Posted on 03/29/2012 9:48:36 AM PDT by pabianice
© gps333@charter.net
In a nutshell, here is the new law:
“Every owner of a firearm must, within ten days of taking possession of such firearm, obtain an insurance policy from a state-approved insurance provider, that provides a minimum of $ 250,000 liability and loss coverage per firearm, with a minimum total rider of $ 5,000,000, regardless of the number of firearms possessed. Each 100 rounds of ammunition will require a minimum coverage of $5,000. Failure to secure such insurance coverage will be punishable by a prison sentence of not less than one year and/or a fine of not less than $5,000.”
Sound farfetched? A Massachusetts liberal representative has already introduced a similar bill in the State House (http://fleming-hayes.com/2011/06/mandate-ma-lawmakers-consider-gun-insurance-2/). Would such a law make it into the federal statutes?
If ObamaCare is ruled constitutional, bet on it. If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, it can certainly force you to buy other insurance “for the common good.” The immortal liberal lie that thousands of children are killed accidentally by firearms every year would be trotted-out again, and all it would take is a return of House control to the Democrats to make such a law happen.
Not worried about ObamaCare? You’d better be.
As far as I know every rental or home insurance policy I have ever had excluded firearms. You had to add a rider for them.
Of course that was for the property value and wouldn’t include the ammunition.
Yes indeed.
I’ve been in law enforcement my whole life and I would NOT volunteer information unless I legally had to.
States already do that with respect to lots of things. The only catch here is that it implicates the 2d Amendment, but the SCOTUS has indicated that it’s willing to accept a lot of restrictions on the RKBA.
Your actions regarding firearm purchases is a great idea to protect yourself.
Putting it in writing that you have done so in a public forum was a less great idea.
“Then, we move on to the trial. Unless you bought all your guns “off record” you will have a helluva problem, Mac. Perjury is your last resort, I suppose, and we know where that leads.”
Why? Just because a cop asks a question doesn’t mean you have to answer it. Not answering is not perjury.
Buying a firearm “off the record” is not immoral or a crime.
But tell us where perjury leads, since a whole dept full of cops was just busted for lying on their timesheets. Thats theft among other things.
No, I do not recall reading any of your posts for the last ten years. I may have but I don’t remember (I am, after all, an OldPossum and memories tend to slip nowadays).
It would be most interesting to see how either of us would react if placed in a courtroom situation and presented with telling the truth or perjurying ourselves over a matter of Constitutional law. I would hope that both of us would choose the patriot’s position and lie to the bastards.
I agree with your position since I think the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. But surely you know that all cultural/societal events are not going our way as the “progressives” have taken over the education system and are indoctrinating the children into their way of thinking, and it’s just a matter of time before we have to confront this sea change. It’s at that point that all of us has to put up or shut up. We either save the American way of life or give it up. I know what I will do.
And all this over that silly “lost at sea” crap.
Thanks; I’m working on getting that bootprint off of my face.
No, because doing so would would violate a felon’s 5th amendment rights regarding self-incrimination; to wit, being in posession of a firearm.
You, on the other hand, have no rights - thus sayeth the state of Massachcusetts.
No, because doing so would would violate a felon’s 5th amendment rights regarding self-incrimination; to wit, being in posession of a firearm.
You, on the other hand, have no rights - thus sayeth the state of Massachusetts.
I never said or intimated that lying to a cop is perjury. Lying in a court trial is...and as you can see by my previous post, I think that under the circumstances outlined, it could be justified.
Good advice, both. Thanks.
They had better start digging their own graves.
If I had any firearms they are already covered under my homeowners and liability.
My firearms are already covered on my home owners. I did this voluntarily with my NON-State controlled insurance company.
If a legislator tries to FORCE me to buy it... They and I will be having a major issue as I would fail to comply.
Period.
Same for Zerocare...
It's an ongoing inside joke. What bothers you so much about it? How is it offensive? Would you rather a "Bush's fault" comment? That's a bit worn out too.
Of course we would be honest and forthright under most conditions when dealing with LEO. We are law abiding and upstanding citizens.....until there comes a time when outright confiscation of property deems otherwise.
I have been a member of FR since 2001, and yes, of course, I know that it is a long-running joke. My point--and I do have one--is that it is an unclever, unfunny, non-sensical joke. It never made sense from the get-go, to wit, why would anyone transport his gun collection in a frigging boat? Jokes have to have some basis in fact that establishes what you're going to make fun of. And this one fails miserably in that regard.
And it has been repeated ad nauseum for years.
Have I made myself clear?
The "joke" is extremely unfunny and those who post it think they're being clever. And they ain't.
See my previous post for further clarification as to why it irritates me.
What if you lived on an island and needed to move them off of it, for some reason? Rent a helicopter? I’d need a Huey or Stallion and at $1,500-$3,500/hr, it’s much cheaper by boat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.