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.