House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

[djpup]

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. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.

“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," 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.”

Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners.

“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 or accidents occur."

This is the second time Maloney, who is one of the biggest gun control advocates in Congress, has introduced the legislation. A few weeks ago she reintroduced legislation that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows.

The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, long championed by former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general.

http://thehill.com/regulation/243425...arry-insurance

[nra-life-member]

"Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement."

“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," 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.”

So why should these fine folks be required to purchase car insurance if they don't need to purchase liability insurance for firearms. Who will cover any liability claims Carolyn Maloney or the state?

[scruff]

Does car insurance pay out for criminal acts, like using a car in the commission of a bank robbery, or purposely driving into a crowd to kill people? Of course not. Do thugs steal a car and immediately call Geico to get their insurance set up? Of course not. Idiot.

[nra-life-member]

Sticks and stones... really? Point is why should anyone be exempt, if it's a law covering liability for use/misuse?. I disagree with the bill proposed as it adds extra cost for a right, but trying to exempt specific groups - perhaps hoping for less resistance - just says to me it's a bad bill from the start.

[pennlineman]

There is no real logic behind it other than making firearm ownership more difficult and expensive.

[God's Country]

Give it time. Scotus already upheld that the gov can force you to purchase health insurance. If it's a tax it's legal.
Some day it will happen.

[Statkowski]

You can't buy a gun without gun insurance. Oh, nobody sells gun insurance? Well, it's not like we're banning guns, really, maybe.

[Grey Bearded One]

"Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement."

So Joe Jarhead goes to Harry's Guns and buys a .44 Magnum and shoots his neighbor's dog. What? No insurance, he doesn't need it.

Why are cops exempt? They should have to carry double the insurance.

[RockIsland]

So Joe Jarhead goes to Harry's Guns and buys a .44 Magnum and shoots his neighbor's dog. What? No insurance, he doesn't need it.

Why are cops exempt? They should have to carry double the insurance.

Because cops don't shoot.... Oh wait, nevermind.

[Hodgie]

Well here's the easy answer for the jack was who introduced this bill.

Driving is a privilege while my right to bare arms is well my right.

Next bill on today's agenda?