HR.1369 Gun Owner Liabiltiy Insurance - REALLY; er NO

[brotherbill3]

Liability Insurance to Buy, Sell, Possess ... NO NO NO and a big fat NO.

Looks like this may be the first big push by the house. -
Not many comments yet; unless you consider that it was

JUST INTRODUCED. Have at it; share away.

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr1369

rep to Mrs G. ... I'm just getting this shared -​

 

[kludge]

I had no idea that you could even get insurance for deliberate acts (self defense).

 

[MrsGungho]

I had no idea that you could even get insurance for deliberate acts (self defense).

tell that to our reps

 

[Trooper]

I would not mind it, especially if it would pay for legal costs if I have to go to court to prove that it was a righteous shooting.

Wonder if the NRA could provide it at a reasonable cost?

 

[downlinx]

can I just lump it in with my home owners, car, and life insurance and get a huge discount?

 

[BogWalker]

I would not mind it, especially if it would pay for legal costs if I have to go to court to prove that it was a righteous shooting.

Wonder if the NRA could provide it at a reasonable cost?

Every time the idea has been thrown about the required amount of coverage is far above the average persons level of affordability.

Only 3% are in support of it right now according to poll.

 

[Scutter01]

I would not mind it, especially if it would pay for legal costs if I have to go to court to prove that it was a righteous shooting.

Wonder if the NRA could provide it at a reasonable cost?

Available, sure. Mandated by law, absolutely not. It would amount to a government-required tax on your Rights.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Available, sure. Mandated by law, absolutely not. It would amount to a government-required tax on your Rights.

^^^ THIS! ^^^

 

[mike8170]

Available, sure. Mandated by law, absolutely not. It would amount to a government-required tax on your Rights.

Just like health insurance!

 

[yepthatsme]

Available, sure. Mandated by law, absolutely not. It would amount to a government-required tax on your Rights.

I agree... Since when are we required to purchase insurance just to exercise our rights? Here we go again, falling for a gimmick like this, we would be relinquishing our rights and trading them for government issued privileges. Isn't it interesting that they continue to try to convince us that they have the power to regulate our 2nd Amendment rights.

No Thanks! (I give it five thumbs down)

 

[rocketscience]

so you would have to register all your guns with the insurance company for that gun to be liability covered, kinda like you have to register them for them to be covered for theft fire ect.

 

[dantrom]

can someone tell me exactly how this is going to keep criminals from carrying out violent crimes?

 

[DRob]

Insurance, yes. Required, no.

We have a $1 million liability policy. I don't recall right off the top of my head what it costs but it is not by any stretch of the imagination beyond the average person's level of affordability. Matter of fact, the average person can't afford to not have it in this age of the lawsuit!

 

[IndyBeerman]

This bill is in the House Judiciary committee, chairman is republican Bob Goodlatte from Virgina and the committee make up is 23 R's 17 D's, it says that there is a 4% chance that the bill will make it out of committee and a 1% chance of being passed.

It'll go by the wayside just like every other gun control law has this session.

 

[kludge]

I would not mind it, especially if it would pay for legal costs if I have to go to court to prove that it was a righteous shooting.

Wonder if the NRA could provide it at a reasonable cost?

A legal defense fund and liability insurance are two totally different things, and yes there are such things available for what you talk about. What they are talking about is something much more sinister.

My homeowners insurance and my car insurance include coverage for liability... but not for deliberate acts (pouring water on my sidewalk and drive and getting video of people falling on the ice, intentionally driving my car though a building or someone's home).

Self defense is a deliberate act and no insurance company I know of will give you liability insurance for deliberate acts.

 

[PKendall317]

By itself, liability insurance for firearms probably isn't that much of a bad idea. Accidents do happen, and if for some strange reason one of my guns goes off and accidentally takes out one of my neighbors horses or heaven forbid actually injures or kills a person, insurance might be a good thing to have in that type of scenario.

But I should not be required by law to possess liability insurance on something that is protected by the Constitution. I shouldn't have to have insurance for shooting some gangbanger who breaks into my house at 1 in the morning in self-defense. He broke into my house and tried to hurt my family and you want me to pay his medical or funeral expenses? F*** you, that bs ain't happening.

In short, I'm opposed to this bill and any bill that says I have to have insurance to exercise a Constitutional Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. But if you want to pay for liability insurance on your guns, that's your personal choice and the Government should not have to tell you that you must have insurance.

 

[Trooper]

A legal defense fund and liability insurance are two totally different things, and yes there are such things available for what you talk about. What they are talking about is something much more sinister.

My homeowners insurance and my car insurance include coverage for liability... but not for deliberate acts (pouring water on my sidewalk and drive and getting video of people falling on the ice, intentionally driving my car though a building or someone's home).

Self defense is a deliberate act and no insurance company I know of will give you liability insurance for deliberate acts.

However that is what the left means by requiring insurance for gun owners.

 

[kludge]

I know, that is why it's sinister.

I wonder if criminals will be forced to comply.

 

[BogWalker]

A huge problem though, would be if firearms insurance became common place it would become much easier to sue somebody for using a firearm in a self-defense situation. If a criminal can sue for breaking a leg while robbing your home, I'm sure the family could sue if you shot him in self-defense.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Available, sure. Mandated by law, absolutely not. It would amount to a government-required tax on your Rights.

Scutter hits it.

It would be about as dumb as mandating health insurance, er, nevermind...