MA Law for Gun Owners Insurance proposed

[steveg241]

Just another hurdle to price people out of a civil right:

Massachusetts should require gun liability insurance - The Boston Globe

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[HARRYM]

Just another hurdle to price people out of a civil right:

Massachusetts should require gun liability insurance - The Boston Globe

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons.

www.bostonglobe.com

Don't these Politicians understand that the gangbangers are already having great difficulty in paying for their LTC and or FID without this additional expense?.......

 

[Lank]

Just another hurdle to price people out of a civil right:

Massachusetts should require gun liability insurance - The Boston Globe

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons.

www.bostonglobe.com

More infringement.

F em all

 

[HARRYM]

Study: Law-Abiding Firearm Owners Really Don't Commit Gun Crimes

less than a fifth of all gun crimes

townhall.com

2016 but it's highly still true today.

 

[Brezzy]

Just another hurdle to price people out of a civil right:

Massachusetts should require gun liability insurance - The Boston Globe

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons.

www.bostonglobe.com

These idiot politicians don’t understand how insurance works.

 

[MAGA99]

Unconstitutional. Anyone suggesting this type of BS deserves incoming fire.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Seems to me that what's his name tries this about every year? Jack.

 

[71montess]

Seems to me that what's his name tries this about every year? Jack.

The sheep herder ?

 

[one-eyed Jack]

The sheep herder ?

Sounds about right. Jack.

 

[cathouse01]

Interesting fact: You only need to insure your car/truck if you want to drive it on a pubic way. If you’re not driving it on a public road, you don’t even need to register it.

 

[upcountry]

Besides, driving your car is not an enumerated constitutional right.
Get insurance for your 1st amendment right in case you offend someone?

 

[Kevin_NH]

Linsky and his fellow backers of "An Act to Require Liability Insurance for Gun Ownership" (H.2487) are going to be sorely disappointed when they realize that insurance actuaries will set the cost based on the actual risk, meaning that "liability" insurance for rich white folk in the rural western parts of the state will be a pittance, while "urban" residents will be the only ones who they're actually stiggin'it to.

“An Act to Require Liability Insurance for Gun Ownership,” sponsored by Representative David Linsky and Senator Michael Barrett, is currently up for debate in the next legislative session.

Mandatory gun liability insurance is analogous to car insurance. All 50 states require car owners to purchase car insurance...

Just like Massachusetts to ignore the existence of New Hampshire (and Virginia).

Section 207. (a) Whoever possess, carries, or owns a firearm, rifle or shotgun without a liability policy or bond or deposit required by the provisions of this chapter which has not been provided and maintained in accordance therewith shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year in a house of correction, or both such fine and imprisonment. This section shall not apply to a person who possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun on a temporary basis while on the premises of a licensed gun club.

(b) The commissioner of insurance shall promulgate regulations set forth for the minimum terms of liability insurance policies which shall satisfy the requirements of this section.

Pretty sure the commissioner cannot fix prices, nor require insurers to offer "liability insurance policies" covering intentional criminal acts.


One more thing regarding the Boston Globe article, don't make the mistake I did...

 

[BigGreen2000]

I thought “sureity bonds” were explicitly disallowed by Bruen?

 

[Broc]

Interesting fact: You only need to insure your car/truck if you want to drive it on a pubic way. If you’re not driving it on a public road, you don’t even need to register it.

Fun fact, cars have nothing to do with this and should never be compared to the 2A. Apples to oranges.

 

[MGnoob]

Besides, driving your car is not an enumerated constitutional right.
Get insurance for your 1st amendment right in case you offend someone?

If they offered that insurance I’d buy it and I don’t even believe in insurance.

They should start selling some kind of form of illegal immigrant insurance. I’m not sure if I want the illegals to buy it or if I got a buy it protect myself against the illegals.

You know what they really should sell is voting insurance..

If any of the above sound stupid, you’re probably not fully retarded

 

[drgrant]

Just another hurdle to price people out of a civil right:

Massachusetts should require gun liability insurance - The Boston Globe

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons.

www.bostonglobe.com

Fake news none of the carriers will underwrite it

This is a linsky horse/animal sex ejac special, introduced every session, fails every session

 

[Broc]

Every time I hear someone comparing 2A to driving to try to make a point.


View: https://youtu.be/5BEUykdqTq0

 

[Echo 225]

Lobbyist should be outlawed

 

[drgrant]

Every time I hear someone comparing 2A to driving to try to make a point.


View: https://youtu.be/5BEUykdqTq0

Moar gay frogs required tho

 

[whacko]

Omg this again?

 

[microwave900]

Fake news none of the carriers will underwrite it

This is a linsky horse/animal sex ejac special, introduced every session, fails every session

It also seems to allow a “bond or deposit” if you want to self-insure, which would be the only option in that case. Any guesses on the amount of money the state will require you to have to own guns?

My reaction to this bill, and anything else that dribbles out of Linsky’s mouth, is what the FPC would say about it. “f*** you, no.”

 

[pastera]

I thought “sureity bonds” were explicitly disallowed by Bruen?

I'll have to go back through it to be certain (on my phone so I don't have my notes)
The surety bonds were required of those who had in the past caused issues while armed in public so the courts could require them to post surety if they wanted to be armed in public.
Notice people couldn't be disbarred from being armed only required to post bonds AFTER be found guilty of being a public menace.
This would lead one to believe that prohibited persons still retain the right to own/carry arms as long a as they post surety commensurate with the risk they pose if we have a strict reading of Bruen.