House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

We need to stop trying to compare the ownership of a car to the ownership of a firearm.

One is a PRIVILEGE and one is a RIGHT.

It is constitutional to require a license and insurance on a privilege because the practice of such is not constitutionally guaranteed.

It is unconstitutional to make the practice of a constitutional right prohibitive either by cost or by process.

We have the constitutional right to VOTE. However, all efforts to require voters to prove legal citizenship have been resisted because of the preceived (by some) inconvenience of process and expense of obtaining some type of valid ID.

You have to prove who you are to get a drivers license. You don't have to prove who you are to vote (I think that might vary by state).

 

I so no think people should be required to get a license to conceal, I think everyone should have that right by default

I supported the public option, did you supported the conservatives individual mandate?

 

With as much as eighty percent of the expense being directly attributed to those who are legally unable to own or possess a firearm. That fact is consistently left out of the discussion because it does not fit the narrative.

If you purchase matches or gasoline, should you be required to possess liability insurance because of the actions of arsonists?

And there are those who cannot afford to pay such fees due to being economically disadvantaged. There is a reason small, cheap firearms made from zinc alloy are continually produced, despite better options being available.

If you bothered to read the last version of the proposed legislation, you would note that there is no exception made for those that cannot afford whatever the annual fees would be. There is nothing to suggest a pauper's oath would serve to relieve them of the supposed responsibility to carry liability insurance.

 

Show us where this has been held with previous administrations. Show us where the courts have held that the president of the united states has the authority to tell the country that they do not have to follow a law that was deemed constitutional by the supreme court, because he is in charge of determining when dates of compliance are and are not applicable.

Simply because there are those doing it, does not mean that it is required to be done. Exercise legitimate thought rather than mob mentality.

And specifically how would a prospective plaintiff go about showing that they have been harmed by the proposed legislation? Would they first have to incur the ten thousand dollar fine, and be unable to pay it, which would incur more fines for failure to pay? Would they first have to be convicted of a felony for their economic instability, before they could show harm?

The constitution does not apply if the border patrol agents routinely ignore it, and are not held responsible for their actions.

 

If as you claim someone is too poor to afford a couple hundred dollars annually, but can somehow afford to purchase a firearm but can't do so without insurance. They are harmed and can file for redress.

No

you have yet to show this is the case.

 

Well, for starters, I'd love to see a decent link to your assertion as to the costs. Be that as it may, there are significantly more treated for injury from gunshot wounds every year than there are deaths (73,505 treated in ER's, and 31,076 deaths in 2010 - I'd guess today's numbers are similar). And that is expensive any way you look at it.

Neither item mentioned was designed to kill and, even if there's an accident with a match or gas, it is far less likely to be fatal.

Maybe it's time for an upgrade? Or, if that bill were to become law, maybe they'd just have to save their beer money a bit longer so they could afford insurance before they bought a cheap gun.

I'm sure someone as knowledgeable as yourself could point out the flaw in the bill and they'll get it fixed to avoid running into a constitutional issue.

 

If you have that Right, by default, why license a Right? If you require licensing, then it becomes a privilege. And that is less than a Right.

 

Anti-Muslim threads? Waste of time. I've stated my opinions about Islam and about politics and culture in Muslim-dominated countries on at least a few occasions, like when responding to Goomba. I focus more on the US because that's my home and I have higher expectations of it and the people in it.

 

In order to own a fully automatic weapon, you need a permit of some sort from the feds. They aren't cheap and take quite a while to obtain.

 

*sigh* Okay, fine. I'll just assume that since you insist on including your caveat concerning licenses that what you're trying to say (or trying not to say, as it were) is that you do not think mandated car insurance sets a precedent that allows the government to require insurance before a person can own a firearm except for in the few cases where a license is required.

You've modified your original claim. Fair enough. So, let's run with your new position. In many locales, a permit or a license is required to hold a protest or political rally. Beyond that, there are some locales that require members of the clergy to obtain a license before they can perform certain religious rites. Personally, I think those requirements are unconstitutional but that is neither here nor there at this point.

In light of that, do you now also maintain that the government can deny the rights to free speech, free religion and assembly using the same criteria that you used regarding the right to keep arms? No insurance, no free speech...?

ETA: Also interesting to note is that, whether you know it or not, your new position would mean that you think this federal law, if passed, would be illegal since it does not include your special caveat. Even if you did get your caveat included you'd run into the very real problem of the federal government placing restrictions on the individual rights of people in some states while letting people in other states retain their rights. Now you've not only stomped on the 2nd Amendment but you're also running into serious issues with equal protection and due process.

 

my point exactly

 

yes, you got it, I am saying requiring insurance for owning a firearm in and of itself would be wrong, no precedent for such a thing, but to get a license there is precedence

.

 

Common misconception. The reality of the situation is that you don't need a permit to own an automatic weapon.

 

goal post shift?
You have been talking about licensing and insuring a Right. Now you wanna talk about what everyone on here knows?
thread Topic:
House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

 

I heard about an effort to repeal that law. I do have a problem with outright explosives. Miners, Forestry, road work, it is a must. The issue is a personal thing. But I'd be real cautious around folks that handle this stuff for fun. Been there, done that. I don't have a need for that, so I don't pursue it.

 

In light of that, do you now also maintain that the government can deny the rights to free speech, free religion and assembly using the same criteria that you used regarding the right to keep arms?

 

they already deny guns to some people, it's a slippery slope, someday they may do the same for speech or religion too

when you start saying rights are a privilege, they are no longer rights


.

 

I agree with that (except that I maintain rights always exist even when they are being infringed), but what I'm asking is:

In light of that, do you now also maintain that the government can deny the rights to free speech, free religion and assembly using the same criteria that you used regarding the right to keep arms?

 

Oh?

The restriction of fully automatic firearms is regulated by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. With the passage of FOPA, the United States Federal Government declared it illegal to make a new fully automatic firearm, convert a semi automatic firearm to fire in full auto, or to import a fully automatic firearm unless “transferred to the U.S. Government (USG) or a law enforcement agency, or to a Federal firearms licensee for use as a USG or law enforcement sales sample.” (27 CFR 479.105(d)). This means that any full auto firearm manufactured in the US or imported to the US before May 19, 1986 is legal for anyone who is willing to pay a one time $200 tax stamp (per firearm) to own a full auto or burst fire gun. However, due to the fixed supply of fully automatic firearms that currently exist in the US that are available for civilian purchase, the price for the qualifying full auto guns is outrageous. For example, I found a full auto MP-40 described as being in “85% condition” for sale on GunBroker.com for the starting price of $14,000. Although, depending on the firearm, it is not uncommon to find prices upwards of $20k.

Would they issue a stamp without a background check? I'll let you check that one.

 

I think you posted the wrong link. You made the statement that a person needs a permit to buy an automatic weapon. Your link says that a person needs to pay a $200 tax for each automatic weapon that they purchase. It didn't mention anything about requiring a permit to purchase one.

Allow me to reiterate the part that you bolded, "This means that any full auto firearm manufactured in the US or imported to the US before May 19, 1986 is legal for anyone who is willing to pay a one time $200 tax stamp (per firearm) to own a full auto or burst fire gun."

Let's prick out the most pertinent part, "legal for anyone who is willing to pay a one time $200 tax stamp."

FAQ for the uninformed:

So who is it legal for? Anyone who is willing to pay a one time tax.

Does that mean that you need a permit? No, because it is legal for anyone who is willing to pay a one time tax.

Isn't a tax a permit? Not unless you think that the sales tax you pay at Publix is actually a government issued permit to purchase bread and milk. ​

Don't need to check because I already know the answer. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to even enter a debate like this without already having such simple and basic knowledge on the subject. The real question though is how is that relevant to your assertion that a person needs a permit to own an automatic weapon?

 

You are aware that in most states, it is perfectly legal to either inherit firearms from a family member, or receive them as a gift, correct? But under the proposed legislation, that would be outlawed unless the recipient possesses a policy for liability insurance, even if they cannot afford the premiums required.

Then specifically how would one go about showing that they have been harmed?

And you have yet to present any case showing where the court has rebuked border patrol agents for violating the constitution at the border. It would appear that we are at an impasse.

 

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concepts of arson, and self-immolation.

Do you also support requiring anyone registering to vote proving that they are indeed citizens of the united states, and eligible to vote in the election in question?

Such would only be applicable if the intent of the proposed legislation is truly about addressing a legitimate need. It is not. It is simply mandating one more requirement that must be met, before someone can legally exercise their constitutional rights. It is no different from the state of California demanding various firearms manufacturers to pay a ransom fee for their firearms to remain on the safe firearms registry so that they may be sold within the state.

 

Remember the poll taxes democrats screamed about?

If someone can't afford a few dollars why should they be able to elect the leader of the free world.

Argument derailed.

 

I'm not arguing for the mandated insurance.

If they are not able to obtain a firearm, despite the fact they can legally possess one.

There isn't an impass. You can't demonstrate the constitution doesn't apply inside US Borders.

 

Not really. I made the same argument you did against the mandate. It is equivalent to a poll tax which is not constitutional.