proposal to require liability insurance for gun owners

[old lady new shooter]

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance, per http://thehill.com/regulation/243425-house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance .

Apart from anything else I'm wondering whether such a law would even be constitutional at the federal level? Wouldn't such a requirement come more properly under the purview of individual states?

 

[BK]

You're wondering if an infringement upon a constitutional right... might be constitutional? Mmmmmkaaay.

Apart from anything else

Like what?

a requirement come more properly

What is a "proper" infringement of an inherent right in your view?

 

[Ash]

It would be the equivalent to a poll tax.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Apart from anything else I'm wondering whether such a law would even be constitutional at the federal level? Wouldn't such a requirement come more properly under the purview of individual states?

Heard of the "Affordable Care Act"?... Obamacare?

Very much the same as far as legality is concerned.

Todd.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Heard of the "Affordable Care Act"?... Obamacare?

Very much the same as far as legality is concerned.

Todd.

The fact situation here is different from obamacare in at least one important respect. The obamacare rationale for requiring universal participation (= buying health insurance) was to supposedly keep the cost down by spreading the risk. Gun ownership is not analagous: everyone uses some kind of healthcare, but not everyone owns a gun, therefore they can't make the argument that Joe has to have the insurance in order for Sam to be able to be a gunowner. And in fact that is not the argument being made, rather she states that having to have insurance will make gun owners more careful, and will also provide funds to compensate victims of shootings. (Haha, I wonder what percentage of the donations to her campaign are from trial lawyers... but I digress.)

 

[old lady new shooter]

It would be the equivalent to a poll tax.

I think you may have hit it on the head. Voting is a right, charging a poll tax makes it more expensive. Owning a gun is a right, forcing owners to carry insurance is like a tax (and in the obamacare decision the reason forcing people to buy health insurance was deemed ok was that it was found to actually be a tax... haha, this could yet come back to bite them...) And if they try to make an analogy to car insurance, it doesn't work because driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

 

[old lady new shooter]

bearingarms now reported that insurance companies were Maloney's 4th largest source of campaign contributions in 2012.

http://bearingarms.com/house-Democr...ompanies-pushes-mandatory-gun-insurance-bill/

 

[SwaneeSR]

Read the article.

Looks like a move to energize her base and pad her resume for the next election cycle. Clearly no expectation of the bill going anywhere..

We are talking about her.... BINGO. That was her goal, to be mentioned in the news.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Read the article.

Looks like a move to energize her base and pad her resume for the next election cycle. Clearly no expectation of the bill going anywhere..

We are talking about her.... BINGO. That was her goal, to be mentioned in the news.

Yes, that's how it appears after reading the bearingarms article. The one at thehill looked more like she was really serious.

OK, exhale... <g>

 

[Ash]

Perhaps, but this is how it always starts. Knowing the potential tactics or strategies of those who would seek to disarm us, and then preparing plans to address them in what ways we can when we must, is the key to vigilance in protecting our freedoms.