What's the legality of forcing gun owners to get insurance?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really a gun registration because if the the private sector will maintain the information and not the government. The insurance company will have certain information, like they already do, but the government will not get this information.
 
It is not constitutional. It becomes a condition to exercise a right. People will be denied the right to keep and bear arms because they will not be able to buy the insurance (or worse, are denied coverage by the company).

Obviously, the goal is to add so many conditions on gun ownership that participation drops.
 
Sales tax

Reading this thread got me to thinking. Is sales tax on the purchase of a firearm (a constitutional right) legal? Is that the same as a poll tax?

First post here, have a ton of reading to catch up on, just curious.
 
Reading this thread got me to thinking. Is sales tax on the purchase of a firearm (a constitutional right) legal? Is that the same as a poll tax?

The Constitution only guarantees the right to keep and bear them -- it guarantees access, not actual ownership (otherwise the gov't would be Constitutionally obligated to provide you with a firearm).

So, no, it is not unconstitutional.
 
The Constitution only guarantees the right to keep and bear them -- it guarantees access, not actual ownership (otherwise the gov't would be Constitutionally obligated to provide you with a firearm).

So, no, it is not unconstitutional.
Would you agree that a $200 tax on every firearm sold would be a serious barrier to firearms ownership to many more people in this country than a $2 tax on every firearm?
Once we agree that the $200 tax is infringing, then all we are arguing about is the amount of the tax.
I think the taxes on the manufacturers of firearms and ammunition are unconstitutional.
The $200 transfer tax imposed on Machine Guns was imposed to deter ownership. That is an infringement. Now with Heller, it is worth a look by the court.
 
From an actuarial (statistical) perspective; the area you live in, type of gun, whether or not you carry, protect your home or lock it up in a safe all the time, level of training, etc. all factor in to the pricing of the policy.

An interesting concept. So, those folks in the highest crime areas, usually the poor, would have the highest rates. This brings both socio-economic and race factors into the picture. Poor urban areas would see the highest insurance rates, and experience the highest dollar amounts to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I am quite sure that someone would yell "RACISM" and "Unfair to the poor" right away. An interesting dilemma for the Democrats and Race warlords who are pushing for this type of legislation.
 
The Constitution only guarantees the right to keep and bear them -- it guarantees access, not actual ownership (otherwise the gov't would be Constitutionally obligated to provide you with a firearm).

So, no, it is not unconstitutional.

Seriously, this has to be one of the most illogical arguments I have seen yet. One has to twist and stretch to find that kind of meaning.

And if I don't have any money to pay the tax/insurace... I can no longer KEEP. Thus, it IS a tax required to exercise a constitutional right.... like a poll tax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top