WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16:  House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) delivers opening remarks during a hearing on the Dodd-Frank Act and the definition of Systemically Important Financial Institutions on Capitol Hill May 16, 2012 in Washington, DC. The recent announcement by JPMorgan Chase of a $2 billion trading loss loomed large in the hearing as lawmakers heard regulators testify about what makes a bank or institution 'too big to fail.'  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney from the state of New York has just introduced a bill designed to require all gun owners in the United States to purchase liability insurance before they can purchase a firearm, or face a $10,000 fine. Her logic: we require liability insurance for car owners, why not require the same for gun owners? She introduced this legislation today despite the fact that her recommendation would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income families, the very focus groups which Democrats have attempted to pander to in the last few years, and stifle their civil rights. From her statement on the floor of the House . . .

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Firearm Risk Protection Act, innovative legislation to promote safe gun ownership.

Too often, our communities are left looking for answers after horrific tragedies inflicted with dangerous firearms. A requirement to carry liability insurance is a market-based solution that would hold gun owners responsible for the risk their firearms present, and create incentives for responsible gun safety practices.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act would harness the power of insurance markets to allow professional actuaries to determine the risk presented by each gun and gun owner. Just as with car insurance, higher-risk owners of firearms would face higher premiums, while responsible owners could qualify for reduced rates.

As gun violence continues to inflict scars on American families and our communities, Congress should look for new ways to promote gun safety and prevent future tragedies. I hope my colleagues will join me to support this forward-thinking legislation.

Basically, everything she said was a lie.

This bill is not innovative — it has been introduced regularly, the last time in 2013, and has been rejected every single time.

Requiring “insurance” for firearms would not actually have any impact on the “gun violence” in the United States. Law abiding gun owners aren’t the source of “gun violence” — its the criminals. Expecting that a criminal will buy insurance is patently insane. Not only that: insurance only covers “accidents.” Intentional acts such as violent crime (the impact of which is the stated goal that Rep. Maloney is trying to reduce with this legislation) would in no way be covered by any sane insurance agency. Therefore there would be no incentive whatsoever to deter people from violent acts, as the insurance wouldn’t cover it in the first place. As best stated in the comments below:

Insurance only pays for “accidents,” not intentional shootings, and for those relatively rare accidents that do occur, homeowners or renters insurance will cover the tab. One must understand that a liability policy insures the insured, not the “victim of gun violence,”; it protects the insured from civil claims for damages. For example, if a child gets his hands on a loaded weapon left “negligently” laying around, and shoots himself or others, the homeowner’s carrier will step in. Same for the “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” shooting accidents. Theoretically, the carrier might (depending on the language of its policy) step in if a home invader is shot by a home owner. But in most cases of a “good shoot,” the BG will be barred by standard principles of comparative or contributory fault from recovering anyway, so he will not be recovering anything for his injuries, but if it is a bad shoot, there might be a denial of coverage.

But self-defense shootings are usually “intentional” as defined in most standard “occurrence” policies, meaning that these policies provide no coverage for the personal injuries inflicted for the vast majority of shootings that occur every year, particularly for those inflicted by a criinal on his victims. Thus, for the 70,000 or so shootings each year in drivebys or after hours dust-ups, the policy will likely exclude coverage. So absolutely NOTHING is gained by requiring this insurance.

By contrast, the standard SD insurance policy provides coverage for the cost of the criminal defense, which is not covered by a general liability policy, and for those who carry, a pretty important coverage.

Continuing on, by “higher risk owners,” Carolyn Maloney means black people. Those priviledged few who live in crime-free neighborhoods (rich white people) would probably qualify for lower premiums, but those who actually need the guns to defend their lives — minority and low income individuals living in high crime areas — will need to pay out the nose for their firearms insurance. Black people, statistically speaking. Carolyn Maloney doesn’t want black people to have guns, but the rich privileged white folks will be just fine under this scheme. Its racist.

Oh, and gun violence is not “on the rise.” Nevermind how many times the Democrats in Congress try to brainwash the American people into believing that the streets are running red with blood, the facts and figures say otherwise.

The good news is that there’s no chance in Hell that this bill will pass. With Republicans controlling the House and Senate, it would take an act of God to make any headway on this bill. But at least we know what the gun control demanding Democrats really want — no guns in black hands.

147 Responses to BREAKING: Democrats Introduce National Mandatory Firearms Insurance Bill

    • If you ‘live’ in a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal or a rino, the problem is part-of-you, you are permanently damaged and your mother (one of your fathers) owes us an abortion.

      FURTHER: NY is a pissant small state [it doesn’t matter how many people you jam into its borders you will not represent another square inch of America] QUIT trying to lay your liberal crap on us.

      • Get Piano Cat to Play-Her-Out . . .

        gimme some of Billy Joel’s Miami 2017 – He’s a lib, but who knows, maybe he got it right.

      • New York is, for all practical purposes, two states. Westchester County (which I am happily about to move out of) and below are the bluest of the blue. But the rest of the state is quite red. The problem is the blue part has a population edge. New York City, which is 80% liberal democrat, in conjunction with Long Island and Westchester effectively control the politics of the state and send asshats like Cuomo to Albany with frightening predictability.

        The good news? People upstate don’t give a crap what the fools in Albany pass. State gun laws are regularly and widely ignored both by citizens and law enforcement. So don’t write off New York. There’s a lot of good people living under the yoke of utopians. And we’re working hard to change things.

        And if you want to blame anyone for Maloney, blame the fools in her district in Long Island who elected her.

      • I thought Obama said it was crack that they were putting in the soup? maybe now he likes it so much he tells the other koolaid drinkers “NO SOUP FOR YOU!”

      • There’s no Kool-Aid in it, they’re happy to drink the poison straight because their Jim Jones told ’em to.

        It’s kinda like Iraq, if you have a problem with the WMD argument, it’s only because you were a stupid-a_ _ that needed ANOTHER argument. Terms of Armistice of Gulf War one dictated the prosecution of Gulf War II. Any other provocation was unnecessary gravy.

    • They MUST put something in the water that makes Democrat women NOT ONLY Stupid but also clear to the bone UGLY.

    • Imagine it happens and the NRA provides insurance through membership. Now lets say there 100M gun owners in the country. They all join the NRA paying 35$ dues every year which covers the membership. That’s 3.5 billion dollars a year. You think the NRA’s strong now?

      • Nice idea, but they’d never let the NRA run the insurance program; they’ll make darn sure it’s run by one of their own entities, in turn part of the State’s apparatus.

        • Obamagun state sponsored insurance. Rates so high, you will eagerly participate in state sponsored gun buy back programs. Another beautiful system born in Oceania, and implemented by the Ministry of Love.

        • With a One-Minute Hate every night with alternating portraits of Wayne LaPierre, Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent.

        • I would be willing to be,they wouldn’t let the NRA touch it.That said,i have a better chance of winning the lottery .than this BS law passing,thankfully.

      • The NRA does run an insurance program already though, at least via partners, Second Call Defense for legal trouble after a “defensive incident” and whoever does the free $2,000 gun insurance thing.

        What she seems to be asking for is a sort of tax on gun ownership that would essentially make it too expensive for poor people in bad neighborhoods to own a gun. Its not like what she’s describing is a service that people would actually want as it only seems to be a penalty.

        • She is not looking for the type of insurance the NRA offers, she wants indemnity for the “victims of gun violence.” She could care less about the person who fired the gun–which is the coverage the NRA provides (costs of criminal defense up to a cap).

      • any insurance that is mandated by law as necessary is by the nature of being required two to three times as expensive as voluntary insurance. texas liability tripled in cost from 1995-1998 when it became mandatory to prove to register, i’m sure obamy care will soon get that way and if these idiots ever get this nonsense thru it won’t be affordable very shortly there after.

  1. They want no guns in any hands because they are afraid of The People who are starting to realize what they are just pigs at the trough (as David Stockman famously said long ago now). They don’t care about the gun crime in poor neighborhoods that accounts for 95% of US gun violence, this is about them and their selfish fears.

    • They are just attempting to disarm you for the next Civil War, or War with China [if she’s taken even a penny of foreign money for this campaign/program introduction, there’s a name for that] (bet China would pay for this kind of program to be instituted here [“insurance” a/k/a Inter-National gun registry]).

      TO REPEAT: They are just attempting to disarm you for the next Civil War, or War with China. They might say that’s not what they are trying to do, BUT WHAT WOULD THEY SAY IF IT WAS?

      • Forget China, the UN is probably paying her for this one. A global utopian police state is not compatible with the right to keep and bear arms.

  2. Somehow the democrats remind me of South Park’s Timmy when it comes to civil disarmament speeches.

    • It won’t make it as “insurance” (like Obamacare ACA) d-bag Justice John G. Roberts will push it through as a “Tax.”

      • GOOD! I sure hope so. That way we can call it a poll tax, which is illegal under federal law and SCOTUS decision.

  3. How does insurance like this even work? You can’t insure yourself for criminals acts. That doesn’t even make sense.

    • Yep – liability insurance only pays if the action was unintended or negligent. No pay in case of deliberate homicide or suicide.

      But then, they could then make the insurance available as a rider on your Obamacare! Which would be so thoroughly screwed up that even if you could afford to buy the insurance, the system would be impossible to parse to figure out what you needed to buy.

      How about we require all Senators and Representatives to post a bond for $1M at the beginning of the year, against which the .gov costs for considering their legislation will be billed? Any funds left at the end of the year are refunded.

    • The insurance industry has said it countless times, whenever this idiotic idea is brought up: you cannot insure against intentional acts of the policy holder. Just like you can’t collect on your car insurance if you decide to roll your car into a lake or set it on fire, you can’t have insurance covering intentional misuse of a particular item, regardless of whether it’s supposed to benefit a theoretical victim. It just doesn’t work that way and no twist of logic could ever make it sensible.

    • It’s a moot point from the get-go. Dem/Lib/Progressives reintroduce it every chance they get only to try to lock in votes from low-information voters. They know up front that it has no chance of ever passing and that if by some insane political mis-chance it did get passed it would be immediately struck down in the courts as a poorly disguised “poll tax”.

      There is no possible way that Congress could pass a law requiring any citizen to pay a fee or buy insurance before exercising any of the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

      And before anybody tries to say something, Obamacare is not covered in the Bill of Rights, nor is it Constitutional, no matter what SCOTUS eunuchs say.

      • What about those costs for those carry permits that a lot of people seem to be so proud of because they were able to obtain them? I really believe that they are part of the problem because first off a permit should not be allowed because it is more overreach but people seem to think that it is acceptable

      • Don’t forget about bathhouse Barry, if he is really into this law I can see him passing it without the senate or house. While it is illegal, what would the republicans do anyway? Nothing. They have proven to be a spineless bunch and they only thing they really care about is retiring as they are all professional politicians. If one of them ever does the right thing, the rest all look at him like how dare you cause waves, are you out of your mind! They seem to be afraid of Osama Been Lying, maybe because he uses the muslim brotherhood on his staff as some kind of enforcement squad. Thinks he the Dirty Harry of the muslim world!

    • The sunset of Obama’s reign. The Freaks Come Out At Night (near the end of every liberal President’s last term).

      • Laugh; you’re right there. Fear of losing their grip on power brings out, shall we say, the progressive socialist zombies.

        But not to fear, the legacy liberal press will help Calamity Hillarity reinvent herself as the most wise, experienced, empathetic presidential candidate ever, fake southern drawl and all, to grab the loyal, fawning devotion of all those emotion’, airhead low information novelty lovin’ sheeplette (and sheeple) voters who will swoon their way to the polls to cast their legal (and illegal) ballots…unless Hillarity somehow manages to nuke herself in a way even the bigots in the press can’t save her from. Shoot, that holier than thou politico-socio elitist may have already done so; the smoking gun just hasn’t surfaced yet. With any luck, her Teflon won’t be thick enough to protect her, even with her allies in the MSM painting more onto her fake veneer.

        End rant/

  4. How does this incentivize good behavior?

    “Be more careful, or else your insurance company will have to shell out the million dollars!”

  5. I have a Firearm Risk Protection policy. It’s called a Ruger SR9c. It protects me from all those other firearms. Thank you very much.

    • None. There is no such policy for sale other than standard general liability coverages which, as explained below, typically exclude injuries arising from “intentional acts.” The vast majority of bystander shootings are caused by thugs committing illegal acts, acts for which there is not now and never will be insurance coverage.

  6. God almighty, is that Feinstein’s twin sister? That lady is uglier than a mud fence (as my bros down in GA say) haha.

  7. Do lead balloon stunts like this really move the needle on the gun grabber excitement meter? Have another martini, fish lips, you look parched.

  8. Sorry, you don’t have to insure a constitutional right. Tobacco kills 440,000 a year. Let’s make smokers buy liability insurance because second hand smoke kills thousands a year.

    • or what about drinkers? Mandatory insurance for anyone who drinks alcohol? That’s a FAR bigger cause of accidents/injury/death/crime/violence. They never want to seem to apply their stupid illogic to anything but firearms, because they are gun haters.

      • I am pretty sure all states mandate a minimum amount of insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. Your analogy therefore fails.

        • Are you implying that a person must be driving a motor vehicle to cause “accidents/injury/death/crime/violence” while drinking? Neither of the previous posters brought up driving.

        • A motor vehicle is typically private property operated almost exclusively on public roads. When operated on private roads, the vehicle code does not apply and insurance is not required.

          Firearms owned by taxpayers are typically private property, and are operated on private property. They don’t need insurance.

          Your logic therefore fails.

        • When firearms are carried (concealed or open), it’s actually typically, or at least often, on public property. So following that analogy to its conclusion, they cannot demand insurance on possession, but they can demand insurance as a condition of issuing a carry permit.

    • No legislation produced has ever killed more people than legalized abortion. Like the saying goes, you have a 100% mortality rate on 50% of the immediate parties to an abortion WHEN EVERYTHING GOES RIGHT.

      you f-ing monsters

      • Am I reading your post right, to mean that everyone who does not oppose abortion, is a F-ing monster?

      • I hardly consider supporting abortion to be a monstrous or morally reprehensible position. It’s simply a value judgement.

        Personally, I value personal freedom very highly; highly enough that I consider preserving a woman’s right to exercise absolute control over things going on inside of her own body to be more important than preserving the life of an unborn child.

        • You can play all you’d like that history hasn’t already decided, but you’d be just playing.

          “Similarly, the causes of ruin are obfuscated when such relationships are ignored. For example: ignoring the notion that societal agreements are formed between individuals, not groups, [2] and that personal responsibility falls to the individuals within them. Consider the notion of abortion. Many would argue that it is a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. Except that, even with today’s scientific and technological advances, nothing can surpass the success rate of intercourse as a manner of human conception, and nothing, short of sterilization, guarantees its prevention like abstinence. Abortion therefore, is just a small symptom of a larger problem, which is irresponsibility, and feigned ignorance of the significance of the previously mentioned activity.
          Human conception, resultant children (new people) and posterity are often the, overt, primary drivers for a society. The overt drivers. The author here posits that they are the only true drivers for maintaining societal agreement for the reason[s] must extend past today, by definition, and tomorrow by logical conclusion.
          The driver for a continued societal agreement that extends past tomorrow will include new generations of people. Thereby, more people (new generations) compound exponentially the need for, and the individuals involved in the agreement (the trappings and blessings of society). The consequence of this interrelation is paramount to the continuance of societal armistice. To ignore this, or downplay its importance is to risk societal agreement [invite ruin].
          Continuing with the example; it cannot be said, that a woman can ignore or discard the societal agreement she has formed with a person of her invitation [her child], but maintain or value the societal agreement she maintains with the Author, or another. It is no small matter to say that the life [by handicap] of an individual entered into societal agreement [by default/proxy] is meaningless, yet that of another is valued. Ergo, if you want to chuck this ‘supposed’ small part of our agreement, the Author might be willing to chuck the rest.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, Pg. 69].

          “For further example here, the author introduces the consideration of the notion of “abortion” (abortion of Human fetuses). A U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade decided that the definition of “Human Life” centered on the “scientific probability” of a human “fetus” surviving outside of the nurturing support of its mother’s womb, as being highly improbable before the completion of the “fetus’s” first three (3) month period of development, It did not, the Author would like it here noted, decide that abortion was right or good, or that the ability of a woman to have an abortion was a right that should be considered EQUAL to other “rights” acknowledged by the U.S. Constitution. Despite this fact, the position of the Court has, through the concerted efforts of EQUAL progenitors of such falsehood, been allowed to be framed as such by those who are otherwise ignorant of the Court’s stance in this case. However, regardless of the “right” (super-judicially) propagated by the purposefully erroneous dissemination of Court’s position in this matter (and the resultant utter explosion of the repetition and commonality of abortions since), it did not lessen the horrific nature of the absolutely abhorrent act, nor improve Society’s [Societal] opinion of those who provided, and those who availed themselves of abortion. The demand by abortionists to be viewed as (still) Equal to humanity is roundly rejected and what such persons are more readily equated with, by Societies, are absolute “monsters.”” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pg. 117]

        • Joe, what you have evidently failed to understand is that your entire argument hinges on the suppositions that human life is intrinsically valuable and worth saving, and that preserving society for generations to come is a worthwhile undertaking. While a commendable position by the standards of most, neither of these hypotheses can be objectively substantiated, for the simple reason that neither hypothesis has its roots in objective, rational thought.

          It is self-evident that the belief that human life–either individually or societally–has some kind of intrinsic value is nothing more than an artifact of the human animal’s instinctive desires for self-preservation and continuation of the species; the same instincts are demonstrably present throughout the animal kingdom, from ants to rattlesnakes to chimpanzees. In fact, all life, from plants and fungi to the lowliest of bacterium and viruses will exhibit self-preservative behaviors when exposed to negative stimuli, and all will reproduce as freely and successfully as their living conditions will allow.

          Thus, it is my contention that your supposition that human life and society is somehow uniquely special and thus worthy of preservation is, at the most basic level, completely untenable. It is as much an argument from emotion as the “think of the children!!!” arguments the gun-grabbers like to use to advance their own moronic causes. Indeed, the major difference between your argument and theirs is nothing more than your selection of a different methodology of extermination to object to.

          You may cite “history”, your own personal morality, the writings of whichever religious philosophy you may choose to subscribe to, or anything else that might tickle your fancy to support your position on this issue until you’re blue in the face. All are emotionalist. Subjective. None have a place in rational discourse or bearing on reasoned thought, and nothing you have set forth makes a persuasive case against abortion.

        • If your philosophy is taken to its logical conclusion, it is one of the primary reasons that we have and assert a natural right to keep and bear arms.

          Also: what a sad, pathetic way to trudge through life.

        • +1

          Yeah, we’re all just equivalent to slugs and snails and puppy dawg tails. Once we slough off this mortal coil, it’s only to feed the worms. Etc.

          I guess it also depends on how one defines “rational thought” and “reasoning.” Perhaps Saints Augustine and Aquinas were somehow deficient in those areas.

  9. Well, the answer is clearly that we must require the criminals who misuse firearms to have liability insurance. A good first step is to begin with all violent offenders. Just pennies a day for peace of mind.

  10. You missed the most obvious point, Nick: insurance only pays for “accidents,” not intentional shootings, and for those relatively rare accidents that do occur, homeowners or renters insurance will cover the tab.One must understand that a liability policy insures the insured, not the “victim of gun violence,”; it protects the insured from civil claims for damages. For example, if a child gets his hands on a loaded weapon left “negligently” laying around, and shoots himself or others, the homeowner’s carrier will step in. Same for the “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” shooting accidents. Theoretically, the carrier might (depending on the language of its policy) step in if a home invader is shot by a home owner. But in most cases of a “good shoot,” the BG will be barred by standard principles of comparative or contributory fault from recovering anyway, so he will not be recovering anything for his injuries, but if it is a bad shoot, there might be a denial of coverage.
    But self-defense shootings are usually “intentional” as defined in most standard “occurrence” policies, meaning that these policies provide no coverage for the personal injuries inflicted for the vast majority of shootings that occur every year, particularly for those inflicted by a criinal on his victims. Thus, for the 70,000 or so shootings each year in drivebys or after hours dust-ups, the policy will likely exclude coverage. So absolutely NOTHING is gained by requiring this insurance.

    By contrast, the standard SD insurance policy provides coverage for the cost of the criminal defense, which is not covered by a general liability policy, and for those who carry, a pretty important coverage.

    • “NOTHING is gained by requiring this insurance.”

      I suspect that’s not entirely true. The intent, as stated by the ‘honorable’ senator, is to define some firearms owners as higher risk and others as responsible owners. I suggest that by “higher-risk” she is referring to those who own certain types of fire arms (e.g. scary black rifles; semi-automatic pistols with a magazine capacity exceeding SAFE act compatible seven rounds) or a large number of firearms. That would allow law makers to impose a tarriff on firearms they feel are too dangerous for regular folks to own. In true BHO fashion you don’t have to outlaw certain firearms if you can make them too expensive for people to own or operate. Nick Leghorn is correct in that such a requirement would result in some economic groups being priced out of the market. This would include not only low income minority families but also retired folks on a limited income.

      • I was referring to the typical justification for these bills being indemnity for those injured in shootings. Which ain’t gonna happen any more than it does now. But you are right, once that premise is undermined, the only purpose served is to discourage gun ownership.

  11. They’re just not gonna stop. They have nothing but time and the wealth of others to keep harassing regular citizens.

    Plus, I’d rather wake up next to a cobra than this fembot version of Chuckie. No, not Schumer, though he’s uglier than a bag of pickled assholes, too, but the horror flick character.

    Drop dead, you harpie dingbat.

  12. More like

    “Turning people into stone gorgon insurance”

    Yeah insulting people who are krapping allover our freedom is not nice, but dang that photo is bad

  13. Maybe we need to require national free speech and voting insurance to pay for the consequences of exercising those fundamental rights as well. Who do I sue for voting for that clown of a community organizer in the WH making a mess of our foreign policy right now?

  14. A market-based solution from a Dumbocrat? If they really believed in market-based solutions, they wouldn’t have have pushed Obamacare down our throats and enforced it with a tax penalty.

    I would advise Rep. Carolyn Baloney to have a glass of boxed wine, take a Valium and undergo estrogen therapy. Then we’ll see a marked turnaround in her otherwise idiotic behavior.

  15. I was going to ask about the recall possibility…. then I looked again:

    Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of ***New York***

    New York. Home of the SAFE Act.

    Speaking of that particular bit of legislative BS…. how many lives has it saved? Anyone counted yet?

  16. “we require liability insurance for car owners, why not require the same for gun owners?” Well I can answer that question. Owning a car is not a constitutionally protected right. And will someone please tell the bimbos on the left side of the isle that the right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution. And if they some how pass this insanity, that we the gun owning public will require the same of all individual police officers, along with the politicians who hire others to protect them. Oh and any other governmental employee who has a firearm as a part of their job will have to have it paid by said employee.
    I can’t say what I really want to on this issue, as I would be arrested.

    • Police DO have such insurance. it is called TAXES. If you can’t afford the medical care for your injuries, the State will pick up the tab. If the officer violated your civil rights, yet again the State (or local governmental entity) will pick up the tab–paid for by taxes.

  17. Cars v. guns = false equivocation, your logic fails, now shut the hell up. You no longer have the right to an opinion on this topic…

  18. Since there is no difference between the two major parties on 2A issues (we are regularly assured), shouldn’t we see a headline that says ‘”Republicans introduce [insert flagrant gun-control idiocy here]” at least once in a while?

  19. Man, are the Democrats a broken record or what?

    We want more gun laws, more gun laws, wah, wah, wah!

    No one is interested Libs. Haven’t you gotten that yet? Are you looking around? We have REAL problems to solve for God’s sake. Get a grip already.

  20. WTF is that thing in the picture? What did the camera ever do to you?

    Seriously though, in sick of commie jerks like this treating me like the enemy.

  21. I bought most of my firearms through long savings and post deployment money. I’m a college student now. Why should I be denied one of my Constitutional rights because I’m not in the right income bracket?

    I’m not a felon, I’ve served my country and learned how to handle firearms from the very best warfighters this country has to offer. So, why should I have to buy insurance to prove it? I already jump through bullshit hoops that the government has set to obtain and own firearms; one more, with financial cost would destroy my right to own.

    Here’s a novel idea, congresswoman: don’t prosecute people until the commission of a crime. Not before.

  22. That is a hideous looking beast. Aren’t Democrap women some of the vilest looking creatures. I would say her face caught on fire and someone tried to put it out with an ice pick but that is insulting to burn victims.

    • How about we get a bunch of copies made, then cut them out, paste them on a piece of paper about target size, take them to the range, and………………..

  23. … and the NRA would be happy to underwrite the polices for pennies on the dollar:

    https://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/defense.htm

    More people in the pool would generate much lower premiums. Homeowner and renters polices normally cover liability due to accidental discharge of firearms. No carrier would ever underwrite a policy to include loss from criminal activity by the insured.

    • Still a tax on exercising a right no matter how inexpensive it starts out. Aren’t poll taxes illegal? If other rights like free speech and voting cannot be taxed, why can this one? Oh, that’s right, because Democrats are elitists who think double standards are okay. To them, the 2nd amendment isn’t really a right.

  24. I’d be ok with rolling it as part of mandatory coverage for health insurance / ACA… I mean, isn’t it a health issue?

  25. I know their plan. I can read Democrat Party loyalists like a book. First, they force everyone to buy insurance. Second, they make rules for insurance carriers so onerous, few insurance companies will be able to offer this kind of insurance. For those insurance companies that can offer it, it will be so expensive, only top earners (perhaps top 10% of the top 1%) and Democrat Party officials will be able to buy it. (Incidentally, Clinton is in the top 10% of 1% earnings bracket.)

    • More likely, since no sane private insurance company would offer a policy, it would be run like flood insurance. You can buy that through most agencies but the underwriter is always Uncle Sam. If they do it this way, once every one complies who is going to, say 3-5 years out, they cancel the program and use the records of who had insurance to round up the guns. At least the ones they know about, that is.

  26. House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney from the state of New York…

    New York you say?!

    My shocked face.

  27. If you want a gun, you obviously want to gun down black people. If you want to ban guns, you want to disarm black people. This is a really weird frame that’s been established…

  28. “Continuing on, by “higher risk owners,” Carolyn Maloney means black people.”

    Yes she does.

  29. This is all perfectly constitutional after NFIB v. Sebelius. Sure, insurance policies don’t cover crimes. That’s why the insurance industry won’t cry about this — I suspect the bill just requires them to cover what their homeowners’ policies already cover.

    Until Congress requires the policies to cover criminal behavior by the policyholder.

    And then criminal behavior by anyone.

    Insurance companies’ cries of anger will be met by telling them they’re not required to issue the policies as part of their standard homeowners’ and business policies and can charge whatever they want for the new “gun violence mandate” policy. Then they’ll calm down.

    Each expansion of the law will be subject to the predictable rounds of constitutional challenges about whether the law unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the second amendment rights of gun owners. Plaintiffs might also try suing the insurance companies over their million-dollar premiums, but that won’t go anywhere and you can wait until hell freezes over for ACA “exchanges” and subsidies to be created.

    Over time, those lawsuits will unfold as one might expect — the insurance requirements won’t be any more ‘unconstitutional’ than requiring insurance unconstitutionally burdens the right to travel, to do business, etc.

    We have to win the culture wars over gun ownership. Or else.

  30. One quibble with the article: As it is presumed that only criminals will violently misuse firearms and that said criminals will not purchase insurance, it is also presumed (inaccurately) that criminals do not legally purchase firearms.

    A legal purchase might be private in a state in which such sales are unregulated, a retail sale to a bad guy who’s not yet been convicted et cetera.

    Insurance might indemnify an owner whose weapons were stolen and then used in a crime, although it’s rare indeed for anyone to successfully prosecute even the most negligent owner in event of theft.

    That said, Ugh! Yuck! Bleah!

  31. Funny thing is, you only have to insure a car if you use it on public roads. So, technically, you would only need insurance if you shoot on public land?

    • That bit was the highlight for me.

      A service created, mandated, and heavily regulated by state legislation is not “market-based”.

      (In defense of “created”: I realize that there are gun related insurance products that exist, but they are not similar enough to Maloney-Insurance to be considered the same product.)

  32. Backdoor registration and database creation. Insurance is a regulated product. The 10k policies would be underwritten and priced for the pool of risk insured- gun owners and most likely number of guns. Before such a product can be created it must be approved by all 50 states insurance regulators and subject to annual audit/review… Which means the govt has access to everyone’s info

  33. Ok if you want every gun owner to get insurance than why don’t you track down everbody that doesn’t have car insurance and force them to get insurance on their cars first. Would that make them better car owners first of all. Because not everybody has car insurance and if that person doesn’t have insurance and gets into an accident than what’s going to happen to the guy that has insurance? I’ll tell u what he’s going to have to pay his deductible then the insurance will raise that persons insurance because he/she had it and the other person didn’t have any so it’s not like it’s going to affect him/her at all. So before you want all the gun owners to get liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine you should be fining all the people with out insurance on cars/trucks/motorcycles/ect…. or make them pay the $10,000.

  34. You can’t require people to spend money to exercise a constitutional right- see poll taxes.

    You can’t require criminals to register their guns according to the Supreme Court.

    Other than those 2 facts and the Republicans holding both houses of congress, I don’t see any problems with this bill.

  35. I already carry insurance on my gun collection. I wouldn’t be affected if I had to buy more insurance because I can afford it. Many can’t and she’s going after them. For shame (as if Dems had any of that.)

  36. Go home to your to your cats lady! Maybe they’ll give a squat about your hairbrained opinions.

  37. Wait a minute, you mean to tell me we can solve all of the violence caused by violent-prone, deranged, and mentally unstable people with insurance?

    All these years we have been blinded from this simple and obvious truth.

    This lady is a genius.

  38. “I want a liability insurance mandate for all firearms sales.”

    Nobody cares what you want, you dried up demonic Demomummy.You can’t force insurance on a RIGHT.
    If you can, this country needs to go back to war. Pure and simple.

  39. Does this insurance include full replacement for all those firearms lost in unfortunate boating accidents?

  40. Given what a fiasco Obamacare became, I don’t think Maloneycare insurance is going anywhere.

    As for her argument, if the Bill of Rights specifically prohibited infringement on the Right of the People to Keep and Drive Cars (or horse carriages), and yet insurance was still mandated, she might have an equivalency argument.

    This silly biddy needs to pour herself a tall glass of STFU.

  41. Is the State going to require Law enforcement to have the same insurance? It could get expensive but what do Democraps care?They will just raise Taxes.

  42. This dumb ass woman compares it to cars.Maybe i missed it,but i haven’t seen anything in the Constitution that says,we have the right to drive cars..

  43. Perhaps these idiots should be reminded that according to the Constitution, The Governments is by law to ensure all citizens are armed and that any incumberence of this is to be considered an act of Treason… Its called attempted circumventation of the law!

  44. Yet another attempt to publicly undermine the government. Really? – for the people? How much insurance money will be paid by the criminals in NY? Why not start in NY first and THEN TRY to go Nation wide? By punish the law abiding citizen with the RIGHT not privilege like driving. To bear firearms? What about the National Guard, the military? We need to clean house and fire all of them like Japan does from time to time…pathetic!

  45. The only ones who have a remote chance of benefiting from this are lawyers, I can see them racing to the courts now. This broad is just looking for an other way to strip lawful citizens of gun ownership. Her kind does not have the courage to attack the real problem. Criminals are the problem. But people like this woman would rather harass good people

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *