Jump to content
Cemeterys Gun Blob

NJ A6003 - Require Insurance for Firearms ownership

Recommended Posts

On 12/8/2019 at 9:39 PM, Kevin125 said:

Or.... if they ever figure out how to make this happen..... and anyone is dumb enough to comply with this unconstitutional nonsense......

it will amount to a registry.

By no means in favor of it (obviously) but doesnt that already exist atleast regarding hand guns because of the permits?



On 12/9/2019 at 8:11 AM, Dave Archibald said:

Why do you think there is no more FTF sales? There is already a registry!  And they make more money on us!

Theres not?  Using that form for long guns?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 12:25 PM, AVB-AMG said:


To answer your question above, most states require by law that all aircraft owner's purchase and maintain aviation liability insurance.
While not an "item", all of us professionals, including Doctors, Architects, Engineers, may be required by some states where we are licensed to purchase and maintain professional liability/indemnification insurance.  As an Architect, my specific insurance is referred to as "Errors and Omissions" (E&O) insurance.

Of course there would be an exception such as the use of dedicated farm vehicles used exclusively on private land, such as a farm, that stay on the farm property or even only use a public road temporarily for access to their farm properties.  But that is a very small number of vehicles which would be exempted in any reasonable law.


This shouldnt be a requirement either. 

It has to be the individual's choice. 

He or she can make a decision if they want to assume personal liability. 

And then a consumer can decide if they want to do business with that person etc. 




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 12:31 PM, AVB-AMG said:


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....


This is just more anti-2A legislation. 

Especially in NJ where you cant even carry. 

You really dont see that?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 11:32 AM, AVB-AMG said:

I know that I am in the minority here on NJGF on this topic but I do believe that we should require ALL gun owners to have liability insurance.  I also think that they would be prudent to also invest in a personal property/articles insurance policy for their firearms. 

Essentially, I think that there should be a federal law, (not state), requiring that all gun owners must purchase and maintain liability insurance for all of their firearms, similar to that required for cars. We allow cars to be driven on public roads but the driver must be insured in case he/she harms someone or damages property. The same should be true for owning and using guns, especially if CCW is eventually allowed nationally.

I recognize and understand that no law is going to eliminate a criminal or a deranged individual who is really intent on obtaining some type of gun and committing crimes, murders or mass-murders.  But I do not believe that we as a civilized society, should do nothing and just accept that the steadily increasing gun-related violence and crime, is the "price" for our freedom.  We should not let the mounting number of deaths that are gun-related continue without attempting to address it, that truly is in ALL of the public's best interest. 


Stop with this "for the greater good" BS.  Otherwise, there would be a LOT more changes "for the greater good", especially with regards to private property depending on the collective's various insane ideas. 

Its not ever increasing, its decreasing with the possible exception of firearm related suicides. 

Another mandate infringing on rights is obviously NOT the way to reduce violence, thats a nonsense excuse to further infringe. 

If government were truly interested in reducing violence, they would address the underlying causes of violence, not simply blame an inanimate object which we all know is just an excuse to push their anti-2A agenda.

And they will never address the true underlying causes of violence because it will force them to take responsibility primarily because they have set the tone for our culture and society by promoting violence and the use of force on every level. 

From the top and their never-ending wars of aggression and imperialism to the local level, their implied approval of heavy handed policing (to put it mildly).  

Ours is a government which embraces and endorses violence and the use of force. 

Can you imagine, these are the same maniacs trying to disarm us...  And stooges like you actually agree...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...