View Full Version : DC Considers Mandatory 250K insurance!
platoonDaddy
05-16-13, 08:54
Bring back the commissioners, home rule certainly isn't working out for the people!
D.C. Considers Mandatory $250K Insurance Policy for Gun Buyers
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/d-c-considers-mandatory-250k-insurance-policy-for-gun-buyers/
VooDoo6Actual
05-16-13, 09:32
Anybody surprised ?
Crow Hunter
05-16-13, 09:58
They are so stupid they don't realize that insurance will not cover deliberate acts.
:rolleyes:
So the only thing an insurance company would have to do to avoid paying is prove that whatever caused an injury was intentional and not an accident.
Morons.
VooDoo6Actual
05-16-13, 10:06
They are so stupid they don't realize that insurance will not cover deliberate acts.
:rolleyes:
So the only thing an insurance company would have to do to avoid paying is prove that whatever caused an injury was intentional and not an accident.
Morons.
Exactly.
Including Criminal acts. So now your going to have all kinds of silly $ spent on defenses of was he/she of sound mind / diminished capacity / temporary insanity / SSRI's etc.
Should be a hoot.
Making folks have insurance if they own a gun sounds unconstitutional in an obvious way. It makes it a privilege to own a gun, not a right. It makes it an agreement that we can own a gun IF and only if we get insurance. That's conditional, not a true right. So sick of this shit.
I see a winnable law suit coming if this becomes law.
It's a defacto tax intended to deny low income residents their rights. In other words:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4864828866036628&pid=15.1
And I'm sure there will be "authorized gun insurance" agencies that oddly and by complete coincidence are owned by the mayor's brother-in-law and by various council member's spouses. And when that doesn't stop ownership, a quick review will show that $250K just simply isn't enough insurance, so they will decide that $1M would now meet the requirements. At least till the next review.
It's a defacto tax intended to deny low income residents their rights. In other words:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4864828866036628&pid=15.1
Ha, its not like they would actually prosecute gangbangers for not having insurance after they shoot someone anyway... :D
They are so stupid they don't realize that insurance will not cover deliberate acts.
Dude the purpose of the law is to deter folks from buying guns.
When are gun owners going to wake up and realize gun control laws are not about crimefighting but about reducing gun owners.
Mo_Zam_Beek
05-16-13, 14:32
It would hard to argue that this not synonymous with a poll tax, which was abolished by the 24th amendment.
Crow Hunter
05-16-13, 14:58
Dude the purpose of the law is to deter folks from buying guns.
When are gun owners going to wake up and realize gun control laws are not about crimefighting but about reducing gun owners.
I know.
I was referring to the fact that no insurance company will ever offer such insurance so it would become a defacto ban, which was already declared unconstitutional.
I think they really are so stupid that they believe that insurance companies would actually insure against deliberate acts.
I would also bet if you looked into the personal history of the bill sponsors, they have several instances of insurance fraud because they think that is how it is supposed to work.
I know.
I was referring to the fact that no insurance company will ever offer such insurance so it would become a defacto ban, which was already declared unconstitutional.
I think they really are so stupid that they believe that insurance companies would actually insure against deliberate acts.
I would also bet if you looked into the personal history of the bill sponsors, they have several instances of insurance fraud because they think that is how it is supposed to work.
Considering many insurance companies already wont insure gun collections in the case of theft, fire, etc if they involve what they deem "Assault weapons" no kidding..
I know.
I was referring to the fact that no insurance company will ever offer such insurance so it would become a defacto ban, which was already declared unconstitutional.
I think they really are so stupid that they believe that insurance companies would actually insure against deliberate acts.
I would also bet if you looked into the personal history of the bill sponsors, they have several instances of insurance fraud because they think that is how it is supposed to work.
Gotcha. The intentional shooting insurance requirement is pretty funny.
steyrman13
05-16-13, 16:22
I was referring to the fact that no insurance company will ever offer such insurance
I think they really are so stupid that they believe that insurance companies would actually insure against deliberate acts.
No insurance company wanted to take on pre-existing issues, etc......but we know how that went......shoved down their throats.
I know.
I was referring to the fact that no insurance company will ever offer such insurance so it would become a defacto ban, which was already declared unconstitutional.
I think they really are so stupid that they believe that insurance companies would actually insure against deliberate acts.
I would also bet if you looked into the personal history of the bill sponsors, they have several instances of insurance fraud because they think that is how it is supposed to work.
Why do you suppose that no insurance company will offer coverage? They have a legal way to NEVER have to pay out on most claims based on the whole we don't insure against intentional acts. They can have clauses where paying out against ND's and other accidents become slim to none. Why would they refuse the income?
Why do you suppose that no insurance company will offer coverage? They have a legal way to NEVER have to pay out on most claims based on the whole we don't insure against intentional acts. They can have clauses where paying out against ND's and other accidents become slim to none. Why would they refuse the income?
Exactly! Just have a 100% deductible, and exclusions for any discharge of the firearm (intentional or not), use as a club or impact weapon, loss, theft, use in a crime (felony or misdemeanor), regardless of location of the gun (in your home, safe or on your person) and payable only on the second Tuesday of the fifth week of the 13th month. No problem. Hell, with those conditions I'd even underwrite the policy!
Why do you suppose that no insurance company will offer coverage? They have a legal way to NEVER have to pay out on most claims based on the whole we don't insure against intentional acts.
The proposed law would require them to cover intentional acts:
Councilmembers Vincent Orange and Mary Cheh said after a hearing Thursday that any bill they pursue would likely be narrower than Cheh’s initial proposal, which includes a requirement that gun owners insure themselves against intentional as well as accidental shootings.
I don't see any InsCos doing that.
Exactly! Just have a 100% deductible, and exclusions for any discharge of the firearm (intentional or not), use as a club or impact weapon, loss, theft, use in a crime (felony or misdemeanor), regardless of location of the gun (in your home, safe or on your person) and payable only on the second Tuesday of the fifth week of the 13th month. No problem. Hell, with those conditions I'd even underwrite the policy!
But then nobody would buy it since it does not meet the DC requirements.
Belmont31R
05-16-13, 18:22
How about insurance so if the debt goes up for whoever you voted for your insurance has to pay the debt back down in a per capita fashion. No voter insurance? No vote.
But then nobody would buy it since it does not meet the DC requirements.
If you don't buy the insurance, you don't get the gun. That's the point. If you can't take away someone's rights, then make it impossible (or as near to) for them to exercise their rights. Tax ammunition at 10,000%. Limit the number of rounds you can possess at any given time to 1. Require a waiting period/background check before you can buy another round. De facto ban. They never said they couldn't own a gun.
How many law abiding gun owners have used their firearms in DC in recent years ?
How many of the shootings were committed illegally by criminals who do not care about the laws these morons are proposing ?
How many law abiding gun owners have used their firearms in DC in recent years ?
How many of the shootings were committed illegally by criminals who do not care about the laws these morons are proposing ?
How dare you try to bring facts and objective analysis into the discussion.
Perhaps they should make violent criminals carry insurance as a condition to being let out of prison :rolleyes:
Dude the purpose of the law is to deter folks from buying guns.
When are gun owners going to wake up and realize gun control laws are not about crimefighting but about reducing gun owners.
I think most of us know that, and that is why the days of "reasonable" measures were a long time ago. Now it's simply about restriction and denying access.
I only wish every supposedly "pro gun" member of Congress would acknowledge that fact.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.