It’s a new year. Our mailbox did not survive New Year’s Eve. We arose yesterday morning to discover it was laying on it’s side. We share that mailbox with a number of neighbors. Fortunately, we still able to retrieve our mail. With the consolidation of mail delivery from Raymore to Belton, our mail now arrives after dark. Before the consolidation our mail arrived before noon. Perhaps it’s just as well. We receive less and less real mail. It it weren’t for the coupons and ads we probably wouldn’t bother checking the box at all.
The libs are at it again. After the large negative response to their latest gun grabbing scheme from Senator Feinstein, they are trying a new tactic—mandatory liability insurance. As usual, this will only affect the law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will ignore this new law like they ignore all the rest.
Law on liability insurance eyed for gun owners
Idea resurfaces after Newtown killings
By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times, Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Hoping to get beyond the debate over new gun-control laws, a group of economists and legal scholars is floating another plan they say could cut down on spree shootings: require all gun owners to carry liability insurance, similar to what automobile owners must have.
The plan, which was floated in Illinois’ legislature in 2009, draws the ire of gun-rights groups who say it infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners. But backers say it offers a way to ferret out potentially dangerous or unstable criminals from the ranks of gun owners without having the federal government enact outright bans.
The horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. last month ignited a new national debate over gun law, but the liability insurance proposal may not have prevented that tragedy. Shooter Adam Lanza used firearms owned by his mother to kill her and then 26 children and administrators at the school before taking his own life.
“If you own a gun, you should expect some due diligence of all people who own guns,” said Tricia Dunlap, a Richmond-based lawyer. “We can stop debating about whether you can own a gun, because of course you can. Do we ban assault weapons? No, it doesn’t work. God, we’ve been having that debate for 20 years. Can we come at it from a fresh angle?”
So what do we really have here? Another tax. Some libs tried to sue the state of Connecticut after the NewTown shootings. The state replied that school safety wasn’t their responsibility but that of the local city and school district. The libs and their trial lawyer buds must have someone to sue and you can’t get money from ordinary people—you need someone with deep pockets…like insurance companies. Those insurance companies will, of course, pass the cost along to the gun owner.
It doesn’t matter than gun-owners are already liable if they misuse their firearms. The issue is who has money the libs and lawyers can
steal acquire if they sue? Your average gun-owner doesn’t have pockets all that deep. This bill will provide a suitable (sueable?) source of money.