Gun Owner Liability Insurance SB 1182

[Brick]

Another one to oppose. $100,000 liability insurance required.

Regular Session 2017-2018
Senate Bill 1182

Short Title: An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, providing for liability insurance for firearms.

Prime Sponsor: Senator FARNESE

Last Action: Referred to JUDICIARY, May 31, 2018 [Senate]

Memo: Firearm Insurance Coverage

for details and text see: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=1182

[GunLawyer001]

Another one to oppose. $100,000 liability insurance required.



for details and text see: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=1182

Look at the "poll tax" cases for why this is unconstitutional.

[Brick]

Look at the "poll tax" cases for why this is unconstitutional.

I hate to disagree with you, but if PA's courts are capable of claiming that the PSP "Gun Sales Database" is not a registry because it doesn't contain all guns, they're capable of claiming this is not a tax since payment is made to a "private entity" to purchase the insurance.

[steve_010]

No way. Make non gun owners purchase insurance just like I need to purchase uninsured motorist coverage. My insurance IS my gun.

[middlefinger]

.

$1000 for every leftist to vote

[57springer]

.

$1000 for every leftist to vote

Yes and an extra 1000 for illegal beaners!

[GeneCC]

I hate to disagree with you, but if PA's courts are capable of claiming that the PSP "Gun Sales Database" is not a registry because it doesn't contain all guns, they're capable of claiming this is not a tax since payment is made to a "private entity" to purchase the insurance.

They called it a "sales registry".

I wonder how they'd feel if the PA State police could register all patient claims from Planned Parenthood or Women's Services? "We're not registering your abortions, M'am, just your purchases of services from these providers". I wonder if the penumbra of privacy could cover that transaction?

I wonder if we could scare some of these Elitists by appealing to legal precedent? Nah... they only think one move ahead.

[GeneCC]

Look at the "poll tax" cases for why this is unconstitutional.

I wonder if the sophists who violate USSC precedent with Miller vs US by supporting a ban on "weapons of war" couldn't weasel their way around this one? They're not logical thinkers but they're good narrative jugglers.

[GeneCC]

These characters could just limit the insurance requirements to holders of CCWs. Kind of like how they currently observe our auto insurance with respect to our automobile registries.

Probably would just encourage people not to bother to get a CCW or get the PA Legislature to support Constitutional Carry. I'm not sure that they want that to happen.

[eatmydust]

The idiots behind this legislation don't care a lick about the insurance, it's just one more step down the slippery slope to full registration and confiscation.