Hmmm...
Interesting Straightshooter...
It doesnt entirely make sense...&/or it opens another whole can of worms.
What doesnt make sense is that it mentions
"This legislation establishes and requires gun-owners to obtain and maintain liability insurance policy prior to such ownership. By having this insurance, policy in place, innocent victims of gun-related accidents and violence will be compensated for the medical care for their injuries."Normally insurance is only valid under "correct use", or "in sound order" etc...
For example, an insurer may not pay out on a car insursnce policy if its found a car has modifications that werent listed on a policy, or they may not pay out on a public liability claim against a builder if the builder was clearly not following legislation (say in incorrectly fixed timber beam fell on someones head)--or probably better termed as the builder was negligent.
So i cant see any insurance company willingly insuring a firearms owner for what would effectively be wilful misuse of a firearm..(thats the 'violence' bit of this legislatiin)...this seems to be a direct contradiction of the intended puropse of the compulsory insurance...lol.
Then (i didnt see any mention of) security...so if someone has had their guns stolen & thus used to injure/kill someone, again the insurance would not pay out if the guns were proven to be kept contrary to legislation...however if they were proven to kept secure in accordance with such regs, this would then open up the State to be answerable to negligence due to insignificant regs on safety... (keep in mind the way of the world these days is that noone is reponsible for their actions/behaviour so we have to go through each potential candidate to be forced to take responsibility--the costly world of rights, culpability & litigation).
This would then further clog up the courts with trials, not just for the prosecution/defense of charges, but then also litigation/culpability (payout) cases with insurance companies.
Even given the firearms situation in USA, id hazard a guess this is at best a stretch, a hope, a something from the people who've been horribly affected by gun crime & who aren't suitably compensated for their loss...or at worst, another ill thought out but well worded traction gainer by the anti's.
I can see creedance in USA having some kind of victim levy funded by firearm registration-an N
GIS--'G'being for gun-
-but then we know how well our power hungry Western Govt's administer such things
, so maybe not...lol
Imagine if they thought of that 80 yrs ago--it would have payed out a bit in the last decade.
So im no lawyer or legislator hats for sure, but i just see this as a legal & legislative minefield...& thus not something that could (surely not...!!) not be put into legislation in such simple terms as is written here...
So my guess is its yet another scare tactic by the usual fukwits who rely on their brain dead followers to perpetuate the momentum of fear-mongering the general population into believing the typical anti gun bulls**t.
Just like climate change...
Just like "speed kills"...
Just like shooting a fox is cruel, but putting a lamb through 2 weeks of distress before its death for consumers is ok...
I would hope we firearms owners in this country would stand united & not let ourselves be railroaded into such buggery as this becoming the case--but then, my confidence there is pretty lacking given the divided culture we firearms owners have in this country.
I say on one hand ignore this kind of rubbish...but then its also good to squash any false claims & fears these clowns try to impart on society.
Sorry for the long bit of dribble...
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...