Latest gun owner harassment from Alegheny County Democrats

[scruff]

This asshole's district is Homewood, Wilkinsburg and E. Liberty. As if his local thugs would ever comply with this!


Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners?
Author Bob Frye Date August 24, 2016
http://blog.triblive.com/wild-outdoo...or-gun-owners/

It’s not officially been introduced as a bill yet, and there’s been no word on if or when it might be.

But gun owners are riled up anyway.

State Rep. Ed Gainey, an Allegheny County Democrat, recently began circulating for co-sponsors a proposal that would require gun owners to secure liability insurance.

According to a memo sent to other lawmakers, Gainey wants “a freestanding insurance bill that requires every gun owner in Pennsylvania to purchase firearm liability insurance for each firearm in order to decrease gun-crime rates and to protect the Second Amendment and the self-defense rights of responsible firearm owners in Pennsylvania.”

Gun owners would be required to have at least $500,000 in liability coverage, $50,000 in criminal defense protection and $5,000 for mental health services – per firearm.

Why is such insurance necessary?

Gainey wrote “no one has a doubt” that firearms can be dangerous.

“Some gun owners might already have a home insurance policy, but it only provides gun owners with small coverage in property damage and personal injury. Considering the huge amount of medical and legal costs by each gun incident, adequate liability coverage would ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur,” he said.

Only responsible gun owners – something that’s not defined — could buy insurance. Failing to do so “will carry a graduated fine structure as a penalty,” Gainey said in his memo. Fines would range from $500 to $2,000.

Gainey’s idea has generated a lot of talk, all of it negative, on pro-gun message boards, though he says it does not “impinge on, but rather protects” second amendment rights.

[GunLawyer001]

It would make more sense to require all unwed mothers to post a bond in case their fatherless kids grow up to be criminals. $500,000 should do it, to cover criminal defense, victim reparations, and the cost of policing their at-risk kids.

Hey, as long as we're burdening rights....

[Emptymag]

It would make more sense to require all unwed mothers to post a bond in case their fatherless kids grow up to be criminals. $500,000 should do it, to cover criminal defense, victim reparations, and the cost of policing their at-risk kids.

Hey, as long as we're burdening rights....

Oh shit. I was typing the EXACT same thing but could hear the cries of "racist" in the distance, so I just deleted it and went about my way.

His district would require government assistance to help pay for all those insurance policies.

[GunLawyer001]

Oh shit. I was typing the EXACT same thing but could hear the cries of "racist" in the distance, so I just deleted it and went about my way.

His district would require government assistance to help pay for all those insurance policies.

Why would you assume that fatherless kids are minorities?

Racist....

[TaePo]

Each gun?? Why each gun or each car or each knife? The offense is done by the owner of the items, not the individual object used. So why isn't an individual covered no matter how many cars he owns, leases or otherwise possesses or controls? Because the government wants the extra control and insurance companies want the extra income. The smart guys before us should have added clauses declaring that some rights should not be questioned or shall not be infringed. Those short sighted bastards left it wide open so we can't legally challenge such tyranny.

[mikelets456]

I guess I should be required to buy insurance so I'm not illegally searched or items seized by government. Also, I'm comparing insurance rates to speak what I want freely.

[gghbi]

Sounds like a poll tax for guns! Not constitutional -- that is all.

[Berks_Iraq_Vet]

Some people are alive simply because it is against the law to kill them.

[bigandy1966]

Tell this brain dead mother foxtrot that anything that is "required by law" as a condition to buying owning or possessing a firearm is a infringement. We have already let more than a few of those slip through in the name of "common sense gun laws"in the past.
Also, Isn't this guy black? Doesn't he know that the black community has more murders than any other in the US? And the law abiding segment of this community has the highest need to own guns? So what he is doing is making all low income black people unarmed targets for the thug culture. I suppose he believes he's creating a safe working environment for his criminal constituency.
So ask his dumb ass how can a poor law abiding black man own a gun to protect his family, his home and his life, AND buy gun insurance AND put food on the table to feed his family?
This Infringement rests heaviest on those who have to pay a higher percentage of their income to afford gun insurance.
I know!
We can start a "affordable gun insurance act" so low income people can afford to shoot criminals breaking into their homes so the criminals can sue the homeowner and make even more money. after litigation.

[streaker69]

We can start a "affordable gun insurance act" so low income people can afford to shoot criminals breaking into their homes so the criminals can sue the homeowner and make even more money. after litigation.

If you like your gun, you can keep your gun.