33 votes

WARNING! Mass. Bill being Introduced today would Require Gun Liability Insurance!

Fox 25 News just reported today that Rep. David Linsky is set to introduce a bill today that will require gun liability insurance be purchased for all guns in the baystate http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/20620122/mass-bill-would-re...

In addition, this bill also seeks to outlaw all high capacity weapons!

As many of you know, Mass. is often the "testing ground" for new and outrageous enroachments on our liberties. This is a very serious issue and a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. This, coming from the same state that says that being required to produce an ID is an infringement upon your right to vote; however, I guess having to pay for a right is not.

Those of us that live in Mass. need to do whatever we can, right now, to stop this draconian legislation. They have just revealed their hand and apparently intend on going for our guns by making them so expensive to own that very few could afford them. I wonder if they think that the criminals that use their weapons irresponsibly to harm others will actually take out this liability insurance?

Please act now and let Rep. David Linsky know what you think of his legislation http://www.malegislature.gov/people/profile/dpl1.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wonders about old BB-gun in the closet....


First of all

requiring insurance is nonsense as they do not have the authority (will I have to insure my fists as well, your much more likely to hurt someone with them), but what would be the true cost of carrying liability insurance against your legal gun injuring someone? Well like any other cost, it should be set by the market and the price would reflect the risk. The risk of someone being hurt by a legal gun owner (the only ones who would buy insurance) are so remote as to be negligible, surely a policy for this would have to be fractions of a penny or less if priced on the market.

From a post on the web (I didn't check the stats and they are for democrat labeled assault rifles):
"Do you mean, a) "what are the per-capita odds" of being shot with something a Democrat claims is an "assault rifle" over an average year, or do you mean, b) "what are the odds an 'assault rifle' discharge will involve someone being shot?"

Ballpark odds:
a) 0.000001% (estimated per-capita "gun death" per year - including murders, suicides, self-defense, cops killing felons, accidents etc. divided by the estimated portion of firearms use that involves a gun that looks like a military weapon)
b) 0.0000026% (BATFE's estimated number of rounds Americans fire vs numbers of people reportedly shot - again, including including murders, suicides, self-defense, cops killing felons, accidents etc.)

Pulling the trigger of an American's gun is 99.99973% SAFE"

I also see many people on here demonizing insurance here which is easy to do when our markets are so fouled up, but I expect better from dailypaulers. There is nothing "socialist" about market based insurance, recognize that when insurance companies are bailed out,etc...the system breaks just as capitalism in general....."breaks".

Some reading:


"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that while libertarians and AnCaps are always tauting the insurance companies as a possible or an innevitable way of preserving a sense of security or justice in a Free Society, it is government which has created more insurance companies throughout history then the Free Market ever did.

Insurance is voluntary socialism

I find it interesting how many "libertarians" fall back on insurance which is socialist by it's very nature. When insurance is not voluntary then it is forced socialism and that is why we officially became a socialist nation when the United States Supreme Court upheld Obamacare and the individual mandate.

It's bad enough that we are forced to buy a product but when that product is about maintaining two of the most socialist and/or antilibertarian industries, being insurance and medical, then we are doomed. Now your guns will be systematically taken away by way of the very entities who many "libertarians" admire.

Denise B's picture

While that is true,

the problem in the equation is government. Having insurance as an option is not a problem in and of itself, but as soon as you have government step in and add a mandate, that is where the problems begin. Government intervention in any industry always results in problems, whether it is Pharmaceutical, or Agriculture or Medical or Insurance or any other industry, government intervention and control is where many of the problems start and many of our freedoms end.

I was just pointing out an

I was just pointing out an amusing fact. I personally don't think insurance would play all that big of a part in an anarchist society; with the exception of life insurance, home insurance, and catastrophic health insurance. Other than those -which existed outside of government involvement- I really don't think people are going to be running around with all that much insurance, because I don't think insurance would be needed. Insurance in the everyday use of healthcare has worked in the same way as government has, which has everybody paying higher prices for everything.

Also, Robert Murphy -in the first edition of Chaos Theory- came pretty close to demanding everybody to have insurance. He went to the point of saying that people shouldn't deal in any way with someone who doesn't have insurance; now that sounds like a very liberty minded individual. If nobody would deal with someobody just because they didn't have insurance, then wouldn't that 'force' that individual to purchase insurance? Isn't that the same thing which everybody is complaining about with ObabmCare; the use of force to have somebody purchase something that they would rather not purchase? If one suggests that the flipside for the individual -to never deal with any other person ever- is a choice, then I would suggest that going to prison because one doesn't pay taxes is also a choice and therefore taxes are voluntary.

Force doesn't always represent physical force; it could just mean that the consequences are so undesirable that doing whatever it is just so happens to be more desireable, then not doing what one doesn't want to do.

Denise B's picture

Did Mr. Murphy

work for the insurance industry?...jk...I've never heard of him before. I get what you are saying, but as long as Mr. Murphy doesn't have a mechanism to force his view on everybody, it would still amount to just his opinion and it is not nearly as dangerous as someone having an opinion as well at the ability to force it upon others.

Over and over again I find myself agreeing with Dr. Paul...governnment is the problem and the only solution is a lot less of it! :)

Murphy is a lawyer. That's

Murphy is a lawyer. That's the thing; the insurance industry would ensure the survival of lawyers, which is why they(libertarian lawyers) push for insurance. Also, those very same people push for arbitrators(judges) as if they are going to be that necessary in an anarchist society. Out of the few places which have experienced anarchism in any amount, they have barely -if at all- utilized abritrators; they had some, but they weren't utilized all that much. However, when one talks with a traditional libertarian or AnCap, they make it sound like an anarchist society would have a use for the millions of lawyers and judges which currently exist; I don't think an anarchist society would.

Government is always the problem.

While you say it is only opinion, his opinion -for the fact that it is his and he is from the Mises Institute- get heard by many people whom don't even question rationally why he would want insurance for everything; nor do they question that to protect everything via insurance, including personal possessions, then all of those possession would need to be identifiable, and there would need to be a database with everybody's info in it to be able to identify stolen property. The system which they(traditional libertarians and AnCaps) usually create is not much different then what Statists want, with the only difference being that one gets to choose ones owner; but make no mistake one would still need an owner -that's usually not even up for discussion.

Denise B's picture

Yea, I am not a big

fan of most lawyers myself (although there are a few good ones out there to be fair). It is without a doubt, lawyers, who helped to create a lot of this mess we are currently in. I think a lot of people have ideas that sound good but often fail to follow them through to their natural conclusions so don't see the end result as clearly. As for me, I am happy with a Constitutional Republic, or would have been had we been able to keep it. I think the original system would have worked just fine if people would have kept their guard up as we were warned to, although I think it could use a couple of tweaks here and there (like an amendment barring the federal government from all direct taxation - period - end of sentence, and any attempt to repeal the amendment would result in immediate removal from office...and a few others):)

Nobody would adhere to the

Nobody would adhere to the amendment of which you speak; so then how would you utilize force against them. It is not like the FBI, DHS, Military would let you use force against a siting member of congress. The point being, is that an ordinary individual -no matter how many- cannot force government to abide by any peice of paper, because the government has the police and military at their disposal.

As one can clearly see, the government hasn't abided by the Constitution which currently exists, and nor will it abide by any other Constitution because the average people have no mechanism to force them(the government) to abide by the law. The 2nd amendment is pretty clear and final, however, we have all kinds of laws which violate it.

There is a reason that the Constituiton (State or Federal) doesn't give government the authority to create Statewide or Unionwide policing agencies; there is also a reason that the Constitution barred the Government from maintaining a standing army. BTW, every individual in the Army and Air Force are violating the U.S. Constitution by being in a standing military(Army).

A Constitution or Law, cannot force government to do anything; and therefore, those in government will do whatever the hell they want with impunity.

Denise B's picture

So then,

what do you think the solution to our problems are? I would be interested in hearing your solutions...

Friends with the insurance companies....

Just like Obama is with his Obamacare. The only people profiting is the insurance companies.

echoing earlier comment

I thought that liability laws are supposed to take the place of government intervention. People injured by negligence from polluters or irresponsible or malicious gun users etc have a way to be compensated.


Denise B's picture


but in a free society, insurance must always be optional. If you are worried about getting harmed by a criminal, maybe you should first take steps to protect yourself, and if you are still concerned, take out your own policy (a.k.a. life insurance).

When it is the government that is requiring the liability insurance, how is that not defined as government intervention?

Good point about the life

Good point about the life insurance let say for providers of families. Also maybe the idea of restitution -ie making an individual or the estate pay restitution to those affected by criminal gun violence. But imperfect it won't protect lower income people. What if some one is to poor to get life insurance but they have a family to support - how do they get justice if deprive of life or livelihood.

But what about a negligent company that permanently damages a stream due to heavy metal contamination. They can always declare bankrupcy and get out of liability even though they seriously affect their neighbors.


Denise B's picture

I understand

what you are getting at, but we are talking about a Constitutionally protected right also potentionally being taken away from poor people. What about all of the people in this country now that are just getting by who would not be able to keep their firearms because they simply could not afford to purchase the required insurance for it? Should they lose their right to keep and bear arms because they can't afford the insurance? Isn't that akin to punishing some people for the criminal actions of others?

I am all for holding people accountable for their actions and would not be against civil actions being taken against someone who harms another intentionally (in addition to whatever criminal actions are also taken); however, at the same time, the 2nd Amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed" and requiring insurance to own a firearm is clearly infringing upon that right.

You mean like Obamacare?


Roffle copter....... Won't

Roffle copter.......

Won't pass

Correct me if i am wrong, but we already have gun insurance

Insurance for guns is included in the homeowners insurance policy. The physical loss is usually covered up to $2,500, in some policy forms guns are covered up to the personal property limit on the policy. The personal property can be written either on a broad form basis or an all risk basis, alternately, guns can be individually scheduled per item. The comprehensive personal liability, included in the homeowners policy, covers negligence, sums the insured would be legally liable to pay in court. Criminal acts, of course, are excluded from coverage.

I couldn't find the bill to read it, but it sounds like this congressman wants criminals to buy insurance for criminal acts, or hold innocent people liable for the acts of criminals. WTF?

lindalsalisbury's picture

Would't You Just know!!!


When I was a child in rural Oklahoma, nobody worried about how they would pay for health insurance - they worried about how they may pay the doctor, if anything should happen.

When insurance came along, a patient was checked into the hospital for any minor problem, so the insurance would pay. This has progressed into the health care monster we have today.

Now, thanks to the insurance corporations with their lobby, lawyers and politicians; we are in the position of needing insurance for almost any action, or reaction.

Bad mandates for auto owners, which on the surface doesn't seem so bad, has led to worse mandates (in some states) of "no-fault" insurance. BECAUSE, the government doesn't enforce the liability mandate, they will force you to buy more insurance, for the people who don't comply with their first mandate.

AND NOW, based on the auto regulation mandates, they find it reasonable to force the public to buy gun liability.

It never ends, it stinks, it stinks it stinks!

Insurance is a scam

I agree 100% - the people started buying mandated auto insurance without a whimper. BAD people! Now you see what you started?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Fishy, correct me if I'm

Fishy, correct me if I'm wrong but you were siding with all the anarchists on this post who claimed that in their "free" society, insurance would take care of their losses. You think insurance is a shame?

I don't disagree, but why is it that the anarchists can claim one thing then the next day call it a sham? Anarchy in itself is a sham because it is completely impossible. Limited government = possible, anarchy = impossible... why? Because without any rules anyone would take and do anything. And if you made rules... bom there is your government. Anarchy is a myth.

Denise B's picture

I am not an anarchist,

but I would think that in their world, insurance would be optional, not mandatory...there is a big difference between the two, IMO.

The point is something will

The point is something will always be mandatory. There is no getting around it. Someone is going to make a rule and it will be followed or else. That is not anarchy. I made the same point last night. You could find the most back country, rain forest tribe that has never seen a white man and i guarantee they have laws of some sort. It is completely impossible for anarchy to work. It goes against everything that is human.

Denise B's picture

I don't disagree with

you in theory, which is why I am not an anarchist, but I think as far as insurance goes, a true anarchist would not mandate insurance on anybody... :)

Denise B's picture

And not just

the auto regulation mandates, but now the health insurance mandates! Remember, the Supreme Court just ruled that it is "Constitutional" for the government to require you to have insurance...and now appears this bill. I don't think it is a coincidence at all and Barry and our governor D. Patrick are very good buddies.

I find this very, very concerning because even if it doesn't get through this time (I will be watching it), it reveals the direction they want to go in and we all know if at first they don't succeed, they will try, try again.

Why not force people to get

Why not force people to get insurance for speech which could possibly libel themselves or others? This is just ridiculous but not surprising. If passed, it will allow those with money to keep and bare arms while the poor wont be able too.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Denise B's picture

One upvote, Really?!

How can there be eights views and only one upvote?! It is extremely important that people know about and respond to this, even if you don't live in MA! Remember, Obamacare got it's trial run in Mass!

Yes, patience..

...I'm only on my second cup of coffee and only 8am here. ;-) Now, where's my toast?

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.
And those who have not heard shall understand.

I gave you an upvote. It's

I gave you an upvote. It's only 8am EST...let people wake up


“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul