Get PJ Media on your Apple

Gun Grabbers’ Latest Gambit

Mandatory liability insurance is a pathway to registration — and confiscation.

by
Tom Blumer

Bio

April 5, 2013 - 12:35 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

As drafted, Maloney’s baloney only applies to post-passage purchases. As such, the de facto registration requirement and the cost of the insurance itself — an Illinois legislator estimated that such a policy would cost between $500 to $2,000 per year — will significantly deter new purchases, which is of course what the bill’s sponsors want. It’s likely that the volume of legally recorded purchases will decline significantly. Many citizens who legitimately need to protect themselves, either because of personal circumstances, the crime-infested neighborhoods in which they live, or both, won’t be able to arm themselves. Criminals will know that, and target their activities accordingly.

Anyone who believes that the bill’s sponsors and Democrats in Congress want to permanently limit the liability insurance requirement to new purchases hasn’t been paying attention for several decades. Especially if they get their way on Maloney’s measure, the liability mandate will come to be seen as a normal standard of care for all gun owners, and the pressure to apply it universally will grow. Already, a bill introduced but defeated in Illinois would have required all who carry concealed weapons to have insurance, while a proposal that didn’t make it into Connecticut’s recently passed draconian gun control law would have forced every firearm owner to have it.

My insurance company contact told me that for now they are prohibited by law from providing any detailed information they have about guns covered in property policies unless it is appropriately requested by law enforcement. That will surely change once the databases become sufficiently large. Gun-grabbers disguised as concerned neighbors will demand to know who owns guns in their neighborhood, and what guns they have. Politicians supposedly interested in crime prevention will also demand to go fishing to “clean up” high-crime neighborhoods. This will of course have the opposite effect, but they won’t care.

The next step is confiscation, a stated goal of more than a few leftist politicians, up to and including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

All of these measures violate the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens’ natural law right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. They also prove that, at least for the left, the Second Amendment to the Constitution means nothing. They — the unconstitutional laws and the radicals pushing them — must be stopped.

(Thumbnail on PJM homepage assembled from multiple Shutterstock.com images.)

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Along with having a decades-long career in accounting, finance, training and development, Tom Blumer has written for several national online publications primarily on business, economics, politics and media bias. He has had his own blog, BizzyBlog.com, since 2005, and has been a PJM contributor since 2008.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Hey, Congress! How about requiring liability insurance for CRIMINALS???? Everyone convicted of a crime should be required to have a liability insurance policy, paid & effective for a specified period of time into the future, before their sentence is finished. After all, when crimes are committed, there are often things that must be paid, i.e. fines, costs, restitution, etc. Let the insurance companies deal with that & leave us law-abiding citizens alone! 'Shall not be infringed' means stay the heck out of my business!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What types of governmental actions constitute 'infringing' the right to own a gun: Taxes? Insurance? Whatever can impede ownership? Any action or law that in any way 'infringes' the right to bear arms, I would think, should be considered unconstitutional.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wonder how the folks proposing an insurance requirement for exercising the Second Amendment right to own a gun would view a similar requirement to purchase libel insurance in order to exercise the First Amendment right to free speech or freedom of the press. As Americans, our constitutional rights should not be subject to any preconditions.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (56)
All Comments   (56)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Common sense" and "its for the children" or "hunters don't need that" have been the methods that liberals have used for years to get around "shall not be infringed." The pity is that the gun owning public have been willing accomplices in this subversion of the second amendment by accepting the now over 20,000 blatantly unconstitutional gun laws this nation has enacted. The Heller decision, which was heralded by gun owners, has been further used by liberals to call for "reasonable restrictions" on firearms when ANY restrictions are unreasonable.

Everyone in the debate knows the truth: "Shall not be infringed" means just that. You can't add to the phrase, parse it out or try to modify the intent of the second amendment via the "militia" argument, for example, which has been defined and settled by Federal law.

The real truth on the liberals side is that they blindly trust the government and hate guns - period. They absolutely know that they would lose a fight to repeal the second amendment. The disarming of America is their goal. They can't win a frontal assault, so they are content to chip away at the second amendment and before we know it, we'll be "subjects" again. We are well on the way as I speak.

Liability insurance is just another unconstitutional path toward the liberal's nirvana - a disarmed and totally powerless citizenry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I could see this including uninsured firearm owner insurance so they can have someone other than the government pick up the tab at the hospital for street criminals
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The mentally impaired probably commit violence with guns to include homicides at a ratio of - 3:100,000.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Meant for popham down below.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Such a suggestion as liability insurance as a 'requisite' for either gun purchases and or gun ownerships is frivilous. It would not stand on constitutional challenge if legislated by the federal government and probably not by a states legislation.

The proper legisltation should simply hold gun owners to a civil liablity for not securing their deadly weapons properly from loss and if such loss was found to have been used in the commission of a crime -- with elegibility for treble damages in the event of a homicide. Now, the ball is in the hand of gun owners and such liability does NOT infringe on second amendment rights to 'own' guns.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We are dealing with Socialists and Marxists, not Americans who wish to be part of a Constitutional Republic. These people have been trying since the early part of the century to undermine our country. They MUST be stopped.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Can we demand mandatory insurance for union members, in case they commit acts of violence? How about sexual-molestation insurance for public-school teachers?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is not the hill to die on for your second amendment rights. If you believe in the constitution as written there should be no laws at all governing firearms.

BUT, I live in Ontario Canada. I am a member of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. One of the perks of membership, which costs about 40$ a year, is 1 million dollars of liability insurance which provides protection for me when I am hunting, fishing, or otherwise legally using a fire arm. The cost is effectively zero when you consider what else I get for my membership.

Make this backfire on them. Get the NRA to offer the same thing to members, then every gun owner in America becomes a card carrying NRA member, giving them that many more resources to win the battle against the gun grabbers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"If you believe in the constitution as written there should be no laws at all governing firearms."

WRONG! The framers of the constitution were well knowledgeable of legal language. They well knew the difference between "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be with limitations".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Limit", and "infringe" mean the same thing. So you are wrong. The Founders meant, clearly, that there shall be NO limitations, restrictioins, impediments, infringements, boundaries, conditions, pre-conditions, requirements, fees, or anythign else to in any way make it difficult, expensive, time consuming, or otherwise a pain to purchase, own, carry about, use firearms. Read Federalist 46. Its there. No "common sense gun laws" in view. Nope, NONE.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You 'federalist's' are a real hoot! Try this one on for size! Where does it say in black and white, in either the constitution or the federalist papers that you have the right to own and keep ammunition? Where does it say in black and white that you can own and own and keep a munitions clip or magazine? Want to play word games?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Now you are really getting stupid. Since a gun cannot be effective used without amunition, obviously the right to bear a gun also means the right to bear it with amunition. Your statement would be equivalent to saying people have the right to a free press but banning mimeigraph machines or internet postings, because they can still use a gutenberg press to print handbills.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"obviously the right to..."

You make my point by stating "obviously" when the pro-gun people are arguing only the precise black and white language of the constitutional must/shall be the only operative language. You can't have it both black and white language and obvious subjection and ultimately win your agrument that way. Nothing is absolute without limitations as the very best of constitutional scholars throughout all time have consistantly concluded -- to included the constitutions framers who included a congressional and states process to amend and or repeal the parts of the constitution.

Maybe pointing "stupidity" towards me is a bit misdirected!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Crime rates will increase as criminal seek more money to pay for insurance on their guns.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Insurance mandates are bogus. I recently rode with a friend on a downtown street. His car was rammed into by a black woman who happened to have a Bible on her front seat, but who also happened not to have a driver's license, a registration card or a proof of insurance. The car had an out-of-state tag, but she gave the officer an in-town address. Guess who got the ticket? There are a lot of financial rackets -- Chicago has long been the queen of racketeers -- and this is just another one, plus the danger it poses to our right of self-defense.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Nobody will get any credit for guessing that the Democrats won't offer to subsidize this insurance.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually, they will... in fact, they'll ensure they're the only option so that they can use contracts to do what they can't do through legislation.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All