NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

Chuck Guiteau said:
And what other Amendments to the Bill of Rights would you apply this theory to?
Click to expand...

:confused: That's kind of irrelevant as I was originally responding to someone who claimed that this insurance proposal violated the 2nd.

However, "the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances" is not violated by car insurance laws or the need to buy bus tickets to attend the 'assembly' is it?

And if the 123rd amendment stated "the right to keep a dog shall not be infringed" it would not be violated by requiring dog owners to hold public liability insurance for their pooches.

It's blindingly obvious to me that the existence of constitutional rights can't be read to mean that exercising those rights must be free-of-charge.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
:confused: That's kind of irrelevant as I was originally responding to someone who claimed that this insurance proposal violated the 2nd.
Click to expand...

The requirement that insurance be mandated does appear to violate the 2nd Amendment, just as a poll tax violated equal protection clause of the 14th.
GlennB said:
However, "the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances" is not violated by car insurance laws or the need to buy bus tickets to attend the 'assembly' is it?
Click to expand...
No, but those requirements are not aimed directly at the 1st Amendment, either. How do you feel about an insurance policy that is aimed directly at the 1st Amendment?
GlennB said:
And if the 123rd amendment stated "the right to keep a dog shall not be infringed" it would not be violated by requiring dog owners to hold public liability insurance for their pooches.
Click to expand...
The 123rd Amendment is not listed in my copy of the Constitution.
GlennB said:
It's blindingly obvious to me that the existence of constitutional rights can't be read to mean that exercising those rights must be free-of-charge.
Click to expand...
Oh, but it does. That doesn't mean you get a free gun anymore than it means you get a free printing press, television station, or church. It does mean that as these are negative rights, the Government cannot make a law which inhibits the free exercise of them. A law that would effectively bar the poor from exercising those rights, whether they in fact exercise them or not, is prohibited.
An example would be a poor person who might not be able to buy a firearm but was gifted one by a friend or relative. Imposing a mandatory insurance requirement they could not afford would infringe upon that right.
Bear in mind this is not a privilege, it is a right, therefore the government must show a compelling interest in limiting that right for any reason, and further, that the limitation is the only method of satisfying the compelling interest.
 
Oh I'm sorry. I was seeking guidance from you as to which of the amendments could be comparable to the 2A.

I guess my answer to your original question in that case would be 'no'

Others may differ of course.
 
Just out of further curiosity, can anyone confirm whether or not a sales tax is applied to new gun and ammunition purchases?
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
No, but those requirements are not aimed directly at the 1st Amendment, either. How do you feel about an insurance policy that is aimed directly at the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...

This insurance is not "aimed at" the 2nd. The 2nd will remain.

Chuck Guiteau said:
The 123rd Amendment is not listed in my copy of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It was for the purposes of illustration, as I'm sure you're aware. This theoretical 123rd would not be violated by a requirement to carry dog insurance.
 
GlennB said:
This insurance is not "aimed at" the 2nd. The 2nd will remain.
Click to expand...
It is aimed at the 2nd Amendment, as it requires by legislation that acquiring insurance for the use or misuse of a firearm is mandated. It must therefore meet the standards I referred to, namely that the government has a compelling interest and that the legislation is the only means of satisfying this interest.
You're using the same theory that the Democrats used during the "Jim Crow" days for establishing a poll tax.
 
uk_dave said:
Oh I'm sorry. I was seeking guidance from you as to which of the amendments could be comparable to the 2A.

I guess my answer to your original question in that case would be 'no'

Others may differ of course.
Click to expand...
From a legal viewpoint they are all comparable to the 2nd. You cannot plead a special case for one without applying the same theory to all.
 
uk_dave said:
Just out of further curiosity, can anyone confirm whether or not a sales tax is applied to new gun and ammunition purchases?
Click to expand...
Local and State taxes may apply. The Federal government assesses an excise tax on the manufacture of firearms, but this has nothing to do with an individuals right to own one.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
From a legal viewpoint they are all comparable to the 2nd. You cannot plead a special case for one without applying the same theory to all.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but freedom (as they say) is not free. You balk at a mere, affordable insurance. Someone before you gave way more than that.
 
uk_dave said:
Just out of further curiosity, can anyone confirm whether or not a sales tax is applied to new gun and ammunition purchases?
Click to expand...

Not just sale tax - all sporting firearms and ammunition are subject to an 11% excise tax, the Pittman-Robertson act for wildlife conservation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

And sales and other taxes (the NFA stamp) on firearms have been found not to infringe on the Second - I seriously doubt insurance on simple possession would pass court review.
 
Mudcat said:
I'm sorry, but freedom (as they say) is not free. You balk at a mere, affordable insurance. Someone before you gave way more than that.
Click to expand...

This isn't about "affordable" insurance. It's about being forced to pay-to-play.

What other Amendments require you, by law, to have a monthly fee before you are allowed to utilize them?

What other Amendment is null and void if you can't afford the monthly premium?

What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you?
 
Last edited:
Chuck Guiteau said:
Possibly laughing has interfered with your ability to use reason and logic, or maybe that inability is the cause of your mirth.
Either way, you are attempting to use fallacies of logic to make your case.
Ben did not mention "licensed" gun owners, and I did not mention" licensed" automobile owners. The legality of the possession of either of these items is not applicable, nor is the raw number of gun related fatalities, only unintentional gun fatalities.
The number of traffic fatalities in 2010 was 33,808, and I would feel comfortable saying that the vast majority of them were unintentional. The number of unintentional firearms deaths in 2010 was 606.
There are (also as of 2010) 137 million automobiles ( private and commercial) and 300 million (estimated) firearms in the US with about 1 person in four owning at least one gun.
Statistically, 55 times the number of people were killed accidentally by vehicles during that time than by firearms even though there are more firearms than automobiles and roughly the same number of people (1 in 4) possess each.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-09-1Aroaddeaths09_ST_N.htm
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-automobiles-in-the-us/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_are_in_the_united_states_of_America

That owning a firearm is a right, one guaranteed by the Constitution and affirmed by SCOTUS makes it the default position. I do not need to defend it, you need to provide a compelling reason for requesting the government interfere with it.
Appeals to emotion, fallacies of substitution, broad brush statements,appeals to incredulity and laughing moronically at what you believe to be witty and urbane quips, does not meet the standard of a compelling reason.
There is no disconnect, save the one that prompts the anti-2nd Amendment crowd to utter misconceptions, half truths, and fallacies of logic such as the ones used by you and Ben.
Click to expand...


Dear FSM, when will they realize this substitution for argument only loses them the people they try to convert? The AG folks here are the only people I've seen debating the subject (honestly haven't had the discussion with anyone who'd care to have it IRL) and they do it so poorly it embarrasses me. I used to tell people to register here and read threads.
 
It appears that making gun ownership a right makes gun ownership special and exempt from regulations to make sure they are kept secure and handled safely by appropriate people. Since driving is a privilege and not a right, there is no issue to making sure vehicles are driven safely, are safe in themselves and drivers are trained and suitable.

I don't really understand why something which is a right and is potentially deadly comes with less responsibility than something that is a privilege and potentially deadly.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Dear FSM, when will they realize this substitution for argument only loses them the people they try to convert? The AG folks here are the only people I've seen debating the subject (honestly haven't had the discussion with anyone who'd care to have it IRL) and they do it so poorly it embarrasses me. I used to tell people to register here and read threads.
Click to expand...

Which part? He kind of touched on a couple different things there.
 
Sabretooth said:
Which part? He kind of touched on a couple different things there.
Click to expand...

This, which I've seen over and over again: "Appeals to emotion, fallacies of substitution, broad brush statements,appeals to incredulity and laughing moronically at what you believe to be witty and urbane quips".
 
Nessie said:
It appears that making gun ownership a right makes gun ownership special and exempt from regulations to make sure they are kept secure and handled safely by appropriate people. Since driving is a privilege and not a right, there is no issue to making sure vehicles are driven safely, are safe in themselves and drivers are trained and suitable.

I don't really understand why something which is a right and is potentially deadly comes with less responsibility than something that is a privilege and potentially deadly.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a single PG person argue for what you just said.

The super-vast majority of gun owners are already responsible. The discussion here is getting muddied, but the over all point of the thread is the discussion on why I should be forced to buy (what amounts to) "I-might-become-a-criminal-because-I-own-a-gun" insurance.

I already have homeowners insurance that covers me and others in the event of an accident with my firearm. Despite the Constitutional legality of proposing such a ridiculous law, I've yet to find an insurance company that will insure a person for committing a criminal act (which is how the proposed law currently reads).

It's unlikely, but in reality, if such a law should be passed, and insurance carriers will not insure you to the letter of said law, you've essentially passed a de facto gun ban.

Lest we not forget, this law would do nothing to curb the illegal gun ownership or trade.

Stop accusing gun-owners of "not taking responsibility". It's a wholly inaccurate statement and a strawman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom