D.C. Pushes Mandate For Gun Owners To Buy Liability Insurance

Mr. Conservative

One of the ideas the anti-gun crowd floats periodically is a plan that sees guns legal, but prohibitively expensively to operate. Sometime comedian Chris Rock was only the latest in a long line to holler out “Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn’t have any innocent bystanders.”

Proving that there’s no line between stupid comedy and liberal politics, anti-gun legislators are pursuing a new plan to disarm its citizens: mandatory, incredibly-expensive insurance. It’s the gun version of ObamaCare.  At the vanguard of this movement is Washington, D.C.

Mary Cheh, a Democrat City Council member, has proposed that anyone who wants to own a gun must have at least $250,000 in liability insurance before the city will consider a issuing a license to that person. Cheh’s proposed law wouldn’t even grandfather in existing guns. Instead, current gun owners would be required to purchase insurance within thirty days of the law going into effect, or their licenses will be automatically revoked.

(Read More:  2nd Amendment Supporter Thrown Out of N.J. Meeting By Police After Criticizing Gun Control.)

Incidentally, as of this writing, no insurance company sells coverage specific to guns. Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association, stated the matter succinctly: “We oppose proposals that would mandate gun liability insurance as property-casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional criminal behavior.”

Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, pointed out the obvious, which is that this is yet another law that will do nothing to stop criminal behavior:

Conjuring new gun control schemes and further taxing law-abiding residents exercising a constitutional right will not result in a reduction of violent crime in the District. Ensuring that criminals are arrested, prosecuted and punished will. Regrettably, D.C. leaders are focused more on pushing their political and social agendas than on working to keep their residents safe.

(Read More:  New Orleans Police Go Door To Door For Gun Confiscation After Mothers Day Shooting.)

The fact that D.C. is leading the “gun insurance” charge shows how Leftists do not care about either law or fact but, instead, are committed solely to the Alinsky-ite goal of aggregating as much power as possible in government hands. After all, it was a strict D.C. gun ban – one that essentially disarmed all citizens – that saw the United States Supreme Court reaffirm that Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller. The takeaway point from that decision was that the Second Amendment means what it says: citizens have an absolute right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the arm. The government may not interfere with that right.

That’s the law. The facts are equally compelling. As famed gun rights author John Lott wrote in an article discussing the effect of Heller on D.C.’s crime-ridden streets, the gun-control nuts who predicted that D.C. would turn into a real-life version of Mad Max were wrong:

But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washington’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.’s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.’s population count is at about 590,000).

Lott’s facts align perfectly with a recent Justice Department report that showing that, as legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down. Liberals know, or easily could know, that banning legal guns does not make people safer. Ted Nugent theorizes that the decline of inner cities has less to do with guns and a lot more to do with the official Democrat policy of making abortions legal, unsafe, and readily available to primarily minority neighborhoods. In other words, when Michelle Obama emotionally waffles on about children being afraid of guns, she would more accurately state that they should really fear their mommy.

For all these reasons, D.C.’s latest effort to overturn gun rights shows conclusively that removing guns from citizens’ hands has nothing to do with gun safety. D.C. of all places knows that the city is safer when law-abiding citizens are armed. Instead, gun control is about removing power from the people and placing it in the government’s hands. End of story.

(Read More:  Democrat Admits Gun Background Won’t Work, Pursues Them Anyway.)

comments

You must login in order to leave a comment.