|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Congress Could Make A Devious Move To Control Americans’ Guns In This New Way
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If one New York representative has her way, gun owners could soon be required to purchase liability insurance for exercising their Second Amendment rights. As The Hill’s Lydia Wheeler reported, Democrat U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (pictured above) last week introduced the Firearm Risk Protection Act, a bill that would implement fines of up to $10,000 for any gun owner – aside from members of the military or law enforcement agency – caught owning a firearm without proper insurance.
“We require insurance to own a car,” Maloney asserted, “but no such requirement exists for guns. The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.” |
| Comment by:
jac
(6/3/2015)
|
"but gun fatalities continue to rise."
Except that the low information crowd causing the gun fatalities will not buy insurance. They are already carrying guns illegally. Why would any sane person believe that they would purchase liability insurance?
This is nothing more than an attack on lawful gun owners. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
