Illinois Considering Law Requiring Gun Owners To Carry $1,000,000 In Insurance

• February 17, 2009

The gun control nuts know they’ll never be able to ban guns entirely. They know that not only is public opinion against them, the Supreme Court has also upheld the 2nd amendment as an individual right. But they’re taking a cue from the anti-smoking gestapo. If you can’t ban it, regulate it to death. Make it so difficult to purchase, own and carry a gun that even people who would be inclined to do those things won’t because they don’t want to deal with the hassle.
The latest effort in that vein is this law which would require gun owners to carry a $1,000,000 insurance policy.

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.

I’m sure trial lawyers and insurance brokers are drooling at the idea of this law. Millions of gun owners having to open up new insurance policies? Million dollar policies available for trial lawyers to sue every time a stolen gun is used in a crime? It’s a dream for those people.
A nightmare for practitioners of 2nd amendment rights, however. Which is the whole point.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Guns, Politics

http://Array SigFan

A friend who is a PA State Trooper and defensive firearms instructor was telling me that he advises people who own firearms to carry a large liability insurance policy, and if they can afford it to put an attorney on retainer to provide for your defense should you ever have to use a firearm. This applies even to the legitimate use in defending yourself or family. His point is that even if your use was justified, you will be charged, and will be sued. While the charges may be cleared after investigation, you can bet that someone in the perp’s family is going to sue you for “wrongful death” because “he was just a misunderstood, troubled boy”. BS all the way, but reality in our litigation happy world.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that this is an end-around by those who know they cannot ignore the Constitution publicly, but can couch this as “reasonable gun-control legislation”, the exact words used by Hope-a-Dope to describe his position on gun control.
http://www.triskele.com/ Mike The Actuary

While million-dollar umbrella liability policies are cheap, they probably won’t be sufficient to comply with the proposed law.

Liability policies don’t generally cover damages arising from “willful negligence” — acts you know are negligient, but you engage in anyway.

“Willful negligence” is generally considered uninsurable, since that sort of coverage removes some of the disincentive from behaving badly.

Insurance is intended to protect people from accidental, unexpected events. It’s not supposed to be a license to behave badly.
Bill

If they do sue, hit them with a nuisance suit triple of their amount. They just may back off.
Nick Mendoza

My opinion = our forefather’s were not perfect. They knew tyranny. 2nd. Amendment keeps our freedoms!

I would ask the State of Illinois to pay 1 million dollars for every gun victim that could not defend themselves.

Would transfer to immediate family in case of death.

Also, for every convicted felon released = State of Illinois must carry a 1 million dollars liability insurance. Most come back!

Criminals will not get insurance so the state will have to take responsibity that we are being asked to take.
Mickey

In other words, buy your guns used at gun show with cash and don’t report it.
tothestars2

Isn’t the 2nd ammendment our “insurance policy”?
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

I guess what makes the fight tougher is because not all gunners have it so rough.

Living in a 2d Amendment-friendly state tends to lull them into a false sense of complacency.

Locally, there have been three violent criminals, in three separate events, plugged by our armed citizenry. One involved an armed citizen interceding when a dark-skinned assailant decided it would be cool to beat an older woman convenience store clerk with a metal pipe.

The video showed him wailing on her and her screaming. Then a young guy comes in, yells at him to stop. When the African-American criminal chose to ignore the armed citizen and continue beating his victim, the video sound plays what sounds like two firecrackers going off.

Bad guy slumps to the ground — his body now worm-food and soul on its way to Hell.

The local news stations and top cops are giving the armed citizens atta-boys.

When in Miami, I recall hearing news reports about how a very young trio of Bad Boyz held up a convenience store for Skittles, then shot the complying attendant in the face, just to do it.

Later, in another robbery, the news shows played a loop of an armed attendant doing a quick draw from his side of the counter and ending the stinking life of the puke that was holding a gun to him.

The loop concluded with the local PD’s public affairs officer stating matter-of-factly that the attendant did good.

Makes me wonder why anyone would want to live in a state where the the Bill of Rights are Void Where Prohibited.

(NOT a local news event, but one like the ones described above. )
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Well I have a million dollars of general liability insurance and it’s not that expensive. I would imagine that a policy strictly for firearms ought to not be too expensive.

What really bothers me is the idea that liability stays with the gunowner if their gun is stolen. That’s seems very very wrong.

Also what happens if my gun is stolen in ND and transported to Illinois. Can I be sued?

Anyway the purpose of this law is transparent. It’s to abridge our rights to keep and bear arms so it’s clearly unconstitutional.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

The only worthwhile gun control is hitting what you aim at the first time.

And anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice!
Neiman

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
betti

No, I’m not surprised that he’s part of the insurance committee (that just makes more sense) – My only hope is that more people become aware of what is going on and ‘step in’ – We can’t afford (especially now) to lose our 2nd amendment rights
SigFan

Suitepotato and Proof – a variation on your statements.

“Gun control means never having to say “I missed you.”"
rams_1_again

Does anyone else find it interesting that the Representative from Illinois, Kenneth Duncan, that introduced this attack on our 2nd amendment rights is also a member of the insurance committee? More corrupt Illinois politicians looking out for their own interest? Say it ain’t so.
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

The only worthwhile gun control is hitting what you aim at the first time.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Illinois Considering Law Requiring Gun Owners To Carry $1,000,000 In Insurance

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments