-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Insurance requirement bill!???
- Thread starter wrightme
- Start date
Smurfologist
Regular Member
imported post
wrightme wrote:
Ahhhh.......And, let me guess........All LEOs are exempt from this crazy a*s bill, right?!? I am so glad that I do not live in the "Chi" anymore!!:cuss:I hope that someday, the politicians will figure out the "Physics" (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) of violence toward innocent people (guns used for protection against criminals with guns). People are tired of being victims (since LEOs are not omnipresent). Just my two cents!!
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
wrightme wrote:
Ahhhh.......And, let me guess........All LEOs are exempt from this crazy a*s bill, right?!? I am so glad that I do not live in the "Chi" anymore!!:cuss:I hope that someday, the politicians will figure out the "Physics" (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) of violence toward innocent people (guns used for protection against criminals with guns). People are tired of being victims (since LEOs are not omnipresent). Just my two cents!!
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
IL is just a black hole of common sense.
IL is just a black hole of common sense.
spencer280
Regular Member
imported post
if i was in that state i would be pi%%%%. but if that goes threw how much a month would that be. this is so stupid
if i was in that state i would be pi%%%%. but if that goes threw how much a month would that be. this is so stupid
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Here's what I think is wrong with that bill. It attacks the rights of the people who most need protection. Just like banning many inexpensive firearms, requiring training and application costs to be able to carry, this will have the greatest effect on the poorest people. Once again the supposed do-gooders (with a big "D") make a proposal that harms the most vulnerable in our society.
Here's what I think is wrong with that bill. It attacks the rights of the people who most need protection. Just like banning many inexpensive firearms, requiring training and application costs to be able to carry, this will have the greatest effect on the poorest people. Once again the supposed do-gooders (with a big "D") make a proposal that harms the most vulnerable in our society.
4armed Architect
Regular Member
imported post
FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE OP:
An Illinois state lawmaker is proposing that gun owners be required to carry personal liability insurance of at least $1 million.
Rep. Kenneth Dunkin's bill seeks to amend the state's Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to provides that any person who owns a firearm in the state maintain a $1 million or higher policy of liability insurance "specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person."
A gun owner would be responsible after a firearm is lost or stolen until the loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.
Police would be empowered to pull the gun license of anyone who does not submit evidence of having the required insurance.
[line]Since it is not likely any insurance company would provide this coverage except at exhorbitant cost, this is really just a backdoor scheme to disarm the citizenry. Also the requirement to provide proof of insurance is extremely "infringing". IMHO, this is a test bill to see if this a viable method of the gun-grabbers to circumvent the 2A. Notice it is being proposed in IL(who do we know that comes from this State?) where it does have some chance of being passed and upheld by the courts in this jurisdiction. If it takes hold in IL, it will be tried elsewhere.
After all, if the gov't at all levels lose the right to prohibit gun ownership, they can go this route since the courts will not have said that they can't do this. In the meantime, we are restricted from possession until we prove "insurance".
[line]
I get the feeling we are playing Whack-A-Mole!
FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE OP:
An Illinois state lawmaker is proposing that gun owners be required to carry personal liability insurance of at least $1 million.
Rep. Kenneth Dunkin's bill seeks to amend the state's Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to provides that any person who owns a firearm in the state maintain a $1 million or higher policy of liability insurance "specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person."
A gun owner would be responsible after a firearm is lost or stolen until the loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.
Police would be empowered to pull the gun license of anyone who does not submit evidence of having the required insurance.
[line]Since it is not likely any insurance company would provide this coverage except at exhorbitant cost, this is really just a backdoor scheme to disarm the citizenry. Also the requirement to provide proof of insurance is extremely "infringing". IMHO, this is a test bill to see if this a viable method of the gun-grabbers to circumvent the 2A. Notice it is being proposed in IL(who do we know that comes from this State?) where it does have some chance of being passed and upheld by the courts in this jurisdiction. If it takes hold in IL, it will be tried elsewhere.
After all, if the gov't at all levels lose the right to prohibit gun ownership, they can go this route since the courts will not have said that they can't do this. In the meantime, we are restricted from possession until we prove "insurance".
[line]
I get the feeling we are playing Whack-A-Mole!
Smurfologist
Regular Member
imported post
4armed Architect wrote:
I have a question..........in this bill, would a $1,000,000.00 Umbrella Policy count? If so (to answer Spencer280's question), it may cost any where from $100.00 - $200.00 a year with a modified car insurance policy that will cost you more - they tie in together). If not, I would imagine it will be like all insurance policies -the cost would vary from state to state depending on the likelyhood of the potential of "damages and neglect" to happen. This bill is some b******t!!! The sickest thing is that it has a chance to become law in this state. Where is the asteroid?!?
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
4armed Architect wrote:
I have a question..........in this bill, would a $1,000,000.00 Umbrella Policy count? If so (to answer Spencer280's question), it may cost any where from $100.00 - $200.00 a year with a modified car insurance policy that will cost you more - they tie in together). If not, I would imagine it will be like all insurance policies -the cost would vary from state to state depending on the likelyhood of the potential of "damages and neglect" to happen. This bill is some b******t!!! The sickest thing is that it has a chance to become law in this state. Where is the asteroid?!?
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
Smurfologist
Regular Member
imported post
More information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYSLw8kZqJ8
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
More information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYSLw8kZqJ8
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
imported post
"The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy" one of our forefathers said that, or something similar I believe. I think they had just this sort of thing in mind when they protested it. Guess who, as usual, is on the Wrong side of that protest?:banghead:
EDIT: I slightly misquoted and misattributed the quote.
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” is attributed to Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court 1819
"The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy" one of our forefathers said that, or something similar I believe. I think they had just this sort of thing in mind when they protested it. Guess who, as usual, is on the Wrong side of that protest?:banghead:
EDIT: I slightly misquoted and misattributed the quote.
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied” is attributed to Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court 1819
Smurfologist
Regular Member
imported post
Poll:
http://www.wgntv.com/web_polls
Past Poll Results
Tuesday Feb. 24 (Noon)
Do you think gun owners in Illinois should be required to carry a million dollars in personal liability insurance? Yes: 7%, No: 93%
Hit it hard!!
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
Poll:
http://www.wgntv.com/web_polls
Past Poll Results
Tuesday Feb. 24 (Noon)
Do you think gun owners in Illinois should be required to carry a million dollars in personal liability insurance? Yes: 7%, No: 93%
Hit it hard!!
The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X