Underdog 1,593 Posted October 21, 2019 In order to make a statement and to stick it to citizens, Governor Murphy is banning insurance to gun owners to make it more difficult and costly for them to defend themselves in the event that they need to defend themselves. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/dangerous-and-unconstitutional-nj-governor-bans-sale-of-insurance-to-gun-owners/ Further attempts by a Leftist, Socialist to use the system to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted October 21, 2019 He looks like Mr. Burns, of the Simpsons, in that picture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio64 5,120 Posted October 21, 2019 This does not affect us in any practical way. The thread title is as misleading click baity as the article. It is for concealed carry, and we all know about that. Beaver puss is doing this in support of other states, like NY, that want to limit gun owners ability to protect themselves financially, in the event they have to protect their own lives. It's designed to kill the NRA insurance program and deny the NRA revenue. Maybe the puss should do away with insurance for police departments, since, yanno, it only encourages cops to go around shooting people (NOT!). Really, the people this affects the most are retired cops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Underdog 1,593 Posted October 21, 2019 There are products in this state to protect gun owners not only with self-defense issues inside the home, but also with many other gun-related, unConstitutional and egredious laws such as possession offenses, etc. Addiitonally, I would imagine that private security and LEOs might partake in these additional insurances. So, Scorpio, if it doesn't affect you, then you are OK with it? OK with the bumpstock ban? Perhaps you had elected only to purchase guns with 10-round magazines? With NJ's malfecense, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't affect Home Owner's policies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio64 5,120 Posted October 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, Underdog said: So, Scorpio, if it doesn't affect you, then you are OK with it? OK with the bumpstock ban? Perhaps you had elected only to purchase guns with 10-round magazines? Non sequitur. I never said I was okay with it, or any of the anti 2A BS for that matter. What I did say was the order is for show only. How many CCW holders are there in NJ? Most of them are judges, prosecutors, demonrat fat cat campaign contributors (ya, no quid pro quo going on there). Smurphy may as well add denial of insurance to everyone that owns nukes. The thread title is misleading, suggesting that everyone who owns guns cannot get insurance, when it only affects people with a CCW. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted October 21, 2019 "to prohibit and/or limit the sale, procurement, marketing, or distribution of insurance products that may serve to encourage the improper use of firearms" IMO, it is to scare the insurance companies, not the gun owners.. The insurance companies shouldn't fold so easily, and should fight the law if it comes for them. NY and NJ got the NRA and affiliated insurance through some stupid loophole about being licensed in the state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
revenger 472 Posted October 21, 2019 " insurance products that may serve to encourage the improper use of firearms," what is improper about using a gun to defend yourself and how does this encourage it? Using his perverted theory wouldn't car insurance fall into the same category or flood insurance, the availability of flood insurance encourages morons to build in flood prone areas. I cant believe this has not been brought before a court . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 21, 2019 It’s another attempt to make everything about our guns illegal or unobtainable except the guns themselves. He’s living up to his lies when he says he supports our right to have a gun and he won’t take them away. We just will not be able to use it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downtownv 1,764 Posted October 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Pizza Bob said: He looks like Mr. Burns, of the Simpsons, in that picture. He looks like a Douche Bag in EVERY picture 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Underdog 1,593 Posted October 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Scorpio64 said: Non sequitur. I never said I was okay with it, or any of the anti 2A BS for that matter. What I did say was the order is for show only. How many CCW holders are there in NJ? Most of them are judges, prosecutors, demonrat fat cat campaign contributors (ya, no quid pro quo going on there). Smurphy may as well add denial of insurance to everyone that owns nukes. The thread title is misleading, suggesting that everyone who owns guns cannot get insurance, when it only affects people with a CCW. I disagree. It is vague and can cause a lot of problem s. It has more potential vi tims than just ccw. Those clowns would define improper use as private ownership. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted October 22, 2019 42 minutes ago, Underdog said: I disagree. It is vague and can cause a lot of problem s. It has more potential vi tims than just ccw. Those clowns would define improper use as private ownership. There is some serious implications if a court ever upheld such a law/regulation. Imagine suing an insurance company for a vehicle if a driver killed someone with that kinda of precedence. If an insurance company is held liable for promoting reckless behavior in their coverage, that kinda applies across the board.. They seem to have made little to no distinction as to why guns are an outlier here, and why only insurance with guns is the issue.. In higher courts, it would be interesting to see how a state could justify that bias. The sad part is these insurance companies are folding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted October 22, 2019 I have CCW Safe. It is not an insurance contract, hence not subject to regulation by the State of N.J. In fact, it is far superior to any insurance contract you can purchase because it also covers expert fees which most do not. Also, it is doubtful that what Murphy is doing by executive order is even constitutional. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted October 22, 2019 This whole thing is pretty weird because one of the demands among anti-gunners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to carry insurance, similar to car insurance, an analogy they are fond of using. And yet, they then turn around and call it "murder insurance." I'm pretty sure this would eventually be found unconstitutional, but NJ just makes laws, and the Constitution be damned. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
louu 399 Posted October 22, 2019 Does this effect me and my US law shield? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted October 22, 2019 Yet another move to look like you're trying to do something without actually addressing a root issue. Wanna reduce gun-related crime? Get to the root of the problem! 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
father-of-three 235 Posted October 22, 2019 Self defense is not "improper use of a firearm," but I clearly hold the minority viewpoint in a "democracy" run by Democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted October 22, 2019 23 hours ago, Scorpio64 said: How many CCW holders are there in NJ? Most of them are judges, prosecutors, demonrat fat cat campaign contributors Just like the mag laws, he'll screw all the retired LEOs too. We look at them as cops but if they have to fire their weapon they no longer have the backing of the township, state or unions. They need it as much as anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted October 23, 2019 On 10/21/2019 at 8:32 PM, Old Glock guy said: This whole thing is pretty weird because one of the demands among anti-gunners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to carry insurance, similar to car insurance, an analogy they are fond of using. And yet, they then turn around and call it "murder insurance." I'm pretty sure this would eventually be found unconstitutional, but NJ just makes laws, and the Constitution be damned. Yes, that was pointed out as why insurance requirements were bullshit. And gee.. look. They also said that red flag laws wouldn't be abused and we already have multiple instances of them being used to threaten and suppress opposition speech. Imagine that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted November 4, 2019 On 10/22/2019 at 4:08 PM, BobA said: Just like the mag laws, he'll screw all the retired LEOs too. We look at them as cops but if they have to fire their weapon they no longer have the backing of the township, state or unions. They need it as much as anyone else. HAHAHA!!!! I didn't think of that. Now retired LEO's and houty touty are just as vulnerable as anybody else. Only thing that could help them is having a judge toss any lawsuit against them now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,289 Posted November 4, 2019 Did you all listen to Anthony Colandro? Jersey is planning to be the first state to ban ALL SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLES! EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET OUT AND VOTE!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted November 4, 2019 On 10/21/2019 at 10:58 PM, louu said: Does this effect me and my US law shield? Yes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted November 4, 2019 12 hours ago, JohnnyB said: Did you all listen to Anthony Colandro? Jersey is planning to be the first state to ban ALL SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLES! EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET OUT AND VOTE!!! He say this on his podcast? You recall which episode? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted November 4, 2019 11 minutes ago, Cemeterys Gun Blob said: He say this on his podcast? You recall which episode? The latest 2 I believe, Ep. 440 and Ep. 441: https://gunforhire.com/radio/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,278 Posted November 4, 2019 On 10/21/2019 at 10:58 PM, louu said: Does this effect me and my US law shield? I assume Nappen is still hawking the insurance...has anyone been to one of his seminars since the executive order? I’m interested in what he had to say about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,793 Posted November 4, 2019 1 hour ago, 10X said: I assume Nappen is still hawking the insurance...has anyone been to one of his seminars since the executive order? I’m interested in what he had to say about it. They say US law shield is a legal service, not insurance, and is not affected by the executive order. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites