Post by: CP on February 21, 2017, 12:26:47 PM
Concerning liability insurance requirements for firearm owners and purchasers.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5795&Year=2017
Go here and comment:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//5795
Post by: Lincoln4 on February 21, 2017, 12:37:38 PM
Post by: sumpnz on February 21, 2017, 12:51:36 PM
And, as always they exempt government agencies from having to follow the rules for the proles.
Quote
(4) For the purposes of this section, "qualified liability insurance policy" means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that:
(a) Provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and
(b) Is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized by the office of the insurance commissioner to provide the coverage.
So, at least in theory, if this bill passes all they have do to criminalize every gun owner in the state is make it impossible to get the insurance by having the insurance commissioner deny any insurer authorization to provide the coverage. Or, by setting the standards for that insurance so high that it makes it impossible for all but the wealthiest to afford the coverage. Imagine if premiums for the cheapest policy that met the requirements of this bill were $10k per year.
You can so easily see their strategy: Get this through and get the vast majority of gun owners to comply by making it super cheap to start with. Then, have WDFW check for insurance on all hunter contacts, and have a cop stationed at shooting ranges to check insurance. Won't take long and 90% or more of us will feel compelled to buy that coverage. And since it'll start out at probably $50/year or something it's almost not noticeable ($4-5/month). Then rates start to go up. Then anyone that lets it lapse gets charged unless they prove they sold all of their guns. Pretty soon it's approaching $50/month rather than per year. Especially once a kid that got shot by a stolen gun or something gets a $10mil award. As people start selling off their guns to reduce that cost the pool becomes smaller, causing rates to go up more. Before you know it you're paying more for insurance to keep that 12ga for home defense, or that deer rifle, than you are for your 2 cars put together.
Might take 10 or 20 or more years to get to that point, but that's what they're after. They don't give a rip about the people that are hurt that are being used to justify this. They want the control, and this is just their latest ploy to get it.
ETA: Submitted my comment in opposition.
Post by: Henrydog on February 21, 2017, 12:51:51 PM
Post by: cooltimber on February 21, 2017, 01:19:10 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 21, 2017, 11:06:41 PM
OMFG back door anti modern season hunting bans this is. For those that don't want to or wouldn't do this Bow hunting will become their pastime because even if it's not now, if your caught out in the field hunting with a firearm with no Ins. kiss it goodbye, and now you'd probably face criminal charges so goodbye to all your other firearms you may have, and then you'd for sure have to. :bash: :yike:
Post by: konradcountry on February 22, 2017, 10:16:35 AM
Liberals can't admit to themselves that most "gun crime" (a euphemism) doesn't involve typical gun owners or even Washington state.
This is why gun insurance would never work as intended and is not analogous to auto insurance. Accidents happen to everyone but some counties have NEVER had a gun related homicide.
If left to the private market this type of insurance would be a pointless hassle. The insurance companies would happily sell you a policy to pay out damages in the event that your 3006 hunting rifle is used in a homicide because the odds of this are nil. The Democrat monopoly cities where "gun crime" is a major financial burden would not be affected as gangs are not going to sign up for insurance.
But even worse is that liberals would eventually realize how poorly thought out this idea is after it fails in the private market and then demand that the government come in and equalize everything which means redistribution.
I for one am sick of our state being used as a petri dish for liberal ideas. I suspect a big part of the problem is that we have too many Ex-Californians. Much of their state is a mess and now they are escaping to ruin ours.
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 22, 2017, 10:50:25 AM
Post by: jackmaster on February 22, 2017, 10:57:07 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 22, 2017, 12:37:42 PM
Post by: sumpnz on February 22, 2017, 12:45:29 PM
Done. I replied that if the state Congress needs to pass effective gun control legislation, they should require the AG and the County DAs to arrest and prosecute felons who attempt to buy firearms through the background check system. Over 90% in Pierce and King COs are not pursued. Ridiculous that they want new gun control when they can't enforce existing laws.
Quote from: Atlas Shrugged
Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
Post by: Scvette on February 22, 2017, 12:50:00 PM
Done. I replied that if the state Congress needs to pass effective gun control legislation, they should require the AG and the County DAs to arrest and prosecute felons who attempt to buy firearms through the background check system. Over 90% in Pierce and King COs are not pursued. Ridiculous that they want new gun control when they can't enforce existing laws.
But being this state is so liberal,they'd find it as discrimination and have to come up with some new law that they can't prosecute them for trying. Sarcasm off. :yike: :bash:
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 22, 2017, 01:00:34 PM
Post by: Stickerbush on February 22, 2017, 01:04:20 PM
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2017, 01:12:27 PM
Sort of off topic but doesn't the NRA offer some sort of insurance as part of their membership?If I remember correctly a life member will be represented in court if a firearm is used to protect ones self.
There are other organisations that do the same thing.
I would bet that what they are after is liability insurance. Some one has an accident or you whack some one... how they gona fine or sue you?
Post by: fish vacuum on February 23, 2017, 06:52:51 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 23, 2017, 08:41:32 PM
This does not have anything to do with washington,but is a huge slap in the face to our 2 amendment rights and think anybody that's concerned about your guns taken a ways shoulnd read it.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 23, 2017, 08:46:05 PM
Post by: Windwalker on February 24, 2017, 05:37:51 PM
Liability insurance requirement to exercise a fundamental civil right?
Compared to car insurance. Driving is a privilege, owning a firearm is a protected right. Criminals don’t pay attention to driving laws any more than they do gun laws. This also focuses a burden on financially stressed “disparity of force" individuals including elderly, physically disadvantaged and low income families.
I strongly OPPOSE.
Post by: biggfish on February 24, 2017, 11:57:35 PM
Sent from my RCT6873W42 using Tapatalk
Post by: smittyJ on February 25, 2017, 07:57:38 AM
Sort of off topic but doesn't the NRA offer some sort of insurance as part of their membership?If I remember correctly a life member will be represented in court if a firearm is used to protect ones self.
There are other organisations that do the same thing.
I would bet that what they are after is liability insurance. Some one has an accident or you whack some one... how they gona fine or sue you?
Along with the free insurance, they are now offering Self Defense insurance for $165 a year, just got a notification this week.
Post by: shotguunar on February 25, 2017, 05:00:37 PM
Post by: konradcountry on February 25, 2017, 05:42:39 PM
http://sdc.wastateleg.org/chase/2017/02/15/bill-proposes-liability-insurance-for-all-future-firearm-sales/
We see the destructive power of guns almost nightly on the news and yet we do not require gun owners to have any type of liability insurance. Requiring liability insurance may cause an irresponsible gun owner to exercise extra care in preventing firearm-related accidents, especially in tragic accidents involving children
So she isn't even sure it will change anything.
If a child is accidentally shot he would already be covered under an existing medical policy.
As usual this doesn't make any sense. And someone dumb enough to leave a loaded gun around a child is not going to be motivated by a insurance policy.
Post by: wooltie on March 02, 2017, 07:54:30 PM
Post by: sumpnz on March 02, 2017, 08:07:50 PM
Just want is the purpose and intended result of this bill?
To increase the hassle factor and expense of being a gun owner to the point that a very large percentage stop being gun owners. As the number of gun owners dwindle they become an ever smaller political force. Once that drops past a certain point they can enforce even more restrictions until finally, like in (formerly) Great Britain, there are essentially no legal gun owners left and the gun culture is for all practical purposes dead. Then they just go ahead and ban ownership outright.
That it won't actually work out like that doesn't occur to them. Or really even matter to them. Whatever reduces the prevalence of the gun culture is a win as far as they're concerned.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 04, 2017, 08:15:34 AM
Post by: arees on March 04, 2017, 09:41:32 AM
Post by: timberfaller on March 04, 2017, 09:55:50 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 04, 2017, 11:00:21 AM
That is the sort of distorted facts and logic we are up against.
Post by: Special T on March 04, 2017, 12:00:54 PM
Heard an idiot legislator last night on Komo news talking about the attempt in this state to ban "assault weapons". His claim was that the bullets from "assault weapons" Travel up to two times faster than bullets from non "assault weapons" and can pierce body armor because of that.You can't fix stupid! Always amazed they run thier mouths on "news" programs when all they do is display how ignorant and lack the ability to do any kind of investigative reporting.
That is the sort of distorted facts and logic we are up against.
Post by: garrett89 on March 05, 2017, 02:56:06 PM
Heard an idiot legislator last night on Komo news talking about the attempt in this state to ban "assault weapons". His claim was that the bullets from "assault weapons" Travel up to two times faster than bullets from non "assault weapons" and can pierce body armor because of that.Can't take any politician against an Ar-series guns seriously. They don't know the gun parts and functions. They probably think the adjustable stock allows the bullet to travel faster if you shorten the stock.
That is the sort of distorted facts and logic we are up against.
Post by: timberfaller on March 07, 2017, 08:46:16 AM
SB 5795 died in committee :tup:, but can be "attached" to other bills if the commie left wants to keep it alive.
Post by: sumpnz on March 07, 2017, 09:24:36 AM
Got emails back from my three reps!
SB 5795 died in committee :tup:, but can be "attached" to other bills if the commie left wants to keep it alive.
I got one back right away from my Senator agreeing to oppose the bill. :tup: Got a response maybe a week later from one Rep just thanking me for expressing my opinion. :dunno: Never heard back from the other Rep at all. >:(