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.
http://thehill.com/regulation/243425-house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance
BACK DOOR REGISTRATION. COOL!!!!
WELL FALL FOR THAT!!!
Oh here we go. So when this bill passes, what’s to stop the insurance companies from deciding to just not cover anybody? Or maybe they’ll cover people for say, five grand a month? Oh, you can’t afford that? Better get rid of your firearms or pay a fine. Or maybe it’ll be lower and say you pay the insurance but now you can’t afford any ammo because you spent your ammo money on the insurance.
I don’t know if this bill would stand a chance of passing but it would certainly give the republijews the out their looking for to disarm everyone.
My firearms are insured, I can insure that anyone trying to take them can have them, bullets first though.
The hypocrisy of these people whom sorround themselves by ARMED agents to protect their safety is just ridiculous.
When they give up armed protection and stop trying to pass stupid laws maybe some people would consider giving up their right to bear arms.
LOL hhaaaa-hhaaaa, then again probably not!!
These people trying to pass this crap had better get rope insurance too,
From my viewpoint they will all swing
“shall not be infringed”, case closed, bullets flying.
Aside from the angle of corporate RAPE, seems to me it’s yet another ” dog and pony ” psy-op. A vain attempt to instill fear in us firearms owners. I won’t register, I won’t insure, and I won’t surrender. PERIOD. I choose the right to exercise my most powerful word: NO. And for the legally inclined: No Contract . . . I didn’t fill out the Census form, had my mothers pension stop deducting state & fed taxes, and refuse to file with a sub-corporation that operates in fraud, racketeering, and extortion. Come what may, I’m exercising and utilizing my power of NO. No Compliance, No Contract, just plain old NO.
That which we don’t actively oppose, we in fact passively condone . . . . .
So. State of Washington gun owners, carrying their guns, protested the states new gun control laws and the cops around the protesters did nothing!
Do these idiots really think this will work on everyone? On the stupid sheeple, yes, but what about those who have owned their guns unregistered from unlicensed dealers for years, or bought off the books from a friend? Or who live in states that are (one by one) legislating acts to repeal Fed laws in the state…oh, and Texas is likely to pass an act legislating gold and silver as legal tender, so if folks buy guns with gold and silver (and Texas is now an open carry state I think), what’s the Feds gonna do to “force” Texas gun owners to buy insurance with fiat FRNs?
As fascist-communist-tyrannical as Congress has become even this is a bit much! (And wouldn’t Obama just have to create an executive order for this? Dog-and-pony-show indeed!)
“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns,” Maloney said in a statement.”
That wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that guns AREN’T cars, would it, @sswipe? You’re the ones who need insurance.
Life insurance.
We require the citizenry be bound by the law, but no such requirement exists for politicians.
Tyranny Abounds
In tandem with insanity.
NOMFI
““An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” she said.”
Really? You never needed it before. Why now? Oh that’s right…It’s all about the money and gun control. The merger of corporate and state powers. You know, that thing called, “FASCISM”.
“Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.””
BAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously? That’s supposed to enhance your argument?
Once again, how does that help anything if criminals DON’T FOLLOW THE LAWS TO BEGIN WITH!!!!????
Once again, this penalizes the the good people and makes insurance companies richer while doing nothing to penalize the criminals.
WAKE UP, people!!
Not going to happen. I’d wager good money at least even money that if they try to enforce something like this it would not only start a civil war, but the first jerks to stop a bullet or start taking swan dives from tall buildings, are the Investment bankers who also own and run the insurance companies. Actually they are the heart all of the problems the human race faces on this planet today. Of all the things that threaten us what percentage of them have their origin with the Bankers? Am I right or full of blueberry muffins?