Liberals Want to Require Gun Liability Insurance

If you can’t register and limit guns; regulate and buy up all the ammunition or require law abiding people to buy gun liability insurance or some other add-on mandate. Liberals can always find ways to limit our constitutional freedoms while at the same creating freedoms that do not exist like killing pre-born babies and legitimizing and legalizing homosexual marriage.

Gun liability insurance is the new anti-freedom legislation being proposed by a Democrat.

New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced legislation in March along with eight other Democrats that will be “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”

Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they can purchase a firearm that is their right under the Constitution.

Failure to comply with the gun liability insurance law will mean a fine of $10,000:

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.”

Will the law cover people who steal guns or use them unlawfully? It will. Will criminals who steal and use guns illegally care about the law? They won’t. They’re criminals! The definition of a criminal is someone who commits a crime.

As we’ve seen with Columbine and Newtown, the criminals killed themselves. I guess Rep. Maloney would try to collect the fine post-mortem.

In fact, there’s a good chance that gun thefts will increase as a result of the law. If a person needs liability insurance before he can buy a gun, thieves will circumvent the law by purchasing firearms illegally or stealing guns from people who purchase them legally.

There is also the issue of having to purchase gun liability insurance in order to exercise a constitutional right guaranteed under the Second Amendment:

“Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told The Daily Caller that the bill is ‘ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right.’”

There’s the recent story of a woman who was forced at knifepoint to a cemetery and then raped. Will we see knife liability insurance next? The knife didn’t commit the crime. The rapist did. Who would be liable under a Knife Risk Protection Act if the knife was stolen?

I propose that members of the press, who are protected by the First Amendment, should have to purchase insurance in order to work for a newspaper, magazine, TV station, or cable channel. I think background checks should be mandatory as well.

Why are there so many restrictions on the Second Amendment and not so many on the First? Can you imagine what would happen if restrictions were placed on the media? They would go ballistic and cite the First Amendment until they were blue in the face.

In addition to insurance and background checks, people who work in the media should be required to demonstrate that they are responsible with their freedom to write about other people. They may do irreparable harm to a person — killing their reputation — if they exercise their First Amendment rights in an irresponsible way.