Chalk one up for the Second Amendment and pass the ammo! It’s time to celebrate. Well, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but the pro Second Amendment supporters can claim another victory. For the most part, I try to wish others success. I respect differences in opinion. While I actively oppose differing points of view and personally revel in my own victories, I try not to gloat over the defeat of others—most of the time. This is not one of those times.
I would like to say the latest victory is the result of Americans and politicians finally waking up and realizing that legal gun owners are not the problem. However, that simply isn’t the case. Instead, we have an unlikely person to thank for the measure’s demise, President Obama.
As the measure rolled out, it was quickly compared to Obama’s efforts to institute mandatory health care, and proved to be a death nail in the plan. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not understand the protections that are only made possible though the Second Amendment, but they know what a disaster government mandated insurance can lead to.
The insurance industry also opposed the move. As it turns out, the insurance industry has more interest in avoiding claims tied to policyholders than the potential revenue premiums could generate. So, for now, we can chalk up a win for the pro Second Amendment crowd and raise a glass to salute another failure from those seek to strip our Constitutional rights.
Here are a few examples of purposed laws and the lawmakers on both sides of the issue.
The Market-Based Approach?
U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced a bill in March that would prohibit the sale of firearms to uninsured people. She called her proposal a “market-based approach” by likening it to auto insurance, which is required by states—and more costly for those deemed by underwriters to pose the greatest risk. I would hate to think what criteria they would use to assess a higher risk. Somehow, I do not think it would be mental health. Maloney’s proposal hasn’t been brought for a vote by the House of Representatives, but signals the importance of the next midterm election.
Michael Bost, a Republican state legislator from southern Illinois, opposed the insurance bill and said supporters of the mandate from Chicago were mistakenly blaming the city’s violence on guns, rather than criminals. When asked about parallels between the firearms proposal and Obama’s health policies, Bost said both are “too much government in my life.”
Florida State Representative Matt Gaetz, a Republican, introduced a bill this month that would prohibit insurers from underwriting a policy or refusing to provide coverage based on an applicant’s ownership of a legal firearm.
In California, an effort to mandate insurance faltered while other restrictions advanced, including a bill signed last month by Governor Jerry Brown that places tighter limits on gun storage.
Lawmakers in Illinois voted down a mandatory insurance measure by a margin of more than 2-to-1. The measure would have required $1 million of insurance. Similar proposals were excluded from gun-control bills that passed in California and Connecticut.
Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, said he withdrew his firearms-liability bill because of a lack of support and perhaps made the most telling statement, “It’s likely this won’t come back again until, God forbid, the next huge round of spectacular gun violence and we summon the momentum to act again,” Raskin said.
Translation… They are readying themselves to pounce on the next tragedy in an effort to exploit it to advance their political agenda.
The writing is on the wall. We have the victory today, but without your grass roots efforts and the continued support of organizations such as the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation and others we won’t be celebrating for long.