Mandatory $250K Insurance Policy for Gun Owners in D.C.
- Thread starter Big Moose
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
bcr229
FFL/SOT
Lots of luck finding an insurance company that will write that policy.
Lol. Have they learned nothing from their handgun ban?!
This is the same exact thing in different skin.
I want that Glock over there.
-You need to have insurance for it
I can't afford it.
-No Glock for you
It's a blatant unconstitutional burden!
Even more-so than requiring a license (which I wholly disagree with).
This is the same exact thing in different skin.
I want that Glock over there.
-You need to have insurance for it
I can't afford it.
-No Glock for you
It's a blatant unconstitutional burden!
Even more-so than requiring a license (which I wholly disagree with).
tgeb
Member
What happens if you don't pay the renewal premium? Does the SWAT team show up to confiscate the weapons?
- Dec 7, 2011
- 736
Unconstitutional.
wlc
Ultimate Member
- Nov 13, 2006
- 3,521
Amazing how liberals continue to screw the lower & middle class and get away with it.
bshedwick
Active Member
Reposting my comment from another related thread:
Do any of these people stop and think that those who really have a lawful reason to own a gun for self protection purposes b/c of the high crime area that they live in are also probably not going to be able to purchase the firearm liability insurance.
This is not insurance in case you lose your gun, this is if your gun is used in a crime or injures someone else. I have my doubts that insurance companies would be really excited to offer said policies, and if they do offer them, the premiums would most likely be really really expensive.
Going back to my first point. Is it really fair to people living in high crime areas to tell them to force them to choose to pay for liability insurance that they need to protect their property and family or choose to pay for food or doctors bills?
Do any of these people stop and think that those who really have a lawful reason to own a gun for self protection purposes b/c of the high crime area that they live in are also probably not going to be able to purchase the firearm liability insurance.
This is not insurance in case you lose your gun, this is if your gun is used in a crime or injures someone else. I have my doubts that insurance companies would be really excited to offer said policies, and if they do offer them, the premiums would most likely be really really expensive.
Going back to my first point. Is it really fair to people living in high crime areas to tell them to force them to choose to pay for liability insurance that they need to protect their property and family or choose to pay for food or doctors bills?
- Dec 7, 2011
- 736
Exactly!
Actually... as an insurance company... this could be an amazing way to make some cash. Hear me out...
So, the majority of LEGAL gun owners are the kind of people who really don't need this insurance in the first place. Think about it. You have loss insurance that will cover you if your guns get stolen but this liability insurance is for when the gun is under your control. This is (essentially) free money to the insurance company who man's up to sell it.
Just my .02.
So, the majority of LEGAL gun owners are the kind of people who really don't need this insurance in the first place. Think about it. You have loss insurance that will cover you if your guns get stolen but this liability insurance is for when the gun is under your control. This is (essentially) free money to the insurance company who man's up to sell it.
Just my .02.
Haides
Ultimate Member
It's also fascism...
fabsroman
Ultimate Member
Exactly. How many firearms accidents happen where somebody is actually held liable. Huge difference between crimes committed with firearms, that an insurance policy will NOT cover, suicides, and torts. For instance, if you intentionally run somebody over with your car, it is NOT covered.
So, the only time the insurance coverage will actually apply is when there is a firearm ACCIDENT with actual damages that the policy holder can be held liable for.
This is even more brilliant than banning assault weapons when they are responsible for a miniscule number of gun deaths a year.
Where is Obama when you need him? He clearly said he isn't after our guns, and this type of insurance requirement is exactly that. It applies to ALL guns. The District of Columbia is a bunch of morons with a bunch of corruption to boot. I'm dealing with them right now on a property tax issue for a client and when I can get somebody to pick up the phone, the answer is different than the last person I spoke to, and none of the answers make any sense. The morons are in charge.
I think the voting public should carry insurance!
ericgunn
Active Member
- Feb 21, 2013
- 114
Ok. Now I'm totally convinced that we have a conspiracy on our hands and I'm not one to jump to conpiracy theories. The government in anti-gun areas are trying to push crazy laws like this against law abiding citizens who own guns knowing eventually they will revolt and fight back. That way when they do they can point their finger and say "it's obvious law abiding citizens cannot own guns, look what they did!"
I think I'm on to something.
I think I'm on to something.
Just wrote all of the MD legislators and MOM's FB page just in case... (about how stupid this is, of course)
CAS_Shooter
Active Member
- Jan 24, 2012
- 510
I can assure you that the insurance company would rule 99% of the accidents as negligence and not pay in those circumstances either.
If someone steals your car, drives drunk, and runs over somebody, your liability insurance won't cover what the felon did and you are not liable for what the felon did. Just what are the scenarios they envision this liability insurance would cover? It won't cover what someone does with your gun after stealing it and it won't cover what you do with it if you are found to be negligent or criminal in your actions. Just what do they think it will cover.
Bravo
Bravo
The proposal I believe is to have insurance to also cover"negligence". Failure to pay the insurance would be precursor to having the gun registration removed, putting the owner in a legal situation of having an unregistered handgun in the city. Ms Cheh the council member proposing this claims she is in favor of the second ammendment and wants this to be only about insurance for gun crime victims. Think how much money they will make when all of the gang members purchase insurance policies.
For once , the mayor and police don't think this is a good idea.
For once , the mayor and police don't think this is a good idea.
gmhowell
Not Banned Yet
That's actually ok. It should lead to these types of policies actually being available and actually being affordable.
Depending on how the law is written, this could very easily be just another feel good piece of legislation that doesn't do much of what it intends to do.
Gdud50
Member
- Apr 8, 2013
- 82
So can we require people to carry voter insurance in case they vote and elect someone who causes harm to the country? You know, anyone who voted for Bush or Obama would have to file a claim with the insurance company to recover the dollars lost due to the fiscal policies of the two?
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
Looking for light 9mm suppressor suggestions
- Started by John from MD
- Replies: 0
-
