DC Considers Mandatory $250,000 Gun Insurance for gun buyers

View · by **LarryP** on Thu May 16, 2013 9:49 am

Considered in other states to. Hope this goes away fast!

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/ ... un-buyers/

View · by **XDM45** on Thu May 16, 2013 12:36 pm

LarryP wrote:Considered in other states to. Hope this goes away fast!

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/ ... un-buyers/

So if someone can legally own a gun, but they can't get the insurance and thus they can't purchase it because of that, is the insurance company then liable for denying them their 2A rights? I see all sorts of legal issues with this one. I don't think it's going to fly.

I tell you one insurance I'd love to be able to get is the one the city has for LEOs where they can't be personally held liable, sued, etc.

View · by **Thunder71** on Thu May 16, 2013 1:30 pm

Yeah, that won't fly... it's a form of registration, just another way of going about it and as mentioned above, it could single out those who can't afford it.

View · by **JFettig** on Thu May 16, 2013 2:02 pm

I say we should push a mandatory thug insurance bill through where all thugs must carry thug insurance to cover the victims and families of the victims.

View · by **XDM45** on Thu May 16, 2013 2:05 pm

Thunder71 wrote:Yeah, that won't fly... it's a form of registration, just another way of going about it and as mentioned above, it could single out those who can't afford it.

Exactly. How much would the insurance cost too? Catch 22 laws don't work. Years ago you could buy weed IF you had the tax stamp for it, BUT you could only get the tax stamp to buy weed IF you had the weed first, but if you had the weed first without the tax stamp, you broke the law. I believe it was in 1937.

View · by **goett047** on Thu May 16, 2013 7:49 pm

JFettig wrote:I say we should push a mandatory thug insurance bill through where all thugs must carry thug insurance to cover the victims and families of the victims.

Can't.it would disenfranchise minorities

View · by **Deputyhiro** on Fri May 17, 2013 10:09 am

Can we whine and complain and say it is disenfranchising gun owners. Discriminating against the poor and minorities???? The same way liberals fought against the voter ID ammendment?

View · by **xd ED** on Fri May 17, 2013 10:14 am

Deputyhiro wrote:Can we whine and complain and say it is disenfranchising gun owners. Discriminating against the poor and minorities???? The same way liberals fought against the voter ID ammendment?

I don't see why not; thats the exact argument that was used by the N. Mpls community leader against some of the more effective gun control legislation recently proposed in MN. 'disparate impact' I believe it's called.

View · by **Heffay** on Fri May 17, 2013 10:20 am

Deputyhiro wrote:Can we whine and complain and say it is disenfranchising gun owners. Discriminating against the poor and minorities???? The same way liberals fought against the voter ID ammendment?

Whine and complain? When someone has a legitimate grievance, it's generally not considered whining and complaining.

The good news is that these grievances work for you as well.

View · by **Dick Unger** on Fri May 17, 2013 10:31 am

They'll get by with it bedause It's NOT disenfranchising anyone in DC. They lost their guns long age. It's why we need to encourage gun ownership and permits and shooting ranges. It only seems preposterous in areas where most of many have guns. But to millions in big cities it will not be controversial.

View · by **Rip Van Winkle** on Fri May 17, 2013 11:16 am

So, when Buba gangbanger kills someone with his stolen pistol, which insurance company does his victim's surviving family get to sue?

View · by **OldmanFCSA** on Fri May 17, 2013 11:29 am

It will be just like car insurance, all the legal people will be required to have the insurance complete with "uninsured shooters insurance".

View · by **Rip Van Winkle** on Fri May 17, 2013 11:42 am

OldmanFCSA wrote:It will be just like car insurance, all the legal people will be required to have the insurance complete with "uninsured shooters insurance".

The difference is, when you or I get into an accident with an uninsured motorist, our insurance would pay. When Buba gangbanger uses his stolen gun in a criminal act, neither he or his victim will have insurance.

So the question remains, which company will be held liable?