Insurance for gun owners?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Tungsten

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 1, 2012
    7,231
    Elkridge, Leftistan
    Interesting idea. Hopefully a state institutes a fee for commies to speak. Then force them to obtain insurance to pay for all the damage their sick ideology creates.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    You can't make a fundamental right contingent on a financial transaction.

    You'd think. But the San Jose Mayor (or maybe it was one of their council members?) basically came out and said that non-gun owners shouldn't have to pay for the costs of gun owner's rights. Thus the insurance requirement so that only gun owners were paying the costs of "gun violence". Used almost exactly that language too!

    Oh, wait? So I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's right to vote? Or free speech?

    No more free rides! Someone wants a permit to hold a rally, no more of this nominal fee crap. They pay every cent of the police presence, any clean-up the city has to do, etc. Want to vote? Well time for everyone to pay a poll fee. I am tired of my taxes going to pay to run polling sites, vote counts etc. Want to vote, pony up!
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I'm ready for "the big one" to finally cause CA to fall into the Pacific Ocean.

    San Diego just passed a ghost gun ban which, amongst other things, bans "unserialized parts" which could be used in building a ghost gun. So theoretically a Glock 19, since it has an unserialized barrel and slide, falls under that ban. And how do you serialize a spring?

    This insurance/fee thing, if it survives, will probably show up in Annapolis in a few years. . .

    If they want to serialize the screw holding on my Glock's front sight they can if they promise to replace it if they mess it up.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    You'd think. But the San Jose Mayor (or maybe it was one of their council members?) basically came out and said that non-gun owners shouldn't have to pay for the costs of gun owner's rights. Thus the insurance requirement so that only gun owners were paying the costs of "gun violence". Used almost exactly that language too!

    Oh, wait? So I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's right to vote? Or free speech?

    No more free rides! Someone wants a permit to hold a rally, no more of this nominal fee crap. They pay every cent of the police presence, any clean-up the city has to do, etc. Want to vote? Well time for everyone to pay a poll fee. I am tired of my taxes going to pay to run polling sites, vote counts etc. Want to vote, pony up!
    If they want to go down the road of "nobody should pay for other people's rights" then I'll take a hard right and hit the accelerator.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    You can't make a fundamental right contingent on a financial transaction.
    You can if you assert rational basis instead of intermediate or strict scrutiny. probably 3/4 of the voters in San Jose will believe the assertion that it is analogous to car insurance.

    The gun ban lobby has also found you can also pass a law and wait until right before you think you ill lose, and withdraw it and moot it and not lose an inch from where you were before you passed the law.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    The car liability insurance analogy fails. You can own a vehicle without insurance if you keep it on your property. These clowns want you to buy mandatory insurance for any kind of possession. It’s BS and they know it is, but they’ll get to drag it out for months or years while preening about it during the midterms.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    I like to throw car analogies back at them. You know my drivers license works everywhere, right? You know New York doesn’t care if Maryland doesn’t require us to know how to parallel park, right?
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Could end up proving that law abiding gun owners are not the financial strain on society that anti gun politicians would have us believe. Criminals aren’t going to buy gun insurance? We probably should then require every citizen buy uninsured firearm user coverage too. So when a criminal illegally possess and uses a firearm against an innocent person, the uninsured firearm fund pays….

    Sadly, no. "Peer reviewed" "science", especially in medical health journals is pretty much a vast pile of junk science that is utterly political.

    There are "peer reviewed" studies that actually weigh, on one side, all gun crime, all gun homicide, all gun suicide, all gun accidents and all gun injuries against on the other side, solely adjudicated valid self defense gun justifiable homicide. And thereby prove gun ownership is massive population health cost amounting to billions per year.

    There are "peer reviewed" studies "proving" that owning a gun causally raises risk of suicide. (When the data from Australia's mass confiscation suggest otherwise, and that removing guns just drives suicide to other means, and that those other means are more likely to be rued accident, even though actually suicide).

    There are "peer reviewed studies" claiming owning a firearms a household less safe when not a single own of those studies controls for criminality, and that shootings in homes seem to be overwhelming in homes with criminal activity or criminals domiciled. Those studies, ignoring tiny subsets with massively increased risk. eg a drug dealer who is a "gun owner" getting shot by a rival have absurd methodology, but get published -- and are entered into evidence in federal court cases.

    The thing is they do not care about the fact that criminals wont buy insurance against accidents. They are interested in transferring costs and stigma to lawful gun owners
     

    Harrys

    Short Round
    Jul 12, 2014
    3,362
    SOMD
    It is communist-fornia what do you expect? Just surprised NY and NY Lite (MD) has not done it. If passed I see it hitting the Supreme Court as infringing on 2A
     

    Dave M

    Active Member
    Jan 27, 2013
    362
    Pa.
    I've got insurance! Insurance that my firearms are going to stay put and not shoot anything that I don't what them to shoot. :innocent0
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    I've got insurance! Insurance that my firearms are going to stay put and not shoot anything that I don't what them to shoot. :innocent0

    But when you DO shoot someone that you absolutely, definitely decide needs shooting to save your life, are you prepared to dish out a hundred thousand or more to defend against the civil suit from the perp's mom? Yes, better to be alive and destitute than to let yourself be killed, but the point here is to avoid the whole destitute part.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,296
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom