It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


7 states introduce legislation to require gun owner's insurance

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:53 AM
I was shocked to see my home state of Pa included on this list, especially when you consider that our state constitution specifically states;

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Pa Constitution

It was probably introduced by some liberal representative from one of the cities and has no real chance of passing but, it is troubling nonetheless.

Seven States Tell ‘Responsible’ Gun Owners To Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is With Gun Insurance

Seven states – California, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Colorado – have, in the past month, introduced bills to have gun owners put their money where their mouth is: liability insurance for their firearms, codifying that responsibility if their firearms are used incorrectly – used by children who find them, by criminals who easily steal them; by people to whom they sell them without requiring a background check.

In Colorado, home state of the Columbine High School shooting and the Aurora Theater massacre, new legislation requires that owners of semi-automatic rifles be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons, and state statutes that shield manufacturers, importers and dealers from such liability would be lifted. It further says that handguns, bolt-action rifles and shotguns would be exempt from the measure. The issue of liability is only one of many measures introduced into the Colorado legislature Tuesday.

Addi cting Info

The one in California is making major headlines in the MSM.

Calif. Law Would Force Gun Owners to Buy Insurance

Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.

Some proposals would require buyers to show proof of insurance before they could purchase a weapon. The proposal in California would apply to anyone owning a weapon, Ting said, though the bill's details are still being worked out.

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said most gun owners already act responsibly and can be sued for damages if they don't.

He said the proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence,'' particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law, he said.

NBC San Diego

Trying to price guns outside the reach of undesirable demographics has been a common tactic of gun grabbers, especially in the eraliest attempts at gun control which were targeted at keeping guns out of the hands of blacks who needed the guns to defend against racist attacks in the post-Civil War South.

It seems especially dispicable that some of these laws seek to hold gunowners responsible for crimes comitted with their firearms even after the guns have been stolen from their homes and are no longer under their control. I guess being a crime victim doesn't count if you happen to be a gunowner.

I have no doubt that all of these schemes are also intended as a form of back-door gun registration so that the state can have a list of all gun owners when the time comes for eventual confiscation of civilian firearms. They can always say that its not the state keeping the list but, you can bet that it won't take much to force insurance companies to hand over their client lists when the time comes, if they don't hand them over willingly that is.

It seems the gun grabbers are pulling out every sneaky trick in the books to try to disarm the American public because they feel that outright, direct confiscation would face severe blowback if attempted at this time.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:56 AM
So this legislation may have been pushed by insurance companies? Insurance companies won't pay claims, they just tie everything up in court and make everyone unhappy. Capitalism at it's finest.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:59 AM
great so here we go.. they cant ban guns because its going to upset to many of us.. so now they are going to tax and insurance them to the point where most people cant afford them...

god bless amerika land of the enslaved.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:59 AM
That's ok.

Got some of that from the NRA already:
NRA Insurance

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:03 AM
Okay. So my broken-headed kid murders me, takes my gun, slaughters some kids in the next town over.

It's all good because my insurance policy (Im dead by the way) will pay out a few bills to the families?

That's the point, right?

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

no no silly that wont be covered in the policy only accidental shooting.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:12 AM
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't people understand?

Give it up, we're not going to give up our rights to make you feel better.

This will be another arbitrary expense.
edit on 2/6/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Okay. So my broken-headed kid murders me, takes my gun, slaughters some kids in the next town over.

It's all good because my insurance policy (Im dead by the way) will pay out a few bills to the families?

That's the point, right?

Logic doesn’t matter anymore. There sole goal is to price the poor out of the market so the poor, who need it the most, can’t afford the insurance to purchase a gun to defend themselves. This is a anti lower class bill.
edit on 6-2-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:15 AM
Oh yes, this will definantly stop the criminals! A law abiding citzen has insurance on their gun, and now the bad guys wont feel like stealing it now. It must really hurt the bad guys when they steal a gun, knowing the owner has insurance on it. Must be hearbreaking for them to make that descision. Same goes with bad guys selling other bad guys guns. Obviously they are going to buy insurance for all their illegal guns now. Brilliant.

It further says that handguns, bolt-action rifles and shotguns would be exempt from the measure.

Oh good. Everyone knows that handguns definantly are not the #1 gun used in gun crimes. No need to have insurance on those I guess. Just those scary looking rifles, with the "thing that goes up" need insurance.... Yea, that's definantly going to stop a madman.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:18 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't dare not use the mod box, lest someone think this is ATS policy, or something equally silly...

That's why there is, and will be, a flourishing black market in firearms of all sorts. Stupidity such as this...

All in the name of keeping us safe, of course... Safe from whom, they very carefully omit.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by rickymouse
So this legislation may have been pushed by insurance companies? Insurance companies won't pay claims, they just tie everything up in court and make everyone unhappy. Capitalism at it's finest.

I have no doubt that the insurance companies were involved and support this type of legislation. They made out like bandits on Obamacare, even though some of them pretended to offer some opposition. I'm sure they're salivating at the prospect of another state-mandated insurance scheme forcing responsible gunowners to shell out for the unlikely event that their guns may be used in some improper way.

As it stands, most homeowner's insurance will cover damages for unintentional or accidental shootings.

But basic policies also may cover claims for bodily injury and damage to another party’s property. Common examples include injuries related to a swimming pool, dog bites and other harm caused by pets, and many unintentional acts such as accidental shootings.

Law firm site

It is questionable whether such insurance would cover liability if a child got hold of a gun and intentionally shot their friends or schoolmates or if a homeowner was forced to shoot an intruder and later faced a lawsuit for damages resulting from the shooting. It all depends on how the policy is worded as to whether such an event would be covered.

If the insurance companies could force gun owners to buy seperate insurance for their guns, it would give them an excuse to summarily deny claims against their homeowner's insurance saying the gunowner should have had the additional gunowner's insurance if they wanted to be covered.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

So, lets get this straight.
Not only do I have to Unconstitutionally have to provide photo ID to purchase a firearm, these states now want me to provide proof of insurance as well??

But, damn the man that requests that voters provide ID.

This Country is going down the toilet even faster.

I am not surprised by those 7 states, they are the pinnacles of everything Progressive and Liberal.

I am going to love it so much when the state populations start decreasing even faster, as people leave those oppressive states.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:27 AM
As soon as the Zetas and Sinaloa cartels buy insurance for their "associates" I'll be willing to do so myself. Otherwise they can put it where only proctologists venture.

That is truly some sneaky ****.
My conspiratorial imagination isn't what it used to be.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:29 AM
The interesting thing is that if someone is accidentially injured by a firearm that you own, then your homeowners insurance already covers it. However, you can not find, nor can the state force, an insurance company to offer liability coverage for intentional acts; especially those intentional acts that occur during a felony crime. The only place I could see this proposed law being applicable is in cases where a gun owner rents a house/apartment and they do not carry any liability insurance on the rental property. In the case of those renters, I agree with the proposed law, as there is liability that goes with gun ownership and that liability should be financially covered (for both the owner and potential victim) just like one must have with a vehicle.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem
Another scam to line the pockets of the insurance conglomerate succubi! My state isn't on the list, though it wouldn't matter if it were. They would only be able to force you to insure guns that are actually registered. These days I'm seeing more private sales than retail which in most cases means there are no records to prove ownership or force insuring the guns. We also know that criminals aren't going to register or insure their guns either. Even if they pass some legislation to make private, undocumented sales illegal let's just see how they think they are going to enforce that- there aren't enough officers in the country to even make a dent!

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

An unconstitutional law need not be obeyed, and restricting the right to bear arms by imposing fees to own them is infringement of the 2nd and an unconstitutional law.

These bills wont go anywhere in most states. Remember bills about *anything* can be put forth, no matter what their content. It doesnt mean they will pass. I dont think these will pass either. I think theyll get tied up on the floor and eventually die like so many others have.

BUT, if one does pass... it is clearly unconstitutional, and not a law that needs to be followed. It will go to state courts, and if upheld, will go to the supreme court, who will, I think, immediately overturn the state decision.
edit on 2/6/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:36 AM
It's getting to the point where people honestly must say, "Enough!".
We slaves shouldn't have to pay for things because "they" say so!!!
Where is the line...?
(Or who got paid off to write up such a ridiculous law)

Good grief, I can yell obscenities at the screen...which I've done,
I can shout at people in council meetings...which I've done,
I can scream in public until my throat bleeds...which I've done.

The problem remains.
They will find a way to bend us over.
You either take it, or you fight back.
Me...I'm fighting back.

These damned people are ruining a once great nation!

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

That is true enough. Seldom do bills of any sort actually get passed. Much less ones of this nature... However, when a bill is riding in the wake of such happenings as Sandy Hook, it could be seen as political suicide to vote against something like this. Add to that, that you can't really know how certain state Supreme courts will rule, much less Federal courts, especially one like the ninth circuit here on the west coast...

These bills will see the Supreme Court should they pass...

Personally? I'm as worried about this trend as I've ever been... ...and I generally haven't been known to worry about the possibility of gun control via proxy... That's changed.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:43 AM
as a left of center voter, i'm against this also...only the wealthy, well-connected, and criminal, will be able to be protected with the use of firearms. all the rest of us will be victims.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:43 PM
I wonder how all these bankrupt cities will be able to afford to insure all those trigger happy LEOs? Imagine them having to pay a claim every time a cop shot someone's dog. Would the legislation also require federal (CIA, ATF, FBI, etc.) LEOs to have insurance before they can bring guns into a state? Will military bases in those states be able to afford the insurance?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in