HANDGUN INSURANCE LAW House 2387

[Dan Hurley]

Please forgive me if this is a duplicate issue, but I've just received information regarding Mass. House Bill 2387 requiring LTC owners to provide a listing of all handguns and proof of liability insurance (regardless of who or how the handgun is used to inflict damage). The wording is so infuriating that I first thought it a hoax, but I found the text at the following link on the official Mass Legislature page. Again, forgive me if this is old news, but does anybody have any further information on this particular lunacy?

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht02pdf/ht02387.pdf

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This appears to be a "filed on behalf of constituent" bill. Any MA citizen can file a bill through their rep and, as I understand it, the rep has to file it "on behalf of." Bills filed in this manner are virtually always dead on arrival as serious consideration of bills submitted in this manner would dilute the power of the elected elite.

If a citizen convinces their rep to file a bill as their own, rather than an "on behalf of" bill, we have far more to worry about.

 

[Dan Hurley]

Thanks Rob. ... Oh my sweet Lord, I pray you're right.

 

[LoginName]

This makes at least the third-time (maybe more?), go-around for that idea.

So far, nothing has become of it.

I'm hesitant to post that it'll go nowhere this time as well, but now with Patrick in office and the anti-gun crowd on a rampage, I'd say anything is possible (although unlikely).

 

[RKG]

For what it is worth, the bill's insurance requirement appears to require insurance that would pay off if the insured commited an intentional tort. There is no such policy: no insurer will issue one and the Courts have held that such a policy, if it existed, would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy; such policies tend to promote the commission of the offenses nominally covered.

 

[Len-2A Training]

For what it is worth, the bill's insurance requirement appears to require insurance that would pay off if the insured commited an intentional tort. There is no such policy: no insurer will issue one and the Courts have held that such a policy, if it existed, would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy; such policies tend to promote the commission of the offenses nominally covered.

Ergo, nobody would be eligible for a permit then and the antis win the match, set and game!

 

[RKG]

Ergo, nobody would be eligible for a permit then and the antis win the match, set and game!

Possibly, though you give these dopes a lot of credit.

 

[drgrant]

The other thing to watch for is... how much money would it cost to enforce/implement such a bill?

Sounds strange, but IMO anti-gun BS that is "inexpensive" for them to
implement is a lot more likely to get passed then something that has a higher
cost to it. I know this is MA and they just raise taxes or whatever to
pay for crap, like any other socialist dump, but at the end of the day anti bills
that cost a lot of money to implement will get shot down because MA politicos
want to keep that money flowing to their pork projects. The only saving
grace is that buying schoolbooks about gay princes courting each other seems
to surpass the eagerness to pay for gun bans.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Possibly, though you give these dopes a lot of credit.

I don't think they are as stupid as we'd like to believe.

I have testified against this same bill a number of years ago. It's one of those that gets filed every legislative session and (to date) is DOA. BUT, I never count them out, that's why eternal vigilance is required.

 

[stoneypete]

...eternal vigilance is required.

Just wanted to say it one more time as I could not have said it better myself. Emphasis add my me.

 

[maee]

Do they expect the gang bangers to consult their insurance agent before acquiring a gun? How many crimes are actually committed by LTC licensed MA residents? I bet its close to zero...

On another note, if this bill makes sense, why not require every living, breathing citizen to take out a $1 million umbrella policy, in order to have freedom, to cover any potentially violent act that they could possibly do? Why stop at gun crimes? They aught to propose a requirement that in order to walk down the sidewalk at night, you need a $250,000 insurance policy in case your mug somebody.

It cracks me up how these "super liberals" don't see the big picture. They feel so free to propose draconian legislation that violates the very foundation of American principles, so long as it suits their moral agenda. For example, the reason you need car insurance is not in the event you commit a crime, but because accidents happen all the time to everybody. However, gun accidents by licensed people are virtually non-existent. If you were required to have car insurance that covers car crimes, I think everybody by Kerry, Ted and Mitt would be walking.

 

[Dan Hurley]

I gotta say that all the responses educated me quite a bit about the history of this lunacy and I feel a bit less scared. Of course, I'd already sent off my e-mail message to my local Rep, Geoff Hall. It'll be interesting to see his response.

 

[csharpdev]

I've figured it out the logic behind this... liberals are for workers rights and safe work places and what not right?... they want us to carry insurance on our guns because they don't want to pay for workmans comp insurance for gang members. After all gang members have families to support too...