Mandatory Liability Insurance For Guns? Rep. Maloney Says ‘Yes!’

Representative Carolyn B. Malony (D-NY) has fired yet another volley of shots at the Second Amendment with a proposed bill requiring gun owners to obtain liability insurance. Unsurprisingly, she’s also on the payroll of insurance companies whom have contributed to the order of $88,000 in campaign contributions.

via Washington Times

Rep. Maloney’s The Firearm Risk Protection Act would subject gun owners to a $10,000 fine if they ignored a mandate for liability insurance before obtaining a weapon.

“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns. The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise,” the congresswoman said Friday, the newspaper reported.

What is the public rationale for this?  It turns out Rep. Maloney believes that somehow requiring a nebulous form of insurance for a weapon de-incentives reckless behavior.  Because operating a moving vehicle and a firearm are equivalent ideas in the mind of this representative.

via The Hill

Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners.

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” she said. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”

This Isn’t Their First Rodeo

[ad location=”Posts – Middle Post”]

Anti-gun advocates and the lobbyists that support them have a long history of proposing legislation that restricts the ability to own and carry a firearm.  But are these bills really aimed at stopping criminals?

The same day Rep. Maloney (D-NY) submitted the Firearm Risk Protection Act, she also tried to resuscitate the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act.

via The Hill

The bill would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general.

Maloney said a background check is required when a Federal Firearm Licensee wants to sell firearms at a gun show, but no such requirement exists for private sales.

Gun show operators would be required to register with the attorney general and provide information on upcoming shows, including the identity of all firearm vendors, and keep a record of all vendors’ identities.

So if these measures pass, gun owners will be required to operate under the same restrictions of an FFL without the privileges of one – when it comes to private sales.  It’s completely targeted at removing the concept of a private sale from the picture altogether.  Not only would we then be required to purchase insurance, we would have to feasibly report the manner of transactions done in the process of transferring a pistol or rifle.

This bill wouldn’t touch criminal enterprise.  It would only affect low-to-medium income families and people trying to legally transfer a weapon in exchange for money.  For those already with FFLs and an established storefront, such costs are generally regarded as the cost of business.  This bill is squarely aimed at those whom are not in the firearms industry.

Checkered History of Anti-Gun Legislation: Follow the Money Trail

When was the last time stuff like this got attention?  It was probably when Senator Leland Yee (D-CA) was running for re-election in 2011.  Yee, a staunch democrat with a long history of running anti-gun legislation aimed at restricting California’s ability to the Second Amendment, was on course to run for the Secretary of State position when he was brought up on gun running charges.

That’s right – one of the country’s biggest advocates for tighter restrictions on firearms was charged with criminal racketeering from the FBI, back in 2014, for offering to run guns for criminals.

So, is the issue really people’s personal liability for their firearms?  Or is there a common thread with campaign donations, costly re-election war chests, and dangerously prohibitive bills reaching the floor of Congress?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below!