Skip to comments.FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE
Posted on 03/07/2009 10:50:50 AM PST by Bullpine
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.
(Excerpt) Read more at ilga.gov ...
Fine, media outlets need to carry Libel & Slander insurance.
Not a chance in hell it passes here in Texas.
This is total Bulls**t
In every state, the Plaintiff Lawyer Lobby (Those who sue you for damages) will instantly file a suit against anyone who shoots another—regardless of how justified that shooting is.
We who are prudent already have this coverage
It's all about money and power. It always has been, it always will be.
As long as America is armed, certain people feel uncomfortable because they can't do whatever they want with impunity. It's all about power, and anyone proposing such laws is either an ignorant tool or a socialist bastard.
If the gun grabbers can’t ban guns, they’ll try to tax and regulate them out of existence.
I can't envision any insurance company paying for willfull or negligent acts with a firearm. It's hard enough getting coverage for stolen guns.
Some l;ittle gun hating sissy must sit in a closet all day playing with himself and coming up with these half azzed ideas.
Whoever came up with this needs to be dragged out by the scrotum and get the crap kicked out of them.
2010: Send the bastards home
What a load of crap.
Surprise Massachusetts didn’t think of this first.
Be cheaper to mandate wearing of t-shirts saying, ‘I’m unarmed. Feel free to rob or rape me.’
Ah yes.......let’s only allow rich people to have guns.....sort of like we used to do in the old south, ya know...Jim Crow and all that.
If they can’t demand ID for exercising voting rights, because the very poor could be disenfranchised, then how can they demand ANY fee for exercising a persons second ammendment rights, especially something expensive like this?
Not a chance in hell it’s even considered in Illinois. Geez.
Besides the issues of cost and availability, the gun insurance requirement is also a means of tracking gun ownership. It will require gun owners to either willfully violate the insurance law, subjecting themselves to criminal penalties (what are the chances that an overzealous police chief decides that there will be insurance card checks, and making impromptu visits to shooting ranges or hunting venues), or self-report ownership, which is one more incremental step towards first state, and then national registration.
..nor in Alaska. Our 2nd Ammendment Task Force, which is a growing movement, will make sure of that.
End of discussion. Period.
I'd say that (under the liberal reasoning behind this requirement) anyone who wishes to exercise their free speech rights can be banned from speaking unless they have that insurance.
I think their goal is to make owning a firearm an expensive pain in the neck that many can’t afford.
I am afraid you are right...thanfully, if my range here in Ft. Worth is any indication, it may be a while before they get rid of us.
That's how you do it. Do you really think they will take a big fat red marker and just cross out the second amendment?
-You create bureaucratic hurdles for those making, selling, buying, owning the firearms.
-You create cost prohibitive barriers for those making, selling, buying owning the firearms.
That's what it's about. The real underlying idea is that some in government think you should not have a right to bear arms and the idea is that with a thousand small little paper cuts and fees you the average Joe won't have that “Right” anymore, except on paper. The Constitution is being shat upon (In the spirit of what it means) by these folk who then use the force of law once they push their agenda through.
What is it the Swiss told the German Nazi's when the Krauts told the Swiss they had an army twice the population of Switzerland. It went something like then we'll have to shoot twice. That was the end of the Nazi's designs on Switzerland.
......or those who obey the law.
This is a Chicago District. I bet Dunkin's constituents who want them have guns and I bet they are and will continue to be unregistered and uninsured. This is just like US Rep. Bobby Rush(Also from Chicago) and his HR45 gun grab.
They do but it’s almost impossible to win a judgment against them if your a public figure and they get to make you a public figure.
They do pay for negligent acts but it’s against the rules to pay for intentional acts. It creates a moral hazard. Standard exclusion.
I won’t post what time I think it is, if that passes Constitutional muster.
Its one and only sponsor. This is another one of those bills destined to evaporate in commitee. Chicago reps seem to dream this bullshit up to demonstrate their bona fides to the City establishment. Rush's bill also has never had a chance, never will. The only place they have any kind of life is here on FR, where they're re-posted on schedule. It's obama and the justice dept. we had better beware of right now, not red herrings like these "bills".
If passed in Illinois, every state will follow suit.
NOT IN TEXAS...
It also won’t work in Indiana.
FOID’s are not required in New Hampshire nor in most states. We have a slightly different spin on the 2nd Amendment here: we see it as insurance against tyranny.
Its one and only sponsor. Rush’s bill also is a one sponsor bill. I agree there is little chance, but I do not agree raising hell about these bills is unimportant. Politicians are sensitive to hot button issues and they only know if they are told.
Agreed. Texas is pretty level-headed about gun rights.
They want to do this on a federal level by attaching this to HR 45, then attaching HR 45 to a Federal Gun control bill with an AWB/Semi auto weapon ban and ammunition stamping/registration
I’m surprised Kalifornyet didn’t think of it first.
“...the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” End of discussion. Period.
My thoughts exactly!
Besides the issues of cost and availability, the gun insurance requirement is also a means of tracking gun ownership. It will require gun owners to either willfully violate the insurance law, subjecting themselves to criminal penalties (what are the chances that an overzealous police chief decides that there will be insurance card checks, and making impromptu visits to shooting ranges or hunting venues), or self-report ownership, which is one more incremental step towards first state, and then national registration.Illinois already mandates self-reporting through the FOID act.
Created in 1968, FOID identifies persons eligible to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition. Illinois residents who acquire or possess firearm or firearm ammunition within the State must have in their possession a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card issued in his or her name. Not only that, but Illinois' UUW law makes CCW a felony (except for certain politicians), and does not preempt local ordinances banning firearms. Residents and non-residents alike are often prosecuted under restrictive local firearm ordinances, particularly in Cook County.
In Illinois, some pellet guns and all muzzleloaders and blackpowder guns are considered firearms
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.