House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

The NRA sells liability insurance to it's members. $47 a year for a $100K liability policy. $200 a year for a $1M liability policy.

https://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

 

And there is no guarantee that the proposed legislation would recognize those policies as being valid.

 

Because it's completely moronic to think otherwise.

I agree. But that will never happen. Stop pretending so.

No idea how you think this addresses my post.

thank you. The constitution applies everywhere inside US borders.

- - - Updated - - -

You have exactly zero basis to,think it,wouldn't.

 

Progressive wanting only the rich to be armed. Like Michel Moore and his body guards. The poor and middle class shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves.

 

Seems to me the feds are on a mission to sell insurance.

Considering how powerful the insurance "industry" is, that's not overly surprising.

 

And how is the handling of the affordable care act any less moronic? The law specifically stated deadlines that must be met and complied with. Barack Obama is without legal authority to issue delays in their implementation and compliance.

What is being said is that people should stop supporting a faulty system of approach.

You said someone must demonstrate that they have been harmed by a law in order to possess standing. The proposed legislation forces someone who cannot afford mandatory liability insurance, to choose between risking a felony conviction, or being murdered. How is one supposed to show that they have been harmed if that harm is death?

Incorrect. What was said is that no cases were found that favor or oppose the tactics of border patrol agents. Until such time it is a gray area of legality since they are not subject to oversight.

 

Considering what obiecare is going through, I'd sure as hell hate to see the way government runs insurance for gun owners...............

 

This is just a progressive disguised gun registry.

 

I already said, yes, in those cases that involve licensing....

 

yes, I am also old enough to remember it was also required to have a license to drive before they added mandated insurance

if your not gonna hunt, you do not need a hunting license, thus do not need insurance....


.

 

They don't run the insurance, though. They're just mandating that everyone buy insurance, like they did earlier for automobiles. Time and again, the government's "solution" to problems of people being unable to afford something in the marketplace is to force everyone to buy an insurance policy. After that it's up to the private, money-raking companies to run the actual insurance business, same as it's always been.

We've also seen with 0-care that, if I'm not much mistaken, the insurance companies are guaranteed public funds if they need them in order to meet the new government regulations. A powerful lobby wins and we little people lose.

 

I guess the next question is, What guns?

 

Sounds like all guns, and that just to try and reduce gun deaths when so many are from gang and drug violence, an area that absolutely will not be affected by a law like this.

 

and I am saying the precedent is set, if you want a hunting license they could require insurance, just like they do with driving licenses

again, I do not agree with it, just saying the precedent has already been set

.

 

It has not. You have failed to prove where precedent has been set that constitutional rights can be licensed, and insurance mandated under threat of denial for noncompliance.

Driving is legally a privilege. Travel is a constitutional right. There is no requirement for liability insurance when traveling in general, only in one specific setting.

And stop placing your periods two lines down from the end of your closing sentence.

 

hunting licenses are already required, so are licenses to carry a concealed weapon, both precedents have been set

 

But, as pointed out, with hunting, it's the kills that are licensed, and so with the concealment. But the keeping and bearing, those are rights. And precedent says you can't tax a right (such as newspapers and churches). And forcing people to get insurance has been deemed a tax (a la Obamacare).

 

right, hunting and concealing are not considered a right, they are a privalage

you and I may disagree, but the precedent has been set

I do not agree with the conservatives individual mandates.... I preferred Obama's public option

.

 

Yes, but keeping and bearing are rights. So you can license the privilege, but not the right (not that I really believe that the others are "privileges", but they haven't been enshrined in the constitution as rights).

 

sorry, guess you just didn't read it with irony. The problem is, you didn't read enough into it. Not my problem.......
However, I have failed to see you participate in the anti-muslim threads. Naw, you just love bashing Americans, especially since they have some sort of faith, unlike the faithless who have nothing
Next..........

- - - Updated - - -

nope, there is no precedence for hunting insurance. What a hoot..you are as familiar with hunting regs as you are gun ownership................zero

 

really? Obama's public option? evidently you know as much about that as you do with hunting and guns. BTW, a new precedent has been set, Texas allows open carry, in public settings as well as college campuses...guess that archaic view you hold, is old, eh

 

Your argument is incorrect. Carrying a concealed firearm requires a permit in only some states, not all of them. And no hunting license is necessary when the purpose is exterminating nuisance animals.

 

If that constitutional question arose, I proposed a solution that, IMO, is quite valid as it is based on existing law.

I'm enjoying the daylights out of this merry-go-round discussion. It's far more stimulating than many (perhaps most) I've had on various boards.

Given the cost of gun deaths and injuries, I do believe a state could find a "compelling government interest" in demanding that gun owners carry a reasonable amount of liability insurance, so that the costs of accidents do not fall on the state in while or in part. As noted elsewhere on this thread, the annual charge for a $1 million liability policy from the NRA is $200 for members (membership fee = $25 on an annual basis), essentially small sums of money.

 

No he isn't. As the head of the executive branch he has discretionary power in its implementation.

I know what's being said. That isn't going to happen so there is no point wishing.

They don't have to be dead to show harm.

Unless you can demonstrate, via some court ruling or amendment, that the constitution doesn't apply in those areas, the constitution applies.

 

Ya just gotta love patriots for profit...........allow me to sell you a policy you don't need