Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Team SASS: Several State to propose mandatory Insurance


Marshal Dan Troop 70448

Recommended Posts

What concerns me is the argument that it's only reasonable since we're required to have liability insurnace for our cars. It's an argument the non-gun owning masses would think is a good idea, specially since they wouldn't be affected by it.

 

If they can't outright ban guns, they'll do everything to make it too expensive for law abiding citizens to afford to own guns.

Link to comment

Linsky says this won't help to stop intentional shootings. He believes it will stop accidental shootings.

 

David Linsky may be a prime example of a dyed in the wool, tatooed on the lip, card carrying IDIOT!! :rolleyes::o:angry:

Link to comment

Linsky says this won't help to stop intentional shootings. He believes it will stop accidental shootings.

 

David Linsky may be a prime example of a dyed in the wool, tatooed on the lip, card carrying IDIOT!! rolleyes.gifohmy.gifmad.gif

 

Yup!

Link to comment

Another San Francisco idiot (dunno if he has the lip tattoo yet) is chasing the idea in California...

 

Comments from GOA:

 

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said most gun owners already act responsibly and can be sued for damages if they don't...

 

Moreover, he questioned whether it is constitutional to require someone to buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right.

 

"If they don't address it in committee, I'll guarantee they'll have to address it in court," Paredes said.

 

Good thought!

Link to comment

Linsky says this won't help to stop intentional shootings. He believes it will stop accidental shootings.

 

David Linsky may be a prime example of a dyed in the wool, tatooed on the lip, card carrying IDIOT!! :rolleyes:/> :o/> :angry:/>

God Lord! When did an insurance policy ever prevent anything?

Does health insurance prevent illness?

Does auto insurance prevent car accidents?

Titanic was insured.

Absolutely unbelieveable. :mad:

Link to comment

Another back door attack on gun rights. They keep finding new ways to gather in money and pretend they are actually helping a problem, and all the while destroying rights and gaining power over the people.

 

We can't ever give up, not even long enough to celebrate every little victory we get. They never rest and we can't afford to either.

Link to comment

Anybody know the house or senate bill number?

 

The CALGUNS site says it is AB231. I checked on the Leginfo.ca.gov site, entered the number in Bill Information link, and got:

 

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Members Ting and Gomez

 

FEBRUARY 5, 2013

 

An act relating to public safety.

 

 

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

 

 

AB 231, as introduced, Ting. Public safety: gun violence.

Existing law provides that the Legislature finds and declares that

it is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, creed,

religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, gender

expression, age, sexual orientation, or handicap, to be secure and

protected from fear, intimidation, and physical harm caused by the

activities of violent groups and individuals.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact

legislation that would ensure that Californians are not at undue risk

of gun violence.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.

State-mandated local program: no.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

 

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact

legislation that would ensure that Californians are not at undue risk

of gun violence.

 

That is the entire text of the bill at this time. Doesn't seem to mention liability insurance. But it is one hell of an open ended bill, basically allowing the Legislature to try anything and everything - Constitution be damned.

 

This is a prime example of why it is important to go an check the text for yourself, not just rely on what CALGUNS, the NRA, GOA, or whoever says about it.

 

ADDED:

 

I think we would be hard pressed to find ANY insurance company that would cover intentional misuse of a firearm. Might be dicey getting them to cover unintentional discharges.

Link to comment

This is the part of that article I found interesting:

 

"Robert Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute in New York, said that since no market now existed for gun liability insurance lawmakers would have to negotiate coverage criteria with insurers.

 

"A legislature could in theory mandate gun liability coverage, but you cannot require insurers to offer that coverage," Hartwig said.

 

If insurers declined to offer coverage, states themselves might have to set up insurance liability programs, Hartwig said."

 

Kind of hard to require insurance that nobody sells, ain't it? What a dumba$$ idea!

Link to comment

As I wondered in another thread... what would be the reaction to a proposed bill which would require "members of the media" to PAY for "libel insurance" before they'd be allowed to practice their first amendment rights...? <_<

Link to comment

God Lord! When did an insurance policy ever prevent anything?

Does health insurance prevent illness?

Does auto insurance prevent car accidents?

Titanic was insured.

Absolutely unbelieveable. :mad:

 

 

Actually, the automotive insurance companies have set up testing labs that test collisions etc and rate cars for safety.

This may help reduce the severity of car accidents.

But the sinister part of this is that to some extent their findings are seen as useful and appear to be acted upon by government agencies.

We really don't need consumer protection type agencies telling us that guns can kill.

It is my understanding that congress has prevented the consumer protection type agencies from dealing with firearms.

 

Yet another backdoor attempt to infringe upon my 2nd A rights.

Link to comment

So then when I get shot by a gangbanger I won't have to come up with money to pay for my medical bills right???? I meen they'll have to buy the insurance too won't they???? :rolleyes:

That sounds good . . . . gang bangers will have to have proof of insurance in order to have a gun . . . . GREAT . . . :blink: And if caught by police with a gun and no proof of insurance their gun can be impounded until they show proof of insurance . . . . . :huh: WONDERFUL . . . . .

 

I feel safer already . . . . . . :D:o:P:blink:

Link to comment

Last time I looked, in most jurisdictions, insurance against liability for intentional, criminal acts is considered to be against public policy. Lawmakers have traditionally been concerned that such insurance may faciltate a criminal act, relieving a potential wrongdoer from any financial concern, and so making it easier for him to decide to commit the offense.

 

Most general liability, business and homeowners policies specifically exclude coverage for intentional acts. While it might be possible to persuade insurers that they could make a buck on such coverage (especially were it required by law, creating a compelled class of buyers), I would imagine that it would be filled with exclusions and limitations - such as mass shootings (no insurer wants to be on the hook for unpredictable mass damage claims), organized criminal conduct (who is going to cover gangs?), and even shootings with illegal weapons.

 

So what does that leave? Basically, only usually law-abiding gun owners would be compelled to buy the coverage, and they are extremely unlikely to commit intentional gun crimes (less than 1/10th of one percent, I believe). Another tax placed on the backs of earners, largely with the intention to help discourage gun ownership, and financially benefitting few (except plaintiff's lawyers, who will now have a pocket to sue in such cases).

 

LL

Link to comment

There wax an article from Easyrider Magazine a few years ago that described this exact back door method of gun grabbing. If I can find a link or the article I'll post it. I think I have it at work.

 

JEL

Link to comment

I just want to throw this out there and see what you guys think about this; If a poor person buys a gun for defense but cannot afford the insurance wouldnt that law be deemed unconstitutional?

 

HS

Thats the thing: 99% of what they're proposing is unconstitutional. For these politicians there is no reason not to try to pass these laws...they've already said they'll worry about whether the proposed legislation is legal after its passed. Thats part of the plan: to force us to spend our time and money to fight unconstitutional laws that we just paid them to burden us with.

ps- I should add that this is a CA perspective. Here the "progressives" have a super-majority in the state house and have no fear of the voters. In other states I say make em pay on election day--vote em out!!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.