After Obamacare coercion, now feds want to force Americans to buy 'gun insurance'

Monday, April 08, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: gun ownership, gun insurance, Second Amendment

(NaturalNews) For years the progressive political Left in America anguished over the fact that it was losing the gun control issue, as the so-called "assault weapons" ban was allowed to sunset on the federal level and state after state passed measures into law permitting concealed carry of firearms.

But following a tide of horrific shootings - which, despite their high-profile treatment in the media are still very rare incidents - the Left has renewed its push to grab your guns. Emboldened by a wave of sympathy for the tiny victims of the Newtown, Conn., shootings and by a president who is, by far, the most left-wing chief executive in a generation, are seeking new laws and new legal tools to separate you from your Second Amendment.

One of the latest anti-gun schemes comes from U.S. Rep. Carolyn Mahoney, from the gun-grabbing state of New York. In late March she introduced H.R. 1369, the "Firearm Risk Protection Act," which mandates that all gun owners must obtain liability insurance before purchasing a gun.

"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," says the bill.

The legislation defines "qualified liability insurance" as policies that cover the "purchaser specifically for losses resulting from the use of a firearm while it is owned by the purchaser." The Daily Caller reported that buyers of firearms would have to obtain insurance from, naturally, a company authorized or licensed by the state. And, of course, her bill exempts police, military and government employees of various departments and agencies.

Non-compliance carries a heavy fine (because it would be considered "a gun crime") - a fine of $10,000 for any gun owner caught without insurance (yes, that fine seems excessive to us as well).

Gun violence is the fault of gun owners, don't you know?

Without question - and Maloney knows this - the law would no doubt effectively reduce the number of legal firearms in the country, as well as instantly create yet another new class of criminal (and isn't the political Left always complaining about the high U.S. prison population?) That's because many Americans would choose one of two courses: violate the law because they refuse to purchase, or cannot afford to purchase the insurance; or surrender the firearms to avoid prosecution.

"For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence," Maloney said as she introduced the bill in the House. "My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons."

What she is saying, in essence, is that law-abiding gun owners are responsible for gun violence committed by people who are not law-abiding. Only in D.C. does this kind of sick, twisted logic make any sense.

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, called the law "ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right."

But, he continued, "it does reveal what Rep. McCarthy really thinks about honest people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms."

Hypocrisy aside, they're coming for your guns, period

Naturally, McCarthy is protected by armed Capitol Police and other security apparatuses as an elected member of the Legislative Branch - a privilege she seeks to retain for herself while preventing tens of millions of Americans from protecting and defending themselves.

In case it wasn't painfully obvious to you yet, if you're a gun owner the progressive political left hates you, hates the fact that you don't rely on it for your very existence, and is mortified that you dare to dispute their perceived infinite wisdom. That said, one more thing is painfully obvious: They won't stop coming after your guns until a) they finally have them all; or b) pass as many laws as it takes to make ownership financially impossible.

Sources:

http://dailycaller.com

http://www.infowars.com

http://www.gpo.gov