Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance


#1

A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.
The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.
[HR][/HR]SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control
[HR][/HR]“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 text of the bill states.

Read more: Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

The tyranny continues!!!


#2

Six states – California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania – have all introduced gun liability insurance legislation over the past few months. None has produced any results.

In Illinois, the House rejected a measure 34-74 that would require people carrying concealed weapons to also carry $1 million in liability insurance. Chicago Democrat Kenneth Dunkin was behind the defeated bill. He said an insurance policy would cost between $500 to $2,000

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine | Fox News

$2,000 are you kidding me?


#3

Already being discussed here:
http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f47/democrats-propose-10-000-fine-gun-owners-who-don-t-have-insurance-40179/

Combine, please?


#4

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

As a law-abiding driver, I ought to be complaining about the auto insurance I must prove I have before the state issues me a license to drive. The tyranny continues!!!


#5

Must not have had to purchase insurance lately. But I don’t care if it’s TWO dollars, they can stick it where the sun don’t shine!
:fuming:

You wait and see. This is going to be linked to Obamacare. (Well, the costs incurred are health-related, right?)

Does it strike you, too, that high crime areas that are pushing for all this gun control - and few to zero arrests have been made - are purposely not going after the crimminals?
Just maybe?


#6

You don’t have a constitutional right to drive.


#7

I knew it!
(From the thread Same started:)

But it’ll fit right snuggly in Jazz’ Christmas stocking!

:rofl:


#8

Yeah, stick it where the sun don’t shine! It’s my right to drive wherever I want, in whatever I want! To hell with the government and its tyrannical insurance requirement - I AM THE LAW!


#9

Some would beg to differ with that.
CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE

I happen to agree, but not the hill I choose, nor plan, to die on.


#10

Sure I do - it’s part of my natural right to travel. Yeah, it’s subject to reasonable regulation, but so is the right to bear arms.


#11

We were talking, I thought, about GUN insurance.


#12

Knew it was only a matter of time before some spineless liberal put this up. How do they plan to make criminals pay this insurance again?


#13

You don’t have a constitutional right to drive.


#14

It may be liberal, but it is hardly “spineless” to take on those who are convinced that they and their guns are a law unto themselves.


#15

I say I do, and I’ll disobey any law that seeks to tell me what, when and where I can drive. I, like any other driver, get to decide what laws I will and will not obey. Stick those laws where the sun don’t shine!


#16

In the context of, “All rights belong to the people untill they transfer them to the government”.

Tenth Amendment? Exactly when did the people give the State or Federal Governmet the power to regulate our driving?
Just asking…


#17

And, as for guns, what part of “shall not be infringed” gives the State or Federal Government the power to hinder in any way the people’s right to, “own and bear arms”?


#18

Around 1954.
Some states, I think MO was the first, had driver’s license requirments prior to '54, but that’s when near every state decided to require one.


#19

clean driving record and a rural area, pretty cheap for me

but car insurance provides a benefit where gun “insurance” is just a tax


#20

what do you know Jazzy coming down on the side of more govt regulation and taxation.

Do you honesty think that $2000 a year is not an impediment to the 2nd amendment?