House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

Lol, you got caught making (*)(*)(*)(*) up in your post. You claimed it wasn't covered, the. Went on to stage your agent told you it was covered.

Yea I'd bow out too if I were you, lol.

Logic fail. If everyone is covered by health insurance why do you need auto liability insurance?

 

No, after Obamacare the insurance is to cover the damage to the car not the indiviudal - your Obamacare takes that, besides several states don't even demand drivers have auto insurance anyway.

I wouldn't expect you to understand tho.

 

so you feel the victim should just come up with the $12K out of his own pocket to cover the deductible?

 

There is no deductible under obamacare - everything is free... I had to sign up for Obamacare and you know what? anytime I need care it's free and my medication is free... I don't like it but it is what it is... I don't support socialized healthcare at all.... But everyone is covered...

The odds of a gun owner shooting another person who for some reason doesn't have healthcare is astronomical because you have to have a plan or get fined, so gun insurance is moot.

The idea is stupid because there is already insurance in place to take care of injury.

 

The argument is moot anyways , never going to happen. NRA too powerful.

 

Ahh, so should I take this to mean that you've changed your stance? You no longer think that mandated car insurance sets a precedent for mandated insurance as a prerequisite to owning a firearm?

I want to put that baby to bed first, and then we can discuss this new position of yours regarding licenses and permits.

 

No they can't. lmao

You may want that to be the case really, really badly. I mean, you may passionately desire that to the point where you can taste it in your mouth...but it doesn't matter because the reality of the situation shows your statement to be complete BS.

A person cannot, "be deemed by the government to be not legally entitled to own guns if they do not have a reasonable amount of liability insurance." That's the cold hard truth. There is no law on the books that allows for what you described. Furthermore, there will be no law passed that even approaches your desired outcome any time soon and if, by some hoplophobic miracle, a bill like that did pass it would be pimp-slapped down so hard by the SCOTUS that the sound would reverberate for generations.

Well I guess that settles it. If you've personally never needed a gun then that means nobody needs them. How could anyone take issue with such solid logic?

 

I'll guess the same one that allows governments to prohibit driving without insurance.

Pauper's oath.

Auto insurance.

Nope, not at all. Sign a pauper's oath and you're just as entitled as any other person.

 

Driving is a privilege. Firearms ownership is a constitutional right. Your comparison fails on the basis of logic. You have proven yourself incapable of presenting where it has been determined that the vague standard of "responsibility" is tied to economic stability, with said stability being grounds to deny people their constitutional rights.

 

Hey, there's a thought. Make it mandatory to carry liability insurance for guns, but if you're such a bad risk that the insurance companies won't deal with you, then you can't have guns. Works for driving cars, and it would be a small first step in weeding out the idiots that shouldn't have guns in the first place.

 

Uh, no. You still have deductibles and you still have out of pocket maximums. $6,600 for individuals $13,200 for family.

Again, out of pocket expenses.

No there isn't, and the victim should not have to pay a penny out of pocket for your mistake. And there's also the lost wages during recovery that you will be responsible for.

 

Because people who get denied car insurance NEVER drive=) Then when they kill you, you get to sue them, and since they have nothing...means nothing. You're screwed. Everyone is screwed. Except of course the people who get in accident after accident with no licence, no insurance, because you can't really stop them, besides locking them away.

You're supposed to have a licence to posses a gun in NY, yet how many unregistered shooters are there? Doesn't mean squat.

 

It has already been seen how insurance providers will arbitrarily deny policies to individuals with preexisting conditions. Why should anyone believe these same providers would not engage in the same pattern of arbitrary denials with regard to firearms liability insurance?

Responsibility should not be determined by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats whose bottom line is saving their company money.

 

I'm well aware of the difference but what you fail to grasp is that the same argument could be made about auto insurance, not something to do with the 2nd Amendment, but for the full exercise of all rights granted under the Constitution. And, like I said, allowing for someone to sign a pauper's oath would clear up any possible Constitutional problem. I'll point out again that governments do have the right to restrict gun ownership and places where they may be carried.

 

That is debatable in itself.

What nonsense are you seeking to dispense now with this statement?

Allowing them? You propose allowing those who are economically disadvantaged, to essentially beg and grovel for their constitutional rights?

You are now attempting to change the argument. When did you last make this particular point, in this particular discussion?

 

It is no different from a candidate for elective office filing one of these if they cannot afford the filing fees.

Maybe it just whizzed past you or I just made it up. What difference does it make? Can or cannot governments pass laws restricting guns and gun ownership in various ways?

 

Just to add another wrench in the gears: anyone consider the fact that Insurance Companies fight claims on a regular basis using an Army Of Lawyers and even if they will eventually lose they will drag out the process so that it can take many years to get you money? Would you rather sue someone with your attorney taking on their attorney or have your attorney go up against a virtual army of lawyers that have endless funding and time to spare?
We do not need any more gun laws, we do on the other hand need better enforcement of the laws we have and far better legal tools and tactics to go after those that commit crimes using guns.

 

Not going to happen, a women escaping her abusive husband could be priced out of owning her only means of protection. Also how would an insurance company know if you are a bad risk? You guys really need to think things through.

 

Of course there is a deductible under Obamacare. Most of the Obamacare plans are high deductible plans.

Which tier plan are you on?

 

I do not support mandated insurance of any kind, but I think a precedent has been set, if you can require insurance to get a license to drive, why not for a license to hunt?

 

Do you truly believe such? Or are you simply fabricating comparisons for the purpose of attempting to address an indefensible claim?

The difference made is that you are either engaging in open, honest, and legitimate debate and discussion with someone who has questioned your stance; or you are deliberately engaging in dishonesty to try and keep and indefensible position afloat by changing the topic of discussion.

No. There are very few, and very specific, ways in which firearms can be legally restricted. There are not various ways in which the restriction of firearms ownership can legally be carried out. And even then, restrictions must meet the strict scrutiny test to be legally defensible, as held by the supreme court utilizing the strict scrutiny test in both Heller and McDonald.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny

 

Please stop prevaricating. I already stated that once we settle this issue, we can move on to your new argument about licenses (I'll actually be happy to, since there are several parallels with 1st Amendment rights there as well that you clearly haven't realized).

Do you still maintain that mandated car insurance sets a precedent for mandated insurance as a prerequisite to owning a firearm?

It's a simple question. I don't understand why you refuse to reply to it with a simple, straightforward answer.

 

in most states, you are required to possess a license to hunt. However, there are certain exceptions. I would suggest you check with your local Conservation Dept as to what hunting license is needed and when. they don't license your gun, just your kills

- - - Updated - - -

it's just backdoor registration. That's all it is.....

 

Barack Obama went on record, multiple times, stating that if a person liked their health insurance, their health plan, and their doctor, they could keep all of them under the affordable care act. None of those promises ever came true. Why should the people of the united states believe it would be any different regarding liability insurance?

It would be better to stop supporting a faulty system of approach.

Someone cannot demonstrate harm if they are dead.

After an extensive search, no court cases ruling either in favor of, or against, the tactics of border patrol agents have been found.

 

It already takes a license to hunt unless on your own property, not everyone that owns guns hunts animals.