House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance
 

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, unveiled Friday, would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.

?We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said in a statement. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.?

Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners.

?An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,? she said. ?Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur."

This is the second time Maloney, who is one of the biggest gun control advocates in Congress, has introduced the legislation. A few weeks ago she reintroduced legislation that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows.

The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, long championed by former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general.

House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance | TheHill

The right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.:2 cents:

It will never pass and would be unconstitutional

i don't understand this Amendment thing - there was one about prohibition and that was taken back

why is this different?

So you can be drunk with guns

the ban on assault rifles passed :2 cents::2 cents:

http://pushbacknow.net/wp-content/up...ll_usa_map.gif

Sure, make the insurance so expensive no one can own a gun (legally).

I have to think about this. If the insurance is cheap enough and will stay that way, I might be able to see it. Somehow I don't think it will.

And how does liability insurance infringe upon that?

The process to either pass or repeal an amendment is quite lengthy. The 18th amendment (prohibition) was repealed in 1933 by the 21st amendment, it took 10 months for that to go through and repeal was extremely popular. 10 months in that process is pretty much as fast as something could possibly happen.

In comparison, it took decades for the temperance movement to create enough support to get the 18th amendment passed and I believe it was about 2 years between proposing prohibition and it passing.

Very few amendments get repealed and the first 10 amendments are the American Bill Of Rights. It would take a tremendous effort to repeal the 2nd amendment (Right to bear arms) and would probably result in a revolution (imho). The right to keep and bear arms is considered by many Americans to be one of the basic rights of man.

.

Assault rifle ban is a different animal..

the thing is gun nuts don't have 1 or 2 guns and I'm pretty sure you'd have to insure each gun. It will not pass for that reason. :2 cents:

If Connecticut didn't have an assault rifle ban I'd probably have an M4. But I would jump through whatever hoops they asked and not complain about it like all of you whiny-ass gun owning bitches who think you're always losing your precious freedom.

Do you understand what infringe means?

Move someplace else if you want one bad enough.

You don't need proof of insurance to buy or own a motor vehicle. You need motor vehicle insurance to OPERATE a motor vehicle on public property. You don't need motor vehicle insurance to drive on private property.

To extrapolate this: You could only be required to obtain insurance to operate (possess and discharge) a firearm on public property. If liability insurance to get a CCW licence was required, by local and not federal authority, that would probably be constitutional.

Possession of a firearm on private property cannot be infringed upon per the 2nd Amendment
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise.
==============================
@MaDalton

American Laws are derived from constitutional rights set forth in the US Constitution.

Constitutional Law is superior to all statutory and administrative laws -- an Amendment is amended (made a part of) to the US Constitution to change meaning or add new meaning to the US Constitution.

A supermajority, a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate (or a constitutional convention if called) must approve an Amendment (Federal) and then 3/4 of the State legislatures must ratify it.

Some State Constitutions may be Amended by popular referendum (citizen voting) in addition to State legislative initiative.

Prohibition, (the 18 Amendment,) was repealed by the passing of the 21st Amendment by a 2/3 vote of Congress, and that Amendment (and only the 21st Amendment) was ratified by State Conventions Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A statutory law may be passed by each house with a simple majority 51% approving. If the President vetoes it a veto override requires a 2/3 supermajority of the congress to become law.

That is one difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a Statutory law. The other difference is that the US Supreme Court cannot strike down a constitutional clause or amendment -- the US Constitution is ''carved in stone'' its meanings can only be interpreted then narrowed or broadened by the US Supreme Court and never overruled or struck down -- it is the law of the land.

I would never make owning a gun such a priority that I need to move to a redneck state just to accommodate the purchase of one. It would be a "nice to have" thing.

You guys never mention the fact that we don't live in the 1700 colonies anymore. Why are you gun nuts so defensive about this issue?

I know just as much about guns as any of you -- I've owned assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, reloaded my own rounds...but I have common sense about gun ownership. The rest of you don't like to give an inch no matter what.

bronco67 is a unique snowflake. according to bronco67.

Being liberal, you are thinking one sided

Poor people can't afford an ID, so therefore shouldn't have to have an ID to vote, which is a right in the US and put forth by democrats

But if you can't afford gun insurance, you can't own a gun even though that's a constitutional right?

Pick your battles better. Because this will not pass in my life time

I have to ask, what part of this exactly is above your comprehension?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Or are you just stupid?

The more you speak, the more of an idiot you expose yourself as

"being a liberal, you are thinking one sided"


as opposed to what? Being a fat wannabe biker who thinks he's connected to biker gangs?

Get over yourself

This is getting stupider and we should just vote these bitches right out on their assess. It shouldn't pass if we all unite and fight it.

to bear arms and to own arms are 2 different things.... :2 cents:

stupid skank :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

In the language of the land in 1791, they're considered the same. This is the first time anyone on GFY has brought this up that I know of and I'm glad you did.

Here's really good article about what the Supreme Court had to consider
Language Log » What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh and I say again, :1orglaugh

Which well regulated militia do you belong to?

The supreme court held what it's interpretation is.

Pity too, I think that they should issue an assault rifle to each freshman at the start of high school right along with the orientation manual.

Just think how it would help to prevent that bullying that everyone thinks is so terrible, but lets be honest, bullying simply build character and these pussies today could all use a bit more bullying really!

The added benefit is of course, when we need to fight the invading Chinese at least these little pussy boys will be ready when drafted into the army saving time and money! :thumbsup