House bill requires gun owners to buy insurance. What are your thoughts about this?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 May 2015 08:55:52 -0400

A bill proposed will require gun owners to purchase liability insurance prior to buying a weapon, similar to car insurance.

Is this a form of gun control?
Is it just an attempt to regulate gun owners?
Is this a pay back to privatr insurance companies who lobbied House reps?
Is it a good idea as it could make gun owners accountable somehow?

Thoughts???

http://thehill.com/regulation/243425-house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance

House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

Rep. Carolyn Maloney said the requirement would "help save lives."

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 8:57 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 May 2015 08:57:08 -0400

The Firearm Risk Prevention Act of 2015

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 31 at 2015 9:46 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sun, 31 May 2015 09:46:17 -0400

I wonder if a wrongful death finding would void the insurance much like fraud voids your business insurance.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 11:40 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 May 2015 11:40:08 -0400

Politicians, no matter their background, party line, have no clue how current laws work regarding gun rights/gun ownership. If they took the time to understand current laws they would see this. They're are resigned to compound the problem with more laws that hurt law abiding citizens and consistently forget that criminals will not comply with a law requiring him to have liability insurance or any other gun control measures.

Maloney states you need insurance to own a car, wrong, its required to operate it, duh.

"If we require liability insurance to exercise our 2nd amendment right, will we be needing insurance for our freedom of speech as well? How about to exercise our freedom of religion when we go to church on Sunday? Where do we draw the line?"

Mandatory health insurance, mandatory car insurance..government and insurance industry collusion anyone?

So be prepared by this administration to shove more gun control legislation until the next election. Then we'll see what the next one has in store for us.

Response by TSgt David L. made May 31 at 2015 3:18 PM

TSgt David L. — Sun, 31 May 2015 15:18:15 -0400

I would be curious to hear the logic behind this one. As someone stated previously, if the 2nd amendment requires insurance then you will need it to; speak your mind, vote, plead the 5th, etc. So would insurance cover you if you shot someone, either accidental or purposely? Obviously if you filed a claim you would be dropped. So then would you be able to own them but not handle/shoot them or would you be banned (going against the 2nd amdt) from ownership?
Hmmmm, seems like a bad deal all the way around.

Response by PO1 John Meyer, CPC made May 31 at 2015 5:00 PM

PO1 John Meyer, CPC — Sun, 31 May 2015 17:00:10 -0400

This sounds a lot like malpractice insurance that medical providers keep in case someone wants to sue them for what ever reason.

For me, it's partly a way for the insurance industry to make money to help cover when claims for being shot are filed.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 5:30 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 May 2015 17:30:21 -0400

They can require it, I won't do it.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 5:31 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 May 2015 17:31:40 -0400

Honestly, that's liability insurance. Maybe they should require insurance for simply being alive... Oh wait...

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made May 31 at 2015 6:44 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 31 May 2015 18:44:19 -0400

They don't understand the word infringement. They tried to tack on a 200 times tax on bullets. And the courts shut them down.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 31 at 2015 8:49 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 31 May 2015 20:49:17 -0400

It is required in most cities and states for Armed Security to have some insurance and or bond for every officer carrying in the performance of their duties, I see no difference.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 1 at 2015 12:36 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:36:16 -0400

I carry 2 million dollars in firearms liability insurance because I am a firearms instructor. I do not agree that gun owners should be required to do this. This insurance is expensive and I am glad I have it, but it should not be mandatory.

Response by SFC Matthew Parker made Jun 16 at 2015 9:57 AM

SFC Matthew Parker — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:57:40 -0400

Gun control, no
Regulation that affects gun owners, yes
Pay back, Would like to think it isn't, would like to think this is a rational solution to a problem with compensation for claims as a result of improper gun ownership.
Accountability, absolutely. You can't take back a bullet.

I don't like the forced purchase of anything but auto/home/gun insurance, I'm ok with it as long as the cost is not out of line.

I would also prefer it be a state requirement and not a federal one. And I don't like there being a fine if I don't have it, I'm going to be out of pocket money if I am sued but I understand the issue with gun owners without the means to pay for their actions.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 5 at 2015 10:33 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:33:58 -0400

Be careful in how you phrase the question. It's not a question of "gun control". Rather, the issue is "will this legislation infringe upon a citizen's right to keep and bear arms". In my case, yes. I live on a fixed retirement income. Purchasing an insurance policy on any weapons that I may own may cause me to give them up. In other words, it infringes on my right to keep them. It's simple when you keep it simple...

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 5 at 2015 11:36 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:36:18 -0400

A source of revenue. Nothing more. BTW, there are states that do not require insurance for your vehicle if you can prove financial responsibility.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Oct 5 at 2015 11:59 AM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:59:33 -0400

I think it is a great idea!...but not for gun control....everyone who owns a gun can have liability insurance...so if they accidentally shoot someone, or their kids gets a hold of the gun and accidentally shoots someone or kills someone, the insurance can pay for the medical expenses or whatever.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 12:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:03:01 -0400

It's about money, pure and simple!

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Oct 5 at 2015 3:20 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:20:17 -0400

A few thoughts/questions:
- What problem(s) are the legislators trying to solve through this legislation? The article does not state explicitly.
- What effect are the legislators trying to create through this legislation? The article does state but the logic may be flawed in my opinion.
- What are the punishments for noncompliance? The article does not state.
- Is this supposed to be a national standard or a state standard? I assume this is a national standard but would have to be implemented at the state level.
- What happens if a state refuses to implement the law (assuming it passes Congress and is signed by the President which is a huge assumption)?
- Are there other examples of an insurance requirement at the national level (other than Obamacare)? Cars, home, life, etc? I can not think of one. The legislator makes the comparison to car insurance to make her case but this could be apples and oranges since I am not aware of a national standard or requirement for car insurance. This is handled at the state level.

Response by Cpl Clinton Britt made Oct 5 at 2015 3:32 PM

Cpl Clinton Britt — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:32:26 -0400

Just another way for them make a dollar. Yes, it is another way to keep us under a thumb.

The easiest way to take over a national is to dis arm it's citizens

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Oct 5 at 2015 3:58 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:58:39 -0400

I personally think that it is STUPID to require a Populace already taxed and nickle and dime'd for ever little thing. For the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to REQUIRE that an individual carry INSURANCE on the WEAPON,that is overstepping the bounds. I also see it in a form of gun control. I know I can't afford MILLIONS of dollars in liability insurance to carry a GUN. I have been trained, and FULLY understand the consequences if I discharge MY WEAPON! I WILL only discharge said weapon at a gun range fully capable of CONTAINING OR STOPPING the round that I fire. I will also ONLY DISCHARGE my WEAPON to defend MYSELF or LIFE or LIMB if need be. I see it as a way of giving more for the criminal that is shot to sue someone if they are caught robbing there home and are shot or mortally wounded. THERE IS NOTHING GOOD TO COME OF THIS!(INSURANCE FOR WEAPONS)

It would be kinda like getting BONDED!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 4:34 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:34:29 -0400

Insurance policy's mandatory. Hell no!
Affordable health care is working great. Have the Lawmakers fix one thing before screwing another up. These knuckleheads cant even pass a budget.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 5 at 2015 5:20 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:20:34 -0400

It's a Poll Tax.

Response by SPC George Long made Oct 5 at 2015 10:27 PM

SPC George Long — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:27:50 -0400

There is no constitutional provision that guarantees the right to own a car, unlike a firearm. But how would you tax. This is a picture of 1 rifle that was issued to the Army. And the other has not been.. So which would you tax higher?

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Oct 6 at 2015 1:54 AM

Capt Mark Strobl — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:54:14 -0400

Should this pass, I would be unaffected: Not one of my firearms have been purchased from a store, dealer, or broker. It is certainly difficult to insure something that is not on any registry.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 6 at 2015 12:57 PM

COL Ted Mc — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:57:21 -0400

MSG Private RallyPoint Member - Staff;

[1] "Is this a form of gun control?" - It could be used that way.
[2] "Is it just an attempt to regulate gun owners?" - Of course it is. Anything that requires a person to do one thing prior to doing another "regulates" them.
[3] "Is it payback to private insurance companies who lobbied House reps?" - That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. Considering the passion that Americans feel towards their guns, one "liability insurance" is mandatory then the insurance companies can set whatever rates they feel like setting. (The can even raise the rates that they charge the NRA for providing "group coverage", so don't pay much attention to the low rates that the NRA is currently charging its members to belong to the group insurance plan.)
[4] "Is it a good idea as it could make gun owners accountable somehow?" - Well, since it wouldn't make gun owners any more accountable than they are now, I don't think so. Admittedly it might prevent a few irresponsible gun owners from being forced into bankruptcy and might let a few victims of irresponsible gun ownership actually collect on their damage awards, but - over all - it isn't going to do anything other than crank up the profits of the insurance companies. [Unless, of course, you are talking about "Socialized Gun Insurance".]

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 6 at 2015 2:25 PM

SPC Luis Mendez — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:25:50 -0400

What Career Politicians and Political Careerists will NEVER EVER talk is about a Complete and Real Overhaul of Criminal Laws and the Constitution. There are enough gun control as well as enough guns.

What is missing is a Real Justice System that will do Justice to the Victims, their Families and the Community as a whole. The One and Only Real Justice applied to a ANY and ALL cases of MURDER is Capital Punishment aka. Death Penalty. And is nothing new, it was Standard in some civilizations. And above all, is what God Commanded thousands of years ago in Gen. 9:5,6. As simple as that. But in a Corrupt, Incompetent and Perverted Politico-Legal system that's unheard of and even unacceptable. Simply because it was God's Idea.

The purpose of Any and ALL Legal and Justice systems ought to be, to instill Fear in the hearts and minds of Criminals, to Punish the Criminals according to their crime. In any and ALL cases of PROVEN Murder is the DP. We don't see that happens, Criminals don't either so they have no Fear of retribution or of the Proper Punishment. And if Criminals don't fear, then we know we have an Incompetent Legal System, erroneously called "Justice".

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:55 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:55:49 -0400

Back door firearm registration at its finest

Response by Cpl Chuck Lincoln made Oct 6 at 2015 3:00 PM

Cpl Chuck Lincoln — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:00:21 -0400

That is just another way to regulate and identify gun owners for future confiscation and again the criminals will not be held accountable, honest law abiding people will be the ones who suffer.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:10 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:10:07 -0400

Lots of good points discussed here. I am truly concerned about the ability once this passes, to make it a by firearm policy. 200 annually is not bad, but if that is multiplied by number of firearms owned, a lot of us could not afford to maintain our firearms for long.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 6 at 2015 3:14 PM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:14:48 -0400

Forgive me as I don't understand how purchasing insurance meant for protecting the purchaser from the risk of liability makes any sense (much less how it will make a difference with regards to gun violence). Still, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," thus, Congress cannot make a law to prevent one from owning a gun which this would potentially do. What about those who already own a gun? Will they be forced to pay? Do we really think the person planning to attack a school cares?

Response by SPC Harry Masse made Oct 6 at 2015 3:27 PM

SPC Harry Masse — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:27:31 -0400

Criminals will respect gun laws just like politicians respect their oath of office. I think this over regulation big brother BS needs to stop.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:30 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:30:34 -0400

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. (Are prior gun owners grandfathered in or does this imply that the current owners would be required as well?) Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement. (What about Veterans and retired LEO? Does this imply as soon as you separate from service you would be required to have the insurance?)
“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns,"(By excluding the daily users, you are now looking at going after the hobbyists, which means your comparing a once a month or bi weekly trip to the range to a vehicle that is driven 2 to 5 times a day? Way different exposure rates!) 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.” (Where is the Multi-Billion dollar comprehensive study that proves the 25 percent decrease is directly correlated to mandatory insurance coverage?)
Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners. (So my rates won’t increase as long as I don’t shoot the burglar?)
“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 (No criminal is going to have an insurance policy! Hello state farm I’m going to rob the bank today and I want to make sure my policy is current? Come on!) or accidents occur."
This is the second time Maloney, who is one of the biggest gun control advocates in Congress, has introduced the legislation.(If at first we don’t succeed, tax the living crap out of them.) A few weeks ago she reintroduced legislation that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows. (Only way to track the buyers and sellers, to insure proper insurance obligations are met?)
Yes my comments are sarcastic, and yes maybe a little overstated, but come on here. Are we going to start liability insurance for other things as well? You know that spoon ownership causes obesity, is there a flatware risk protection act coming soon?

Response by MSG Carl Clark made Oct 6 at 2015 3:42 PM

MSG Carl Clark — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:42:41 -0400

It is a Trojan horse tactic to have a sort of "registration" or record of those who have guns and are "stupid" enough to create a paper trail for those who will one day take those weapons from us. It is tomfoolery at it's best. Again, crooks will not get insurance and the only paper trail created will be that made by those stupid enough to trust our government.

Response by SPC Michael Parker made Oct 6 at 2015 4:36 PM

SPC Michael Parker — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:36:15 -0400

Gun control! More government over reach to control it's subjects. Simply put.

Response by 1stSgt Elmo Gagootz made Oct 6 at 2015 4:59 PM

1stSgt Elmo Gagootz — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:59:51 -0400

I'll purchase gun insurance right after all gang members and convicted felons do!

Response by SGT Mike Judge made Oct 6 at 2015 5:41 PM

SGT Mike Judge — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:41:55 -0400

it would be considered an infringement on the 2A "Shall not be infringed." It's pretty clearly stated.

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 6 at 2015 6:37 PM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:37:59 -0400

You have been able to get insurance through the NRA for years now at a very reasonable price. This could be attractive to hunters who use other peoples land. Kill a $5,000 bull after a 1 in a million fluke and you will glad you have it.

Knowing how the looney left works they envision the insurance costing so much that the bothersome working class can not afford it; whilst they show up at a fancy sporting clays range with a $30,000 English fowling piece bragging how they support reasonable gun laws.

The problem is criminals and crazy people care about none of this, they will find a way to do harm to others one way or another. Just look at what Hadji can do with a few chemicals from the hardware store.

Response by CW5 Ben Bushong made Oct 6 at 2015 7:15 PM

CW5 Ben Bushong — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:15:49 -0400

Is this a form of gun control?
Yes, it's back door gun registration, and an impediment to us exercising our natural, Constitutional, God-given right the the most effective form of self defense.

Is it just an attempt to regulate gun owners?
Absolutely. Make it more expensive (probably prohibitively so) to own firearms.

Is this a pay back to privatr insurance companies who lobbied House reps?
Who knows what goes on in politicians' heads? Anything could be going on in an anti-gun politician's head. You can bet that insurance companies absolutely love legislation that requires people to buy their products, though. This is a huge red flag...

Is it a good idea as it could make gun owners accountable somehow?
Tell me, how are gun owners NOT accountable? Please explain that one. We have had plenty of stupid gun owners in the last few years that have caused death by negligent acts, and the ignorance courts have come up with 'it was just an accident' and the guy or gal goes free. When people negligently operate a car and it causes harm to another, the driver should be liable. If the car is somehow left in a driveway, improperly secured, and the thing rolls into someone else's car, the car's owner would be held responsible for the damage. How is a gun owner negligently harming someone else 'accidentally' any different? We have irresponsible courts that allow this to happen. Gun owners SHOULD be held responsible for the harm that their property causes through their negligence. Now, if we're required to buy liability insurance, would that make people more responsible, or less responsible with their guns? Has it made people more responsible with cars, since they have that insurance that makes someone else financially responsible for their negligence? Well, there is a difference; gun owners who take firearms safety seriously already aren't reckless with their firearms. Those are the people who might actually buy this 'insurance'. Criminals (the biggest 'users' of firearms) won't care, and the courts will continue to give them a pass, putting them back on the street to create their mayhem. I don't see how liability insurance for legal gun owners would actually do anything except make insurance companies rich. Which in the end, that is the goal, to make big corporations bigger. It certainly isn't to fight crime...

Response by MSgt Mike Nevins made Oct 6 at 2015 7:30 PM

MSgt Mike Nevins — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:30:29 -0400

A lot to cover. Mandatory insurance will ensure endless litigation. So no, insurance is a bad idea. Insurance would also require registration so another non-starter for almost all gun owners including myself. The only protection from a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Mass shootings, as they are referred to in the media are pretty rare they also only happen in gun free zones, so take that as you will. Gun control is just control that's not going to make you safe from someone who doesn't follow the law. Laws, like locks, are to keep honest people honest.

Response by CW5 Ben Bushong made Oct 6 at 2015 7:47 PM

CW5 Ben Bushong — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:47:14 -0400

And notice that there's a carve-out for military and law enforcement. That's always a suspicious sign. Because law enforcement and military never ever ever cause any kind of problems through negligence. You really have to look at the story as a whole, and look at WHO is sponsoring it and why. Bad deal.

Response by CPO Jack De Merit made Oct 6 at 2015 7:53 PM

CPO Jack De Merit — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:53:23 -0400

My main question is: what does the insurance insure? That you will not use your gun on someone who does not deserve it? That you will be liable if your gun is stolen? WHAT? It sounds like another Gun Control freak finding another way to tax the public when our goal is to help the police stop crime. What does it take to convince people that guns do NOT kill people? PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE WITH WHATEVER THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 7:53 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:53:47 -0400

SSG Aaron Smith,
1. Yes, depending on which side of the issue you are, this could be considered gun control.
2. Yes, if by regulate, you mean regulations effecting gun owners.
3. Probably or yes, whichever you prefer.
4. Depending on how it's written it could put more onus on the gun owner or protect them from frivolous lawsuits.

Response by Sgt Chuck Stewart made Oct 6 at 2015 8:15 PM

Sgt Chuck Stewart — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 20:15:50 -0400

It's foobar, if that happens it's just another way to control us on our 2nd amendment rights and that's all it would be

Response by SSG Ronald Rollins made Oct 6 at 2015 8:31 PM

SSG Ronald Rollins — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 20:31:30 -0400

It wont pass in my opinion. It is just another form of gun control and to see who has what guns. I do have my CCW. And i do carry. You have to these days to protect yourself. You cant trust anyone! If it does pass I will not be obeying that law!!

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Oct 6 at 2015 9:14 PM

Sgt Ken Prescott — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 21:14:40 -0400

It basically puts a price tag on a right so that only rich people can afford it.

Response by SGT Bryan O'Reilly made Oct 6 at 2015 9:59 PM

SGT Bryan O'Reilly — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 21:59:49 -0400

Well, I'm not going to get on my soapbox other than to say, the 2nd amend is an American birth right. Which means it is our responsibility to educate our kids in small arms safety whether or not we like guns.
I see it akin to car insurance and like auto insurance it should go down with some conditions IE Veterans, those who are certified etc. But, my big fear is that we will continue to reject sensible regulations and it will lead to the end of this birthright. As those who say "Shall not be infringed" for get the other part "Well regulated militia' meaning the founders did not anticipate Safeway or Mc Donald's. they assumed we would all understand guns and they would not have the mystique that comes with ignorance.and gentrification.
If the worst case scenario does occur it will be unarmed outraged mom's who will say their kids right to live trumps my right to bear arms.
Shortly after this, the govt. will come and strip away the rest but we will be helpless to stop them.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Oct 6 at 2015 10:09 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:09:58 -0400

gotta have insurance for cars, houses, renting, health, no reason not to.

Response by LtCol Ray Collins made Oct 6 at 2015 10:10 PM

LtCol Ray Collins — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:10:15 -0400

Just lawyers creating another potential source of income for lawyers

Response by Maj Chris Clark made Oct 6 at 2015 10:57 PM

Maj Chris Clark — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:57:34 -0400

Can I buy insurance when I buy a bottle of bourbon? This is the most foolish, leftist idea that the progressive leaning congress has come up with....lately.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 6 at 2015 11:00 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:00:24 -0400

First a pool, trampoline, bull riding machine and gun all add to the risks within the home however unlike the other items mentioned a gun in most cases is owned as a form of protection much like an alarm system that often will again in most cases reduce the cost of insurance not increase it.

Second many states have Stand Your Ground laws that protect individuals against civil suits in lawful self-defense scenarios. Generally, these laws make it unlikely that you will face a civil suit when rightfully defending yourself. Any federal law with a penalty of $10,000 would end up in the SCOTUS. "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A $10,000 fine sounds like someone is getting fringed.

Third and the most troubling the political agenda behind gun control - According to a report from the FBI involving active shooters between 2000 and 2013 mass shootings where reported as being on the rise. However the political inspired report was very misleading in using a selective data set. If data going back to the mid-1970s is used instead (readily available but was ignored) then there has been no statistically significant increase in mass shootings in the U.S. The researchers additionally somehow missed 20 mass-shooting cases. Democrats pushing a socialist agenda wanting to ban guns - what could possibly go wrong especially with federal employees being exempt. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group know as the Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used federal gun registration records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” Seems like a good idea if your planning on overthrowing a government as it completely destroys the concept of using militias to prevent such things from happening.

Bullshit FBI report
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013-

The truth on the FBI report
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-gun-control-misfire [login to see]

Nazi gun control
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Oct 6 at 2015 11:39 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:39:04 -0400

What next knife insurance?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 12:15 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:15:20 -0400

for real liability insurance with " help save lives "

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 12:18 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:18:59 -0400

as long is the criminal who need to get insurance i am all for it...........lol

Response by SGT Felicia King made Oct 7 at 2015 1:50 AM

SGT Felicia King — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 01:50:18 -0400

Usually when you find a dumb law in place it is usual there because some dunbass did it. Insurance for gun owners may be put in place to cover all the expenses after dumb or negligent actions resulting in traumatic events.
Like in Leviticus 18. God said it is an abomination for mankind to lay with as he would with womankind. And so he goes on to say man should not lie with any beast, as it is confusing.
Those rules were put in place because some dummy did it lol

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Oct 7 at 2015 1:54 AM

PO1 Kerry French — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 01:54:35 -0400

This is CRAP and the gun grabbers' attempt to do this IS gun control. There is NO WAY this will "save lives. It is a strawman argument. Criminals do NOT and will NOT buy insurance... even if it is the law... they break the law all the time.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Oct 7 at 2015 4:48 AM

PO1 Kerry French — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 04:48:20 -0400

Colorado voters recalled legislators over this kind of garbage.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Oct 7 at 2015 7:38 AM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 07:38:38 -0400

Insurance is designed to protect the holder from financial liability for unintended or accidental (these are probably inclusive) actions. Insurance companies do not insure us from liability from our deliberate actions - that's what criminal and civil courts are for. That said, the proposed legislation is pointless at the federal level but may be appropriate at state or local levels. Owning an automobile in most states requires that you have specified levels of insurance. Does that restrict car ownership? Of course it does, but the states have decided that the marginal cost of car ownership represented by the cost of insurance is in the public interest in that it protects both the owner and injured party in the event of accident involving the vehicle. Would "gun insurance" restrict ownership? Of course it would for the same reasons that apply in the auto liability example. As it stands any one who owns firearms and has an ounce of sense already has personal liability insurance that would cover damage resulting from accidental or unintended use of their weapons. State level legislation might help to protect us from those who don't have that ounce of sense.

Response by CWO3 Warren Gaudreau made Oct 7 at 2015 8:32 AM

CWO3 Warren Gaudreau — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:32:25 -0400

Do we require insurance to purchase sharp objects, chain saws and other tools? How about lawn mowers, bicycles, sports equipment, gasoline, matches, lighters ? This is only a ploy to make it more expensive to protect yourself and loved ones from criminals and tyrants. Another reason may be for government to get ownership data from the insurance companies. One should only be accountable for what they do, not what they may do.

Response by MAJ Charles Ray made Oct 7 at 2015 8:56 AM

MAJ Charles Ray — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:56:38 -0400

You have to have liability insurance to protect anyone injured on your property or in or by your auto, and no one views this as an effort to limit house or car ownership. Why would liability insurance to cover any injuries caused by your firearm be viewed any differently?

Response by SPC Nathaniel Reynolds made Oct 7 at 2015 9:47 AM

SPC Nathaniel Reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:47:32 -0400

Yes it is a form of infringement. Many of us can barely afford the firearm and ammo, especially when we're serious about keeping up with training to stay proficient. Even in some states you can drive a vehicle without insurance, you just have to pay a fee at registration, for example in the state of Virginia you show proof of insurance or pay the one time uninsured motorist fee.
The difference between driving a vehicle and owning a firearm is one is a privilege while the other is a Right protected by the Constitution in which it clearly states that it will not be infringed.

Response by Maj Garau Francis made Oct 7 at 2015 10:13 AM

Maj Garau Francis — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:13:50 -0400

The primitive origin of violenze to be found in the model of certain culture . In the disruption caused by slavery that since the end of civil war continues to this day . Psycological origin in the structural decline of the shooter. The custody of the weapons should be regulated : to be determined the psycological integrity.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Oct 7 at 2015 12:49 PM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 12:49:23 -0400

Below is the background on this House Bill; which I firmly believe is yet another form of unconstitutional government control. All of the mass shootings took place where no one was carrying a concealed weapon except the offending shooter. If even one of these people had a CCW permit the offending shooter may have been stopped before their weapon was leveled to fire their first lethal shot. However, the question begs to be asked: would the shooter even been there if he suspected even one of these people could have been armed. Therefore, it is my position that insurance premiums should be lower for households and businesses that are known to be armed and capable of defending themselves.

In comparing America's per capita murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 resident to that of a US city like Detroit, Michigan where socialist Democrats have imposed massive gun control. Detroit has a murder rate is 54.6 per 100,000. Therefore if it were a country, it would be in second place, just behind Honduras!
Out of 218 countries, "gun culture America" didn't even make it into the top 100 of those countries with the highest murder rates per capita. USA came in 111.
Virtually every country ahead of the US in per capita murders have big government, socialist-styled gun control laws.

Note: when you read articles about gun violence make sure the article breaks down and separates the statistics from police shooting, defense shooting, and accidental shootings, etc., from the violent crime/terrorist shootings. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Check it out: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/usa-first-world-gun-ownership-not-even-top-100-countries-murder-rate/

House Dem Introduces Legislation Requiring All Gun Owners to Get Liability Insurance - Breitbart

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced legislation requiring would-be gun owners to purchase liability insurance before purchasing firearms.

Response by A1C Lisa Casserly made Oct 7 at 2015 2:48 PM

A1C Lisa Casserly — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:48:03 -0400

I have not heard of this before. I think that its a good idea to have or to offer the insurance, I know my mind would rest easier to have it (if I owned a gun) just in case the worst thing happens. I'm not sure I'd classify it as gun control, and I don't think ANY insurance should be compulsory. The government should not be forcing us to buy ANY "product", including insurance.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 2:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:50:43 -0400

Seems unconstitutional, but, as a nation very few seem to actually follow it now.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Oct 7 at 2015 2:56 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:56:01 -0400

The insurance should be an option. For responsible fire arm owners who only bring out their fire arms occasionally purchasing the insurance is a waist of money.

Response by SFC Thomas Howes made Oct 7 at 2015 3:31 PM

SFC Thomas Howes — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:31:35 -0400

The government getting into your business again what right do they have to make a gun owner buy insurance

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Oct 7 at 2015 6:42 PM

PO1 Kerry French — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:42:58 -0400

BILL H.R.2546 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015 Sponsor: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12] (Introduced 05/21/2015)
Committees: House - Judiciary
Latest Action: 06/16/2015 Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

No co sponsors and the chair of the committee is Bob Goodlatte. He is from Virginia and is a Republican. He is against sanctuary cities. Here is a list of the subcommittee... Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Chairman; Rep. Louie Gohmert, Vice-Chairman Rep. Chabot Rep. Jackson Lee Rep. Forbes Rep. Pierluisi
Rep. Poe Rep. Chu Rep. Chaffetz Rep. Gutierrez Rep. Gowdy Rep. Bass Rep. Labrador Rep. Richmond Rep. Buck Rep. Bishop

If you recognize some of the names - they are some of the most conservative congressmen in the country. NO WAY this is getting a hearing. This bill is DOA!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 9:20 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 21:20:08 -0400

I hold a German hunting license which requires me to have liability insurance. As a matter or principle I don't have a problem with this, but I have to ask... What will this accomplish besides taxing legal, legitimate gun owners?

I can see it now, the Insurance Police are going to patrol the inner cities and randomly stop citizens to see if the have firearm liability insurance.

What are these people smoking? Why aren't they sharing?

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 10:24 PM

CAPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:24:04 -0400

Requiring people to buy insurance to exercise a Constitutional right? Asinine.

Response by AN Donald Miller made Oct 7 at 2015 11:21 PM

AN Donald Miller — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 23:21:04 -0400

Why should I have insurance for shooting a thief that broke into my house? Make that thief get insurance.

Response by MSgt Danny Hope made Oct 8 at 2015 8:47 AM

MSgt Danny Hope — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:47:44 -0400

Sounds like a back door means of registration.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 8 at 2015 12:10 PM

1LT Aaron Barr — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:10:32 -0400

This is an attempt to make it more financially difficult to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. I would question why it is that the Democrats want to hurt poor people, who not only are least able to afford this but, based on living in poorer areas, more likely to need a firearm for self-defense.

Response by SSG Katherine Likely made Oct 8 at 2015 2:44 PM

SSG Katherine Likely — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:44:11 -0400

I would rather see a gun owner buy insurance then to see more regulations on having a gun.

If they could narrow the insurance requirement to any one with a criminal history or with children in the home - it would be more acceptable - but still better then more gun control issues and regulations.

Response by SSgt Stuart Schultz made Oct 8 at 2015 5:22 PM

SSgt Stuart Schultz — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:22:37 -0400

Liability for what, shooting someone that threatens your life or breaks into your home? Another grab by insurance companies like Obamacare!

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Oct 8 at 2015 8:34 PM

MAJ Ron Peery — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:34:45 -0400

This is just another liberal attempt to enslave you. They plan to make the insurance so expensive you can't afford guns. If they pass this travesty, proposed today by democrats in the senate, I will refuse to comply. Hillary, Harry, Chuck, Barbara, Diane, and the whole Marxist lot of them can go to hell.

Response by Cpl Charles Vadnais made Oct 8 at 2015 9:47 PM

Cpl Charles Vadnais — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:47:22 -0400

I see so many people trying to use cars as a means for justifying measures like gun registration and insurance. Its just not the same and it wont work.

The primary use of car insurance is fender benders, plain and simple. It helps afford the cost of repairs for either yourself or the other party(s) involved. The risk of an accident and how severe it might be makes up a big part of how much you pay. On top of that criminal proceedings are very rarely involved.

Using that same logic to insure a firearm for someone would mean that your premiums would be ASTRONOMICAL and only the richest in the country would be able to afford a firearm. On top of that the insurance wouldn't even be useful in the event of even an accidental shooting. When you get in a fender bender with someone, there's not usually criminal proceedings unless someone wants to sue. Are they gonna do the same with firearms if you accidentally shoot someone? I'll answer that for you, no.

As for registration, car registration serves literally one purpose. Someone committed a crime of some fashion and got away in a vehicle, being able to look at their license plate helps police track them down, or find out who they're chasing. Unless someone fires a gun and then immediately drops it on the ground and runs, neither of those things are going to be available when someone shoots another person because there's no way you're gonna be able to see that guns serial number without holding it in your hands.

Response by SSG James Arlington made Oct 9 at 2015 11:10 AM

SSG James Arlington — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:10:53 -0400

Good idea because if I was the family member of a victim in Oregon I would sue the perp's mother for every dime.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Oct 9 at 2015 2:34 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:34:06 -0400

Its just another way to allow insurance companies to make more money.
I got free gun insurance from the NRA on my guns with my membership, guess its a perk of NRA membership. It only covers the guns in case of theft and they don't even ask how many, what kind of gun or for a serial number. So I'm not 100% sure what they are hoping to accomplish but they also quickly offer a more comprehensive insurance in case your gun is stolen and used in a crime or if you shoot someone while defending yourself.
There are good and bad things about having gun insurance and I would suppose it would be up to the individual gun owner because we all know that those kind of polices are not going to come cheaply.

Response by SFC William Hodges made Oct 9 at 2015 2:43 PM

SFC William Hodges — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:43:12 -0400

It is gun control. I can't even keep up the payments on my Obama Care insurance. This is just one more attempt at abolishing the second amendment. America, Wake Up

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 9 at 2015 4:15 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:15:50 -0400

MSG Private RallyPoint Member SO what they are saying is that they want responsibly armed US Citizens to have insurance that can be paid to a criminal when that criminal forces the use of deadly force. These politicians are so fucktarded their mothers should be slapped. Maybe we should ask them to have bullshit insurance for every campaign promise that a politician fails to keep.
I am all for having it available. I am deadset against making it mandatory. Furthermore they would have to put limitations on what would constitute liability. An asshole breaks into my house threatens my daughter, I will kill said asshole. I will use a gun, knife, sword, bow, or my hand, but that asshole is leaving in plastic. Why should I be held liable for that death. I didn't ask the person into my home. I didn't ask them to threaten my daughter.
This is absolutely an attempt to make a lot of lawyers a lot of money.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 9 at 2015 4:24 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:24:30 -0400

MSG Private RallyPoint Member did you read the comments on the article you posted? Holy shit.

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Oct 9 at 2015 5:25 PM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:25:02 -0400

While I believe having personal liability insurance is a good practice to protect you and your family for the assets you acquired along the way, it's not just limited to weapons. Having been involved in a motor vehicle accident many, many years ago, I learn just how important it was to have adequate coverage. Personal liability insurance isn't usually that expensive. I also carried professional liability insurance when I worked for Uncle Sam as the Federal Employee Torts Act made it necessary. Around 1988 or 1989, three civilian employees were abandoned by the DOD for their failure to do their job appropriately. The three were being sued as a result. The government tried to distance themselves from the lawsuit by leaving the three hanging in the wind.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 7:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:43:10 -0400

Well, I have to be licensed to drive a car, don't I?

The requirement to register and train to use a weapon would make more effective gun owners, though initially, you'd have less of them. People vastly overestimate their actual effectiveness with a pistol under stressful situations. Have you ever shot with someone that's never held a weapon? Hilarious, isn't it? Now, imagine how easy it would be to get that weapon away from them. If every legal gun owner is trained to properly use their weapon of choice and trains with it enough, they'd vastly out-compete the hoodlums that won't take the required training to register their weapons. Ask any Soldier or Marine: with training, returning fire becomes automatic.

As for the government disarming its citizens, why would it bother? Let's see what your AR-15 does against a predator drone. Or a JDAM. The government can literally destroy you and your entire compound a continent away. Just ask Pakistan. The weapons you can obtain legally in the states is completely useless for overthrowing the government. The government is not afraid of your weapons.

At any rate, I doubt there's going to be any change. Whenever there's a mass shooting, any given administration likes to make a show about taking weapons away. In response, people go on a bull run for ammo and weapons, thinking this will be the time the government actually does something. It's good for the economy; guns and ammo are expensive. Restrictions never happen and the prices go back down after a few months when everyone's forgotten about it.

If twenty dead first-graders didn't get Congress to pass more weapons restrictions, nothing will. Not their kids; not their problem.

Response by SFC Thomas Holcomb made Oct 10 at 2015 7:36 AM

SFC Thomas Holcomb — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:36:21 -0400

So what would be the plans for the criminal who has a gun.

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 1:42 PM

CAPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:42:44 -0400

Is it a form of gun control? Yes, it is. This is an attempt to increase the cost of firearm ownership, and thereby decrease the number of people/citizens who are financially capable of exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

Is it just an attempt to regulate gun owners? If by "regulate" you mean limit, then yes. It would also serve as an back door registration scheme to identify gun owners.

Is it a payback to private insurance companies? No. I do not know of any insurance company that has responded positively to this proposal.

Is it a good idea as it could make gun owners accountable somehow? No. There are already adequate laws and penalties on the books to encourage gun owners to be responsible. This won't make any significant impact on the number/percentage of irresponsible gun owners.

At face value, I would say that the proposal is unconstitutional by expressly infringing upon the citizen's ability to exercise the 2nd Amendment rights. This proposal is not designed to limit the type/number of firearms a citizen may have, but to prevent them from having any. It is an undue burden and most likely would not survive Judicial review.

Response by MSG Kirt Highberger made Oct 15 at 2015 7:11 PM

MSG Kirt Highberger — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:11:43 -0400

Yes to all except the last. Criminals don't need accountability.
Requiring auto insurance does nothing to alleve
uninsured motorist problems.

Response by SFC Scott Parkhurst made Oct 15 at 2015 11:42 PM

SFC Scott Parkhurst — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:42:32 -0400

So next I'm going to have to have insurance on breathing? I thought it was a right to bear arms and owning a "weapon" in ones own home is just a form of "you know who" controlling us as far as I'm concern. I have enough bills to pay and now the insurance company's will have a hay day with this one! Gee, I wonder if the "bad guys" will make their payments on time?

Response by MSG John Wirts made Oct 23 at 2015 1:46 AM

MSG John Wirts — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:46:54 -0400

Check the CDC records automobiles caused 33804 deaths, vs firearms 33636, I say we need to look at enforcement of existing laws with NO EXCEPTIONS for privileged class Politicians, Union Leaders ect.. The Sandy Hook Shooter broke 42 laws before and on the day of the shooting. Lets demand no new laws until all existing laws are funded and enforced, or repealed! Once that is accomplished, all bills should be required to cite Congressional Authority, source and amount of funding to enforce the bill if passed. Then if "budget Constraints" require defunding some laws, those laws will be immediately automatically repealed. Let's see if politicians are so keen to submit new bills if they have to bve fully subject to them!

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 23 at 2015 4:25 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:25:49 -0400

This will serve no purpose. Isn't there civil laws now that can be used to gain compensation or other redress when someone shoots another? Just another form of gun registration that adds to the cost of getting a legal permit. Why don't all the liberals turn in their guns and give up all the protection that they may have to show us the way. I seldom carry, but certainly demand that I keep my second amendment rights, just in case. How would this have helped in any instance of shootings mass or other?

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Oct 25 at 2015 9:13 PM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:13:12 -0400

I will stand in line to buy liability insurance right behind those who could care less about obeying gun laws, i.e., criminals. Or will their insurance fees be subsidized by Uncle Sam along with their other entitlements?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2015 8:42 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:42:54 -0400

If gun liability insurance was available free market solution it would have taken off a long time ago. This is simply a backdoor gun control option that will only affect the poor and middle class.

I find it fascinating that certain responder to this questions has banned me from replying to them. I think it shows that I was proving a point that they could no longer refute. I will not mention a name since they have not even revealed their own name. Thank you for conceding, CPT (Servicemember).

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2015 8:53 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:53:29 -0400

Depends how much it is.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Oct 26 at 2015 9:30 AM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:30:35 -0400

My guess is that it would be enforced a lot more stringently than current laws already on the books, which if were enforced, would already be making an impact. Again... the left wing attack on the 2nd Amendment centers on law abiding citizens, not the criminal element, which will laugh this off as they have all the other weapon ownership laws. I'm sure the insurance industry will support this as they will make millions in premiums over the millions in payouts. Follow the money.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2015 9:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:36:44 -0400

Yes, it is a form of gun control.
Yes, it is an attempt at further regulating gun owners.
Yes, it is a way to pay back insurance companies.
No, it does not make illegal gun owners accountable and is only designed to further harm legal gun owners. This is pure power over the people politics, designed to further erode our constitutionally protected rights.

Response by PO2 Robert Cuminale made Oct 26 at 2015 9:39 AM

PO2 Robert Cuminale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:39:56 -0400

I already carry liability insurance as part of my personal homeowners insurance.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2015 10:17 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:17:08 -0400

We have to have liability insurance to own a car, to own a building or to do business (at a physical location). Perhaps the answer is just general liability insurance instead of product/action specific.

Response by CPO Jack De Merit made Oct 26 at 2015 2:47 PM

CPO Jack De Merit — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:47:10 -0400

What exactly does the insurance cover? You are not liable if someone steals your gun to commit a crime? You are not liable if you shoot someone? Does the government want to do what Hitler did with gun registration records of every country he invaded in World War II? He knew exactly where all the guns were so he could confiscate them. It sounds like another attempt to tax the gun owner with more burdens in the hope that they will not buy guns. Does the insurance requirement go to the Military and Law Enforcement personnel as well? Why don't they just lock up all the crazies instead. I bet there are plenty of them in the Senate and Congress.

Response by LTC Stephen B. made Oct 28 at 2015 10:27 AM

LTC Stephen B. — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:27:36 -0400

A better question for those of us that spend our lives in defense of the Constitution - Does Congress have the authority in the Constitution to require an individual to purchase anything just to exercise a right?

Response by LCpl Steven Fiore made Oct 29 at 2015 4:53 AM

LCpl Steven Fiore — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 04:53:01 -0400

Is this a form of gun control? - can be
Is it just an attempt to regulate gun owners? - yes
Is this a pay back to private insurance companies who lobbied House reps? - quite possibly
Is it a good idea as it could make gun owners accountable somehow? -only affects law abiding citizens.

Thoughts - horrible idea. I'm actually surprised it wasn't proposed to be like the ACA where everyone needs insurance. Should be DOA and should go no where. If it does, it will be challenge and probably will lose.

Criminals don't follow laws.
it can be used to prevent some law abiding citizens from their right to bear arms.

I just don't understand all these new proposals for gun laws, when most aren't enforced.
What was the amount of arrests for criminals failing background checks, trying to buy a firearm?

Best example to me will always be: Why don't we just outlaw murder? If we make murder illegal, wouldn't that prevent any death by firearm?

I also never understood gun free zones. If a house has an alarm company's sign out front, it is less likely to be burglarized, than one that doesn't. There is a reason for this. Low hanging fruit. Even in a gun free zone, why can't security be armed?

Firearm safety is what really needs to be taught. If it was taught in schools, similar to how drivers ed (see got the car reference in here too) and weapons were taught to be respected. I am sure a lot of this would go down.

Also, aren't gun deaths going down anyways? If we remove suicides (will be done another way), police shootings, justifiable homicides, isn't the numbers looking much better than 20 years ago?

I just don't understand the need for more laws. It won't stop people from killing people.

When the Boston bombing happened. We put the blame and responsibility on the criminal, not the pressure cooker. Why can't we hold people responsible anymore. What happened to taking responsibility?

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Oct 29 at 2015 11:14 AM

SGT Jimmy Carpenter — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:14:55 -0400

It's a bill designed to make legal, law abiding gun owners financially liable for the acts of criminals. So yes, it does infringe on my right to own firearms.

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Oct 29 at 2015 5:27 PM

SSG Michael Scott — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:27:31 -0400

Yep

Response by SGT Mark Seymour made Oct 30 at 2015 8:29 AM

SGT Mark Seymour — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:29:27 -0400

I really think the government has their hands way too deep into our daily lives.

Response by SPC Michael Dugan made Oct 31 at 2015 11:44 AM

SPC Michael Dugan — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:44:35 -0400

Obamacare all over again. If this keeps up Americans are going to turn into the Borg (Star Trek Next Generation)--a big bee hive where *everything* is programmed in, people's lives are scripted from beginning to end, and freedoms are a commodity to be bought and paid for, not Constitutionally guaranteed.

What I mean is, I could be wrong and getting on in years my mind is getting maybe a little cob-webby, but I see socialism rearing its hideous snout more and more and more, and I see a licensing requirement as another symptom of that disease.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Nov 1 at 2015 6:17 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 06:17:11 -0500

Anyone who doesn't see that this is unconstitutional is a dumb ass.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Nov 2 at 2015 5:44 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:44:47 -0500

I think the tried that before and It failed. Like trying to tax bullets so high no one could afford them.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Nov 2 at 2015 7:40 PM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:40:55 -0500

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Nov 2 at 2015 8:01 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:01:44 -0500

Seems like a reasonable idea to me. I have to buy malpractice insurance as an unpaid mental health counselor...