View Full Version : H.R.2546 - Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015
titsonritz
08-08-15, 21:37
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2546/text
Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) prohibit the purchase or sale of a firearm unless the purchaser presents proof to the seller and the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy, and (2) require any person who purchases a firearm on or after this Act's effective date to be covered by such a policy. Exempts the purchase or sale of a firearm for use by a federal, state, or local agency.
Defines "qualified liability insurance policy" to mean a policy that: (1) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser, and (2) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the state in which the purchaser resides.
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2546
To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by,
a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance
coverage.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 21, 2015
Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Lynch, Ms.
Tsongas, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. Clark of Massachusetts) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by,
a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance
coverage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Firearm Risk Protection Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON SALE OF FIREARM TO, AND PURCHASE OF FIREARM BY,
A PERSON NOT COVERED BY APPROPRIATE LIABILITY INSURANCE.
(a) Prohibitions.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a
firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to
the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability
insurance policy.
``(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless,
at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is
covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
``(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm
purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be
covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a
firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of
the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political
subdivision of a State.
``(2) In paragraph (1), the term `qualified liability insurance
policy' means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy
that--
``(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser
specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while
it is owned by the purchaser; and
``(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to
provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory
authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than
$10,000.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mauser KAR98K
08-08-15, 22:15
2nd and 14th amendment come to mind.
SilverBullet432
08-08-15, 22:32
Stupidest thing ive read in my entire life. They can kiss my ass. Time to contact your reps people.
Called it all the way back in 2004...
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=260365
I need to start a psychic hotline.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-08-15, 22:37
Do we make publishers have 'libel insurance'?
Are we required to keep a lawyer on retainer in case we are charged with a crime?
Is it legal to have a poll tax to vote?
The step after this is making any insurance company that will write the policy be the target of activists and cut from any govt programs like obamacare.
ETA: this is the BS we'll be facing if people decide that the GOP candidate isn't 'pure' enough.
Outlander Systems
08-09-15, 02:22
So, what does this mean for the 400,000,000 firearms already in circulation?
Imagine the policy every mosque should be required to have.
titsonritz
08-09-15, 03:08
Yet another "common sense" plan.
Just another way to license and track gun owners.
So, what does this mean for the 400,000,000 firearms already in circulation?
It means you would have to register them with your insurance company.
It means you would have to register them with your insurance company.
Yea, I'd love to see how that'd work out.
Yea, I'd love to see how that'd work out.
For better or worse all mine are with USAA by serial number because they are a large chunk of change. With this bill the govt would know about them.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-09-15, 07:19
It says only for gun owners who buy guns after a certain date.
Get ready for the "cars have to have insurance" mantra.
Do we make publishers have 'libel insurance'?
Are we required to keep a lawyer on retainer in case we are charged with a crime?
Is it legal to have a poll tax to vote?
The step after this is making any insurance company that will write the policy be the target of activists and cut from any govt programs like obamacare.
ETA: this is the BS we'll be facing if people decide that the GOP candidate isn't 'pure' enough.
Allow me to be more accurate and correct that a bit: "This is the BS we'll be facing if spineless moderate primary voters decide everyone else must vote for a RINO yet again because they're too pussified to pull the lever for a real conservative".
Get ready for the "cars have to have insurance" mantra.
I hope they do use that......you don't need a drivers license to buy a car. And in Texas you don't need liability insurance, you just have to show that you have to minimum dollar amounts on hand required by law. But most do not have access to that kind of liquid assets so they get insurance. Either way it blows a huge hole in the argument if they go that direction.
Get ready for the "cars have to have insurance" mantra.
Of course the flaw in that argument, and one liberals will intentionally overlook, is driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right.
SomeOtherGuy
08-09-15, 11:07
For better or worse all mine are with USAA by serial number because they are a large chunk of change. With this bill the govt would know about them.
I think you can safely assume that anything registered with a large private business like an insurance company is also in a government database somewhere.
Ditto for anything purchased on a 4473, notwithstanding that law passed by Congress prohibits BATFE from making a database from those forms - there are plenty of reports indicating they have done so anyway.
Ditto for anything that started as an 80% lower but was purchased online or using a credit card. Probably not in their file if you paid cash for it at a gun show while wearing a disguise.
This bill is just one more type of harassment aimed at gun owners, trying to make criminals of them and give people who don't feel strongly a strong disincentive to buy a gun. The same sort of "boiling frog" approached used on many issues across many generations in many countries.
SomeOtherGuy
08-09-15, 11:09
Of course the flaw in that argument, and one liberals will intentionally overlook, is driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right.
Viewed reasonably gun ownership is a right, and the Second Amendment isn't at all ambiguous, but never underestimate the power of self-deceiving thinking and brainwashing children and sheeple.
Also, while driving is treated as a privilege, it should not be, since in most of the country there is no viable way to move around without being able to drive. That's another issue, but I would limit comparisons to driving because of that.
sevenhelmet
08-09-15, 11:30
I hope they do use that......you don't need a drivers license to buy a car. And in Texas you don't need liability insurance, you just have to show that you have to minimum dollar amounts on hand required by law. But most do not have access to that kind of liquid assets so they get insurance. Either way it blows a huge hole in the argument if they go that direction.
It's apples and oranges, but you don't need insurance to buy a car, either. I can buy a car and have it towed or trailered to my property without a license, registration, OR insurance, as long as I don't drive it on public roads. The "cars have to have insurance" argument is only sounds good if you don't think about it.
The insurance companies are sure coming out of this well, aren't they?
Heavy Metal
08-09-15, 11:47
It's been out for 90 days and has four co-sponsors. AIDS has more co-sponsors.
Any idiot can propose any stupid bill, that doesn't mean it's a serious bill.
Averageman
08-09-15, 11:56
Democrats deal so well with gun control issues.
http://heyjackass.com/
And those stats are a great example.
I thought Republicans controlled congress and support the 2nd Amendment?
I thought Republicans controlled congress and support the 2nd Amendment?
Yup, which is why this won't go anywhere.
Yup, which is why this won't go anywhere.
It amazes me how many people don't understand that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-10-15, 08:13
I think that this is a great example of Progressive incrementalism. They are always putting pressure on and pushing their agenda. They push an issue, get a compromise and then start pushing again. The right pushes an issue, doesn't get everything they want, starts to eat each other and eventually gets very little and just goes away. Progressives play a solid running game and conservatives just throw Hail Mary's.
Sometime the left will be in control and this will be sitting there and it will be one of those 'common sense' approaches that has been 'held up for years by the NRA'.
Have to say that it sounds original. I would never thought that gun ownership have to qualify with insurance, ever.
What a bunch of idiots. The real question, is will they make it illegal to be a criminal? cuz you know, I think that's where it's really at. If they would just outlaw illegal activity, I don't see how there could be any more problems pretty much anywhere.
The first place we will feel this is in the cost of our homeowners insurance policies. Part of your coverage is general liability. If I have a nice docile little dog my cost is small. If I have a big or aggressive breed my cost are higher. If I have a pit bull I don't get coverage!! Guess what is next???
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-10-15, 15:34
The first place we will feel this is in the cost of our homeowners insurance policies. Part of your coverage is general liability. If I have a nice docile little dog my cost is small. If I have a big or aggressive breed my cost are higher. If I have a pit bull I don't get coverage!! Guess what is next???
Do you really think that the insurance companies are turning a blind eye to firearms related pay outs to protect our 2A rights??
Dog bites accounted for more than one-third of all homeowners insurance liability claims paid out in 2009, costing $412 million and up 6.4 percent from 2008, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.).
That might be why they ask about dogs. Add in slip&fall and I bet you have most of it. I don't find anything about the amount of payouts for firearms related injuries. Considering a lot of gun deaths are suicides and gang-bangers, I don't see that there would be a lot of cases. Don't know about true 'accidental shootings'.
The fact is there are very little costs to covering homeowners since there are very few lawsuits. That's why they need to team up with lawyers to increase the number of lawsuits based on guns or get laws passed that make gun owners that have guns liable for crimes committed with stolen guns. That's why things like the laws against suing gun manufacturers, guns stores, ammo manufacturers and gun owners are so important.
Eurodriver
08-10-15, 15:42
Have to say that it sounds original. I would never thought that gun ownership have to qualify with insurance, ever.
It's not original. It's been a tactic of the left for a long time. Here is an article written by Hugh Lafollete in 2000. I know this guy personally and he is one of the leading ethicists in the world. At least he recognizes that there is no possible way to get 400,000,000 privately owned firearms off the streets, and accepts the merit of their use in self defense situations.
His logic is that people would be less likely to store guns in cars, or in homes without secure means such as safes if their insurance premiums would be higher. This would prevent people from buying more guns than they really want as well.
http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/gun.control.pdf
To make this option more palatable, we could let gun owners pur-
chase liability insurance to cover potential losses. We might even re-
quire them to purchase insurance. After all, most states require drivers to
have automobile insurance. This insurance-based system of strict liability
would make people take more care with any guns they own while provid-
ing financial remuneration to those harmed by the use of those guns.
Odd I didn't know driving was a constitutionally protected right..
F that noise. Ethicist/intellectual be damned.
So what happens when a local gangbanger shots an innocent person? Oh that's right, nothing.
The first place we will feel this is in the cost of our homeowners insurance policies. Part of your coverage is general liability. If I have a nice docile little dog my cost is small. If I have a big or aggressive breed my cost are higher. If I have a pit bull I don't get coverage!! Guess what is next???
Is this a regional/state issue with homeowner's insurance? I've never been asked about a dog, of course I've had the same homeowners policy except for upgrades for 30 years.
Interesting article to read Euro. Thanks for posting it.
sevenhelmet
08-11-15, 14:21
They crap all over law-abiding gun owners simply because they can claim they are "doing something". It has nothing to do with actually making things safer.
Is this a regional/state issue with homeowner's insurance? I've never been asked about a dog, of course I've had the same homeowners policy except for upgrades for 30 years.
Google the subject. The sad truth is... If you own a dog the chance is real that one day it may bite someone. The chance of an insurer having to settle a claim is real. No different than owning a high performance car or a firearm. The problem is when they tell you they won't insure you if you have a certain breed of dog or type of firearm. I can hear it now.... Sorry Sir, We cannot insure your home because you own an AR15 and a Glock handgun. The Feds simultaneously require a GL policy to have possession and impose a mandatory life sentence for possession without insurance. Don't laugh.. We are already 95% percent there. They don't have to take away your rights to limit ownership. They just have to hold the hoop so high that very few can jump through. They wrote the book on how to boil a frog!
They crap all over law-abiding gun owners simply because they can claim they are "doing something". It has nothing to do with actually making things safer.
Seattle is seeing this right now. City council voted 8-0 to impose a $25/ gun and $0.05 tax on each round of ammo sold in Seattle city limits. They say the extra tax income is going to fund anti-violence programs.
Seattle is seeing this right now. City council voted 8-0 to impose a $25/ gun and $0.05 tax on each round of ammo sold in Seattle city limits. They say the extra tax income is going to fund anti-violence programs.
I'd leave skid marks.
Eurodriver
08-11-15, 20:10
Seattle is seeing this right now. City council voted 8-0 to impose a $25/ gun and $0.05 tax on each round of ammo sold in Seattle city limits. They say the extra tax income is going to fund anti-violence programs.
Cool! Are poll taxes next?
Cool! Are poll taxes next?
Only if your white?
Only if your white?
Haha....yes.....yes....lol..well played.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Mauser KAR98K
08-12-15, 06:25
In TN, we have a .10 cent stamp tax for every box we buy retail. The money goes to TWRA for conservation, free hunter education classes, and against poachers.
I'm going to guess the money Seattle will get won't be for any of that by spreading anti-gun programs.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-12-15, 08:08
In TN, we have a .10 cent stamp tax for every box we buy retail. The money goes to TWRA for conservation, free hunter education classes, and against poachers.
I'm going to guess the money Seattle will get won't be for any of that by spreading anti-gun programs.
A cynical person would be for a tax. Once it's taxed and the pols get used to the money, they will never do anything that seriously attacks their money flow. If cigarettes aren't illegal, they'll never makes guns illegal.
Looks like this is their next big push. Just another example of Progressives not accepting legislative setbacks and coming back again and again always looking to move the football and develop new plays.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.