is a privilege.

 

[Dale00]

Apparently stupidity has no consequences for politicians as long as they read the mood of their low information voter base correctly. Urban voters increasingly are making an error in judgement and blaming crime on guns instead of criminals and poor public policy.

How to educate misguided, gun-hating urban voters? - This may be the most important question for Second Amendment advocates. Sadly the most effective means may be urban rioting. If riots broke out more often, voters would get their heads on straight in a hurry.

Insurance for gun owners? No - it's a feel-good, illogical, unconstitutional, anti-freedom idea.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

So she wants to compare it to auto insurance? Auto insurance only covers insured drivers of that vehicle. It only covers accidents. The vehicle is only covered when it is stolen if you have full coverage, and even then it only covers the vehicle itself, not any damage caused by that vehicle. And it doesn't cover you if you are committing a crime with the vehicle. And you only need auto insurance if you are driving that vehicle on public roads. If it is only operated on private property you don't need a tag or insurance (unless required by your lender). They want you to buy insurance that doesn't exist and isn't likely to exist unless the government itself creates it. And the kicker, which they ignore, keeping and bearing arms is a right, driving on public property is a privilege.

Well said. And big mike, I am with you about people having enough and pushing back. I have a feeling that it is coming soon. These liberal fools don't know when to quit. And before too long, they will wish that they had stopped.

 

[rlongnt]

I will pay it if everyone also has to pay $200 each to vote. That would change Washington real fast!!

You can’t charge people to exercise constitutionally protected rights. Perhaps they should look to the 24th amendment to understand why this won’t be implemented on the 2nd

How is it that any 5th grader knows that bit of our own history but those ARSE Hats up there can’t figure it out?

 

[chuter]

This should piss off even the hunters and casual gun owners that usually ignore this stuff.

 

[Glocktogo]

A defacto poll tax is unconstitutional. There should be legal repercussions for willful and malicious intent to defraud American citizens of their natural, constitutionally protected rights. The penalty used to be pitch forks and torches. Sure wish we could ressurect that practice for a bit.

 

[jakerz]

I will pay it if everyone also has to pay $200 each to vote. That would change Washington real fast!!

You can’t charge people to exercise constitutionally protected rights. Perhaps they should look to the 24th amendment to understand why this won’t be implemented on the 2nd

How is it that any 5th grader knows that bit of our own history but those ARSE Hats up there can’t figure it out?

This.

Politicians should have to take a test over the constitution and the bill of rights before being considered for office.

 

[jakerz]

A defacto poll tax is unconstitutional. There should be legal repercussions for willful and malicious intent to defraud American citizens of their natural, constitutionally protected rights. The penalty used to be pitch forks and torches. Sure wish we could ressurect that practice for a bit.

If by pitchfork you mean my AR/AK and torch you mean a molotov. Then yes, we should resurrect that practice.