Mandated Insurance?... getting hit from all sides


PDA






tarosean
April 2, 2013, 12:19 PM
Saw this little gem this morning


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.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/democrats-push-10k-fine-gun-owners-without-liabili/

If you enjoyed reading about "Mandated Insurance?... getting hit from all sides" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ryanxia
April 2, 2013, 12:30 PM
I can see this potentially happening. The idea has been flirted with in recent months. We'll have to squash that quickly.

Steve H
April 2, 2013, 12:34 PM
Just saw that on foxnews.com It does not seem to be a favorable idea even for the anti's

jim243
April 2, 2013, 12:37 PM
It would not standup in court, it is an infringement on your right to keep and bare arms.

These idiots need to go back to school to learn to read so they might read the Consitution.

Jim

HOOfan_1
April 2, 2013, 12:45 PM
It would not standup in court,
Jim

a lot of people thought Obamacare wouldn't stand up in court...

We might need something like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act for individuals

hang fire
April 2, 2013, 12:49 PM
It would not standup in court, it is an infringement on your right to keep and bare arms.

These idiots need to go back to school to learn to read so they might read the Consitution.

Jim
The constitution is rapidly reaching a point of irrelevance., we are no longer a nation of laws. To the powers that be, the constitution is like a cafe menu, where they pick and chose what to order.

And I will not bare my arms for anyone.

Gregaw
April 2, 2013, 12:51 PM
It would not standup in court, it is an infringement on your right to keep and bare arms.

It's sad that I laughed at this statement. Of course I agree with the second half of the statement, but given what we've seen before that in no way insures that the first part of your statement is true.

In my opinion it doesn't have much chance of happening on a national level.

HOOfan_1
April 2, 2013, 12:53 PM
The constitution is rapidly reaching a point of irrelevance., we are no longer a nation of laws. To the powers that be, the constitution is like a cafe menu, where they pick and chose what to order.

And I will not bare my arms for anyone.

It is the rallying cry of the left wing antis that "the Constitution is meant to evolve"...by that they mean...we should be able to cut and paste whatever we want into the Constitution.

The Constitution is not meant to evolve at all...if it were, we might as well just toss it and start over. Laws are meant to be bent into the framework of the Constitution. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. IT IS THERE AS A FRAMEWORK. The left wingers are more than happy to ignore it though.

The Bill of Rights is there as a protection...it isn't meant to evolve or to be tossed aside whenever the government deems fit.

Akita1
April 2, 2013, 01:01 PM
It is the rallying cry of the left wing antis that "the Constitution is meant to evolve"...by that they mean...we should be able to cut and paste whatever we want into the Constitution.

The Constitution is not meant to evolve at all...if it were, we might as well just toss it and start over. Laws are meant to be bent into the framework of the Constitution. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. IT IS THERE AS A FRAMEWORK. The left wingers are more than happy to ignore it though.

The Bill of Rights is there as a protection...it isn't meant to evolve or to be tossed aside whenever the government deems fit.
Technically, it is meant to evolve or there would be no amendment process. The BOR itself is a set of amendments. There are 27 of them thus far, allowing the Republic to amend the Constitution to, for example, address matters that the original documents failed to consider (or intentionally did not belong on the document itself) or meet what Congress and 3/4 of the States deem as the prevailing needs of the nation. Clearly mistakes have been made, but overall it's been a (relatively) successful process.

kwguy
April 2, 2013, 01:02 PM
These people are idiots. Isn't there some kind of law someplace against 'frivolous lawsuits'. I wish politician like this could get tossed out for bringing up stupid, inane, 'frivolous legislation' like this.

Aside from just being ridiculous on its face, they really spit in the face of people who cannot afford this stuff. Some person who has to save their hard earned money to buy a lower priced firearm now has to buy insurance!?

These politicians really think they are royalty, and that they have subjects. They are ridiculous human beings.

kwguy
April 2, 2013, 01:04 PM
Technically, it is meant to evolve or there would be no amendment process.

Agreed. It's just that these people want to supercede that process, because they know their idiotic nonsense would never make it the proper way.

jerkface11
April 2, 2013, 01:10 PM
Some person who has to save their hard earned money to buy a lower priced firearm now has to buy insurance!?

Gun control is always classist and racist.

HOOfan_1
April 2, 2013, 01:11 PM
Technically, it is meant to evolve or there would be no amendment process. The BOR itself is a set of amendments.

Amendments are a lot different than laws though. The left wing antis seem to think "evolving" can be done with laws.

To even be proposed the Amendment needs 2/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of the State legislatures approval

To be passed they need 3/4 of the State legislatures or ratifying conventions to approve it.

Hardly the overnight quashing of rights that happened ni New York and Colorado.

Any new Amendment would basically have to repeal the Second Amendment. Can you imagine repealing an Amendment from the Bill of Rights? That isn't evolution, it is destruction.

Pilot
April 2, 2013, 01:16 PM
The courts have become a joke. They are just another way that statists circumvent the legislative process. Even, so called "conservative" judges like Roberts have showed us that they are activists, and rather than enforce the Constitution are willing to let things go for social reasons.

DsbJax
April 2, 2013, 01:24 PM
The whole insurance mandate is rather pointless, as insurance goes. The insurance would only cover accidental damages, not damage done involving a crime. So the idiot who cleans his guns without clearing them would be covered, but not the nut job that flips out and shoots up his office. The new result is the number of true “accidents” vs. the number of lawful gun owners would result in a minimal insurance premium. Since your average criminal with their illegal guns is not likely to run out and get insurance what is the true nature of this mandate? Again it builds a list of law abiding gun owners, while ignoring the true problem.

Baldman
April 2, 2013, 01:29 PM
The whole insurance aspect is a joke. What do they intend to cover? Will it limit liability for accidental discharges? How about victims of illegally owned weapons, we know the criminals won’t buy the insurance and that they caused 90% + of the harm. Since torte law runs state to state there is no way this can really be enacted or enforced. This legislation does two things, 1) makes the sponsor feel good that they tried to do something and 2) if passed becomes a defacto gun registry.

Certaindeaf
April 2, 2013, 01:32 PM
There'll have to be a new branch of government to monitor/enforce it. That's why it'll happen.

HOWARD J
April 2, 2013, 01:33 PM
Obama's flunkies are enjoying themselves----maybe some day we will find a way to pay them back for all their hard work.
Being that this is the new America it will not be easy but we will try

kwguy
April 2, 2013, 01:36 PM
Gun control is always classist and racist.

You certainly got that right.

hovercat
April 2, 2013, 02:18 PM
This is really just registration. You would have to list what firearms you are insuring, and the .gov would be sent a copy, or know where to get it if a ban comes.

ZeSpectre
April 2, 2013, 02:22 PM
not just registration, but registration WITH a financial burden tacked on.

In other words, digging into our rights AND our wallets (for no discernible good)

SilentStalker
April 2, 2013, 02:22 PM
Forcing people to buy insurance for anything is just plain stupid. The only thing I see out of this is someone's pockets getting deeper. What are they going to do next have you take out insurance on your trampoline in the back yard in case your neighbor's kid comes over and uses it while you are gone? Yes, one could conclude that your home owner's would cover this but not necessarily. And if that is the case then why can they not include firearms? I think people would be shocked if they really knew just how much their home owners covered or did not cover.

PRM
April 2, 2013, 02:24 PM
2014 - a year of reckoning

hso
April 2, 2013, 02:25 PM
It doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing.

Certaindeaf
April 2, 2013, 04:14 PM
Meanwhile 1/4 of all motorists drive with no insurance.
I remember around 5-10 years ago, they passed a law here banning smoking at Pioneer Square.. they never as much as fed one of the thousand bums down there a green boloney sandwich, let alone fine them the $800 fine.. they don't have a dime and would appreciate the sammich.. so they smoke down there. go figure

Lj1941
April 2, 2013, 04:42 PM
This is the latest from our resident "CIC"
[url]http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04/9915-buy-insurance-for-gun-or-get-10k-tax/
We pay a tax for our 2nd Amendment Rights.:mad::evil::cuss:

Akita1
April 2, 2013, 04:58 PM
Agreed. It's just that these people want to supercede that process, because they know their idiotic nonsense would never make it the proper way.
Agreed

blarby
April 2, 2013, 04:59 PM
Insurance would be really hard to do for firearms.

No one is going to issue blanket liability for a willful action- thats exactly the kind of thing insurance DOES NOT cover.

Akita1
April 2, 2013, 05:07 PM
Amendments are a lot different than laws though. The left wing antis seem to think "evolving" can be done with laws.

To even be proposed the Amendment needs 2/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of the State legislatures approval

To be passed they need 3/4 of the State legislatures or ratifying conventions to approve it.

Hardly the overnight quashing of rights that happened ni New York and Colorado.

Any new Amendment would basically have to repeal the Second Amendment. Can you imagine repealing an Amendment from the Bill of Rights? That isn't evolution, it is destruction.
Amendments effectively become the law of the land, which is why the hurdles for passage and ratification are so high. They are then subject to challenges which (hopefully) eventually make it to SCOTUS for interpretation.

Further to your point, existing bankruptcy laws were simply ignored during the height of the Great Rescession to prop up a few selected segments of our economy. Yes, we are disgusted at the use of executive orders by POTUS and hastily drafted bush-league legislation at the State level, but we should not be surprised.

Agreed HOOfan, it truly is destruction...and not just of the Constitution, but of the Republic which it supposedly governs.

Texan Scott
April 2, 2013, 05:53 PM
Mandating a tax or fee in order to exercise a civil liberty has already been covered by the courts. Google "poll tax".

Imagine requiring media outlets to carry "libel, slander, and defamation" insurance before allowing them to exercise 1A freedom of press. Imagine the HOWLING that would errupt.

Not gonna fly.

HOOfan_1
April 2, 2013, 07:01 PM
Agreed HOOfan, it truly is destruction...and not just of the Constitution, but of the Republic which it supposedly governs.

Apparently some people don't want to live in a Republic. They want to live somewhere where the government tells them exactly the best way to live their life. They want to live somewhere where safety is more important than freedom.

They want to take the blue pill..they want a warm cocoon where all of their choices are made for them by the government...where their lives, safety and choices are in the hands of the government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqRaGCqWECM

Deer_Freak
April 2, 2013, 07:19 PM
Hell we have been trying to get liability insurance for gun owners and concealed weapons permit holders for years. A regular insurance agent will not write the policy. You have pay through the nose to get Lloyds of London to write the policy. The sponsors of this bill had better get some insurance companies on board to show us the costs.

Ohio Gun Guy
April 2, 2013, 07:37 PM
We have to vote them out. It is absolutely clear that they would take away our rights if they simply had the majority to do so, or got close enough to pull a "parliamentary maneuver" to pull it off. (Constitution or not, they dont care)

There were some here that seemed to support / defend them. Please re-think who you vote for. You absolutely have to see that they would do all of these things, (AWB, Mag. Restrictions, Registration, insurance, ammunition tax, ammunition stamping, Pass the UN Treaty, Etc.) if they had the majority. Look at NY, CO, Conn. All of these have some element of parliamentary game / trick in order to pass, but they do it anyway. Their true colors are on full display. They will strip this and other rights just as fast as they can.

We MUST WIN the mid terms, then fight hard for the next Presidential Race.

joeschmoe
April 2, 2013, 07:51 PM
Sad how many here have no faith in our Constitution. How can we expect others to respect it, when it's clear that even gun owners don't respect it?

Learn how your government works and stop with the claims the sky is falling.

InkEd
April 2, 2013, 08:18 PM
I think it is downright f'ed up that the federal government can make people buy anything!

plodder
April 2, 2013, 08:27 PM
Sad how many here have no faith in our Constitution.
I have unbounded faith in the Constitution. It is the clowns we have empowered to subject us in Washington D.C. and the statehouses that I have no faith in.

barnbwt
April 2, 2013, 08:37 PM
Putting aside for a moment the obvious registration/punitive nature of this proposal; wouldn't firearms insurance be nearly worthless? The odds of your gun(s) being used for ill (which wouldn't be covered anyway being a criminal act) or accident in a given year are quite low, compared with car or health insurance. Calculated fairly, guns probably aren't that much of a risk (see how many more people are hurt/killed by everything else under the sun).

However, risk mitigation has nothing to do with this legislation. It's sole aim is to register guns (BTW, hicap mag registration like that in CT is solely intended to find out who has the hicap guns for later confiscation), with an icing of financial penalty on top to stick it to the gunnies for good measure.

No one would know if your guns were registered unless cops are diverted to gun-ranges to troll for violators. Even then, they'd need probable cause of some sort to even ask for your papers *shivers*. Just like car insurance, many (most?) will gamble that they won't get in trouble, and therefore will have no need for insurance. Only unlike unlicensed drivers, unlicensed gunnies will be closer to right in their gamble.

We are in the midst of a era where people desiring "rule" as opposed to "governance" will clamor for more restrictive laws at an exponential rate. They will insist that new laws are the solution to taming the upstarts in their midst whose very freedom--regardless of action-- is seen as a threat to their domesticated existence. The focus of Law will become a means of social engineering, rather than a meter of justice. Then, as always, the lawless will refuse to be bound by laws, and all that will be achieved is an oppressive life for the law-abiding. Subjects are always given what they need --and not one bit more. And we don't "need" our guns.

Please re-think who you vote for.
Gun-owning Democrats; give up your pride this one election for the sake of this critical and fundamental element of our Republic's balance of power. I still see people insisting their choice was well-founded because Republicans might have been just as bad for the 2nd. WHO CARES ABOUT HYPOTHETICALS AT A TIME LIKE THIS? You were wrong. The threat posed by the Democrat party is plain as day, and absolutely immediate. No one knows which state will fall next--other than that a strong Democrat element within or without will lead the charge. If you cannot bring yourselves to vote Republican out of pride, prejudice, or philosophy, then vote Green or Libertarian. It's no longer a partisan matter (which is why I'm posting it here) but one that is self-evident. You cannot be a supporter of gun rights and be complicit in their destruction.

TCB

ACP
April 2, 2013, 08:43 PM
"It would not standup in court, it is an infringement on your right to keep and bare arms.These idiots need to go back to school to learn to read so they might read the Constitution."

Jim243, FYI, it's bear arms -- as in, to carry.

"Bare" means naked or without cover.

12131
April 2, 2013, 08:43 PM
a lot of people thought Obamacare wouldn't stand up in court....s
Yup, haven't we learned, already?

kwguy
April 2, 2013, 08:54 PM
We are in the midst of a era where people desiring "rule" as opposed to "governance" will clamor for more restrictive laws at an exponential rate. They will insist that new laws are the solution to taming the upstarts in their midst whose very freedom--regardless of action-- is seen as a threat to their domesticated existence. The focus of Law will become a means of social engineering, rather than a meter of justice. Then, as always, the lawless will refuse to be bound by laws, and all that will be achieved is an oppressive life for the law-abiding. Subjects are always given what they need --and not one bit more. And we don't "need" our guns.

Exactly. I've even heard people, in the media, refer to our policitians and president as 'rulers'. I about vomited. Many people don't care, as long as they don't have to be affected in their own personal lives. They want a king, or ruler, something to take care of them.

'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'. Very scary saying, and a very old one. Yet we suffer from some type of generational ignorance or amnesia, and forget what those before us have learned.

Torian
April 2, 2013, 09:01 PM
Sad how many here have no faith in our Constitution. How can we expect others to respect it, when it's clear that even gun owners don't respect it?

Learn how your government works and stop with the claims the sky is falling.
I fear for the state of my republic. *adjusts tin foil hat*

Deer_Freak
April 2, 2013, 09:06 PM
No one wants to be seen as a savage, someone who would kill to defend their family. What is wrong with this picture? I can't understand how they got enough people on board to even get this logic trending. Not only would I kill to defend my family. I would kill to defend the American flag, the constitution. I took an oath to defend the constitution. Then I hopped on a bus that took me to MCRDSD. When I put my hand on a bible and swear to something I will do whatever it takes to make my words true.

H.m.B
April 3, 2013, 06:16 PM
To quote the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."

S&Wfan
April 3, 2013, 09:52 PM
It just goes to show how huge and deep the tentacles are into politicians that are controlled by the insurance industry.

Just another way for the insurance guys to make a "killing." Soon maybe the insurance industry will get the government to force taxpayers to buy insurance that the insurance industry will get ever richer, every single year! This way, it's "insured" that it will happen.

blarby
April 4, 2013, 01:19 AM
Just another way for the insurance guys to make a "killing." Soon maybe the insurance industry will get the government to force taxpayers to buy insurance that the insurance industry will get ever richer, every single year! This way, it's "insured" that it will happen.

Oh, poo poo on you.

This isn't the insurance industry.

They like things they can actually insure- this isn't one of them.


I'm one of those "guys" and i've never made a "killing" on anything.

joeschmoe
April 5, 2013, 10:57 PM
I have unbounded faith in the Constitution. It is the clowns we have empowered to subject us in Washington D.C. and the statehouses that I have no faith in.
The same document that empowers the government also restrains them. The Constitution limits their power. No system is perfect, but our Constitution has been remarkable at this task.
You lack faith in the power of the Constitution.

BryanDavis
April 7, 2013, 04:21 PM
This sort of thing scares me. $1 Million in mandatory gun liability insurance?

( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/ )

Costing $500 to $2,000 a year?

Already people from lower income brackets have difficulty financing such simple things as their personal safety but to then tax it even further?

It is Very important that the Democrats lose control of the US Senate in 2014 and that numerous states who have enacted new gun control laws see a resurgence of Republican power, (New York, Colorado, Connecticut, etc.)

If that doesn't happen then these laws will never be overridden.

But what's likely to happen is that a conjunction of SCOTUS rulings paired with the political momentum that creates will lead to federal laws outlawing things like high-capacity magazine bans and would implement nationwide concealed carry permit reciprocity.

(There actually was a push after Heller (If I remember correctly) to bring the District of Columbia's gun laws into line with the rest of the country's via federal legislation.) It failed, but the feelings and reaction to Heller brought a new level of support for the 2nd Amendment that remains to this day, with even senators like Chuck Schumer referencing the individual right to own a gun in the form letters he sends out in response to people opposing his stance on gun rights.

Anyways, that's my analysis after following Heller vs. DC (and lurking on this forum) for many years.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mandated Insurance?... getting hit from all sides" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!