PDA

View Full Version : Politics: Illinois bill Would Require Gun Owners to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance



Baralis
02-20-2009, 07:07
Second amendment attack? I think so. If you cant remove the amendment you just put into place laws that keeps your average citizen from being allowed to afford the right.
It would cause many lawful gun owners the inability to afford the right to own a gun while it would not affect criminals.
More Dem fail.




February 18, 2009
An Illinois state lawmaker is proposing that gun owners be required to carry personal liability insurance of at least $1 million.

Rep. Kenneth Dunkin's bill seeks to amend the state's Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to provides that any person who owns a firearm in the state maintain a $1 million or higher policy of liability insurance "specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person."

A gun owner would be responsible after a firearm is lost or stolen until the loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

Police would be empowered to pull the gun license of anyone who does not submit evidence of having the required insurance.

The measure is now in the House Rules Committee.

Dyrrn
02-20-2009, 07:23
so, you can't drive a car with out insurance. you can't own a home with out insurance. you can't, or the very least, is very hard to get medical help with out insurance. soon you won't be able to own a gun with insurance? what's next? personal liability insurance to leave your home, incase you injure some one wilst jogging, a fist fight or some shit?

PirateGlen
02-20-2009, 07:35
so, you can't drive a car with out insurance. you can't own a home with out insurance. you can't, or the very least, is very hard to get medical help with out insurance. soon you won't be able to own a gun with insurance? what's next? personal liability insurance to leave your home, incase you injure some one wilst jogging, a fist fight or some shit?

It would be nice if I didn't have to foot the bill when a pennyless pauper forces me to take a hospital visit.

Fleshcakes
02-20-2009, 07:37
What the hell? Leave mah gunz alone :(

Drunkenork
02-20-2009, 07:38
The libs... Jesus.

Desperado[1G]
02-20-2009, 07:40
Have they speculated as to how much a million dollars of "firearm insurance" would cost per month/year?

Baralis
02-20-2009, 07:43
;2741913']Have they speculated as to how much a million dollars of "firearm insurance" would cost per month/year?

Not that Im aware of. I dont know if such insurance even exists at this point.

That being said I once had 1 mil in liability insurance on a buisness that I owned. It cost me serveral hundred a month.

Fleshcakes
02-20-2009, 07:45
So if I have lots of insurance on my rifle, I can go kill highschoolers, and it's ok?
*crosses fingers*

Desperado[1G]
02-20-2009, 07:59
Not that Im aware of. I dont know if such insurance even exists at this point.

That being said I once had 1 mil in liability insurance on a buisness that I owned. It cost me serveral hundred a month.

Yea, I figured it would be at least 100$ a month, which is an absurd amount to be paying just to own a gun. They're forcing people to pay for a crime they haven't even committed yet.

This is nothing more than a liberal shake-down. It's easy money considering the only people that would pay this "insurance" are law-abiding citizens in the first place, so the claims on such insurance would be few and far between.

And so the rot continues...

Drunkenork
02-20-2009, 08:04
But were getting CHANGE!

ZeroFX
02-20-2009, 08:36
Second amendment attack? I think so.
How is this an attack on the second amendment?

Azquaran
02-20-2009, 08:39
remember what the second ammendment says?

"the right to bear arms"

says you have the right to wield guns, but doesnt necessarily say you can own them

ZeroFX
02-20-2009, 08:44
remember what the second ammendment says?

"the right to bear arms"

says you have the right to wield guns, but doesnt necessarily say you can own them
I don't think you've read the second amendment.
Are you part of a well-regulated militia?

Razr2009
02-20-2009, 09:02
I don't think you've read the second amendment.
Are you part of a well-regulated militia?

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thats what it says liberal cunt.

Baralis
02-20-2009, 09:04
How is this an attack on the second amendment?

By making you pay hard cash for a right. In other words they are removing a right for all those that cant afford it.

Why not charge people based on thier beliefs while were at it. I think all christians should pay for thier right to believe in what they want!

321
02-20-2009, 09:04
I don't think you've read the second amendment.
Are you part of a well-regulated militia?

District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for private use.

tallefred
02-20-2009, 09:21
Baralis, could you post your source please?

Also this is ridiculous.

[NPH]
02-20-2009, 09:21
"... The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."




Modern translation: The right of the people to own and wield weapons shall never be encroached upon in any manner resembling a restriction or regulation. ("Infringed" is a very strong and specific word).


I follow an originalist philosophy in that ANYTHING in the constitution is not up for debate except where real flaws are found and that SPECIFICALLY the BILL OF RIGHTS, was not intended as a living document (i.e. specific entries "evolving over time").

Personally, if there were ever a land invasion of the U.S., you bet your ass I wouldnt want to rely entirely on the National Guard to keep me safe. Just look at how well they were managing the wars early on (i.e. barely). Almost my entire extended family own guns, my friends own guns, and we all like it that way.

Make fun of Utah for its mormons if you want, but it's among the states that is not going to be a push-over pussy state for foreign invaders like Illinois will be at this rate. Almost 50% of homeowners in Utah own guns and the death rate is only 2.2 in 100,000 (and not all are firearm related, and plenty of the ones I hear about are self-defense related), one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the country. Compared to a place like D.C., which has the lowest firearm ownership rate, yet somehow has the highest firearm-related death rate. Run that one through your brain a few times. California has fewer guns per capita and a higher murder rate as well. Gun ownership is not a sympton of the disease that is murder. If somebody wants to kill they will do it whether they have a gun or not.

http://asymptoticlife.com/2009/01/26/more-on-guns-and-violence.aspx

Anyway, gun ownership being a full right without regulation is how the founding fathers intended it. They had the wisdom to realize that a formally organized military and police force can't protect everyone everywhere at all times. Edit: and that it's better for everyone to be on somewhat equal footing, armament-wise, with potential criminals and foreign invaders. This doesnt mean we should get to own rocket launchers. Being an originalist, I understand that the founding fathers defined "firearm" as a hand-held black-powder projectile weapon, of which all single-fire, semi, and fully automatic guns are today.

Baralis
02-20-2009, 09:45
Baralis, could you post your source please?

Also this is ridiculous.

Sorry about that. I first heard it on the news today so I googled it. I dont remember which site I got the original quote from (looked at several) but this one should do.


http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=687&GAID=10&SessionID=76&LegID=41158

Our rights are something we are born with, not something we must purchase.

losinglife
02-20-2009, 14:25
well on the bright side pretty soon everyone will have millions of worthless dollars. Maybe they were just adjusting it for inflation?

pookums
02-20-2009, 14:35
Not that Im aware of. I dont know if such insurance even exists at this point.

That being said I once had 1 mil in liability insurance on a buisness that I owned. It cost me serveral hundred a month.

I believe it currently exists to cover sporting events, but not personal gun liability insurance.

Although, $1m in cover really isn't that much. In America's litigation mad culture, I'd have thought people would be glad to have insurance for misusing their guns.

StainlessSteelRat
02-20-2009, 14:39
Paying for rights sounds like fun. How about a good ole poll tax next?

Or Personal Voters Insurance so when all the dumbfucks vote for the [insert physical trait here] candidate that is going to rape our Constitution (again); I can hold them accountable and sue 'em. Yippee!

StainlessSteelRat
02-20-2009, 14:46
It would be nice if I didn't have to foot the bill when a pennyless pauper forces me to take a hospital visit.

Without insurance, taxes funding R&D, illegals and any number of gov't imposed rules and regulations; you probably could have foot the bill.

If you can't see that it's a never ending spiral (down), go ahead and ante up for the next layer. Don't pretend it actually means something or is useful.

Beliathon
02-20-2009, 14:58
Once again, the question that is brought to mind is,
"why haven't we started killing these people yet?"

Seriously though, do we really need to give more money to lawyers and insurance companies - the leeches of our society?

Zyl
02-20-2009, 14:58
in b4 lol Americans

Mooseman
02-20-2009, 15:05
You need insurance to breathe because you might give someone a cold or flu and hospitalize/kill them. Contact me to buy this now! Oral sex insurance also available.

~Moose, founder of Suck on This Insurance Co.

Special K
02-20-2009, 15:14
You need insurance to breathe because you might give someone a cold or flu and hospitalize/kill them. Contact me to buy this now!

~Moose, founder of Suck on This Insurance Company.

Federal legislation now requires you to insure your insurance. My private company that isn't answerable to the people would like to offer you the best rates in the market that we arbitrarily decide because you are forced under penalty of federally enforced law to purchase the services I render in order to live like a god damn human being. The sweetest part of this deal is that I decide what this service entails and that I get to decide my rates while you get no say. The real kicker is that now I get to do it in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.

Wolffen
02-20-2009, 18:11
Fail. If they actually looked at the evidence they'd see Gun-Control actually doesn't reduce crime it increases crime because the Criminals will still get their illegal weapons while the average law-abiding citizens will not be allowed to buy weapons leaving the criminals easier targets for robbery etc.

Look at any country in the world that has established Gun-control and you'll see most of them were the victims of a brutal dictatorship or authoritarian rule after. Guns in America is probably one of the few things that has kept North America from becoming a brutal communistic socialist dictatorship many years ago.

Pact
02-20-2009, 18:23
This is just the liberal way of banning guns, they are also speculating that they are going to tax the hell out of bullets so you cant afford to shoot your gun. It looks a hell of a lot better than just saying NO guns, it keeps uneducated liberals who drank the obama punch to believe that he is not infringing on our rights.

Rourke
02-20-2009, 18:24
This will never pass. Completely unfair to make people carry an insane amount of insurance like that. Wasn't needed before, can't force people to just do it now, and no one could afford it, which is what the anti-gun nuts want.

Sharuk
02-20-2009, 18:36
How is this an attack on the second amendment?

Alot of people wont be able to afford the insurance?

And there arnt any companies who offer a policy is you are Negligent or purposly harm someone with your gun so only criminals with illegal weapons could own guns?

Sharuk
02-20-2009, 18:38
I don't think you've read the second amendment.
Are you part of a well-regulated militia?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Exultus
02-20-2009, 18:49
Majority in OT hate it? Must be a good idea then.

Sausagebones
02-20-2009, 19:18
Pretty soon the government is going to tell us how many times a day we are allowed to take a shit.

Rourke
02-20-2009, 19:23
Pretty soon the government is going to tell us how many times a day we are allowed to take a shit.

And Sheryl Crow will tell us how many squares of paper we can use.

Killuminati
02-20-2009, 19:53
so what's wrong with this?

Warhawk
02-20-2009, 20:18
so, you can't drive a car with out insurance. you can't own a home with out insurance. you can't, or the very least, is very hard to get medical help with out insurance. soon you won't be able to own a gun with insurance? what's next? personal liability insurance to leave your home, incase you injure some one wilst jogging, a fist fight or some shit?

You drive the car daily in public...you dont go around shooting your gun every day in public.

Rourke
02-20-2009, 20:21
You drive the car daily in public...you dont go around shooting your gun every day in public.

NOBODY can afford a million dollar policy. That's what high risk COMPANIES carry for fuck's sake.

I fucking hate Illinois....place is the WORST for gun rights. Makes me sick they would take away people right to go hunting, or defend their homes by simply making it completely impossible to afford it.

That's shitty and underhanded.