Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Because You Just Never Know...

Jacqueline in Texas sent in this story that's not getting enough exposure IMHO. This is where the *real* gun control is going to take place, folks. Take it from me, here - outright bans, at least on a nationwide scale, aren't going to happen. They'll nickel & dime gunowners until all but a few very wealthy folks are left, and then they won't need to ban anything.

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine
A New York Democratic lawmaker is behind a national push that would force gun owners to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine.
The Firearm Risk Protection Act, pushed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney and seven co-sponsors, follows efforts at the state level to create the controversial new kind of insurance for gun owners.
The gist, apparently, is that this insurance is needed to cover the costs incurred by "gun violence". Where do we even begin to pick this idiotic utterance apart? Let's see... For starters, does this silly bint actually think that the gangbangers shooting people with stolen firearms are going to carry insurance? Doubtful. What about mass shootings? Are they going to care that the gun they're using to shoot innocent people isn't "insured"?

And, next, what's the procedure? You, as a law-abiding gun owner, would be responsible for procuring insurance in case someone steals your gun and hurts someone else? Really? Can we name any other item that you need to insure against someone stealing and hurting someone else? I don't believe you are liable if your car is stolen and involved in another accident - they go after the person who stole it and caused the accident. The whole idea is that someone broke the law by stealing your property - but you're still responsible?

No, this is a naked attempt to make owning a firearm more and more costly. They're conflating two separate arguments here against firearms - they're using the cigarette model for the public health, and the insurance model for automobiles. Of course, they ignore that the extra money extorted from the cigarette companies and smokers was never used to pay down health costs - or that requiring automobile insurance doesn't stop tens of thousands from getting killed in car accidents every year.

What they want is for you to have to find some insurance company willing to insure you against any possible misuse of your firearm. There's no word if such insurance even exists, or if insurance companies even offer such a program. There's definitely no word on what this might cost: life insurance policies for a million dollars coverage run about $500 a year (spitballing here) for a healthy person in their 40s - specifically because the likelihood of the insurance company having to pay is pretty slim.

$500 - $1000 a year to exercise a Constitutionally enumerated right? Seriously? I can't wait for the first "Libel Insurance Policy" requirement to be levied against right-leaning bloggers. Because if - G-d forbid - they were to get this passed, then there's nothing they can't require you to own insurance against, folks. For now, these bills are getting quietly withdrawn or ignored. For now.

Stay vigilant.

That is all.

7 comments:

Stretch said...

Stay vigilant and sharpen the bayonets.

chiefjaybob said...

This little maneuver will never pass Constitutional scrutiny. Unfortunately, these dumb-ass politicians, in their haste to DO SOMETHING(c) right away, continue to craft idiotic laws that will do nothing but inconvenience people and fill the pockets of the NRA and SAF lawyers. But it ain't their money, so what to they care?

Peter B said...

I smell a tort lawyer.

.45ACP+P said...

Can we institute insurance against stupid politicians and the unintended consequences of their idiocy? They would have to pay the premiums out of their own pockets? Afterall something might go wrong with their better ideas....

tjbbpgobIII said...

"The whole idea is that someone broke the law by stealing your property - but you're still responsible?"
Have you ever heard of "no fault insurance?" It's what you have whenever you have a wreck that isn't witnessed by a cop, no one is issued a summons.

Sevesteen said...

Even if this passes, it won't do what the antis expect--The prices quoted are likely for general liability policies. I'm guessing that once actuarial data of lawful gun owners is calculated, the NRA or SAF would be able to offer this coverage to members for a trivial increase in dues. The result *could* be a massive increase in the political power of pro-gun groups.

Maureen said...

"This little maneuver will never pass Constitutional scrutiny."

Because that worked so well with ObamaCare, right?