AVB-AMG

@RUTGERS95 Well, there are many people, in addition to me, who disagree with your dismissal that “to think it’s (health care) is a basic right is beyond absurd”. These would include: The European Union and the United Nations (UN), who both recognize health care as a human right, and it is guaranteed in the constitutions of 38% of UN members. Pope Francis, who said: “Health is not a consumer good but a universal right, so access to health services cannot be a privilege". President Ronald Reagan, who in 1986 signed a law that guaranteed everybody access to emergency care at any hospital that took federal funds. FYI – Healthcare, as a right has been a core belief for Democrats since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1945 State of the Union Address where he outlined a second Bill of Rights for the postwar era. “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” was listed 6th among the eight enumerated rights. None of FDR's economic rights can be found in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. But securing those rights, including healthcare, has gradually become over the past 75 years, part of our nation's laws and regulations. AVB-AMG

@Kevin125: Well I disagree. The point of this effort acknowledges the fact, whether or not we like it, that there are many illegal aliens who are living in the State of New Jersey. I believe that is important (and a good thing), for these people to have some sort of STATE identification card that permits them to legally drive an automobile in this state, as well as to obtain the corresponding legally required automobile insurance, that will ultimately be to everyone's benefit. But as I said earlier, the NJ bill, as written and passed, has some real problems. Where I disagree with the NJ Bill on this subject is that they are creating two types of “licenses”, where one is what I described above and the other is one that is compliant with the Federal REAL ID rules. IMHO, that is taking this too far. Also, I realize that the passage of this bill will result in additional revenue being generated for the state, which was just one more incentive on the part of the state. Yes, I understand that this bill requires that for someone to obtain the REAL ID version of this license, that the applicant would still have to comply and meet the same 6-point identity verification system employed by the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission, that we have to, but I do not think it goes far enough There are a number of other States who have passed similar laws over the past 15+ years, where the NJ State Assembly could have learned from and incorporated additional sensible restrictions and requirements into the NJ bill, but did not. For example: I think that the law passed by Utah back in 2005 makes more sense. That law establishes a one-year driving privilege card for unauthorized immigrants. Applicants without a Social Security number must prove Utah residency for 6 months and provide a tax identification number. The card is expressly prohibited from being used for any identification purposes by a governmental entity. Also, Maryland’s law, passed in 2014 has some additional provisions that make sense. Their law authorizes the issuance of driver’s licenses to those who do not have lawful status or a valid Social Security number. New applicants must provide evidence that the applicant has filed at least 2 years of Maryland income tax returns or proof of residency or have been claimed as a dependent by an individual who has filed Maryland income tax returns. The licenses are not valid for Federal identification purposes. Finally, Connecticut’s law, passed in 2015 has some additional requirements before they will issue this license. Their law provides driver's licenses to applicants who submit a valid foreign passport or consular identification and proof of residency, regardless of legal presence in the United States. Applicants must file to legalize as soon as he or she is eligible. AVB-AMG

@W2MC: It is a shame that you and some others here feel the need to exacerbate polarization by forcing a generalized label on someone, especially if it is inappropriate or incorrect. Did you ever stop for a moment to think that not everyone is so black & white in their political views and beliefs as you may be...? I believe that I, along with most of my friends and relatives are not so dogmatic or absolutely in lock-step with the views and programs and legislation proposed by either the Republican or Democrat elected representatives in Congress or the NJ State Assembly. I have stated what my political beliefs are on this forum on numerous occasions in various threads, so I will not repeat myself here. If you care to see them then you can do a search for them. BTW, all you have to do to confirm my point is look as some of the posts made by others here on NJGF for their conflicting views on our POTUS and his actions and programs. FYI - I do believe that no political party or individual politician is free of some level of corruption, nor are they unwilling to tell lies in support of achieving their political goals. AVB-AMG

@remixer: Now you are just being silly...... Ha, Ha. Just because the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment and ruled in 2008 (District of Columbia vs. Heller), that it is legal for all of us to purchase and own a firearm, (keep and bare arms), for home/self protection, (which I agree with), it does not mean the people have to have a firearm, let alone have taxpayers pay for it/them, along with any required insurance. If you cannot afford a firearm then you will not get one... period. You will need to use other tools to protect yourself and family. BTW, I am curious... while not a Constitutional right, in our current modern day society, with all of the technological and scientific advances that have been made in the medical field, over 231 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, do you consider the human right of affordable quality healthcare to our citizens to be less important than the Constitutional right to own a firearm? I am a "want my cake and eat it too..." type of person. While I want and appreciate both "rights", I do think that healthcare is ultimately more important since it affects the general health and well being of far more U.S. citizens, than the choice on whether or not to purchase and own a firearm. Hence, that is why I do believe that eventually, via a phased approach, the U.S. should explore further and consider migrating to a tax payer funded, single-payer national health insurance program. For the near term, I agree with the proposals for "Medicare for all, who want it...", which would be a combination of national single-payer insurance providing a minimum acceptable level of medical coverage, augmented by private insurance for those who want it and decide how much additional coverage to select and pay for. Also, with the current make up of the U.S. Supreme Court and realistic likely near future replacements of Justices, I do not think that gun owner's will have to worry about losing any of their rights and may most likely be relieved via future rulings by that court of some of the more onerous State gun laws, like those in NJ. Also, as some others have stated in other posts, the difficulty in choosing how and when to actually enforce some of these gun laws will be a real challenge for NJ towns and community LEO's. AVB-AMG

@NJBeretta: Honestly... I do not know the detailed differences. FYI - I do not agree with everything that Governors Cuomo or Murphy do or propose for legislation.... AVB-AMG

@silverado427: Yes, I agree that one should not have to be subjected to a lawsuit from the injured or deceased criminal's family. But do not be naive to think that they, (if they were injured by you and not killed), or their family, will not bring that lawsuit against you anyway. You will need to pay a large amount of your savings to hire competent lawyers to defend yourself and that is part of what my envisioned Gun liability insurance would cover you for. Yes, you also have the right to sue the criminals family and depending on the circumstances, may have a valid case. AVB-AMG

@NJBeretta: Regardless of what the court ultimately decides for their judgement, for or against, the gun owner will still have to hire and pay for his own legal defense, which will most likely be very expensive at the end. My envisioned Gun liability insurance would pay for the gun owner's defense legal costs. That is the point.... AVB-AMG

@Downtownv: I agree that this recently passed legislation makes no sense and is not just unfair, but will cause more problems than it attempts to solve. Also, the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission is not the most smoothly nor efficiently run state government agency so who knows how this will all play out.... For example, all of us NJ residents will be required to obtain an updated NJ Driver's License that conforms to the national REAL ID specified criteria. Yet after registering on the NJMVC website to be notified when any of their centers located in my home region will be offering this service, they sent me an email saying that I can now set up an appointment to get this required REAL ID NJ Driver's License. Yet when I attempt to set up an appointment, using their link redirecting me to their upcoming three (3) month calendar, I discover that every appointment for every day for the next three months is not available.... WTF! This rivals the poor launching of the online registration for the Affordable Care Act.... Disgraceful! AVB-AMG

We all make mistakes...... But ultimately I like to think that most of us have good intentions and want what is best for all U.S. citizens, even if we disagree on the specific approaches and means to achieve them. AVB-AMG

@remixer: Yes, we both agree on that point..... AVB-AMG

@voyager9: I guess I do need to clarify my reasoning for supporting the concept of a national law requiring Gun liability insurance that would cover the gun owner in the event of gun-related “accidents” and “gun violence victims” in the case of a home/self-defense situation. Ideally, I envision that resulting, sensible Gun liability insurance would be a new insurance product. It would essentially be a hybrid form of insurance, taking appropriate components from both existing accepted General liability insurance coverage, as well as from Vehicle liability insurance coverage norms. Similar to General liability insurance, my envisioned proposed Gun liability insurance would protect the gun owner against financial liabilities resulting from the inevitable ensuing civil lawsuits arising from their using their legally obtained firearm in a self/home defense scenario. This aspect of the Gun liability insurance would pay, up to a certain amount, the gun owner’s legal defense costs. For example, even if a court, (Judge or Jury), eventually rules that the home invasion, break-in, attempted robbery, etc. was a criminal act, performed by one or more individuals, you can be almost certain that their family/relatives will sue the homeowner, even if they were lawfully protecting themselves, family and home. That lawsuit would be seeking mega-bucks damages from the gun-using homeowner..... Similar to Vehicle liability insurance, my envisioned proposed Gun liability insurance would also have a Bodily Injury (BI) coverage and third-party Property Damage (PD) coverage, to deal with any related injuries and/or damage to other people or their property arising from a gun owner using their firearm in a self/home-defense scenario. For example, if the gun owner in their home, shoots and injures a perpetrator, or one or more of your bullets misses that intended target and hits an innocent bystander/neighbor, the BI portion of your Gun liability insurance would pay for their medical expenses, physical therapy, lost earnings, pain & suffering and other related expenses, up to the limit the gun owner selects for coverage. If the gun owner in their home, shoots at someone who has entered their home unlawfully, and one or more of their bullets misses that person and continues to travel outside of the gun owner’s home and causes damage to another person’s property, then the third-party PD portion of their Gun liability insurance would pay for the related repair/replacement costs of that property, up to the limit that the gun owner selects for coverage. AVB-AMG

@remixer: I guess you glossed over and missed my first sentence in the first paragraph of my post responding to you.... AVB-AMG

@father-of-three: Thank you for providing the link to the website story that I requested. I remember reading on the NRA website about that specific liability insurance coverage several years ago and was considering it, but decided to wait on it and instead, purchased their endorsed personal articles policy through ArmsCare Firearms Insurance. I also elected at that time to subscribe to another program, that while not liability insurance, would provide a potentially important legal service, through the U.S Law Shield firearms legal defense program. I described both in detail in my earlier posts. Your point is well taken that the State of New Jersey is being hypocritical and contradictory when they fine the NRA-endorsed liability insurance program for not being licensed in this state. NJ cannot have it both ways and needs to figure out what would be a fair program, allowing multiple insurance companies to become licensed in this State to offer appropriate liability insurance to firearms owners. AVB-AMG

@remixer: To answer your question, IMHO….. Healthcare. We need insurance for that…. While not a Constitutional right, I would argue that today, healthcare is a fundamental human right in our modern country and society. Yet in the U.S. our approach to healthcare is designed to profit the providers, yet not support the recipients, or even in many cases to deny them the right to needed beneficial medical health services. Fundamentally, in the U.S., we do not really have a healthcare system, only a health insurance system. At the risk of thread topic drift, it is important to remember that the crux of the Affordable Health Care Law (Obamacare), included an individual mandate, which stated that by 2014, all U.S. citizens and legal residents in the U.S. were required to have at least basic health insurance coverage. Those without that coverage were to be subjected to a phased-in tax penalty that would increase each year. FYI - this year, Congress repealed the individual mandate, which means that, moving forward, Americans without health insurance coverage will not be subject to a tax penalty. Yet in a hypocritical twist on this Congressional action, back in early October of this year, President DT proclaimed that those people seeking to legally immigrate to the U.S. must have health insurance. So now, anyone applying for an entry visa must show they will have coverage within 30 days of entering the country or that they have the money to cover "reasonably foreseeable medical costs." Refugees, asylum seekers, unaccompanied minors and Iraqis or Afghans seeking a Special Immigrant Visa, and those holding visas before Nov. 3, would be exempt from the requirement. Approved healthcare insurance plans under the proclamation include employer-sponsored plans, family members' plans, catastrophic coverage, short-term coverage plans and Medicare plans. Migrants would not be able to use Medicaid plans or the subsidized plans offered on the state markets under the Affordable Care Act. What I find so appalling and xenophobic about this hypocrisy from Congress and you-know-who, is that the U.S. now does not guarantee healthcare for its own citizens, yet now requires it from people of other nationalities looking to immigrate to the U.S. So currently, as far as this Administration is concerned, healthcare is not a requirement, let alone a right for U.S. citizens, but a requirement for anyone looking to immigrate into the U.S. What is wrong with this picture….??? AVB-AMG

@tomk62: Maybe it is time for a few more state legislators to pass petitions calling for Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention to revisit and amend our Constitution, to make it even more relevant to Americans current cultural sensibilities and societal values, needs and desires, including the accepted importance of affordable quality health care and higher education, including vocational programs. It is a national discussion and debate that is probably long overdue.... AVB-AMG

@father-of-three: It would be most appreciated if you could please cite when this occurred and the specifics of it, via a link to a news story. Thank you. AVB-AMG

@voyager9: ....Such as moving out of state that has used a voter suppression strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging and/or preventing specific groups of people, (i.e. poor elderly blacks), from voting. This has been and is still being done in many States through the use of gerrymandered voting districts, making it difficult for people to vote by reduced the number of polling stations and their hours of operation, as well as voter ID laws that have been struck down in the courts. Your poll tax analogy is an "apples vs. oranges" argument since a poll tax is a blatant attempt at voter suppression, whereas the proposed gun owners liability insurance requirement proposal at least will benefit gun violence victims and/or their families, therefore, your analogy is not applicable to this proposal. AVB-AMG

@Mrs. Peel: Nuts... you found me out... I was contemplating forming a liability insurance company for gun owners to make handsome profits... Oh well.... Yes, good intentions, regardless of the number of people affected. Time for me to hit the road for my next trip..... AVB-AMG

@Zeke: Seriously, if someone can afford to buy a gun and ammunition, then they can also in all likelihood also afford the annual cost of liability insurance.... If someone cannot afford the cost of liability insurance for a firearm then they would have the choice to use other tools to defend themselves, such as knives, bows/arrows, or other creative methods…. Don't tell me that you are going all Bernie Sanders here and possibly advocating that we taxpayers should pay to provide every American citizen over the age of 18, a FREE firearm......? AVB-AMG

@bennj: I don’t know what planet you are on or from, but on Earth, in our country, owning/driving an automobile, let alone having a job, to work for a living, for the vast majority of us is not a privilege, but a real necessity…. - People, other than those who were born into a very wealthy family, need a job to earn an income to provide the necessities for themselves and their family. - People, other than those who live close enough to their workplace where they can either walk, ride a bicycle or take public transportation, need a car for their essential transportation to their workplace, as well as for running errands, etc.. BTW, while our Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention "unalienable" rights. FYI - More people own cars than guns, which I postulate is due to their choice based on necessity. As you will see, less than one half of all American adults over the age of 18 who own an automobile, own a firearm. I believe that in their minds, they have decided that they need cars more than they need guns, which is their choice. This is how I arrived at those approximate numbers: In the 1st Qtr. of 2019, there were approximately 276 million vehicle operating on public roads in the U.S. (see the following link) https://www.statista.com/statistics/859950/vehicles-in-operation-by-quarter-united-states/ As of 2018, there are approximately 327 million people in the United States, of which approximately 78% are over the age of 18, or approx. 255 million people. According to a 2014 Pew Research study, 88% of Americans own a car, or approximately 224 million people. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-and-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777/ According to a Gallup survey, at the end of the 3rd Qtr. of 2019, approximately 40% of Americans, own a gun, stored in their home or on their property. https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx So, doing the math: 40% of 255 million American adults over the age of 18, is just over 102 million American adults who own guns, which is less than half the number of people who own cars. Even taking into account individuals who may own 2 or more cars, the comparison is significant in that your so-called privilege vs. right argument does not matter to a vast majority of Americans who have decided that they need an automobile more than they need a gun.

@Sniper & @silverado427: Criminals do not respect laws and this proposal is not geared towards them. It is aimed at all of us legal gun owners to address the aftermath of unfortunate accidents involving our firearms. If you use your firearm for self-defense, presumably inside your home in NJ, it could result in a very complicated and expensive legal ramifications, that liability insurance coverage may address, depending on how the law is written. I am a law-abiding citizen and I buy and maintain insurance for my home, automobiles and personal property, in addition to general liability and professional E&O liability, not to mention my health/medical insurance. So yes, I do not see a problem with requiring gun owners to have a minimum level of liability insurance. AVB-AMG

(Deleted Duplicate Post....)

@Mrs. Peel & @Cemeterys Gun Blob: Apparently, you both are missing the bigger picture of what liability insurance is for. I never said, nor do I believe that requiring gun owners to have liability insurance would either prevent or reduce gun violence, let alone gun-related crimes. What it would do is provide the “price to pay” to gun violence victims and/or their family as a form of restitution or a form of compensation for their injury or loss. Of course, if the injury or death occurs as a result of the person committing a crime then the courts would relieve the insurance company from paying anything. This proposed insurance basically accepts that our society is not really going to succeed in eliminating gun violence, but is a vehicle to attempt to address the results in a compassionate and meaningful manner. Mrs. Peel: You make a good point in my semantics, that my choice of words was flawed. I should have omitted “steadily increasing”, as well as the word “mounting”. By removing those, my point is clearer and valid. AVB-AMG

@voyager9 Your argument stated above, makes no sense in this case..... The corollary to your argument is that you can buy a car but if you don't drive it then you do not need to buy and maintain liability insurance for it. Not that many people buy cars and do not drive them. Those who have multiple cars, including old cars, may not drive them, but if they want to legally drive them on public roads then they must also be currently registered, which means that they are also required to have liability insurance, even if they drop the collision coverage to save money. Regarding the professions, once one obtains the necessary academic degree, along with meeting the minimum time requirement working in their respective profession of medicine, law, architecture or engineering, they are then eligible to take their respective State's licensing exam. They must successfully pass that exam in its entirety, which tests for minimum competency in various parts of their field, before they will be granted that license/registration to legally practice their profession in that state. While some people go to college/university and earn a degree in medicine, architecture or engineering and end up not practicing, they are in the minority and not part of the greater point that these professionals need to obtain and maintain professional liability insurance in order to practice their trade/profession, privately or publicly, where it involves and/or may impact the life safety and health of other people. Yes, an exemption for farm vehicles may be appropriate, but it is a fraction of 1% of all vehicles in the state of NJ and hence a non-factor. Regarding general aviation (GA) liability insurance for private plane ownership, it does vary from state to state with approx. ten (10) states requiring it. Annual premiums for GA liability insurance vary depending on the type of aircraft insured and a pilot’s experience. In NJ, an annual premium for aircraft owners and operators for a common 4-seat Cessna 172 aircraft can range from $300 to $600 for a policy that provides $1 million in coverage per accident, with a limit of $100,000 for each accident victim AVB-AMG

@ChrisJM981: In NJ, I would speculate that most people do not visit, let alone own, extensive tracts of private land, to drive their cars on. Most normal sane residents use their automobiles for basic transportation to get from their home to their workplace and other destinations, using public roads, streets and highways. Also, in your silly hypothetical scenario, in order to be legal, they would have to somehow transport their uninsured and hence illegal car from their home to that private property, where the owner has granted them permission to drive on their land. That would be a royal PITA! So much for "enjoying" that process.... AVB-AMG