Jump to content
Cemeterys Gun Blob

NJ A6003 - Require Insurance for Firearms ownership

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, remixer said:

I got a great idea...  In your opinion Heathcare is a right and should be provided by the government...

Exactly.  This goes to my argument that the government should provide free firearms to those that cannot afford them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tomk62 said:

Exactly.  This goes to my argument that the government should provide free firearms to those that cannot afford them.

without question....

If you consider healthcare is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution or bill or rights and firearms are... it seems the law is very clear....

i cannot see anyone having an issue with this.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJBeretta said:

And how exactly does your plan differ from the plans (once offered by Lockton and Chubb) that Cuomo and his minions just went after this past year?

 @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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, remixer said:

Let me be clear... I have changed my opinion on AVB's mandated gun insurance program.

1. My required insurance is to be funded by the tax payer.
2. My self defense firearm is to be funded by the tax payer.

Those who do not accept my right to self defense will still need to pay for my rights.

@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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 1:05 AM, AVB-AMG said:

 

@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

I do not see a problem with requiring all US residents to have a minimum level of life insurance. Solves the problem of requiring liability insurance and puts the responsibility where it belongs. On each individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RUTGERS95 said:

there is nothing equal about hc and to think it's a basic right is beyond absurd.  applying the logic of hc to firearms is equally retarded

@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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand further on whether or not healthcare is a “Right” we need to know what exactly is a “Right”…..

I pulled out some of my old college philosophy textbooks for context and precedent and re-discovered that historically, Rights, in their proper philosophical context, pertained to freedom of action, not to material goods or services. They were believed to exist because of our rational nature as human beings, which is guided by certain human rights principles that affirm and prioritize the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings. When we say that something is a “right”, it describes a relationship between individuals and also requires us to consider what are our obligations to each other, as well as the government’s obligations to its citizens.

Basically, a “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person’s freedom of action in a social context.  We all know the phrase, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, from our Declaration of Independence, referring to the unalienable rights given to all humans by their creator and which our government must protect.  IMHO, I interpret that phrase to specifically mean the following:

  • The right to life means one has the moral right to their own life, which I believe includes the right to access fresh air, clean water and food, but not to have it provided to you.
     
  • The right to liberty means one has the moral right to act by their own judgement and make their own choices in life.
     
  • The right to property means one has the moral right to go out in the world, earn and acquire property, and have a moral claim on the use and control of that property. (It doesn’t mean a right to be given property from others).
     
  • The right to the “pursuit of happiness” means one has the moral right to pursue their chosen purpose and fulfillment in life.

Other freedoms, like speech and religion, all derive from the right to life. While there are many different rights, they all have one thing in common; they impose no obligation or burden on anyone. The right to free speech simply means no one may use force to prevent that action. The right to practice religious beliefs means no one may forcibly prevent others from worshiping. 

I believe that not only is healthcare both a need and consumer good, but that in this day and age, all U.S. citizens should also have the “right” to have access to healthcare. This right should not be confused or construed to mean that unlimited healthcare goods and services should be provided to everyone.  Over the past decade we all have certainly participated in the debate as to how to best provide healthcare to our citizens, whether or not it is the U.S. for-profit system where you get what you pay for, or a state-run universal system paid for via taxes.

I do not agree with the early 20th Century philosophical movement of Social Darwinism and the subsequent Medical Darwinism, (survival of the healthier, or wealthier, fittest), that was used to justify both the horrific Armenian genocide, as well as the Holocaust. It contributed, or at least encouraged the acceptance of the concept of healthcare as a privilege available only to those with the financial means to afford it.

Yet I realize that even if healthcare is a right, we have to accept that there has to be some acceptable baselines established.  We need to accept that no one has a right to make poor decisions regarding their health and then expect others to bear the costs to treat the results.  Also, realistically, we have to acknowledge that our resources are limited, and therefore choices have to be made as to what is covered and to what extent, (level of care and maximum cost expenditure).  The challenging task of our democratic society is to define those limits, providing a morally minimum level of healthcare services, as well as not letting an unregulated free market ration access to those rights through price. 

Cynically, I also know that in our country, we have basically legislated and created a "right" to healthcare by forcing our hospitals to care for any patient who appears on their property, (@Zeke, say thank you Ronald Reagan....), whether or not that patient can or ever will pay for the services provided to them. In essence, we are all paying for the healthcare of everyone who doesn't pay. Our current U.S. health insurance quagmire just makes all of this worse. When insurance companies work out deals with Doctors and Hospitals to pay only a fraction of their bills, that drives up the rates for everyone, especially the uninsured or underinsured who are expected to pay the full price.

Recognizing the good intentions of, (yes I said it again @Mrs. Peel….), yet also the glaring failures of the ACA, I believe that we need to institute a so-called, low-level universal plan with hard cutoffs.  This plan would cover ER visits, preventive care, dental care and basic healthcare needs. Beyond that, the private insurance coverage would kick in, where each of us will have decided for ourselves just what "extras" we want to pay for.  Beyond the basic universal care, if you aren't covered or can't pay, then no treatment will be given.  I know that sound very harsh, but it lets everyone make their own decisions about their health, while still providing the “right” to a base level of healthcare.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@remixer:

Now you are just being silly......  Ha, Ha.

So I'm being silly for stating the government should fund what is a "right" when it was a response to you stating the government should fund what you "consider a right"?   Thats a fantastic concept.

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.

See what you did...... " If you cannot afford a firearm then you will not get one... period"    So the right to bear arms is only for the rich or those who can afford to exercise that right.  Sounds very much like the healthcare debate or better yet abortion.

 

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?

This is where is differ. The right to to bear arms is spelled out clearly in the constitution....  I see no where in our constitution the statement "human right of affordable quality healthcare" In fact i don't see anything even close to that... Would you mind pointing that out to me...  

just for the record.....  Having the right to healthcare is not the same as having the right to someone else paying for your healthcare.  Would you like me to explain?

 

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.

So your idea is lets make healthcare better by supplying it to more people even though it would in the end cause more people to have less quality healthcare...   The problem with socialists is Numbers make it better HC not the results of the treatment.

 

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

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW the issue of Gun owners needing insurance can be solved by one simple law.


Those and the family of those who are Injured or Deleted while in the act of a crime are ineligible to seek any civil case against those who were acting in self defense. Anyone acting in self defense would be immune from civil law suits.

That would put the burden on the criminal and not the law abiding citizen.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remixer said:

BTW the issue of Gun owners needing insurance can be solved by one simple law.

Those and the family of those who are Injured or Deleted while in the act of a crime are ineligible to seek any civil case against those who were acting in self defense. Anyone acting in self defense would be immune from civil law suits.

That would put the burden on the criminal and not the law abiding citizen.

@remixer (as well as @silverado427 & @ChrisJM981):

If only it were that simple......
Even if a Federal law were to be passed that would do what you say it would, in all likelihood, they would not be "immune from civil lawsuits".  In the U.S. legal system, there would still have to be a trial by either a Judge or Jury to determine whether or not the inevitable charged crime was in fact committed or not.  During that trial the gun owner who used their gun inside their home and caused either injury or death to another person, would still have to prove that they did in fact use their gun in self-defense in the process of attempting to prevent a criminal act.   Therefore, the point that I have made several times now is still valid, which is that the gun owner will still have to spend a large amount of their money to pay for lawyers to represent them in that court case, providing their legal defense.  The cost of those legal services would be covered by my envisioned Gun liability insurance, described earlier.

With your thinking, it appears that you are really advocating that the U.S. legal system, derived from historical precedent, now abandon its long accepted sacred principal of the maxim that "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty....", where the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime(s) that have been charged are true.  Is that the case....???

AVB-AMG

P.S. - See my earlier post on explaining and defining what is a "right", where I have answered most of your other questions noted in your previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@remixer (as well as @silverado427 & @ChrisJM981):

If only it were that simple......
Even if a Federal law were to be passed that would do what you say it would, in all likelihood, there would still have to be a trial by either a Judge or Jury to determine whether or not a crime was committed. 

If the person defending themselves are not prosecuted then it was justified.

During that trial the gun owner who used their gun inside their home and caused either injury or death to another person, would still have to prove that they did in fact use their gun in self-defense to prevent a criminal act.   Therefore, the point that I have made several times now is still valid, which is that the gun owner will still have to spend a large amount of his money to pay for lawyers to represent him in that court case, providing his legal defense.  That legal services cost would be covered by my envisioned Gun liability insurance.

With your thinking, it appears that you are really advocating that the U.S. legal system, derived from historical precedent, now abandon its long accepted sacred principal of the maxim that "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty....", where the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime(s) that have been charged are true.  Is that the case....???

That's what you came up with?

Just as a death during a car accident if the driver is not charged with a crime (drunk driving etc etc) he is innocent.

I do find it amusing that someone from some party who has called the president a criminal from the morning of the election is not quoting ""a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty...." FFS stay consistent .

 

AVB-AMG

P.S. - See my earlier post on explaining and defining what is a "right", where I have answered most of your other questions noted in your previous post.

 

25 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

P.S. - See my earlier post on explaining and defining what is a "right", where I have answered most of your other questions noted in your previous post.

From what i can tell a "right" is what you or your party thinks is it... regardless if its an actual right stated in our constitution.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, remixer said:

If the person defending themselves are not prosecuted then it was justified.

Just as a death during a car accident if the driver is not charged with a crime (drunk driving etc etc) he is innocent.

From what i can tell a "right" is what you or your party thinks is it... regardless if its an actual right stated in our constitution.

@remixer:

I am afraid that your thinking, based on your quoted statements above, is not logical, nor correct, since it still ignores what most likely will subsequently occur after a so-called self-defense shooting in one’s home.

It does not matter if you believe that the gun owner should or should not be charged with committing a crime in the act of self-defense. Even if someone, in this hypothetical case, a gun owner who uses their gun in self-defense, somehow miraculously is not charged with a crime, (highly doubtful!), or if they were and they were found “not guilty”, they could still be sued in Civil Court.  The surviving family of the deceased “robber” could bring a “wrongful death” civil lawsuit or in some states a “survival action” civil lawsuit against the gun owner, even if there was no criminal charge brough against them.  In that suit, the Plaintiff, (surviving family), could even sue for punitive damages. Even if the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff, to show that the Defendant (gun owner), was negligent in causing the deceased’s death, there will still be a trial in civil court, where the gun owner will have to participate. So, the issue still remains that the gun owner will have to fork out mega-bucks to pay for their legal defense.  That is why there still remains a real need for Gun liability insurance to pay for this legal bill.

BTW, my stated definition of “Right or Rights” transcends political party beliefs and preferences and is based on historical precedence and acceptance.  The nuance I have been describing is between human vs. Constitutional rights.  I recognize that human rights transcend citizenship and reflect a much broader value system pertaining to social, economic and cultural rights in how people relate to each other.  I also understand that rights stated in the U.S. Constitution are mainly civil, legal and political rights, dictating how our government relates to people.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, remixer said:

BTW the issue of Gun owners needing insurance can be solved by one simple law.


Those and the family of those who are Injured or Deleted while in the act of a crime are ineligible to seek any civil case against those who were acting in self defense. Anyone acting in self defense would be immune from civil law suits.

That would put the burden on the criminal and not the law abiding citizen.

That's exactly what we have in SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grand juries normally determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with a criminal trial. I believe evidence for a civil trial is presented to a judge who determines if a lawsuit can proceed. The burden of proof should be on the criminal, not the homeowner. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just so we are clear.

what i get from this is the following.

Gun ownership is a constitutional right.  But you need to be able to afford to exercise it or no rights for you.
Healthcare is NOT a constitutional right but a human right to some and should be paid for by the tax payer.

Sounds like a buncha bullshit to me.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AVB-AMG said:

@remixer:

I also understand that rights stated in the U.S. Constitution are mainly civil, legal and political rights, dictating how our government relates to people.

AVB-AMG

Technically - so we're on the same page here - the rights specifically enshrined in the first ten amendments are inherent rights of the people that cannot be taken away by government.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChrisJM981 said:

Grand juries normally determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with a criminal trial. I believe evidence for a civil trial is presented to a judge who determines if a lawsuit can proceed. The burden of proof should be on the criminal, not the homeowner. 

Agreed - normally burden of proof lies with the prosecutor (criminal) or plaintiff (civil); the defendant doesn't even have to open his/her mouth if desired.

And since the $hitbag (or his/her relations) would theoretically file the suit, good luck convincing a judge to award in their favor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@remixer

Merry Christmas to all of you......especially to you remixer.
While I know it is not your faith, I found the perfect Christmas gift for you to wear while doing your "trigger test", as well as to all of the holiday parties that you have been invited to:
AVB-AMG

Image result for Santa Claus with gun

LOL i like it..

 

but i already got this ordered

 

71yjcv5SY7L._UL1024_.thumb.jpg.0ead74919aa030ee8ae5d9205c87ed21.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 1:13 AM, AVB-AMG said:

@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

I've tried to give you the benefit of doubt for a lot and I think this is the first time I've directly countered one of your posts. And I certainly try not to get personal over differences of opinions. But this one just pisses me off too much!

You're saying that a 22 yr old female college student should be denied the right of self defense because she can not afford insurance? Or a 70 yr old on a fixed budget?

If you truly believe that, then you deserve everything you have been called, and then some. I suppose you think Carole Brown deserved to be murdered too?

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kc17 said:

I've tried to give you the benefit of doubt for a lot and I think this is the first time I've directly countered one of your posts. And I certainly try not to get personal over differences of opinions. But this one just pisses me off too much!

You're saying that a 22 yr old female college student should be denied the right of self defense because she can not afford insurance? Or a 70 yr old on a fixed budget?

If you truly believe that, then you deserve everything you have been called, and then some. I suppose you think Carole Brown deserved to be murdered too?

 

I'll pre-counter what I anticipate to be @AVB-AMG 's response.

The 22 yr old inherited the handgun and ammo from her deceased father. The 70 yr old has owned his/her firearm for nearly 50 years, back before liberals decided only the rich were allowed the right of self defense.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 10:44 PM, Sniper said:

Didn't that already happen with 30 round mags, down to 15 round mags, down to 10 round mags (plus the other unconstitutional crap)?

If you have a FID card, you're already registered.

I was referring to the specific firearms.  Having a FID does not prove you own a firearm. Stating on an insurance form that you own brand X with SN ....  proves you own that specific firearm.  That... kind of registry.

Again... does anyone actually believe dems in this state have concerns about the liability issues related to defensive gun use?  In fact.... how many cases of defensive gun use by a legal gun owner have there been in the last couple of years???  
This is just another tool in making it more difficult to own a gun and a way to take guns away from lawful gun owners.

Even if it passes I would expect a compliance rate similar to that of 10 round mags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys are dopes for engaging this guy.  Not only is his rationale selective but he's totally goading you guys.  Who's the fool, the pied piper or the followers?  respectfully

the insurance is something that even liberal states will have shot down in the courts. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 1:12 AM, AVB-AMG said:

@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

Screw the UN - get the jist.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...