Wow, comparing gun insurance requirements with POLL TAXES????

[alp227]

How stupid can the 2nd amendment authoritarians' arguments get, first from "car accidents kill more people" to comparing gun taxes or insurance requirements to...the poll tax! See this letter to the editor in my local paper, "Legislators trampling rights of gun owners":

While the legislators in Sacramento trip over themselves trying to look tough on gun control, let me remind them that they are recklessly tampering with the Bill of Rights. This is not the Bill of Privileges whereby elected officials can dole out favors at their whim. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, yet that is exactly what they are doing. Requiring classes, testing, annual recertification, onerous registration and liability insurance will impose a substantial financial burden on gun owners. No one should have to pay good money to exercise any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The high cost in money and time will discourage gun ownership just like poll taxes were used to discourage an entire segment of society from voting.Fortunately, that was declared unconstitutional, as will this newly proposed gun control legislation.

(Comments edited out after reading replies. Let's focus on dissecting the letter writer's idea.)

[gejohnston]

1. how are they authoritarians?

sounds like newspeak on your part since no one is forcing you to buy a gun.

What is the "straw purchase loophole"? It is a federal felony end of story.

[baldguy]

4. Quack, quack, quack.

More noise from the RW peanut gallery.

[gejohnston]

9. I am so impressed with your

very cogent and thoughtful response.

[Remmah2]

16. Maybe just another quack?

nt

[Loudly]

8. A pretty toothless federal felony in the absence of mandatory registration.

[holdencaufield]

2. "authoritarians"

You keep using that word ...

[ThatPoetGuy]

7. That's funny, you said the same thing to me

when I called out an anti-semite for his blatant, extreme anti-semitism.

He was banned from the site.

Why do you have a Star of David as your avatar?

[oldhippie]

3. I'd feel a lot safer if ...

... Repubs couldn't vote. Look at all the wars, killings, economic damage and mental anguish they cause. They put a significant burden on the rest of us that want to be safe. How about we find a way to tax them and encourage them to vote a little smarter? There oughta be a way to do that, right? Just some common sense regulation? Like Pubbies having to pay a fee for a class before voting, to learn those things that Democratic voters already know? And voting isn't even in the Bill of Rights!

[holdencaufield]

13. So ... just to be clear ...

... instead of allowing the free exchange of ideas to compete on their own merit in the marketplace of a democracy. You prefer only to allow suffrage to those who think and believe as you?

That's mighty progressive of you. Perhaps you'd be more at home in North Korea than in the US.

[Marengo]

23. I believe that may be sarcasm...

Well, I hope so anyway

[holdencaufield]

24. So hard to tell these days ...

... extremity of position is becoming the norm these days and I've heard people here espouse worse with a straight face. But, I'm assured that it was.

[DonP]

26. No kidding!

I wish the DU member that called for Drone attacks on gun owners that didn't turn in their guns was being sarcastic. But in subsequent post she proved she was dead serious.

I wish I had bookmarked that page for future use, just like all the new proposed state laws calling for police inspections of private homes that are popping up here and there.

[holdencaufield]

27. I would only ever condone drone strikes ...

... on Americans on American soil under the following conditions


1. Driving slow in the fast lane
2. Using the Express Checkout with more than 15 items
3. Ordering a large soda (but only within NYC limits)

[DonP]

31. Leaving your turn signal on should be a drone worthy issue. N/T

[holdencaufield]

32. As well as leaving on your mobile phone in the cinema

[holdencaufield]

39. Except for the fact, they are illegal

It is illegal for anyone but a licensed carrier to broadcast on cellular frequencies except with a mobile phone.

[Cirque du So-What]

40. You DO realize, don't you

that you were replying to a spambot?

[holdencaufield]

41. You never had a chat with a robot?

Are you a mecho-phobic?

[Cirque du So-What]

42. Naw, Spam is GREAT!

It beats some of the other vermin who crawl into DU through the gungeon.

On edit: that's not to say that all gungeoneers are vermin, but from what I've seen, it's a choice portal for trolls of all stripes. That and the lounge.

[Bay Boy]

5. I guess you need to add the...

...stolen gun loophole too. It makes as much sense as a straw purchase loophole.

[ileus]

6. Much worse than any poll tax

This seeks to remove both life and liberty, to make you a victim.

[alp227]

28. But voting is a far more constructive way of changing government

I never thought I'd hear "guns = life & liberty" repeated HERE.

[petronius]

10. To the extent that a fee, tax, or requirement is intended to interfere with,

discourage, impede, or prevent the exercise of a civil right or liberty, the comparison is apt. The 2A is a Constitutionally-protected civil liberty, and thus deserves a high degree of deference. It's likely (to the point of near certainty) that some of these tax or other requirements are driven by a desire merely to make gun ownership more difficult/expensive - the bullet tax proposer in Chicago said as much, IIRC - and have little to no basis in crime prevention or public safety. When courts get a smell of such motivations, I hope and expect that they'll bring down the Constitutional hammer...

(Which is not to say that reasonable requirements can't be imposed on the 2A like every part of the BoR, nor that guns and gun accessories are immune from any form of taxation. It's the deliberate infringement that brings in the poll tax comparison aspect.)

[aptal]

12. Very good points.

[2ndAmForComputers]

17. Wait, so car insurance mandates are because the big bad gubmint don't want people to own cars?

That's news to me. I thought it was because they wanted money.

[Eleanors38]

18. Owning & operating a car on the public ways is a state privilege.

[Eleanors38]

19. That "smell" of legislative intent is the stumbling block for religionist legislation.

[alp227]

29. So does the fcc also impede on 1A rights

by regulating what words can't be said on radio/tv or requiring licenses for broadcast stations?

[gejohnston]

33. yes

[alp227]

34. The FCC ensures you don't hear unauthorized interference on the radio or see porn on daytime TV.

Think about that, w.r.t. gun insurance.

[gejohnston]

35. not the same thing

assigning frequencies isn't an infringement. Showing instead of telling in soaps operas, what's the difference?

[petronius]

36. Not in a substantial or impermissible way, I'd say. It's a question of legislative intent,

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

as well as likely outcomes, and an FCC regulation like that is not intended nor likely to create any sort of general barrier to 1A.

I see it like this: any civil right or liberty (1A, 2A, etc) is subject to reasonable restriction and regulations. However, the BoR is due a high degree of deference, and regulations on a civil right/liberty must be as narrowly tailored as possible, to address a specific need for which other options won't do, with as little interference in the right/liberty as possible.

It seems pretty clear that many current gun control ideas (like insurance and bullet taxes) are aimed as much at making gun ownership more difficult and expensive, rather than for any actual societal need. Like poll taxes, they're designed to interfere with a Constitutionally-protected individual civil right/liberty. And so they become problematic in ways that FCC regulations (or sales taxes, or lots of other things) are not.

Furthermore, I'd say that there needs to be clear and strong nexus between the regulation (or requirement, tax, fee, whatever), the persons it's imposed on, and the problem it's meant to address. While I agree that every person ought to be liable for his own negligence or criminality, and a wise person will carry insurance to cover his own potential screw-ups, most of the costs attributed to firearms in our society are criminal in nature. I do not think it appropriate to require one person to carry insurance or anything else to cover the willful criminal acts of another (that's a general position, not just guns). In other words, there isn't really a valid link between the person required to carry the insurance and the problem being addressed.

So, I think/hope that mandated 'gun insurance' would run into several Constitutional problems: the intent is as much to create a barrier as to solve a problem, and the connection between the law and the problem is weak (it's not narrowly-tailored and minimally-infringing)...

[iiibbb]

11. reasonable restrictions exist, this is not one of them

We know the restrictions that would have enough public backing

1) universal background checks
2) magazine restrictions
3) better coupling of mental health records to background checks.


I have more ideas if I ran the world but neither side likes them.

[jimmy the one]

14. liability insurance for guns

How stupid can the 2nd amendment authoritarians' arguments get, first from "car accidents kill more people" to comparing gun taxes or insurance requirements to...the poll tax!

Car accidents do kill more than gun accidents, but guns murder about 30,000 more people yearly than murders committed by cars (both homicide & suicide).

.. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, yet that is exactly what they are doing. Requiring classes, testing, annual recertification, onerous registration and liability insurance will impose a substantial financial burden on gun owners. No one should have to pay good money to exercise any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The militia law of 1792 required all white males 17-45 to provide their own musket for militia training. Muskets cost money & good ones were not cheap. This would offset your 'financial burden' point, as well as offset not having to pay 'good money to exercise any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights'.
.. militia training once a year was required of all men mentioned above. This would offset your 'requiring classes, testing, annual recert, & registration' argument. It cost militia members money to get to training, & lost 'wages'.
.. firearm census's were done regularly, at the behest of the president & sec of war, which used militia returns (or returns of militia). This would offset your 'registration' point.
.. which leaves 'insurance'; I don't know of any liability insurance schemes envisioned by james madison or thomas jefferson, especially for muskets, but guns weren't such a liability back then anyway, as they are now.
.. liability insurance, even the nra offers it, on a voluntary basis. But with a lot of caveats.

[SayWut]

20. Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, it's off to the SCOTUS we go!!

Call it what you will, poll tax or insurance premium, both are clearly obstructions (in the form of government mandated monetary payments), to enumerated constitutional rights.

The argument from some quarters that because one is required to insure their automobile, then it stands to reason that requiring gun owners to carry insurance is permissible as well, is laughable, ludicrous and being willfully ignorant (or perhaps just wishful thinking).

[guninsuranceblog]

21. Good gun insurance is possible and cheap but goes beyond liability.

It’s possible to have good insurance which provides for everyone hurt, has the insurers discourage unsafe practices including letting one’s gun be lost or stolen and still is not too much of a burden on legal gun owners. It starts with requiring manufacturers to have a no-fault insurer that only gets off the hook when another insurer takes over. Lost or stolen or diverted guns are still covered by the last insurer. That makes it unnecessary to register guns or enforce the insurance purchase below the manufacturer level.
The total medical plus lost wages cost of gun injuries in the US per year is about $4 Billion with a loss ratio similar to car insurance that would be covered by about $8 Billion in premiums. Divided by 270 million guns that gives a cost per gun per year of about $30.00 Of course, that's an average and some would cost more and some less depending on risk and other factors.
That’s for a no-fault kind of insurance that covers anyone injured by a particular gun. The liability insurance that available now from the NRA and others covers very few cases because the shooter is usually not a legal insured owner and the legal owner who lost control of a gun is not currently held liable.

[SQUEE]

22. So this insurancewill cover willful and illegal acts?

Somehow I think not, that and...lets just say I am suspicious of your claims

[oldhippie]

25. Another hit and run OP

No response to any comments?

[alp227]

30. See replies 28+29. N/t

[apocalypsehow]

37. The reason there is so much moaning and screaming about these proposals from "RKBA enthusiasts"*

is that (1) they will discourage gun ownership, particularly of the most offensive kind (assault rifles; semi-autos; .50 caliber sniper rifles; etc., etc.) and (2) they are a slam dunk to be held as constitutional in the courts - I'll bet such a requirement in the USSC would hold up 9-0, with even Scalia and Thomas agreeing that insurance requirements on deadly weapons are constitutional.

Thus, all the screaming and yelling about these proposals from the gun lobby and their shills and sycophants: the fear is just how effective they would be at slicing into the PRD hobby, and all the attendant miseries and needless bloodshed that deadly little hobby has wrought on the United States for decades.

I notice one interesting thing about this caterwauling about these proposals: our "pro gun progressives"** keep insisting to us in OP's and threads and replies that these proposals are "unconstitutional" beyond any legal doubt (we all know what great legal minds they all are, after all... ), and yet they don't act as if they are so sure: they swarm OP's with bilge and posh straight from the NRA's website attacking these insurance requirements, and quite ferociously.

Methinks some folks protest too much....

I mean, think about it: if I was absolutely sure some legislative proposal I disagreed with was going to be held "unconstitutional" beyond doubt, I wouldn't be running around DU attacking every OP and reply suggesting that that piece of legislation might be a good thing. Neither would the vast majority of sensible folks. Which is very telling, I do believe, that that certainty that these insurance requirements - which are going to become law, whether our "pro gun progressives"*** like it or not - is not quite all it's cracked up to be...

*(See sig line)

**( )

***( )

[bossy22]

43. not necessarily

if the burden is too high it will be found unconstitutional.

But here is another thing to ponder- the way these are written, the second your insurance lapses, you are violating the law by just even owning them. That doesnt happen with a car, boat, or house. What happens if you ran into some financial trouble and couldn't make the insurance payments? Would you also need to give up your family heirloom? That's why I believe these will be found uncostitutional- it would be removing private property without due process.