Liability insurance should be required on firearms.

2nd, this is a dumb idea. Gun addicents of all types rarely break 600 events yearly. If you're limiting to people with a CCW who require insurance, premiums would be about $50 a decade. Then you add in states taht have castle doctrines that make legal defense shootings immune from civil prosecution, and the system effectively fails. Then there is the illegalness of it, because it's just like a literacy test or ID requirement for voting. Adding steps to the process of exercising a right that do not serve a demonstrable purpose (I.E. every gun control law ever written), are unconstitutional.
 
Disillusioned said:
I just can't let that one fly. A gun is the definition of hazardous material, it's why they require arms certification in the military and why guns kill almost as many people as religion.
Click to expand...

really? care to back that assertion up with something other than your bland opinion?

a gun, on its own is not a hazardous material. it will not infect anyone etc....
 
The second amendment is already subject to interpretation, otherwise how else could you ban people with mental problems from bearing arms?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The second amendment is already subject to interpretation, otherwise how else could you ban people with mental problems from bearing arms?
Click to expand...

Under Strict Scrutiny, the state must have a compelling interest and limit the right in the least obstructive way. Felonies and violent mental illnesses have thus far fallen under that category. Much like there are practical limits to other rights, if there is a direct and compelling interest in the state to do so. However, the USSC, and plenty of other lower courts, have NEVER restricted the 2A. Of the 3 largest court cases, it has been determined that the 2A protects individual rights of citizens, is applicable to states (incorporation), applies to all arms in common use AND/OR those that would be potentially useful in a military setting. So there is quite a long historical precedent set (in term of our legal structure) for the status quo.
 
uscitizen too said:
You have a right to own a gun, but not the right to carry it concealed off or your private property without permission from the govt.

Accidents with cars harm others or their property so does "accidents" with guns. Both should require liability insurance.
Click to expand...
are you forgetting the two words AND BEAR????
 
The Second Amendment requires nothing of the arms keeper and bearer.

And there is no limit on what type arms can be kept or borne.

So SmarterThanFew can parade around with a rocket launcher or drive a tank to the store if he wants.

Right, STF?
 
The owner of a Gun should also be held strictly liable for damage caused by that gun.
 
Hot Young Girls said:
The Second Amendment requires nothing of the arms keeper and bearer.

And there is no limit on what type arms can be kept or borne.

So SmarterThanFew can parade around with a rocket launcher or drive a tank to the store if he wants.

Right, STF?
Click to expand...

So it also means you can keep Nuclear Arms in your backyard.
 
With my proposal you can bear legal arms under current restrictions, you just must have liabililty insurance for them. As with any hazardous material transported in the public.
The insurance industry would support this law and it would boost the economy as well.
 
uscitizen too said:
With my proposal you can bear legal arms under current restrictions, you just must have liabililty insurance for them. As with any hazardous material transported in the public.
The insurance industry would support this law and it would boost the economy as well.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would work. Transporting hazardous materials and otherwise doing business with them or say driving a car for example, are not constitutionally protected rights. Owning and bearing arms is. So you cannot compel people to own liability insurance for a gun and sans that, deny them their second ammendment rights. That won't fly.
 
Jarod said:
The owner of a Gun should also be held strictly liable for damage caused by that gun.
Click to expand...

Already are. If I shoot someone unlawfully, or something, its a crime. Hell, even if one shoots lawfully and misses they can be charged
 
uscitizen too said:
With my proposal you can bear legal arms under current restrictions, you just must have liabililty insurance for them. As with any hazardous material transported in the public.
The insurance industry would support this law and it would boost the economy as well.
Click to expand...

You don't read well do you?
 
Disillusioned said:
I just can't let that one fly. A gun is the definition of hazardous material, it's why they require arms certification in the military and why guns kill almost as many people as religion.
Click to expand...


That's just Yurt being his standard, clueless douchey self.


"How is a gun hazardous material...?"


ZOMG it is DESIGNED to kill...it's primary function is to KILL.

Yurt knows this, it's just another attempt to divert the discussion.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
That's just Yurt being his standard, clueless douchey self.


"How is a gun hazardous material...?"


ZOMG it is DESIGNED to kill...it's primary function is to KILL.

Yur tknows this, it's just another attempt to divert the discussion.
Click to expand...

What HAZMAT classification is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top