Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by usmarine0352_2005, Feb 5, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Donut Destroyer

    Donut Destroyer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Louisiana
    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.
     
  2. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    Just a further return of Jim Crow, looks like.
     
  3. mgkdrgn

    mgkdrgn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,914
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    No, it's a tax, remember (until they need it to be insurance, then it's not a tax)
     
  4. tomrkba

    tomrkba Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,952
    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.
     
  5. mountainsco

    mountainsco Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    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.
     
  6. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Vegas
    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.
     
  7. mountainsco

    mountainsco Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    And this is different from a poll tax?
     
  8. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    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.
     
  9. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    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.
     
  10. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page