Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liability insurance is required for automobiles. Why not guns? An insurance requirement is not an infringement on 2A, any more than it prevents anyone from owning a car.
They might ask on the insurance form. Funny, but people will have to declare their firearms on that form or they are in violation of the policy and therefore subject to their claims not being paid...let alone blacklisting by the insurance pool (the companies share info).
This is similar to wood burning stoves. For decades there has been a question about these on the insurance form. It's an "owner operated" appliance just like a gun...that can be dangerous in the hands of idiots.
Good behavior is rewarded. Bad behavior economically punished...as it should be.
Hopefully my Recurve Bow is exempt.
I carry liability insurance and it does not exclude an accidental injury caused by a firearm. I was not required to disclose if I owned firearms. What would be excluded is if I used the firearm with the intent to injure or kill, a crime. No diff than if I used a bat or a knife or a bowling ball.
Would it have been covered had automobiles existed then? Either way, an insurance requirement does not prevent you from owning a firearm, unless for some reason you have a history that would render you uninsurable.
And just like that the left is on board with big insurance
No, we want the bloodsucker in the health insurance industry completely removed from the equation, because they provide only expense with no benefits added. Liability insurance is a different matter entirely. You would be a damned fool not to have it on your home, especially if you have an attractive nuisance on the property. Ditto your automobile, even though it is required in most states before you can operate on on public thoroughfares. Liability insurance on guns would mean that you would take pains to store your weapons safely, out of the reach of the incompetent, children, and bad actors. THere are nothing but positives here.
The alternative would be mandatory prison time for a gun owner if the gun was not stored securely and was taken and used in a crime or used by someone to cause injury, intentionally or unintentionally. There are a couple of first world countries whose gun laws provide for such mandatory imprisonment if you cannot prove your gun was taken from a locked safe without your permission.
New York Senate Bill Would Require $1 Million Liability Insurance Policy for Gun Owners
This is so against the federal constitution. We have a right to own a gun, it's not a privilege like driving. When are these power hungry politicians going to get it through their thick skulls?
Liability insurance is required for automobiles. Why not guns? An insurance requirement is not an infringement on 2A, any more than it prevents anyone from owning a car.
Actually, it is an infringement. Asking people to pay for some insurance to exercise a constitutional right is indeed an infringement. And owning a gun is a right. Owning or operating a car is a privilege.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
