Jump to content
Cemeterys Gun Blob

NJ A6003 - Require Insurance for Firearms ownership

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tomk62 said:

Given all the other "free" crap the blue politicians hand out ... this idea is not all that crazy, especially since this is a constitutionally protected right.  Equally protected and cherished as free speech and the right to vote.  The constitution says nothing about health care, higher education, etc.

@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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 11:13 AM, remixer said:

What other "RIGHTS" should people need insurance for?

@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FYI - this year, Congress repealed the individual mandate, which means that, moving forward, Americans without health insurance coverage will not be subject to a tax penalty.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

Share this post


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

@remixer:

To answer your question, IMHO….. health care.
We need insurance for that….

While not a Constitutional right, I would argue that health care is a basic human right in our modern country and society.  Yet in the U.S. our approach to health care 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 health care 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 health care 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 health care for its own citizens, yet now requires it from people of other nationalities looking to immigrate to the U.S.  So currently, health care 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

HC is NOT a right... you can disagree but i ask you to point out where in our constitution is says it is.

"legally immigrate to the U.S. must have health insurance" Yes because they dont have rights here.. they are still there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, father-of-three said:

@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

Share this post


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

HC is NOT a right... you can disagree but i ask you to point out where in our constitution is says it is.

@remixer:

I guess you glossed over and missed my first sentence in the first paragraph of my post responding to you....

AVB-AMG

Share this post


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

@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

Moving out of state is not a rational justification for rights-limiting behavior. 
 

show me where this Murder Insurance is meant to be anything but a mechanism to suppress gun ownership as another barrier to entry/continuation. 
 

what liability are you talking about. You have talked about covering “accidents” but also for “gun violence victims”.  
 

assuming you actually mean for this insurance to cover gun violence victims you are woefully misinformed. The insurance companies won’t...and can’t... do anything. Think about it.  If someone breaks into my house and is a legitimate threat then they are not “victims” and no insurance covering the homeowner will accept liability.  If they are not a threat then the homeowner committed a crime by shooting. Something insurance companies are not allowed to cover. So again they can not cover the homeowner and will not accept the claim.   Either way your insurance does nothing. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zeke said:

He’s laughing because he’s playing devils advocate. He’s actually a pretty interesting and intelligent individual 

If he was he'd know that anything involving a convention of states to change the constitution requires a majority that the leftists don't have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

If he was he'd know that anything involving a convention of states to change the constitution requires a majority that the leftists don't have. 

He’ll dodge the debate traps. He’s going for the weakest of the heard.

i guess we could call it trolling though, now that I think about it.

  • Agree 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little late to this game... however, I love (in the loosest sarcastic interpretation) reading the summary of these BS bills...

 

Quote

The bill stipulates that a second or subsequent offense results in a fine of $5,000 and revocation of and disqualification for any permit, identification card, or license to purchase, carry, or possess any firearm for a period of five years.

Last I checked, I didn't need a license to possess anything, let alone a firearm.  The latter has always been contingent upon a person free from any criminal conviction.  Technically, I believe a FPID is required only for eligibility at the point of sale, and not to show lawful possession.

 

Quote

The bill requires persons possessing firearms to carry an insurance identification certificate with the insured firearm, which shall be exhibited to any law enforcement officer on request.  Under the bill, failure to carry or exhibit an insurance identification certificate shall result in the seizure of the firearm and issuance of a summons to the person.

And now exactly how many cars have been seized by LE for those driving either completely without insurance or failure to exhibit documents... both of which will no doubt result in a summons to begin with...

Not to mention that this pesky little thing called the Fourth Amendment gets in the way (well, we hope so - after all, this is the PRNJ)... what probable cause of a felony having been committed is there for a judge to sign off on a search warrant to justify the seizure?

 

I was wary when government mandated (or attempted to, at least) that I purchase health insurance, something far from being enshrined in the Constitution.  To attempt to force someone to pay for a product to exercise a Constitutional right is - as was mentioned earlier - akin to a poll tax.

 

Criminals really are a protected class in the state these days... un-fn-believeable

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, voyager9 said:

what liability are you talking about. You have talked about covering “accidents” but also for “gun violence victims”.  

assuming you actually mean for this insurance to cover gun violence victims you are woefully misinformed. The insurance companies won’t...and can’t... do anything. Think about it.  If someone breaks into my house and is a legitimate threat then they are not “victims” and no insurance covering the homeowner will accept liability.  If they are not a threat then the homeowner committed a crime by shooting. Something insurance companies are not allowed to cover. So again they can not cover the homeowner and will not accept the claim.   Either way your insurance does nothing. 

@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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the point.... Insurance is NOT a bad idea... its unconstitutional to require it to exercise a right.

This is not a question of is this a good idea... this is a question of rights..

The only way Obamacare mandate was upheld was it was argued as a tax.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Zeke said:

@remixer did you make a phone call? Lol

Wait... Who was i calling..
 

Its possible i had a mini stroke between saying i'm calling and actually making the call.

18 hours ago, RUTGERS95 said:

healthcare is not a basic human right

It is in Cuba :)
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think you are missing the point.... Insurance is NOT a bad idea... its not unconstitutional to require it to exercise a right.

This is not a question of is this a good idea... this is a question of rights..

@remixer:

Yes, we both agree on that point.....

AVB-AMG

Share this post


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

Sorry typo.. Its Unconstitutional to require..

But  i think you know what i was saying

:sarcastic:       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

Share this post


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

@voyager9:

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.....

This negates part of your rationale - and I hate to use her as a quote to reference, but Judge Judy is spot-on when she tells people, "You come to court with clean hands".

In other words, there is practically no chance that the judge (or a jury, if the case is big enough) would award a civil suit to the relations of someone who knowingly had partaken in a criminal offense.

Actions have consequences.  And as my wife and I tell our kids, we do not (and should not) reward bad behavior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you enter my home un invited you are a criminal. And you will be dealt with according with equal or overwhelming force.

As a law abiding citizen I shouldn't have to worry about a frivolous law suit from the deceased  criminals family .

As a matter of fact I should be able to sue the  criminals family for raising a useless   P O S. imho.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NJBeretta said:

This negates part of your rationale - and I hate to use her as a quote to reference, but Judge Judy is spot-on when she tells people, "You come to court with clean hands".

In other words, there is practically no chance that the judge (or a jury, if the case is big enough) would award a civil suit to the relations of someone who knowingly had partaken in a criminal offense.

Actions have consequences.  And as my wife and I tell our kids, we do not (and should not) reward bad behavior.

@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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, silverado427 said:

If you enter my home un invited you are a criminal. And you will be dealt with according with equal or overwhelming force.

As a law abiding citizen I shouldn't have to worry about a frivolous law suit from the deceased  criminals family .

As a matter of fact I should be able to sue the  criminals family for raising a useless   P O S. imho.

@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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, silverado427 said:

If you enter my home un invited you are a criminal. And you will be dealt with according with equal or overwhelming force.

As a law abiding citizen I shouldn't have to worry about a frivolous law suit from the deceased  criminals family .

South Carolina gets this right.

http://www.sled.sc.gov/ProtectionOfPeople.aspx?MenuID=CWP

"This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action ..."

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

@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 will not bring that suit 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.    
 

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?

Share this post


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

@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

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

Well along that line of thinking.... Gun ownership is a right...  Your insurance mandate would interfere with my rights if i cannot afford to pay for it.... So why not just make the government provide that insurance as well... in fact i think the government should give me a $500.00 tax credit for my gun... Im sure the antis will have no problem funding my rights.

 

  • Like 4
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • FacePalm 1

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...