[Charismatic]

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/banglist/index?tab=articles

"Illinois Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:05:16 PM · by KeyLargo · 28 replies · 442+ views
INSURANCE JOURNAL ^ | February 18, 2009
Midwest News Illinois Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance February 18, 2009 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... "


This for real? That's rediculous.

[The E]

Why? To me, it sounds actually quite reasonable.

[Mika]

Sounds like the easiest way to limit availability of firearms in USA. Hitting directly the purse. It is of course a little bit questionable if one milloin dollars is the right amount, I would have gone with 20 000 $. This, of course, applies only in ideal world.

I'm afraid that the only thing this legislation will do is increase the demand of black market arms.

Mika

[Polpolion]

I'm afraid that the only thing this legislation will do is increase the demand of black market arms.

Which is the most significant flaw with gun prevalence in the US. This law will only hurt the responsible.

[Scotty]

If a person is already going to break the law with "willful acts" with a firearm, why would needing insurance deter them?  This is just another stupid bill that looks good theoretically.  Restricting ownership and availability of firearms only increases the chance that someone who disobeys the rules will cause more damage.  It's a pretty serious deterrent if any of a half-dozen people can stop a would-be criminal if he/she chooses to strike.

For example:  Would it be more risky for a criminal to rob a convenience store when it is almost assured that no one there will have a weapon, or to rob a convenience store when every person there could have a weapon.  More of the upright, law-abiding citizens are being hurt by this than any would-be gunman.

[Charismatic]

Guns for all, i say.

But im actually surprised, no one said its fake, yet reasonable. Also suprised at only 4 replies.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

From what I've read it's real HB45 or something.  It also includes things such as requiring all firearms to be licensed, no transfers of firearms without a licensed dealer (including inheritances).  So basically you can't leave you guns to your family in a will.

Found a link on our towns local site mud slinging forum:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

Actually I think this might be 2 different bills one national and one state probably by the same person.  The one I posted mentions nothing about insurance.

Edit again:  2 different guys both from Illinois.

[Polpolion]

So basically you can't leave you guns to your family in a will.

Where do they go?

[FUBAR-BDHR]

My guess is they are declared illegal firearms and melted down just like any other illegal gun.   

From what I heard this all stems from a quick public outrage over a tragic shooting. 

[BloodEagle]

....

 

Freaking bribes.

[Rick James]

Why not just go for a Gun Registry act? It costs next to nothing for the gun owner (in Canada at least) and insurance is usually offered as an option, not a requirement.

[StarSlayer]

I'm not sure how this will stack up against the second amendment, since basically its infringing on people's right to bear arms.  It will certainly go to the supreme court if it gets passed,  NRA(for good or bad) will see to that.  Quite frankly it seems pretty useless piece of legislation, people who use firearms illegally are usually getting them illegally.  It's certainly not going to curb gang violence or organized crime its basically going to screw over folks who legally own a firearm.


A don't subscribe to the idea that if everyone had a gun there would be no violence (hell just go to Mogadishu were you can buy a Kalishnokov at the corner store real peaceful there) but this certainly isn't going to curb most violence and is basically going to infringe on responsible folks' rights.

[Nuclear1]

You don't need a gun registry, you don't need to ban guns altogether, and you certainly don't need this outrageous insurance. Basic education:
1) Always treat a weapon as if it's loaded.
2) Safety = ON
3) Do not point gun at face.

* If helplessly retarded, do the exact opposite as suggested, and pull trigger. There will be a slight tingling followed by 72 virgins**,  an unlimited supply of cake, and lots and lots of neat little shiny things.

** Virgins may not be female.

[karajorma]

I think you're missing the point here guys. It's like claiming car insurance shouldn't be mandatory because some people don't get it and still crash anyway. Car insurance is there to cover you for accidents, not wilful negligence.

 I very much doubt you could persuade the insurance companies to go for "Stupidity Insurance" anyway. Given what bastards insurance companies are I very much doubt that they'll pay out for illegal use of a gun, same as they won't pay out if you crash your car while driving with your feet while drunk.

[iamzack]

Kids take their parents' legal weapons to school and then shoot their classmates.

Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.

[Scotty]

Kids take their parents' legal weapons to school and then shoot their classmates.

Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.

For something they didn't do?  Why should we punish every single gun owner in the U.S. because of a few mistakes.  mistakes being the key word there.  It was not premeditated, deliberate, or in any way willful.

Next time, please phrase it so it doesn't look like all kids are homicidal maniacs. </nitpick>

[iamzack]

My point is more that guns are effing dangerous and there should be frigging laws about what kind you can have lying around in your house. Nobody whines about switchblades being illegal.

If someone like me can get a gun license and a gun (and in a few months, I can) then there is something very wrong with the way we are doing things.

[Bobboau]

oh yeah lets make it so only the rich can afford to have weaponry, what could possibly go wrong with that.

[BengalTiger]

Kids take their parents' legal weapons to school and then shoot their classmates.

No, the parents of THOSE kids should be punished.

Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.

How about everybody with a car getting 2 hours in jail (legal car owners punished. Just a little) because some 16 year old d!ck took his parents' car and killed a police officer?

A don't subscribe to the idea that if everyone had a gun there would be no violence (hell just go to Mogadishu were you can buy a Kalishnokov at the corner store real peaceful there) but this certainly isn't going to curb most violence and is basically going to infringe on responsible folks' rights.

Well I wouldn't compare a war zone to the US. What about Gun Town, USA vs Chicago?
Or Switzerland vs Chicago?
(I took Ch-go because there are pretty restrictive gun laws there).

[Polpolion]

Maybe legal gun owners should be punished. Just a little.

Maybe legal taxpayers should be punished. Maybe people who aren't murderers should be punished. Maybe people who aren't rapists should be punished. Maybe babies should be punished.

How about this: Every single time you don't commit a crime, you have to pay a 0.001 cent fine?

My point is more that guns are effing dangerous and there should be frigging laws about what kind you can have lying around in your house. Nobody whines about switchblades being illegal.

There are laws like that. Why do you think it's such a big deal that the VT shooter had automatic pistols with extended clips?

If someone like me can get a gun license and a gun (and in a few months, I can) then there is something very wrong with the way we are doing things.

True, but doing a psychological evaluation of every person who wants to get a gun is less practical than banning guns. They figure most people actually value human life to some extent, which oddly enough, is true.

I think you're missing the point here guys. It's like claiming car insurance shouldn't be mandatory because some people don't get it and still crash anyway. Car insurance is there to cover you for accidents, not wilful negligence.

I'm think I understand what you're trying to say, but if the intention of this really was similar to car insurance's, it would cost a lot less. Cars can kill people, too, and they're a lot more expensive than any gun a normal person would own. I feel that a $1 million insurance policy for guns is obviously an attempt to reduce gun ownership without blatantly disallowing people from having guns.

It looks like most other people here have made this assumption too, but it just might be the hostile media effect, I guess.