Gun Control & RKBA

jonno99

(2,620 posts)

11. Because - the right to own an automobile is not enshrined in the constitution.

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:26 PM

Apr 2016

And I'm not saying it can't be done; except that to do so would require the courts to wipe away and/or nullify a bunch of existing legal precedent.

The key word is "infringe" - would requiring insurance infringe on a persons constitutional rights? Probably...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Firearms insurance? [View all] Tragl1 Apr 2016 OP

I'd be fine with it - except that the rkba is a constitutional right. Requiring jonno99 Apr 2016 #1

Voting generally doesn't require a financial expenditure, but Ilsa Apr 2016 #4

A prudent person would carry liability insurance. To make insurance mandatory would be difficult. nt jonno99 Apr 2016 #5

Why would it be any more difficult than auto insurance? Ilsa Apr 2016 #7

Because - the right to own an automobile is not enshrined in the constitution. jonno99 Apr 2016 #11

Well, we don't give away guns. They have to be purchased Ilsa Apr 2016 #13

I don't disagree with you. Your argument is with the constution and legal precedent. And to jonno99 Apr 2016 #17

The 24th Amendment (1962) protects the right to vote, free of a poll tax or any other fee... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #42

Right to travel isn't in the constitution, but it's part of the universal declaration of human MillennialDem Apr 2016 #23

Right to travel isn't in the constitution gejohnston Apr 2016 #26

Ok, it's not ENUMERATED in the constitution. So anyway. Yeah why licensing and insurance for MillennialDem Apr 2016 #29

you don't need either one to own a car gejohnston Apr 2016 #35

And so you should need a license AND insurance to operate a gun in MillennialDem Apr 2016 #36

most states do require licenses to carry concealed gejohnston Apr 2016 #37

I'm not sure how that is relevant MillennialDem Apr 2016 #38

Felons can't legally have guns Politicalboi Apr 2016 #30

Wayne LaPierre thanks you for the windfall on the insurance DonP Apr 2016 #33

Not everyone is prudent. Ilsa Apr 2016 #9

Agreed. nt jonno99 Apr 2016 #12

Homeowners/Renters Liability metroins Apr 2016 #2

What if they aren't at home or in their Ilsa Apr 2016 #3

Roughly 500 accidental deaths on average each year and falling (CDC Numbers) DonP Apr 2016 #8

So what you are saying is that I have to bear the costs Ilsa Apr 2016 #10

Not at all, just pointing out where mandatory insurance will very likely lead DonP Apr 2016 #19

Great input Tragl1 Apr 2016 #21

Here's what nearly happened that got me wondering Ilsa Apr 2016 #15

Goes way up once you include injuries, some of which are worse than death MillennialDem Apr 2016 #24

Given a choice, I'll take the injury every time. You're free to choose death. DonP Apr 2016 #32

Not if you're paralyzed. Then you can't even choose death unless you have a relative willing MillennialDem Apr 2016 #34

Liability covers you when not at home metroins Apr 2016 #16

Insurance actuaries don't seem concerned or anxious about civil liability... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #43

What problem are you trying to solve? JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2016 #6

Yeah TeddyR Apr 2016 #14

I guess I was thinking in the context of say a Sandy Hook? Tragl1 Apr 2016 #22

No liability insurance would cover Sandy Hook. X_Digger Apr 2016 #48

And close to 50% of accidents are due to drunk or high drivers. Doesn't mean insurance is MillennialDem Apr 2016 #25

What about free speech insurance...in case I offend someone and they take me to court? ileus Apr 2016 #18

Or if you run into someone while using a cell phone. JonathanRackham Apr 2016 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #20

Can gang members get group insurance rates? JonathanRackham Apr 2016 #27

Obviously insurance isn't to protect someone from gang members. It's to protect the rare individual MillennialDem Apr 2016 #31

Why should criminals be exempt? JonathanRackham Apr 2016 #39

I didn't say they should be exempt silly bear. I just said they aren't going to buy it anyway MillennialDem Apr 2016 #40

.. JonathanRackham Apr 2016 #41

For simple ownership? Not just no... beevul Apr 2016 #44

Sigh..., not the insurance issue again. branford Apr 2016 #45

So would a top down personal no fault? Tragl1 Apr 2016 #47

When most people discuss "insurance" with respect to guns, branford Apr 2016 #49

It's an attempt to restrict ownership to those with plenty of disposable income, benEzra Apr 2016 #46