From HERE
[From Stephen Wegner}
[quote]DC's Still at It: The District would be the first jurisdiction in the country to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, under a bill being considered by the D.C. Council. The legislation, introduced Tuesday by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh, would mandate that gun owners maintain policies of no less than $250,000 in coverage. By requiring insurance, Ms. Cheh said she hopes the law would ensure that money is available to help a gunshot victim pay medical costs and promote gun safety. “I think there ought to be a source of money that they could count on to compensate them for their injuries,” Ms. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat, said of victims of gun violence... At least six states have introduced similar gun liability insurance legislation over the last several months, with the law proposed in New York requiring insurance of at least $1 million, according to the New York Times. As of mid-February, none of the six states – California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania – had passed the legislation. Ms. Cheh, a constitutional law professor, said she introduced the bill “in an effort to balance reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment with safe and responsible gun legislation.” She said she hopes insurance companies can promote safer gun ownership by offering lower rates to those who meet certain criteria or follow safety guidelines, but she doesn’t believe that requiring insurance will create a barrier for gun ownership... (With so many possible comments, I'll focus on one: These mandatory-insurance schemes will either keep lower-income people disarmed or force them to own their firearms illegally. Either way, the Progressives pushing them must be aware of those consequences. Never forget that, in the US, the term “constitutional law” does not refer to the Constitution itself but to what the federal judiciary has done to it.)[/quote]
Read that again. Focus on these two sentences:
[quote]By requiring insurance, Ms. Cheh said she hopes the law would ensure that money is available to help a gunshot victim pay medical costs and promote gun safety. “I think there ought to be a source of money that they could count on to compensate them for their injuries,” [/quote]
How many gunshot victims are shot because they were NOT involved in some sort of criminal activity? I'm including the "innocent" gang member who is the target of a drive-by shooting in the category of criminal activity - it's their reward for "going stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things". And, just to continue that thought, how many times are the perpetrators identified, let alone convicted, so that the truly innocent victims of the typical spray-and-pray drive-by shooting could go after their insurance coverage? (Of course, that also assumes that a drive-by shooter would have taken out the required insurance policy, doesn't it? Strange that they are expected to comply with this one gun control law, out of the literally thousands they do not comply with already.)
Thus, we see another restriction on law-abiding gun owners being crammed down their throats in an attempt to "do something" about the behavior of those who do not obey the law.
stay safe.
-Skidmark