Saturday, May 30, 2015

Should Gun Owners be Required to have Liability Insurance?

House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, unveiled Friday, would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.

“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said in a statement. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.”

I have been wondering for several years when they would think of this.

The Constitution does NOT guarantee you the right to drive a car, but it does guarantee the right to own a gun.  So would such a law even be constitutional?   Also, you are NOT required to have liability insurance on a car if you don't drive it on public roads.  I bet there are hundreds of thousands of off road vehicles (4 wheelers and dirt bikes) out there without insurance. 

It’s actually not a bad idea to require liability insurance to CARRY a gun in public, but I am opposed to requiring it to have one in your house or on your own property.   

My real fear is that they will try to use it as a means to try to price the average person out of gun ownership by making the insurance unaffordable.  And you KNOW the insurance for anything liberals consider to be an assault weapon is going to be much higher than on one they consider “more acceptable”.

What are your thoughts?   Let’s have some comments.

Here is something to look into.

No comments:

Post a Comment