Dems propose $10,000 fine for gun owners without insurance

[Syntyr]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I don't have anything witty to say about this it just makes me mad!

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.
When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”
Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.
It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democ ... z2PJfDMFRt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldeagle]

Call this the firearms sales stimulus act. Now more people will buy guns and ammo it will become even more difficult to find anything. (Gotta get em before the insurance bill is passed!)

[RPBrown]

Perhaps we charge them 100K fine for politicians that dont have a brain

[Wes]

Yea, good luck with this one. Just another background check and tax disguised with a different name that also establishes a gun registry. This one peice is worst than most of the others individually.

[RPB]

That's as constitutional as a poll tax


.............
Want to get madder?
Age discrimination ...
REMEMBER when- Native Americans put the elderly out to freeze? Couple Obamacare/Medicare Death Panel with this and ...
Now, where did I put that "Motion and Order for change of Age" I need to get filed with the Court?

UN Arms Trade Treaty Calls for Disarmament of Persons 55 and Older


http://www.guns.com/2013/04/01/un-arms- ... and-older/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gthaustex]

Well...they can tax you for not having health insurance now. Of course they (Congress) would think they can make something similar apply in this case.

I'm waiting for the parallel proposal of a $10,000 federal fine for car owners who don't have current insurance. Vehicle accidents have a large number of injuries and fatalities each year. Many involved in accidents have minimal or no insurance.

People who want to buy / sell a vehicle must be run through a national vehicle insurance registration database prior to the transaction......

Insane!!!!!

[RPB]

poll (voting) tax which keeps poor (minorities & elderly/disabled/retired on fixed incomes) from voting and gun tax (fine) which keeps poor (minorities & elderly/disabled/retired on fixed incomes) from owning self defense tools are different than a health insurance tax (fine)

Constitution says nothing of health insurance right to abstain and fine/tax nor a right to not have it

[mojo84]

I would like to see a specimen of the liability policy they want to mandate. If it is the regular homeowners policy, there are limited triggers in the standard policy for coverage from gun liability. Intentional acts are not covered. Therefore, only unintentional acts and accidents/negligence for which someone is held liable will trigger coverage.

Intentional shootings whether justified or not will not be covered.
Intentional pistol whippings whether justified or not will not be covered.
I doubt liability from guns that are have been sold and then used in a crime will be covered either.

Therefore, I don't think they are really that concerned about the coverage, but just the additional cost and hoop that law abiding citizens will have to jump through and incur in order to own a gun and be legal.

This is past ridiculous.

[JALLEN]

I would like to see a specimen of the liability policy they want to mandate. If it is the regular homeowners policy, there are limited triggers in the standard policy for coverage from gun liability. Intentional acts are not covered. Therefore, only unintentional acts and accidents/negligence for which someone is held liable will trigger coverage.

Intentional shootings whether justified or not will not be covered.
Intentional pistol whippings whether justified or not will not be covered.
I doubt liability from guns that are have been sold and then used in a crime will be covered either.

Therefore, I don't think they are really that concerned about the coverage, but just the additional cost and hoop that law abiding citizens will have to jump through and incur in order to own a gun and be legal.

This is past ridiculous.

Here it is. No insurer affords coverage for injuries inflicted by intentional acts. Only injuries suffered as a result of negligence are covered, or could be.

If I take a baseball bat and go next door to beat my neighbor senseless for playing his TV too loud, or dissing my daughter on the sidewalk, no homeowners insurance, and no other liability policy is going to protect me.

You can't expect the dimbulbs who run for Congress to understand this, especially if it stands in the way of something that seems popular, especially since they can't seem to get the concept of "shall not be infringed."

[blackgold]

Isn't this the new insurance policy they want gun owners to carry? It would pay the victims/family if said gun was used unjustly (even if the gun was stolen I think)?
Brian

[Pawpaw]

Perhaps we charge them 100K fine for politicians that dont have a brain

That would erase the national debt pretty quickly!

[JALLEN]

Isn't this the new insurance policy they want gun owners to carry? It would pay the victims/family if said gun was used unjustly (even if the gun was stolen I think)?
Brian

"Unjustly?"

How do you set rates for that? "Negligence" is a relatively well litigated concept, still being thrashed out in the far corners.

Still, like the old insurance man used to say, "There is no such thing as a bad risk, only bad rates."

[brentski]

I wonder why they don't do this for cars as well, if this is really about promoting individual safety and responsibility? Shamefully they do not spend as much time trying to balance the budget as they do reviewing individual freedoms.

[Panda]

Card carrying domestic enemies of the United States Constitution.