HR 1369: Require Insurance for Gun Owners

[Tom Servo]

I was wondering how long it would take them to trot this sickly pony out. Sponsored by Carolyn Maloney, HR 1369 would mandate a $10,000 fine for firearms owners who fail to maintain liability insurance.

It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

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.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that the policies will be expensive, and in many places, impossible to get. This will have a chilling effect on gun ownership.

The second is to set gun owners up for strict liability if their guns are used in a crime, even if the gun was stolen prior to its misuse.

 

[2ndsojourn]

Passage of that one will surely cause another buying panic.

 

[geetarman]

I saw this also. Do you think this will pass any Constitutional sniff test?

Insure a "right". . . require a background check to include fingerprints to buy a firearm or ammunition?

Have we, as a country, lost our way?

Does anyone in CT know how many 22 rifles hold more than 10 rounds?

I realize the problem is more pronounced back east but it will work it's way to Arizona.

I am really getting perplexed at the demonization of guns and gun owners.

The ads for background checks runs every few minutes here in the Phoenix area and it certainly isn't because Bloomberg and his cronies support Second Amendment rights. They have made it clear they want us disarmed.

What is the tipping point? Where is our Concord Bridge flash point? It really seems to me a violent clash is building and who knows what will set it off?

 

[Robk]

So...which insurance companies would step up to offer this type of insurance?? If mine did, I'm more than sure that all my other rates would go up based solely on the fact that I am a firearms owner. And what exactly would this special liability insurance pay for? I don't see it in the link. But is this possibilily for the scum of the earth bastard I shot while he was breaking and entering, committing grand or petite theft, or perhaps endangering my family or myself? Or perhaps against lawsuits from the family of said scumbag for being shot? Or perhaps for the scumbags funeral? Heard all of these in a conversation with a friend as reasons for this insurance. Now I'm not saying it's true, and I am sure someone hear will clarifiy, but why would I want to be insured for using a firearm against a criminal?

Either way, this is just very bad legislation. We have to stop these politicians the next chance we get. I don't care if we have to elect total unknowns into office, just to get these idiots out. But we need to show the country that we stand united and we will protect our rights. this last part just a rant and IMHO.

 

[carguychris]

And what exactly would this special liability insurance pay for? I don't see it in the link. But is this possibilily for the scum of the earth bastard [crook] I shot while he was breaking and entering, committing grand or petite theft, or perhaps endangering my family or myself?

This isn't the only problem. My main concern is that this law- and the other liability insurance proposals I've read- do not limit liability to incidents in which a person is directly harmed. Insurance claims can conceivably be filed for perceived harm and loss of property value caused by noise. This could result in shooting ranges being shut down and/or legal hunting becoming impossible in certain areas.

 

[Spats McGee]

Just to be sure we're all clear on who would be covered: everyone who owns firearms purchased on or after the effective date of the this bill

(a) Prohibitions- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:


‘(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

‘(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

‘(iii) 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.

And what kind of insurance this bill proposes to require: a policy that specifically covers losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser

‘(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that--

‘(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

‘(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.’.

 

[Patriot86]

I will only buy this insurance when the people who vote these anti gun politicians into office are required to purchase "civil rights violation" insurance, to cover the legal costs of all the lawsuits that eventually overturn insane, unconstitutional "gun control" laws. I mean if the people who voted for the politicians who supported Chicago Hand Gun Ban or DC's defacto gun ban had to pay the price themselves, right out of their check books, I think this would come to an end pretty quick.

Honestly though anti gunners, please keep the crazy stuff up you are going to hand the Senate right to the Republicans in 2014 and the White House over in 2016.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Well if this passes we are screwed thanks to Obama care. The SCOTUS ruling started that forcing participation is allowable of it is a tax.
The tipping point will be when the media screws up and reports a raid on a gun owner as such instead of their prescripted "domestic terrorist" or most likely they will claim the person was violating gun laws or was a pedophile.
They will eventually come across someone who fights back. I fully expect another bombing of a federal building in my life time. I don't support such an action but having read more about Ruby Ridge and Waco, I can see why this with nothing to lose would strike out. The way the government is pushing the people and demonizing lawful ownership, there will be a tipping point.
There is to much happening to discount that there is a full blown push to Disarm Americans, and we need to really know why.
More people die from hammers than rifles in The US. More kids drown than are murdered. This push has nothing to do with the safety of the citizens, it's about the safety of a select few that are planning on screwing us big time.

 

[geetarman]

This push has nothing to do with the safety of the citizens, it's about the safety of a select few that are planning on screwing us big time.

I really hate to say it, but I think you have it right. I fear someone is really going to miscalculate the "compliance" of the ordinary American and the crap will hit the fan.

I do not think we are very far from that point.

 

[eldermike]

I know I am going to get into trouble with this post. However, from a lifetime of study of this slow but steady progressive movement I have no choice but to try and tell you the truth.

Many many gun owners are in cahoots with these gun grabbers. Many gun owners are also slaves to ideas that are more important to them than guns.
About half of americans are willing to live free, the tipping point has been reached.
Slavery to promises that can't be kepted has begun and with the help of many a gun onwer.

 

[speedrrracer]

Doesn't the NRA offer insurance for a nominal fee, or include it with memberships?

Anyways, requiring insurance for a right would seem wildly unconstitutional for an enumerated right. Injunction + overturn == Maloney showing what a waste of organic molecules she really is.

 

[Technosavant]

Would most of this not be covered under the umbrella liability coverage on one's renters or homeowners policy?

I agree that this proposal is purely punitive, intended to make the exercise of a right more expensive and less common (of the millions of legally owned guns out there, how many actually cause losses? I'd presume it's very very few...). However, many of us would already have this kind of coverage thanks to our existing insurance coverage.

 

[JWT]

Wonder how the insurance companies would react to such a requirement. However, I immagine tort lawyers would be thrilled with such passage.
Just another attempt to throw roadblocks to gun ownership.

 

[Danxyz53]

Poll tax?

I am no lawyer, but isn't requiring people to pay a fee to exercise a right similar to poll taxes, which were ruled unconstitutional?

 

[KyJim]

The primary thrust of the bill is to make it cumbersome and expensive to own guns. The secondary purpose is to act as a de facto registration system. How many insurance companies would offer liability insurance for this? A half dozen? A dozen? Anytime the government wants to know Joe Blow owns some guns, it simply subpoenas the handful of insurance companies that issue such policies and they have their information.

 

[Punisher_1]

The Bill of Rights will soon be known as The Bill for Rights. How much do you have to pay to receive these rights? I saw one article that wanted a CCW person to have a Million dollar liability policy. I'm sure you will have to register your firearms to have them covered. Where does this end?

 

[L2R]

registration without a law to register guns

no insurance co. would insure an item without a serial number.

so, wala, they have registration using a 3rd party.


This makes no sense in that is bans many from defending themselves and like car insurance, many will not pay for it. Who/how will they track them?

Again, penalizing the honest.

 

[Spats McGee]

Let's not forget the problem with enforcing this in relation to:
1) Private sales -- Under this, not only would a buyer have to present some documentation of the insurance to the seller, but the seller will have to verify it. (See section (ii)). That means no private sales on Sundays, and maybe none on Saturdays (I don't know when insurance companies are open).

2) Firearms owned prior to the enactment of the bill -- Umm . . . For states where there's no registration, and we don't have to list our firearms on our CCLs, I don't see this as being enforceable. If I'm pulled over for a traffic ticket while I'm carrying and am required to notify, is the officer going to ask me, "License, insurance and registration. Oh, you're carrying? Fine. May I see your firearms insurance?"

 

[Tom Servo]

Under this, not only would a buyer have to present some documentation of the insurance to the seller, but the seller will have to verify it.

Oh, that can be fixed with a Federal Uniform Directory of Gun Insurance (FUDGI). The cost will be borne by the taxpayers, or better yet, built into gun sales as an additional fee.

For states where there's no registration, and we don't have to list our firearms on our CCLs, I don't see this as being enforceable.

Well, then we just need a federal database of firearms, don't we?

As it is, Reid has his package. He's spent a great deal of time, effort, and influence honing it to something that might just get some traction in the Senate. This, like numerous other bills currently floating around, is an outlier that isn't likely to gain much traction.

 

[Spats McGee]

And therein, as they say, lies the rub.

None of this works without registration of some form.