Lost local news article

[Sentinel7]

Last night after I got home I was reading the news on the local web site

Came across an article about the Government thinking about forcing gun owners to buy liability gun insurance.

It said the insurance industry would set the rates and gun owners would be forced to allow insurance investigators

access to their homes and firearms to determine if you are safely storing your firearms to get discounts.

I was going to post this on DV later so I finished reading the news went to the AP page read the news there.

when I went back to retrieve the article it was not there. I have tried to find it but have had no luck.

Has any one seen this article ?

After thinking about what such a move might mean to gun owners I figured to get around this you would just tell the insurance company that you do not own guns.Later thought says that it would not be that easy.

What I now think they are going to try is you will have to disclose to the insurance company what make,model,and caliber guns you own. They will be listed on your insurance which you will have to show in order to buy ammunition.

If it is no listed or you do not have insurance you will not be able to buy ammunition.

With insurance rates being high people who cannot afford this will be forced to give up their guns.

and with the new regulations that are being forced upon us it would unlikely you could sell it and forced to turn it in for a wal-mart gift card.

Now you know these insurance rates will be extraordinarily high and when you buy ammunition there will be another surcharge on the ammo.

I don't know what happened to the article but I am beginning to believe that it wasn't supposed to be published at this time.

They may be trying to sneak this on gun owners without a fight because if it is instituted they will have their National Gun Registry. We all know what will happen if they succeed in getting a gun registry.

We cannot let this happen time to fight it is now not after they have finalized their plan.

Here again they are not after the criminals but lawful gun owners this will work about as well as per-employment

drug screening has worked to curb drug use in America.

In order to stop all this crap maybe we should threaten to remove all serial numbers and then sell our guns to the criminals on the street.

We would just be following Eric Holders lead. After all If the DOJ can do it it must not be illegal.

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[Iownya83]

I haven't seen the article but don't doubt the would try it my suggestion is to start stocking ammo now .

[The Machine]

have you tried checking your internet history.

that would suck if you needed extra insurance for your guns. but the thing about the home check is common practice in the UK the police (local firearms officer) will come to your home to inspect where the guns are to be stored and where your ammo is to be stored.... Ideally two separate safes in different parts of the house with access restricted to the gun license holder only.

If there not happy with your home security or if you live in a very high crime area, you will be denied. the only other option is to arrange for your guns to be kept at your nearest shooting range.... other than that you wont have a license anymore.

I have a funny feeling that's where Obummer is trying to take the US.

[TexasGranny]

Google search turns up this:

Telegram.com

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Mass. lawmakers consider gun insurance

Owners would need liability coverage

By Steve LeBlanc THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BOSTON — As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.

A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.

The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.

“Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace,” said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill’s sponsor.

And insurers have more leeway than law enforcement in some cases, he said.

Massachusetts already has gun storage laws, but police cannot come into a person’s home without a warrant, Linsky pointed out. An insurance company, however, would be able to verify that there is proper gun storage before writing a policy.

Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures say that, to their knowledge, no state has adopted a gun insurance requirement.

The idea is already meeting with resistance from gun rights advocates, who say it amounts to more regulation aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

“Now we’re going to have insurance companies telling us how we are supposed to be trained and where we are going to store our guns?” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts.

Craig Baenziger, who works at a gun- and ammunition-seller in North Attleboro called Northeast Trading Co., said requiring liability insurance for guns makes little sense because it targets people who buy the weapons legally instead of going after criminals who illegally possess them.

“Insurance on your gun isn’t really going to decrease crime or accidents. Nobody shoots their friend on purpose. It’s not going to do anything,” Baenziger said. “It’s just a way to increase revenue for the state.”

But supporters say requiring liability insurance could cut down on accidents, because gun owners who store their weapons safely would pay less for their insurance. It could also curb the flow of illegal guns because insurance policies would reward owners who secure weapons against theft.

Other recent gun-control proposals being pushed in the wake of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have focused more directly on banning the sale or possession of certain weapons.

President Barack Obama is pushing a series of steps including requiring background checks on all gun sales, reinstating the ban on guns classified as assault weapons and renewing a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick has also proposed a series of tougher gun-control measures, including limiting gun owners to purchasing one gun a month and tightening access to certain types of ammunition.

Obama, Patrick and others have also said more attention needs to be paid to the role mental illness plays in gun violence.

Supporters of gun insurance say their proposal would require gun owners to be insured and then let the market work out the details. They compare their idea to the requirement in some states that a car owner buy insurance before being allowed to register a vehicle.

“You don’t have to own a gun,” Linsky said. “You don’t have to drive a car.”

Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.

The proposal is catching the attention of gun-control activists, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, co-chairman of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

“It’s a very creative idea,” Menino said. “(He’s) trying to put some teeth into what we are doing.”

OR This one:

wwlp.com

Would gun liability insurance lessen firearm related violence?

New MA bill would require insurance before permit

Updated: Friday, 18 Jan 2013, 7:18 PM EST

Published : Friday, 18 Jan 2013, 5:20 PM EST

Shannon Halligan

AGAWAM, Mass. (WWLP) - The latest proposal in the gun debate is a proposal to require Massachusetts gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

This new bill would hold gun owners more accountable, but not everyone thinks this is enough to address the issue of gun control.

Natick State Representative David Linsky filed a bill that would require someone applying for gun permits to show proof of firearms insurance. However, some say this is just more government regulation aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

“ think gun owners would find that to be another burdensome intrusion like making me pay for owning my gun. I's better than nothing but it doesn't get at the real problem that we just have way too many guns in this country,” said Bob Normand of Holyoke.

The sponsor of the bill compared the change to car insurance and the requirement that someone have auto insurance before registering their vehicle.

This would provide liability coverage in case a gun owner's firearm was ever used to hurt someone. Both the victim and the gun owner would be protected.

“[The victim] may not be able to recover anything if that person has no assets and they sued them so I think this proposal is an effort to try to have a financial mechanism that would pay people who were victims of some sort of gun accident,” said Bill Trudeau President of the Insurance Center of New England.

Currently there's coverage in the standard homeowners policy for liability that happened through an accident but not in the case if the gun is stolen.

Trudy Monson of Holyoke said, “I think that's a pretty good thing. As long as they’re registered and they make sure the gun owners are registered I don't think I have a problem with that and do background checks on them.”

It's too early to know how much this liability insurance would cost the average gun owner.

**************************

[Jaxinjersey]

I wouldn't doubt if such a requirement is buried somewhere in the 9000 pages of Obamacare law... soon to be "discovered"...

[sandraed1963]

I don't know if this is the one you were looking for

http://www.startribune.com/nation/187504551.html?refer=y

[jonjon]

The insurance industry has worked hand in hand with the government to guarantee the repression of our citizens.

The monies extended to our statesmen through the insurance lobbies have crippled the citizen’s ability to be personally responsible.

The ruling of the Supreme Court on Obamacare to mandate buying insurance exposed the nature of the extortion.

The insurance industry leaves a money trail that leads to the elitist of the world and is the very cancer that stripped the freedom of our country.

But, like the frog in hot water we have become cooked through and through with little chance of surviving without a dramatic revolution.

My plan is to defend my second amendment right with firepower whether it falls upon the government, the U.N., or the insurance industry.

May God be with us and have mercy upon our souls.

“Praise the lord and pass the ammo”

[Sentinel7]

Google search turns up this:

Telegram.com

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Mass. lawmakers consider gun insurance

Owners would need liability coverage

By Steve LeBlanc THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BOSTON — As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.

A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.

The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.

“Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace,” said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill’s sponsor.

And insurers have more leeway than law enforcement in some cases, he said.

Massachusetts already has gun storage laws, but police cannot come into a person’s home without a warrant, Linsky pointed out. An insurance company, however, would be able to verify that there is proper gun storage before writing a policy.

Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures say that, to their knowledge, no state has adopted a gun insurance requirement.

The idea is already meeting with resistance from gun rights advocates, who say it amounts to more regulation aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

“Now we’re going to have insurance companies telling us how we are supposed to be trained and where we are going to store our guns?” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts.

Craig Baenziger, who works at a gun- and ammunition-seller in North Attleboro called Northeast Trading Co., said requiring liability insurance for guns makes little sense because it targets people who buy the weapons legally instead of going after criminals who illegally possess them.

“Insurance on your gun isn’t really going to decrease crime or accidents. Nobody shoots their friend on purpose. It’s not going to do anything,” Baenziger said. “It’s just a way to increase revenue for the state.”

But supporters say requiring liability insurance could cut down on accidents, because gun owners who store their weapons safely would pay less for their insurance. It could also curb the flow of illegal guns because insurance policies would reward owners who secure weapons against theft.

Other recent gun-control proposals being pushed in the wake of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have focused more directly on banning the sale or possession of certain weapons.

President Barack Obama is pushing a series of steps including requiring background checks on all gun sales, reinstating the ban on guns classified as assault weapons and renewing a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick has also proposed a series of tougher gun-control measures, including limiting gun owners to purchasing one gun a month and tightening access to certain types of ammunition.

Obama, Patrick and others have also said more attention needs to be paid to the role mental illness plays in gun violence.

Supporters of gun insurance say their proposal would require gun owners to be insured and then let the market work out the details. They compare their idea to the requirement in some states that a car owner buy insurance before being allowed to register a vehicle.

“You don’t have to own a gun,” Linsky said. “You don’t have to drive a car.”

Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.

The proposal is catching the attention of gun-control activists, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, co-chairman of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

“It’s a very creative idea,” Menino said. “(He’s) trying to put some teeth into what we are doing.”

OR This one:

wwlp.com

Would gun liability insurance lessen firearm related violence?

New MA bill would require insurance before permit

Updated: Friday, 18 Jan 2013, 7:18 PM EST

Published : Friday, 18 Jan 2013, 5:20 PM EST

Shannon Halligan

AGAWAM, Mass. (WWLP) - The latest proposal in the gun debate is a proposal to require Massachusetts gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

This new bill would hold gun owners more accountable, but not everyone thinks this is enough to address the issue of gun control.

Natick State Representative David Linsky filed a bill that would require someone applying for gun permits to show proof of firearms insurance. However, some say this is just more government regulation aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

“ think gun owners would find that to be another burdensome intrusion like making me pay for owning my gun. I's better than nothing but it doesn't get at the real problem that we just have way too many guns in this country,” said Bob Normand of Holyoke.

The sponsor of the bill compared the change to car insurance and the requirement that someone have auto insurance before registering their vehicle.

This would provide liability coverage in case a gun owner's firearm was ever used to hurt someone. Both the victim and the gun owner would be protected.

“[The victim] may not be able to recover anything if that person has no assets and they sued them so I think this proposal is an effort to try to have a financial mechanism that would pay people who were victims of some sort of gun accident,” said Bill Trudeau President of the Insurance Center of New England.

Currently there's coverage in the standard homeowners policy for liability that happened through an accident but not in the case if the gun is stolen.

Trudy Monson of Holyoke said, “I think that's a pretty good thing. As long as they’re registered and they make sure the gun owners are registered I don't think I have a problem with that and do background checks on them.”

It's too early to know how much this liability insurance would cost the average gun owner.

**************************

:rocking-chair:/>

This is the one I was looking for thanks Texas Granny

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

have you tried checking your internet history.

that would suck if you needed extra insurance for your guns. but the thing about the home check is common practice in the UK the police (local firearms officer) will come to your home to inspect where the guns are to be stored and where your ammo is to be stored.... Ideally two separate safes in different parts of the house with access restricted to the gun license holder only.

If there not happy with your home security or if you live in a very high crime area, you will be denied. the only other option is to arrange for your guns to be kept at your nearest shooting range.... other than that you wont have a license anymore.

I have a funny feeling that's where Obummer is trying to take the US.

Check my internet history.

Why didn't I think of that DUH

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise