D.C. Considers Mandatory $250K Insurance Policy for Gun Buyers

[alethialogos57]

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...or-gun-buyers/

I believe this is local to D.C. but I think is something that should be monitored.

[PocketProtector]

They will try anything.....Alinsky 101....Overwhelm the Target.

[ChamberedRound]

They can try, but this will likely not hold up in court. Courts have already ruled that it's unconstitutional to place undue expense on a right, to the point where such expense prevents exercise of that right.

[PocketProtector]

They can try, but this will likely not hold up in court. Courts have already ruled that it's unconstitutional to place undue expense on a right, to the point where such expense prevents exercise of that right.

They can force you to buy health care. That opened Pandora's box.

[internet troll]

From the article:

"The bill would mandate that prospective gun owners maintain at least a $250,000 policy. The policy would cover damages from negligent acts or intentional acts that aren’t undertaken in self-defense."

I am sure every criminal on the streets will be sure to get their policy for the illegal guns they own.

Just another law aimed directly at legal gun owners that fails to ignore the problem that criminals don't care about following the law.

The 2nd Amendment battle is like an octopus...... arms everywhere. Federal, state, other states, local...... it get exhausting keeping track of all the entities trying to destroy a right anyway they can.

[LanGuy123]

They can force you to buy health care. That opened Pandora's box.

But you have no right to health care. This is stretch, but you could equate it to forcing you to buy insurance in order to vote, should the candidate you voted for do something negligent

[ChamberedRound]

They can force you to buy health care. That opened Pandora's box.

That's not true. They can't force you to buy healthcare. But they can impose a tax on you regardless. You might say there's no difference, but there is a distinction.

I'll preface this with the usual "This is JMHO; I'm not a lawyer" clause.

The SCotUS decision on O-Care's "Individual Mandate" addressed the issue of government attempting to use the Commerce Clause (citing Wickard v Filburn) to make you make you do something with your person or property you don't want to. The decision in some respects actually overturned Wickard v. Filburn, in the sense that it ruled government can't use it's powers via the Commerce Clause to make you buy healthcare. However, the ruling also stated government can, through it's taxation power, impose a tax to cover the pool of people who don't buy private insurance.

So, the decision was good in that it re-affirmed that our rights cannot be infringed upon by the government. Sure, they can tax us, but taxes are a legislative issue, not a civil one; it's far easier to impose or repeal a tax than to argue issues of civil rights.

Also, healthcare isn't a right; the O-care SCotUS decision doesn't even address when "the something" in question is a fundamental, enumerated civil right, because health care isn't. As such, it's doubtful that any appellant could cite the O-care decision in the context of government forcing us to buy insurance in order to exercise a civil right.

[PocketProtector]

From the article:

"The bill would mandate that prospective gun owners maintain at least a $250,000 policy. The policy would cover damages from negligent acts or intentional acts that aren’t undertaken in self-defense."

I am sure every criminal on the streets will be sure to get their policy for the illegal guns they own.

Just another law aimed directly at legal gun owners that fails to ignore the problem that criminals don't care about following the law.

The 2nd Amendment battle is like an octopus...... arms everywhere. Federal, state, other states, local...... it get exhausting keeping track of all the entities trying to destroy a right anyway they can.

You broke the code.....while they churn out an endless supply of little Libtardbots in higher ed.......they expect us to tire and submit.

Not I.

[chrissmith1]

Id like to see a mandatory insurance policy alongside it on speech, in case you get sued for slander or liberl. It's EXACTLY the same idea.

[CHEMICAL]

Statistically young low income blacks are more likely to commit crimes so should we invoke a mandatory insurance on the parents for each additional baby?