Now I have to carry Liability Insurance for my weapons

[M-technik-3]

Mass. bill would require gun liability insurance
Sentinel & Enterprise
Posted: 01/18/2013 06:06:07 AM EST

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance in case their firearm was ever used to injure someone under a bill being filed at the Statehouse.

The initiative is included in a gun control measure which would also change standards for gun licenses and outlaw large capacity magazines.

Under the bill being filed Friday, individuals applying for gun permits in Massachusetts would have to show proof of firearms insurance.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. David Linksy, compared the change to the requirement that car owners have auto insurance before registering their vehicles.

Linksy said requiring insurance could create market-based gun safety incentives.

Gun owners could see their insurance drop, say, if they agreed to take a firearms training course and properly stored their weapons.

Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing his own gun control measure.



Read more: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com...#ixzz2IqsCaKx2

[mrsleeve]

Also there is a purposal for you MA guys that I thought was part of the one your talking about, that would require your AR's, M1A's and similar pattern weapons TO BE STORED AT A GOVT APPROVED SITE, NOT IN YOUR HOME.........

Problem with the mid set is that while owning a car is a right, OPERATING IT IS NOT, That would be a privilege, to which conditions may be attached to allowing you to partake in that PRIVILEGE. Owning arms is RIGHT. to bad trying to get these activist knee jerk legislators to understand that is nearly impossible

Good luck you guys

Here it is


Provisions in the bill include:


*10 round magazines loaded with more than 7 rounds, punishable by more than two years in jail.
*Magazines containing more than 10 rounds, punishable by up to 10 years in jail.
*Potential confiscation of lawfully purchased long guns and high capacity magazines (greater than 10 round capacity).
*A complete ban on semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features. (AR type rifles)
*Up to 2 ½ years in jail for receiving more than 1 gun or magazine in a 30-day period.
*Mandatory large capacity guns storage at gun clubs instead of in home.
*Lawful private sales recorded on FA-10 forms will no longer be allowed.
*Ban "high power" ammunition. (there's been no definition provided as to what that is)
*Expanding local licensing authorities discretion to deny or restrict licenses to all guns including FID cards.
*Mandatory insurance for all firearms owners. (see link for more info)
*New proposed sales tax aimed at firearms/ammo purchase. (this has not been clarified)
*Mental and physical health waivers to be signed upon applying for a gun license
*Creating new crimes of assault with a firearm that requires no physical action by the lawful possessor

http://goal.org/action-alert.html

Enjoy

[mr.vang]

i don't see the point of buying insurance for a firearm if it is just being stored. if the firearm is being used daily then it would make sense. next is insurance for swords and knives.

[Farbin Kaiber]

i don't see the point of buying insurance for a firearm if it is just being stored. if the firearm is being used daily then it would make sense. next is insurance for ASSAULT swords and BATTLE knives.

I fixed that for you.

[mrsleeve]

^^
I have insurance rider on all my firearms, in addition to our standard home owners. But thats for a Check if they are lost in a fire, or stolen or something. Like that not for if someone steals them and uses them for something more nefarious.

Mass is trying to get the private insurance industry to do its dirty work for it. By forcing them to document ALL arms in the state, and who owns them and where there are stored down to where in the home, (note in the underwriting about where "approved storage is at". This way the state will have bevy of organized highly detailed information about EVERY LEGAL firearm owner in the state.........................


Edit: Here is another fun one I just stumbled across. in MO a state senator has introduced legislation that would required you to tell your kids school that you own firearms. Faliure to do so would result in fines and be a Class A misdemeanor. Oh and of course the police will have access to the information. Really Why do I have to tell anyone what I own let alone my KIDS SCHOOL???

http://www.senate.mo.gov/13info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=17148860

[iamsam]

The stupidity of politicians continues to astound and baffle.

..Unless of course, their underlying purpose with legislation like this is actually to gain a profit, and not to actually reduce gun violence, then they are pretty smart, but extremely crooked. Which sadly, tends to be the more plausible explanation.

...but going back to the topic at hand, what would this liability insurance do? Pay the medical bills of the injured person? And under what circumstances? Would it cover accidental discharges, or intentional attempts to kill? Will it pay the families of the recently deceased via a certain gun, at the expense of the (probably innocent, albeit careless) gun owner?

For this insurance to be able to afford those sorts of claims, the insurance premiums to the gun owner have got to be ridiculously high.

After this law is implemented, it will surely dampen legal gun sales, but as a result will drive up illegal sales. Naturally, this drives the ratio of the number of legal to illegal gun owners strongly to the illegal side.

[M-technik-3]

So illegal sales go up and with software currently taking off how about a printable weapon of choice.

http://hackaday.com/2012/08/26/3d-printed-guns-laws-and-regulations-and-philosophical-discussions-on-the-nature-of-printed-objects/

[mar1t1me]

"Now I have to carry liability insurance for my weapons....."

No you don't. It ain't law, and probably, like most other bills, will whither and die, especially if enough people voice a negative opinion of it (to the representative-posting here does no good in that regard) If I got my shorts jerked every time a politician floated a bill I didn't like, I wouldn't have an intact pair of skivvies left.

[M-technik-3]

Yes I know it's not law yet but sadly my state will knee jerk react to what NY and DC are trying to do and Deval has high hopes of a higher office at some point. I already have wrote in to express my dismay towards this.

[nrubenstein]

Why should you not have to carry liability insurance? If, through your negligence or actions, the gun is used to do harm, why shouldn't you be insured for that?

[mrsleeve]

^
Seriously you should be held financially responsible for what someone ELSE dose with your weapon that was stolen from you so you no longer have direct control of it??? Again driving a car is a privilege and there for conditions like Insurance can be attached to partaking in that activity. Owning a Firearm is a RIGHT, so erroneous, and possibility cost prohibitive measures are a no go as an infringement on a RIGHT. I trust I dont have to explain the differences between privileges and rights to you do I?

Since the journal news had the interactive map up of NY pistol permit holders, at least 2 homes on the that map were robed specifically for the firearms, it seems.

[M-technik-3]

Why should you not have to carry liability insurance? If, through your negligence or actions, the gun is used to do harm, why shouldn't you be insured for that?

^
Seriously you should be held financially responsible for what someone ELSE dose with your weapon that was stolen from you so you no longer have direct control of it??? Again driving a car is a privilege and there for conditions like Insurance can be attached to partaking in that activity. Owning a Firearm is a RIGHT, so erroneous, and possibility cost prohibitive measures are a no go as an infringement on a RIGHT. I trust I dont have to explain the differences between privileges and rights to you do I?

Since the journal news had the interactive map up of NY pistol permit holders, at least 2 homes on the that map were robed specifically for the firearms, it seems.

Pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter. I have home owners insurance and my insurance company insures my weapons should someone steal one or anything else.

But to hold someone liable after it was stolen is crazy. Much like a thief suing because he fell off your roof while breaking into a business or a home because the ladder wasn't secured or the gutter broke.

[tjts1]

Good. The more expensive the better.

[nrubenstein]

^
Seriously you should be held financially responsible for what someone ELSE dose with your weapon that was stolen from you so you no longer have direct control of it??? Again driving a car is a privilege and there for conditions like Insurance can be attached to partaking in that activity. Owning a Firearm is a RIGHT, so erroneous, and possibility cost prohibitive measures are a no go as an infringement on a RIGHT. I trust I dont have to explain the differences between privileges and rights to you do I?

Since the journal news had the interactive map up of NY pistol permit holders, at least 2 homes on the that map were robed specifically for the firearms, it seems.

If it is stolen due to your negligence, then I'd suggest that yes, you should have some liability. If you have a gun, you have a responsibility to secure it.

[nrubenstein]

^
Seriously you should be held financially responsible for what someone ELSE dose with your weapon that was stolen from you so you no longer have direct control of it??? Again driving a car is a privilege and there for conditions like Insurance can be attached to partaking in that activity. Owning a Firearm is a RIGHT, so erroneous, and possibility cost prohibitive measures are a no go as an infringement on a RIGHT. I trust I dont have to explain the differences between privileges and rights to you do I?

Since the journal news had the interactive map up of NY pistol permit holders, at least 2 homes on the that map were robed specifically for the firearms, it seems.

And if you truly believe that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited, then why can't I have a personal nuke? A nuclear bomb is an arm. There is nothing in the constitution that differentiates between types of arms.