Kurt Nimmo
April 2, 2013
New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Photo: U.S. House of Representatives.
In March, New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney boasted her proposed measure would be “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”
H.R. 1369, the Firearm Risk Protection Act, mandates that all gun owners obtain liability insurance prior to buying a firearm.
“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” Maloney’s bill states.
The legislation calls for the federal government to impose a fine of $10,000 on firearms owners who do not have insurance after the bill becomes law.
The law would effectively reduce the number of legal firearms owners in the country and create a new class of criminals. Many Americans would either not choose to follow the law or would be unable to afford the required insurance and would be forced to forfeit their firearms under fear of prosecution by the federal government.
“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said when she introduced the bill in the House. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”
In other words, according to the New York Democrat and the sponsors of her legislation, legal gun owners are responsible for violence committed by others. Anti-Second Amendment Democrats have adopted this irrational argument as they move to strip Americans of their firearms following the Sandy Hook massacre.
The proposed law is “ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told The Daily Caller on Tuesday.
This article was posted: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 8:50 am
Share this article
-
-
-
-
-
Because the effect of abuse of firearms on society is well known, and the ability to protect ourselves from our government by the use of our weapons is at present merely speculative, I would propose another form of liability insurance: buy and you're covered for all contingencies (including someone taking your weapon because you didn't secure it) - don't buy it and you're liable to get sued for everything you have, but only if something happens - otherwise, you can simply take the chance without penalty. But the law will be enforced as strict liability, so that whenever there is a firearm death by someone's weapon, the law will deem that person civilly liable no matter who commits the crime. Like I said, you never have to buy insurance. But you'll think about it, you'll decide how many weapons you can afford, and you'll cover yourself. Nobody said you couldn't bear arms. But nobody offered you a free lunch either.
ReplyDeleteGet yourself a policy that has a "conversion to permanent" clause. This refers to the fact that at any time, the policy holder can switch their term insurance into permanent insurance without further medical exams. While this may not save money at first, it will eventually save money if you start suffering from poor from health problems before the policy runs out.
ReplyDelete