NRA: Have a gun? You "COULD" be fined $10,000.00 if this bill passes & you have no insurance

2015-06-12T09:37:19-04:00

"Barack Obama’s gun-hating COLLEAGUES (I changed this so it wouldn't be about the POTUS, Just Saying) in Congress are charging straight at you again.

They just unveiled a new bill (H.R. 2546) that would force YOU to buy government-mandated liability insurance before you would be allowed to purchase a firearm.

And if you can’t afford this expensive new insurance mandate?

***You would be FINED up to $10,000***"

You might as well call it “Obamacare for Gun Owners.”

Obama’s PALS (not Obama) are all over the media right now, peddling the OUTRIGHT LIE that this crippling new insurance mandate is needed because YOU can’t be trusted to be a safe gun owner.

This latest attack on our freedom has NOTHING to do with safety.

It has EVERYTHING to do with making it as expensive and difficult as possible for YOU to exercise your Second Amendment rights. It would also create a de facto registry of every law-abiding gun owner in America.

Just ask yourself…

Do you want an insurance broker to visit your home and catalog every serial number of every gun you own? Do you want the Obama administration picking through that database like it does with your phone records?

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is going to the wall to STOP this latest attack on our gun rights, but we need YOUR HELP NOW. Please, go here to write your U.S. Representative and tell him or her to publicly and forcefully oppose H.R. 2546. Your Congressman needs to hear from you!

And please, give us the strength to wage this battle in the media and the halls of Congress with a critically-needed contribution to NRA-ILA today.

Please keep in mind that this is not the only anti-gun nightmare we’re fighting to defeat right now. It’s only the latest one.

And NRA-ILA is the ONLY pro-gun organization in America with an office just steps from Capitol Hill – defending YOU and YOUR FREEDOM in the halls of Congress every day.

Thank you for your strong leadership.

Chris W. Cox

Sent from the NRA"

Whatcha think?? I believe that the government has exhausted every option while pursing gun control. This is just one more attempt and maybe the last. Our rights should not be infringed upon.

This has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POTUS, He won't sign this bill in. There's nothing that even said he would OR that he was pushing this agenda. It says his PALS are. This has to do about what rights WE have that might be infringed upon, by ALL! THE CONGRESS, HOUSE, etc. Why does it have to be a political debate. This is an NRA debate. This is an opinion Piece. That is all. The gun owners have a right to know about what is being discussed. PLEASE ADULTS... Stop reading into the questions, Jesus.

And you know, someone else wanted nothing but gun registration. We know how that ended. (Hitler)

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Jun 12 at 2015 9:38 AM

2015-06-12T09:38:37-04:00

Now that is totally ridiculous!

Response by SGT Darryl Allen made Jun 12 at 2015 9:41 AM

2015-06-12T09:41:20-04:00

Nice clickbait title... Did you learn from Buzzfeed?

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 12 at 2015 9:41 AM

2015-06-12T09:41:25-04:00

Doesn't stand a snowballs chance.

This is actually being pushed by the homeowners insurance providers that are getting tired of paying wrongful death claims.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 9:44 AM

2015-06-12T09:44:22-04:00

I'm pretty sure that the power to require a citizen to purchase insurance is not an Enumerated Power of the Federal Government.
Wait... Obamacare.

I suppose we will have to call this a "tax".

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jun 12 at 2015 9:44 AM

2015-06-12T09:44:57-04:00

"...shall not be infringed..." This is an infringement, clear and simple, and should be treated as a violation of our Constitution, just as mandating health care and then fining those who fail to obtain it is a violation.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 12 at 2015 9:45 AM

2015-06-12T09:45:14-04:00

Terrorists and criminals too? Wow that makes me feel so much safer.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 12 at 2015 9:46 AM

2015-06-12T09:46:03-04:00

Impossible to enforce.

There are more guns in the US than there are people. The US government doesn't know where they are. There is no Federal Registry. There is a Federal Law that prohibits one, and any easily searchable one.

When you purchase a firearm the federal government does NOT get a copy of the serial number of your weapon. It is maintained by the dealer until the dealer goes out of business. (States "may" maintain a registry but are not required to do so.)

Response by SSG John Bacon made Jun 12 at 2015 9:46 AM

2015-06-12T09:46:06-04:00

(Post Redacted due to SSG Bacon not fact checking himself as well as not knowing that there are more than one H.R. 2546)

I just looked up H.R. 2546 and found this...

Summary: H.R.2546 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)All Bill Information (Except Text)

There is one summary. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (06/27/2013)

Protect American Investments Act of 2013 - Prohibits a U.S.-based company, entity, or person from paying a financial transaction tax imposed by a foreign country on any covered financial transaction. Defines "covered financial transaction" as a financial transaction occurring on a U.S. exchange or over-the-counter within the United States, notwithstanding the nationality of the...

Response by SGT Kevin Brown made Jun 12 at 2015 9:49 AM

2015-06-12T09:49:34-04:00

They have tried this before. I am a proud supporting of the NRA and NRA-ILA for reasons like this. I hear all the time from my left leaning friends that no one is coming for our guns and we don't need to worry so much. I tell them that when the government fails at infringing on our rights in a significant way, like banning numerous firearm platforms, they look to chip away at our rights through "compromise" to the point that we have nothing left to hold to. This would be a huge step forward in 2nd Amendment regulation, directly infringing on our ability to defend ourselves, legally, with firearms.

Response by 1SG Jason Smith made Jun 12 at 2015 10:01 AM

2015-06-12T10:01:58-04:00

I don't agree that law abiding gun owners should be forced to carry Liability insurance. But unfortunately I also didn't think insurance would become mandatory for car owners way back when. As a basic pistol instructor i would recommend getting insurance through the NRA. I believe you can get a million dollar policy through them for about 300 a year.

Response by Cpl Anthony Pearson made Jun 12 at 2015 10:22 AM

2015-06-12T10:22:39-04:00

First time in my life I can actually say that I hate the President.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 12 at 2015 10:25 AM

2015-06-12T10:25:57-04:00

Those of us that listen to NPR had this discussion back in 2013.

Here is what Robert Frank, professor of economics at Cornell University had to say about it.

"Gun ownership, even in the hands of responsible people, increases the risk of death and serious injury to others. In cases involving multiple deaths, few gun owners could afford to compensate victims' families for their losses, just as most automobile owners couldn't afford to compensate the families of accident victims. With automobiles, we require all vehicle owners to carry liability insurance. A similar approach would help with firearms.

Nothing in the constitution grants people the right to expose others to serious risk without compensation. Insurance sellers are skillful at estimating the risks posed by drivers with specific characteristics, and we could expect them to be similarly skillful at assessing the risks posed by gun owners. Requiring liability insurance isn't a total solution to the problem of excessive risk, either for autos or for guns. But in both cases, it's a positive step."

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/31/170700177/should-gun-owners-have-to-buy-liability-insurance

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

Most states require car owners to have liability insurance to cover damages their vehicles cause to others; some economists think we should require the same of gun owners.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jun 12 at 2015 10:36 AM

2015-06-12T10:36:23-04:00

What a piece of shit. I would say it is still a violation of the constitution. It is infringing on the right. The morons in DC can call it what they want. The President doesn't have the right to pass laws at all. That is congress' job. Congress does not have the right to pass laws that infringe our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Do these asshats not realize that this stupid shit is the reason the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right to begin with? Hear that slap, it was the sound of their dead ancestors mega facepalming themselves at the embarassment of their decendents.

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Jun 12 at 2015 10:58 AM

2015-06-12T10:58:03-04:00

I don't think it has much chance for approval... but we need to keep our voice heard in Congress and Social Media.

Find Your Representative · House.gov

114th Congress, 1st Session · The House is not in session

Response by SSG Paul Setterholm made Jun 12 at 2015 11:19 AM

2015-06-12T11:19:35-04:00

To be clear, incidents I know of here. A coworker was road hunting on a highway and he and kids were getting back in his truck. His kid dropped his gun and it went off. It hit the tire of a passing car. The car veared across the rode and hit him. He was off work for a year and half. Another friend had 2 incidents. 1st one he and friends were hunting and getting back in his suburban. Guy in the back seat shotgun went off leaving hole in his roof. 2nd one, cleaning his pistol and it went off killing a dog. Now if he had liability insurance? I personally think it is logical to have to protect in case of accidents like these.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 12 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-06-12T11:39:48-04:00

I won't enforce it.

Response by CPL Hayward Johnson made Jun 12 at 2015 11:47 AM

2015-06-12T11:47:52-04:00

Not cool at all

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 12 at 2015 12:02 PM

2015-06-12T12:02:39-04:00

Of course they are lying, that is all they know how to do.

They have learned that if they call a tax 'insurance', it is easier to get it passed.

The real question people need to be asking is 'What are they really afraid of and what are they really trying to do that they need to disarm YOU, the true governing body in a Republic?"

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jun 12 at 2015 12:05 PM

2015-06-12T12:05:56-04:00

Sent from the NRA. So we can agree that it is partisan? Congress is Republican controlled. Both Houses. So hard to call it "Obama's Congress" unless of course it is meant to be partisan, which it is. But to your point. I think it is ridiculous if such a law passed.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 12:31 PM

2015-06-12T12:31:35-04:00

Yes, let's make another way for it to be difficult for law abiding citizens to own firearms...........instead of focusing on the non-law abiding citizens who get firearms

Response by SSG Donald Mceuen made Jun 12 at 2015 1:28 PM

2015-06-12T13:28:22-04:00

Are they nuts oh ya its the gov.

Response by SSG John Erny made Jun 12 at 2015 2:19 PM

2015-06-12T14:19:07-04:00

NRA members have options for liability insurance through a third party that are quite reasonable. If you are out hunting and shoot a deer then via over penatration you kill a $5000 bull behind a tree row it would be nice to have as an option, it should not be however forced on us by the government.

Some land owners where I live will tell people sure you can hunt as long as you are a member of the NRA.

Example:
$47 annually:
$100,000 combined single limit

$67 annually:
$250,000 combined single limit

$100 annually:
$500,000 combined single limit

$200 annually:
$1,000,000 combined single limit

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 2:25 PM

2015-06-12T14:25:19-04:00

The problem with this isn't the "gun ownership" angle-- it's the insurance angle.

The reason this is a turkey is because we all know what happens with all insurance, whether it is car, health, household, etc: it always skyrockets. One of the reasons health care costs a lot is because of the need for doctors to carry lots of malpractice insurance. Why? Because not only do people have a "sue the pants off everyone!" mentality, but courts (juries and/or judges) love to award people ridiculous damages.

So the real problem here is that the insurance racket nationwide is out of control and there need to be controls and caps, and if someone needs compensation beyond the caps, then they need to prove cause.

Fix the insurance regime we live with, cap the amount of premiums & damages a gun owner might be required to pay, and this can be discussed. But until then, this will just be one more way to "sue the pants off" gun owners. So, no.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jun 12 at 2015 2:25 PM

2015-06-12T14:25:25-04:00

This would be the fast track to career suicide for politicians. Part of me almost hopes it will pass just so the "in" crowd in Washington can find out just how expendable they really are.

Response by SSG Hank Ortega made Jun 12 at 2015 2:53 PM

2015-06-12T14:53:25-04:00

Draconian, and probably non-constitutional.

Response by SPC Brandon Wilson made Jun 12 at 2015 3:59 PM

2015-06-12T15:59:13-04:00

If you have to purchase insurance you no longer have the right to bare arms. It sounds as if the government is pushing for a revolution in the U.S...maybe it's to justify budgets and their ridiculous spending on everything but problem solving.

Response by CW2 Michael Pastelak made Jun 12 at 2015 5:57 PM

2015-06-12T17:57:42-04:00

This bill doesn't say anything about that.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 5:58 PM

2015-06-12T17:58:49-04:00

oh me oh my

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 12 at 2015 8:05 PM

2015-06-12T20:05:02-04:00

Leave me alone, you big gun-hatin meanies!

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 12 at 2015 10:01 PM

2015-06-12T22:01:00-04:00

As usual your venom is misplaced. The GOP controlled house will pass no legislation even remotely controlling guns. It doesn't take much thought to figure that out.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 13 at 2015 12:58 AM

2015-06-13T00:58:05-04:00

Just like every other Would Be Dictator. His father BHO the First, was a Communist-Marxist and so is "The Annointed One".

Being in the firearms industry, I come into contact with many a politician. A couple years ago, I had a Democratic Congressman (No longer in Congress thanks be to God) who in quite a sarcastic voice nearly spat out the question to me "Why do people need guns like these?"

My reply is one of the proudest moments of my life: "Congressman, can we get one thing straight? I DON'T WORK FOR YOU. YOU work FOR ME! What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?" "I need these guns, for the same reason you need that Armani Suit, Rolex watch and Star Saphire ring, WHICH Sir, I might add, I can not figure out how you can afford that one a Congressional Salary....Hmmmm. I need them because I want them and it is my right to have them. The Second ammendment was NOT put there to protect you from me but rather to protect ME from YOU and the abuse of the power you think you have."

His aid came back and bought a Glock and an AR15.

God, wake up America before it is too late.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 13 at 2015 2:05 AM

2015-06-13T02:05:49-04:00

Not gonna happen and I will refuse to disclose whether or not I own guns to any insurance broker, same as I already do with my doctors, my wife's doctors, and my daughter's doctors. That is none of their business.

Whether I choose to own guns or not is between me and the Second Amendment.

Response by 1SG Kenneth Utter made Jun 13 at 2015 5:07 AM

2015-06-13T05:07:58-04:00

Guns, reloading and shooting are my passions. I despise attempts to track, tax or control possession. I do wish gun owners were more accountable for controlling their arms. I also think it's too easy for a few of us to obtain firearms and ammo. Therefore, I have no problem jumping thru a few hoops in the pursuit of my hobby. I am the NRA (I think I paid 2015 dues) but wonder if our zealotry could be our downfall. The ambiguous "well regulated militia" thing just leaves us open to attack. We know were gun control leads to historically. Still, I think that some intelligent controls make sense if the left wouldn't try to use one piece of legislation as a jumping off point to illegalize gun ownership. This tax won't pass now but one day,....... Think about it, the left has elected quite a few presidents lately. Who's to say they cant get some gun legislation thru.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Jun 13 at 2015 9:47 AM

2015-06-13T09:47:54-04:00

He's an idiot Sgt Fulgham-Blais. But as SPC Allbright says, it doesn't stand chance but he will try nevertheless. I am sure there are many people out there who are sorry they voted for him. But what i don't get is that they vote to reelect him. I personally think he is out to destroy this country.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 10:26 AM

2015-06-13T10:26:00-04:00

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Feel free to fine me. I no longer care about which one of these idiots can come up with the dumbest Mandates/Laws. I have my guns and will continue to have them. When I am gone they will be passed down to my kids. No one else is going to get them, and that includes the Gubment!!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 10:31 AM

2015-06-13T10:31:30-04:00

Gee, now if I vote this post up, it could mean that I support the agenda. On the other hand in my adamant disagreement with the policy if I vote it down, that would sound like a personal attack against you. I'm at a loss...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 12:51 PM

2015-06-13T12:51:15-04:00

If it passes then it need Republican votes, then if is not Obama care but bipartisan approval. Obama can not introduce law without both Houses!

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-06-13T12:52:42-04:00

What is so bad about guns? They are what this country was founded on. With out them. .....then what are. .....scared slaves of politics. .....

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 3:16 PM

2015-06-13T15:16:55-04:00

Here's my gun. Are you taxing based on the rate of fire or caliber?
By the way, I expect you to collect in person

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 13 at 2015 6:54 PM

2015-06-13T18:54:04-04:00

Yeah, good luck with that. They have to find 'em first. Then, every court in the land will be clogged to capacity with these cases.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 13 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-06-13T18:57:54-04:00

The only way to enforce this is to know who has guns and who does not. I see it as a backdoor registration effort. I can understand requiring drivers to have auto insurance because driving is not a right. The 2nd Amendment allows us to have firearms and I should not have to pay insurance to practice my constitutional rights.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Jun 13 at 2015 8:01 PM

2015-06-13T20:01:19-04:00

F them.
No where in the constitution does it say they can mandate me to buy crap.

I haven't purchased anything mandated by the Feds since I ETS'd

Response by Sgt Jerami Ballard made Jun 14 at 2015 4:19 AM

2015-06-14T04:19:47-04:00

One particular reason this would not stand is because it creates undue burden on the ownership of a firearm, specifically that it penalizes the owner an amount of money that can only be reserved for a felonious crime.
This violates the 8th amendment and successively violates the 6th and 7th amendments upon filings for grievances.
If they wanted to have this stand a chance in court, the penalty would have to be no more than $20.
No authority can explicitly state what type of insurance coverage you have either. If you own the property, then having insurance in general meets the minimum requirement.

Also in case you all haven't heard it on the news recently, certain leadership is currently under fire for a "hiccup."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/10/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit/

'No one helped her': NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit

The recent murder of a New Jersey woman by a jilted ex-boyfriend has prompted outrage over the current gun laws in the Garden State after it was learned that the victim’s permit application had been delayed.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 14 at 2015 11:34 AM

2015-06-14T11:34:24-04:00

actually its amending a bill that already exists, need insurance for a house, a car, why not, its not like a firearm isn't you know dangerous.

btw it's not expensive, looking at an NRA endorsed insurer it starts at 65 dollars annually.

https://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/armscareplus.htm

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2015 11:45 AM

2015-06-14T11:45:22-04:00

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) has introduced a bill, H.R. 2546, that 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. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.”

Introduced in House (03/21/2013)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1369

H.R.1369 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013 | Congress.gov |...

Summary of H.R.1369 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jun 14 at 2015 1:27 PM

2015-06-14T13:27:56-04:00

An interesting piece of "feels good but is really crappy" legislation.

When the legislation says

(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.”.

the discerning reader will note that the AMOUNT of the required "compulsory insurance" isn't specified.

PLEASE NOTE the concept of selling insurance policies which provide $0.01 worth of coverage "specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser" for a 100 year period for the sum of $10.00 (plus shipping and handling) is HEREBY COPYRIGHTED AND PROTECTED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOVERNING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. [Expressions of interest in purchasing the foregoing intellectual property for a lump sum will be seriously considered provided they exceed $100,000.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Jun 14 at 2015 2:47 PM

2015-06-14T14:47:12-04:00

Only affects firearms sold after the bill becomes law (which it never will)
Bill was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary 5/21/2015.
Bill sponsors:
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. (D) [NY-12] (introduced 5/21/2015)

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL
Rep Clark, Katherine M. (D) [MA-5] - 5/21/2015
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. (D) [AZ-3] - 5/21/2015
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. (D) [MA-8] - 5/21/2015
Rep Tsongas, Niki (D) [MA-3] - 5/21/2015

House Committee on Judiciary Members: (Republican Controlled)
http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/committee-members

Committee Membership - Judiciary Committee

Response by PO2 David Hagwood made Jun 14 at 2015 3:43 PM

2015-06-14T15:43:32-04:00

It won't go anywhere. They don't have enough lefties in the seats of Congress to pass the House, much less the Senate.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 14 at 2015 3:48 PM

2015-06-14T15:48:28-04:00

Good idea or not, this won't pass. Registration is enough.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2015 10:20 PM

2015-06-14T22:20:02-04:00

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 6:21 AM

2015-06-15T06:21:40-04:00

is not going to happen

Response by SSG Dr. Roy Coble made Jun 15 at 2015 2:13 PM

2015-06-15T14:13:32-04:00

I've worked in insurance since I left the Army and have never, ever asked a client for their gun serial numbers. The only way it would ever happen is if they needed to add an endorsement for extra coverage on their weapons, since homeowners coverage varies on the amount it will protect for guns. Every company is different. If you want additional coverage above what your homeowners or renters coverage offers then you have to get an appraisal on the weapons to prove their value, or have purchase receipts and you have to request the additional coverage. The liability side of it is also contingent on the laws of your state and any "stand your ground" laws that may be in force, as to whether the insurance company would pay a claim from your homeowners liability.
That being said, as a gun owner I suggest that you either purchase liability insurance through someone like the NRA or NCCA to protect you in the event you have to pull the trigger.
I am in favor of being protected physically (through firearms) and financially (through insurance), but not at the requirement or control of the Federal Government. It's not now, nor should it ever be, any of their business on what kind or how many firearms I own.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 15 at 2015 3:33 PM

2015-06-15T15:33:25-04:00

Just to be fair, convicted felons should be required to carry addition insurance if they were to be rightfully shot by a law abiding citizen. Wait, do you own a ladder? Yes, you will need additional insurance for that. Do you own a cell phone? In the event you cause an accident while driving and it was caused by a distraction from cell phone use, there will be addition insurance for that. What else is there?

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jun 15 at 2015 3:36 PM

2015-06-15T15:36:18-04:00

I have a spade (shovel). The other day my friend and I were digging to fix a sprinkler problem and I accidentally hit him with my spade. Do I need liability insurance on my spade?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 9:18 PM

2015-06-15T21:18:48-04:00

Insurance for gun ownership......do they even offer that right now??

And hate to go against the tide on this but at face value it sounds like it has merit.

I have to have insurance on my car incase i hurt someone.

Hell if i put a pool in backyard my homeowner's insurance goes up cause someone may get hurt.

Why not have gun ownership insurance in case of a misfire or accident.....like i said a face value the concept sounds good.

Response by SPC Travis Grizzard made Jun 16 at 2015 3:46 AM

2015-06-16T03:46:03-04:00

It's just a form of economic control to prevent a person from being able to exercise a right, just like poll taxes.

Response by SFC Matthew Parker made Jun 16 at 2015 10:46 AM

2015-06-16T10:46:07-04:00

Chris Cox alarmist fiction is laughable. "Expensive new insurance mandate" gun insurance has been around and its inexpensive. And we don't know what the "mandated" insurance will be yet.

My god Chris, the argument is not "needed because YOU can’t be trusted to be a safe gun owner" the bill is meant to address the actions of those who are not safe gun owners and whose unsecured guns find their way into the hands of children who kill themselves or someone else. It meant to address the unsafe gun owner who does damage to property when they fire into a home while out hunting or kill live stock when they misidentify a cow as a deer. It allows the victim to seek damages from you for your actions with a gun.

It has nothing to do with making it as expensive and difficult to own a gun its about accountability, and if properly written the law would not create a de facto registry of every law-abiding gun owner in America.
Do you own a gun, yes
Type; Pistol
Have you completed a safe gun course approved by the NRA or other recognized authority in the last 6 months; Yes
Back ground check, no violent history
Cost is $?
No serial number required, but if you want it covered for theft you need to give the serial number anyways so what is the big deal?

And enough with the Hitler references to gun registration, its getting old. National gun registration is a knee jerk reaction to the killings of innocents in movie theaters and in schools, we know it won't stop crime but it may assist police with solving crimes.

Every time anti-gun groups want a new local law or regulation on guns they scream for national gun registration and they get the new local law or regulation because we are so busy trying to kill a national bill that is a non starter to begin with.

The commerce clause of the constitution allows the regulation of guns. It has been upheld over and over again and if I as a responsible gun owner need to have liability insurance I'm not happy about it but do understand it. Auto/Home/Gun just package it up and lets move on.

Auto insurance didn't stop car ownership and this won't stop gun ownership. So lets focus on the reason for the bill, "unsafe gun owners"

Response by SSG Brian Kresge made Jun 16 at 2015 11:19 AM

2015-06-16T11:19:13-04:00

I'm not a fan for its 2nd Amendment implications, but, for the insurance industry, with the volumes of guns sold each year, this is an economic stimulator AND jobs creator right here.

Bear with me...if this law were to pass, it does create a new segment for property and casualty insurers. It creates some serious premium revenue...and, since it's often posited that lawful gun owners are seldom responsible for gun violence, accidents, or other issues, claims payouts should be extremely low. You would have bonafide insurance industry statistics demonstrating that responsible, legal gun ownership is most definitely NOT the problem out there.

Maybe it's not much of a silver lining, but it's something.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 11:05 PM

2015-06-17T23:05:26-04:00

I received this in an email. It is a guide for carrying a weapon and the consequences of killing someone you think is going to harm you. Very interesting and thought provoking.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/downloads/reports/pdf/Concealed-Carry-Guide-2014.pdf

Response by PO1 Rick Duff made Jun 17 at 2015 11:16 PM

2015-06-17T23:16:07-04:00

There are a number of states that have LAWS on the books, stating any fed laws further infringing on the 2nd amendment are null and void. Greg Abbott sure won't allow it.
Obama could be setting up the American Revo 2.0
#AmericanRevo2_0

Response by SSgt Dale W. made Jun 18 at 2015 4:38 AM

2015-06-18T04:38:51-04:00

Reading through all the posts on this question. First a few facts for some of the doubters claiming the title of the question is sensationalism or clickbait.

The Bill was introduced last month on 21 May 2015 by
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY-12).
The bill has four co-sponsors:
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA-8)
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA-3)
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ-3)
Rep. Katherine M. Clark (D-MA-5)
Here is a link to the congressional website regarding the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2546/all-info

Most likely it will die in committee, but stranger things have happened, from my perspective.

Here are a few other firearms related bill numbers and titles that some of the sponsors of this bill have introduced in the House:

H.R.2613 Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2015 (Introduced 02 Jun 2015)

H.R.2612 To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention. (Introduced 02 Jun 2015)

H.R.2380 Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015 (Introduced 15 May 2015)

H.R.2283 Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015 (Introduced 12 May 2015)

H.R.2216 Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act (Introduced 01 May 2015)

H.R.1745 Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act (Introduced 13 Apr 2015)

H.R.752 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (Introduced 05 Feb 2015)

This is just the House. I'm too groggy now to research the Senate. Stay vigilant.

All Info - H.R.2546 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015 |...

All Info for H.R.2546 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Jun 23 at 2015 1:57 AM

2015-06-23T01:57:46-04:00

This is beyond stupid; the legislative process will not allow it this through in the current climate, it’s just a Democratic congresswoman posturing, and 2nd amendment fundamentalists showing how frail their feelings are once again. Whatever, carry on with the plan of the day.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Jun 26 at 2015 12:38 PM

2015-06-26T12:38:41-04:00

I already have my guns under my Home Owners Insurance. Serial number and everything. Don't need their insurance.

Response by SGT Reuben Barrett made Jun 26 at 2015 4:17 PM

2015-06-26T16:17:33-04:00

No way!!! – Our Congress pass a Bill that produces huge Profits for every gun sold not just for Big Business but for the Richest Companies in the World! "the Insurance Industry" – I’ll bet the Insurance Industry is Lobbying with Huge Money to get that Bill Passed …

Summary of H.R.2546 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2546

Reads almost like the DMV requirements before I can renew my License Plates ... for my Car and Motorcycle ...

I'm neither for or against - just offering an alternative point of view ...

H.R.2546 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015 | Congress.gov |...

Summary of H.R.2546 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Oct 5 at 2015 8:11 AM

2015-10-05T08:11:04-04:00

Yeah, that is a nutty left wing idea, this bill.

Walt

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Oct 28 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-10-28T11:28:21-04:00

The insurance mandate will not, of course, apply to criminals. The Supreme Court has already decided that making them declare register their guns would violate their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. And this "insurance" scheme is just backdoor registration.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 28 at 2015 12:13 PM

2015-10-28T12:13:26-04:00

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 28 at 2015 12:14 PM

2015-10-28T12:14:39-04:00

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2015 12:43 PM

2015-10-28T12:43:46-04:00

They keep on trying to weasel a way into making the American citizens give up their second ammendment rights. If they don't like it, tough. Normal law abiding citizens are not the ones causing the crap to get started in the first place.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 29 at 2015 11:06 AM

2015-10-29T11:06:03-04:00

How would this fix any of the nation's gun issues?