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.