Mandate this, again - and again ...

[Quantum Windbag]

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

The problem with this type of insurance is that it has never been seen before. When it comes to care liablity, once someone steals your car, you are no longer liable for damages. There can be extenuating circumstances, such as leaving the car unlocked and running, and then someone steals it, but in most cases once your property has been taken, you are no longer liable.

The other issue is once a gun's original owner is liable from "cradle to grave" as some of these proposals work, you now have to have a legal tracking of who owns the gun when. That means, you guessed it, registration.

All this strategy really is is another backdoor attempt to ban guns.

The above makes sense IF that is how the gun insurance system is designed.

Were I designing gun insurance, I would place the onus of premium ayment directly on the gun manufacturers (and maybe gun retailers) rather than on the purchers or owners of guns.

And the insurance would not be on any particular gun but rather on the entire class of guns.

Basically I envision something like a gun insurance system that operates much like our VICTIMS compensation funds do now.

But no matter how one designed a gun insurance scheme, know that the cost of guns would dramatically increase in order to compensate victims of guns crimes.

Why should a manufacturer provide insurance for hat forces him to acknowledge legal liability for criminal activity that involves his product? If we do that, woudln't it make sense to do the same thing for automobile manufacturers? Shouldn't innocent owners be protected from the financial hit they take if someone steals there car?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you know all the freaking hoops we have to go through in CA just to own a gun?
I've never seen anything like it in any state I've ever lived in.

I've heard horror stories,, I go into a gun store, pick out my gun, show my license, pay, and walk out with it.

I like it that way.

How does a law in the State of CA effect you?

Any law that takes away anyone's rights affects everyone.

 

[dblack]

He upheld a tax, not insurance.

Same difference. In any case, I agree. It's all blatantly unconstitutional. Regardless of what Roberts and the Court might decide.

While you might believe whatever nonsense you read on line, the DEFINITION of what is Constitutional is what thee SCOTUS says is Constitutional.

Period.

No. It's not. The definiton of 'Constitutional' is whether a law respects the constraints of the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

This is infringement as per the 2nd amendment. It would also penalize poor people more than the well off.

How progressive is that?

Nonsense.

Cite any court that has ruled requiring insurance as a condition of gun ownership is in violation of the Second Amendment.

We do know, however, there is ample case law concerning privacy rights and same-sex marriage.

As I pointed out to luddly, neither the Court nor 'case law' define Constitutionality, any more than they define right and wrong. They merely render their opinions on the matter. It's entirely possible for them to be wrong. And it's perfectly valid, even obligatory in my view, for citizens to speak up about it when they are.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Yeah. Welcome to the future:

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance

Pat Sullivan/AP

Proposed legislation in California would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Who should bear the costs of damages caused by gun violence? According to the non-profit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, gun shootings cost the country $174 billion a year, roughly $644 per firearm owned in the U.S. The agency took into account work lost, medical care, criminal justice expenses, insurance and pain and suffering. While nothing can replace a child, parent, spouse or future, there are quantifiable costs involved in every shooting; who should bear those costs?

A new bill introduced in Sacramento would require California gun owners to carry liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons. ...

It's a great idea.

So I need to pay for the privilege of protecting myself? Bullshit.

I sat 10 feet away from 2 men that showed up to break into my house during a 5 day power outage. I had no phone, a husband stuck in NJ, no electric and living deep in the woods, could have screamed my head off and no one would have heard me.
I would have been in real trouble if I hadn't had my rifle loaded, safety off, sitting on my lap. I made the decision that I wouldn't be harmed that day.

I shouldn't have to pay to make that decision. My guns aren't the issue. Those 2 men are the issue. Insure them...... Leave me alone........

 

[dblack]

Yeah. Welcome to the future:

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC

It's a great idea.

So I need to pay for the privilege of protecting myself? Bullshit.

I sat 10 feet away from 2 men that showed up to break into my house during a 5 day power outage. I had no phone, no electric and living deep in the woods, could have screamed my head off and no one would have heard me.
I would have been in real trouble if I didn't have my rifle loaded, safety off, sitting on my lap. I made the decision that I wouldn't be harmed that day.

I shouldn't have to pay to make that decision. My guns aren't the issue. Those 2 men are the issue. Insure them...... Leave me alone........

Would that be any better? Because that's the logical conclusion of this trend. The new approach to governing seems to be based on the assumption that you will do something bad (like rack up medical expenses you can't pay, or cause harm with your guns, or commit robbery, etc, ...) and you should be forced to pay for the presumed crime up front - or find a sponsor (sort of a preemptive bailbondsman) to 'cover' your future misdeeds.

 

[Michelle420]

The problem with this type of insurance is that it has never been seen before. When it comes to care liablity, once someone steals your car, you are no longer liable for damages. There can be extenuating circumstances, such as leaving the car unlocked and running, and then someone steals it, but in most cases once your property has been taken, you are no longer liable.

The other issue is once a gun's original owner is liable from "cradle to grave" as some of these proposals work, you now have to have a legal tracking of who owns the gun when. That means, you guessed it, registration.

All this strategy really is is another backdoor attempt to ban guns.

The above makes sense IF that is how the gun insurance system is designed.

Were I designing gun insurance, I would place the onus of premium ayment directly on the gun manufacturers (and maybe gun retailers) rather than on the purchers or owners of guns.

And the insurance would not be on any particular gun but rather on the entire class of guns.

Basically I envision something like a gun insurance system that operates much like our VICTIMS compensation funds do now.

But no matter how one designed a gun insurance scheme, know that the cost of guns would dramatically increase in order to compensate victims of guns crimes.

That would be like taxing car manufacturer's to cover DWI expenses.

We already hold people liable criminally and civilly when they break the law using guns, why should gun owners as a class be held responsible for criminal activity by others?

Good point and I agree with you.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's a great idea.

So I need to pay for the privilege of protecting myself? Bullshit.

I sat 10 feet away from 2 men that showed up to break into my house during a 5 day power outage. I had no phone, no electric and living deep in the woods, could have screamed my head off and no one would have heard me.
I would have been in real trouble if I didn't have my rifle loaded, safety off, sitting on my lap. I made the decision that I wouldn't be harmed that day.

I shouldn't have to pay to make that decision. My guns aren't the issue. Those 2 men are the issue. Insure them...... Leave me alone........

Would that be any better? Because that's the logical conclusion of this trend. The new approach to governing seems to be based on the assumption that you will do something bad (like rack up medical expenses you can't pay, or cause harm with your guns, or commit robbery, etc, ...) and you should be forced to pay for the presumed crime up front - or find a sponsor (sort of a preemptive bailbondsman) to 'cover' your future misdeeds.

The point is we don't need a new approach to governing. Gun bans do not work for a reason. The majority of people that the "new governing" is aimed at are law abiding people who own guns. And people who kill are already governed by our present laws.

This is a governing agenda that no other administration was willing to embrace. The very first thing our President did after re-election, was to call the UN and tell them that the universal gun control treaty was back on the table.

It would take about 3 seconds longer for someone to drop a 10 round clip and insert another, than someone using a 30 round clip. Forcing banks not to deal with gun manufactures, banning ammo, getting Wall Street to exclude gun manufacturers from trading, linking gun ownership to medical exams, are all ploys of the "new governing" process to disarm America. And it is working.
Outlaw AR's and someone will kill with a shotgun. Take the shotguns away and someone will kill with a 22. Take them all away and the killer will become proficient in making bombs.

My guns won't hurt you because I'll shoot anyone that tries to steal them! I promise!

 

[dblack]

So I need to pay for the privilege of protecting myself? Bullshit.

I sat 10 feet away from 2 men that showed up to break into my house during a 5 day power outage. I had no phone, no electric and living deep in the woods, could have screamed my head off and no one would have heard me.
I would have been in real trouble if I didn't have my rifle loaded, safety off, sitting on my lap. I made the decision that I wouldn't be harmed that day.

I shouldn't have to pay to make that decision. My guns aren't the issue. Those 2 men are the issue. Insure them...... Leave me alone........

Would that be any better? Because that's the logical conclusion of this trend. The new approach to governing seems to be based on the assumption that you will do something bad (like rack up medical expenses you can't pay, or cause harm with your guns, or commit robbery, etc, ...) and you should be forced to pay for the presumed crime up front - or find a sponsor (sort of a preemptive bailbondsman) to 'cover' your future misdeeds.

The point is we don't need a new approach to governing. Gun bans do not work for a reason. The majority of people that the "new governing" is aimed at are law abiding people who own guns. And people who kill are already governed by our present laws.

This is a governing agenda that no other administration was willing to embrace. The very first thing our President did after re-election, was to call the UN and tell them that the universal gun control treaty was back on the table.

It would take about 3 seconds longer for someone to drop a 10 round clip and insert another, than someone using a 30 round clip. Forcing banks not to deal with gun manufactures, banning ammo, getting Wall Street to exclude gun manufacturers from trading, linking gun ownership to medical exams, are all ploys of the "new governing" process to disarm America. And it is working.
Outlaw AR's and someone will kill with a shotgun. Take the shotguns away and someone will kill with a 22. Take them all away and the killer will become proficient in making bombs.

My guns won't hurt you because I'll shoot anyone that tries to steal them! I promise!

The gun rights issue is important, but the really insidious thing about these kinds of laws, in my view, is the outsourcing of the regulatory state to insurance companies. I think it's a really dangerous trend.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He upheld a tax, not insurance.

Same difference. In any case, I agree. It's all blatantly unconstitutional. Regardless of what Roberts and the Court might decide.

While you might believe whatever nonsense you read on line, the DEFINITION of what is Constitutional is what thee SCOTUS says is Constitutional.

Period.

All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise, not only the Supreme Court. The High Court will often not grant cert to a given case allowing the lower court ruling to stand; that lower court’s ruling becomes the law of the land, thus determining constitutionality.

The will of the people is paramount, however, as expressed through their elected representatives – both legislative and executive.

The courts must take great care to not invalidate that will, and avoid ruling in a capricious, inconsistent manner. The courts may invalidate laws found to be offensive to the Constitution only when compelled to do so per the rule of law and current Constitutional jurisprudence.

For example, when the people of Colorado approved Amendment 2 to the Colorado constitution, denying gays and lesbians access that that state’s anti-discrimination laws, the Supreme Court had no other choice but to affirm the invalidation of that amendment by the Colorado Supreme Court, as it was a clear violation of the equal protection rights of gays and lesbians. See: Romer v. Evans (1996).

As with the case in Colorado, the people forfeit their authority to enact measures when they knowingly and willfully support legislation clearly un-Constitutional, such as with so-called ‘personhood’ legislation.