Presented by Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York with four co-sponsors and deemed to have Constitutional Authority by Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3, the “Commerce Clause”.
This bill, presented May 21 in the 114th Congress (2015/2016), seeks to modify Section 922 of title 18 , United States Code by adding language requiring every purchaser of a firearm to have “qualified liability insurance”. Where “qualified” is defined as being authorized by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.
The seller of a firearm must verify the purchaser has liability insurance.
The shall not apply language is for , wait for it, yes any 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.
This is more legislation that imposes restrictions on Citizens, but exempts Government from the same restrictions. Or in this case the liability of government entities to keep control of their firearms.
The purpose is apparent in the title “”Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015”. It seeks to make every firearm owner financially responsible for any losses resulting from use of a firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.
The fine for violations is up to $10,000.
Results of this bill being enacted would include:
An increase in the number of personal liability insurance policies sold. The Federal Government is on a tear to require Americans to buy insurance, first medical for everyone, now liability for firearms owners. I smell a kick back.
A database of firearms owners will be created. A gun registry is required before gun confiscation can begin.
An increase of lawsuits against firearms owners by criminals who initiated an attack but were injured by the Citizen. After all they are now the victim of gun violence.
An increase of law suits against firearms owners by government entities when stolen guns are used in crimes. Remember government employees are exempt so even if a stolen gun in the possession of a governmental entity uses the guns in something like say Fast and Furious, the original owner Is still liable.
An article in TheHill.com on 5/29/2015 by Lydia Wheeler attributes the following to Representative Maloney (D N.Y.):
“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” she said. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”
Only Orwellian doublespeak allows using “requirement” and “free market” in the same sentence. The purpose of a free market is to allow motivated sellers and motivated buyers to agree on price. In Representative Maloney’s scenario there will be motivated sellers of insurance policies but only coerced buyers who are acting out of fear of fines of up to $10,000.
Firearms owners who want personal liability can purchase such products of their own free will and many do. It is a personal decision about risk and reward and where to utilize one’s assets. It is possible for a firearms owner to be sued and lose all their possessions if they make a mistake with their firearm.
If Representative Maloney’s goal was to reduce injury then she would propose educational and training programs and would sponsor subsidized safes in homes.
. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”
The doublespeak continues when Representative Maloney states the purpose of the bill is to “ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur”.
I understand the concept of compensation for accidents, but does she really believe that criminals are going to purchase liability insurance for their illegal firearms? Does she believe this legislation will persuade criminals who use firearms to first go purchase a liability insurance policy before their next carjacking, or bank robbery, assault, or home invasion?
Let’s look at an example involving the death of Clabe Hunt. A crime was committed and he is dead. Does that make him the victim of gun violence?
Gun Violence is the term used to collect any action in which a firearm is used and a person is injured or killed. Politicians who talk about gun violence never utter the term self-defense in conjunction with gun ownership. To them, the possession of a gun means you are going to commit some heinous act of violence with it.
To Representative Maloney, Clabe Hunt is a victim of gun violence and Barbara Holland would pay for his death. In Representative Maloney’s plan, Barbara Holland would have to have liability insurance and the family of Clabe Hunt could sue for some of that coverage because Barbara Holland killed Clabe Hunt. The reason Clabe Hunt is a victim of gun violence is because he forced his way into Barbara Holland’s home and pointed a gun at her. She responded with deadly force.
The latest action on the bill was June 16th was it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations for Committee Consideration.