House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

they should call this law "The Let's Double the Number of Illegal Guns" law. Since that will probably be likely one of the side effects, which will carry quite a few unpleasant side effects in and of itself...

guess the insurance industry didn't didn't get enough of a "stimulus" through obamacare, it needs more!!

they should have thought bigger though, I mean like some here have said what about the knives, baseball bats, bows and arrows, and well pencils!!! maybe they should make every american carry a liability policy, just in case we get stupid and cause someone injury with out frying pans?

a reply to: Danbones

That's fine so long the insurance is non-compulsory. It makes sense on the face of it.

However the issue is deeper than that. By making it a requirement, it undermines the constitutional right. It's not, "You have the right to bear arms so long as you have insurance."


Carrying a firearm will always involve risk. That's just part of the price to pay for exercising a right.

Both individuals and clubs need insurance, if they are engaged in the shooting sports. For clubs, the law requires that they carry at least $2 million in liability protection. For individuals, it is up to each person to decide whether or not he/she purchases liability insurance. However, a liability suit as a result of your sporting activities can devastate your financial situation if you do not have insurance. The legal fees alone can break you!

Canada’s National Firearms Association's Liability Insurance program offers $5,000,000 in coverage for only $9.95 per year for each NFA member insured!

The policy offered by the National Firearms Association covers an individual or club for $5,000,000.00 in liability coverage.

This is NOT an aggregate amount. It is $5,000,000.00 in Liability Insurance for any claim.

Each individual, or each individual member of an NFA insured club, is covered for:

Legal hunting activities
Legal bowhunting activities
Legal range shooting activities
Legal range archery activities
Legal fishing activities
Legal re-enactment activities
Anywhere in the World!

nfa.ca...

sweet
only 9.95

a reply to: EternalSolace

agreed

lol

The volunteer Oklahoma reserve police deputy who mistakenly shot dead an unarmed black suspect after grabbing his gun instead of his Taser has defended himself, saying: "It can happen to anyone."
Robert Bates, a 73-year-old millionaire insurance executive, was asked how he made the mistake during his first interview since the shooting, after he stood up to show TV cameras that the stun gun was strapped to his chest on the left and the handgun was held on his waist on the right.

www.telegraph.co.uk... after-grabbing-gun-not-Taser.html
from studying obama care we know who rights this legeslative stuff up

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: Violater1

The next strategy ... we can't make them illegal? Fine we'll make them so expensive that most people won't be able to own them legally.

a reply to: ketsuko

That'll make the black market, which already exists, even more extensive.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: butcherguy

Just wait until the jack booted thugs knock on (in) your door with an even bigger hammer.

Molon labe.

Yes.
That what I was 'shooting for'.

a reply to: seagull

the insurance offer i mentioned up thread is likely mirrored by orgs like the NRA and gun owners of america and many clubs etc
only 9.95 CANADIAN
thats a couple rounds of 308s with a couple.22 change in US exchange

a reply to: seagull

And there is already a lovely network of cartels with their imported Chinese guns. All they have to do is start shipping those north with the drugs ...

This was a response to Danbones post.
Yes.
That would be the intelligent alternative to Maloney's bill.
The freedom to choose to purchase insurance.

Now that Obamacare has set a precedent, the US may see a flurry of proposed mandatory insurance laws.
Do you swim.... must purchase swimming insurance, just in case you drown. Searching for your body down river isn't free.
Do you ride a bicycle? I see a need for insurance there. Roll through a stop sign and cause a car to crash, wow, that isn't cheap to overcome.
You should have to purchase an insurance policy to buy a butane lighter. Imagine how many fires those things have caused.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: projectvxn

The legal gun owner should not be the target of any law lest it expands the rights of the owner.

I'm so glad I live in the UK.

Me too

a reply to: ketsuko

Yup.

Ordinarily law abiding citizens will, if not flock, certainly use that market. I wouldn't personally...I have other sources should the worst come to pass.

I don't think it will.

Enough of the Congress critters still listen to voters on this particular issue. I doubt it gets out of committee, much less to the floor.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: projectvxn

The legal gun owner should not be the target of any law lest it expands the rights of the owner.

I'm so glad I live in the UK.

Yep. WHere anyone with a gun can come in rape your wife, rob you blind murder you and go to the next house and do it all over again and just have to worry about the bobbis with billy clubs. Awesome place to live. Teh british government and offshoots keep their people subservient by restricting gun ownership.

a reply to: butcherguy

whats scary, and certainly justifies this thread, is that the US had the freedom to choose to, or to not, before Obama care.
now there is no choice, and for many no insurance anyway

which in this context is concerning because it isn't about insuring victims...
the guy I quoted above who accidentally shot someone thought
"how could it happen", now its happened to him:
"it could happen to anybody"
considering he is a multimillionair insurance exec, I'm sure he is thinking
that's as big a market as vaccines AND we get control

a reply to: Violater1

Without bullets a gun is as dangerous as a DVD player therefore the Bill for liability insurance should focus in on ammunition owners.

Now, gimme your gun.

a reply to: gortex

Insults of logic again...
Toys.
Its a tool like any other that is a constutional right to own so the responsability would only be in it's use incorrectly.
The ONUS is on that state and courts ...unless you want to start WALKING insurance ,social impact variace insurance .
it is an obvious no here.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Of course the state should be liable. If they had done more to ensure that hammers stayed out of reach of the criminal element, they wouldn't have gotten their head smashed in with one.

Those gubmint bastids will never get my framing hammer!

Ha...oddly enough that is what I call my G36.

a reply to: Danbones

next,I suppose we will have self shooting guns

Many Progressives think we already have those. Those scary looking ARs just jump right out of the gun cabinet and go on shooting sprees all by themselves.

Know your constitutional rights.

It's is not only a second amendment issue, but all most the entire bill of rights.

If that trash were to pass the poor,and middle class would get hit the hardest.

After trying to cover the cost of healthcare thanks to it's new 'affordability' just an increased burden when people are already trying to get buy.

Not surprising this comes from NY, nor a Democrat they just love corporate fascism.

Now they will be forced to buy yet another corporate product, gun insurance, like they were forced to pay for health insurance, like we have been forced to pay for auto, and home insurance.

Bunch of corporate fascists.