|
|
|
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 |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
