SB 0851 firearm liability insurance

[Tallbear]

SB 0851 of 2016 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2016-SB-0851)
Insurance; other; owner of a firearm to hold firearm liability insurance; require, and establish the firearms claims association. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding ch. 49.
Last Action: 3/9/2016 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

[LivinTheDream]

So now they're gonna MAKE us buy firearm insurance? The insurance lobby in Michigan must be awful powerful. We already have some of the highest insurance rates in the country. Legalized extortion....I'm hoping this dies in committee

[Roundballer]

Oh, it is worse than just forcing us to buy insurance, it also creates another one of those "catastrophic" funds that will fund all sorts of actions against "illegal" guns. I also looks like it will create a way for the "Mommy of that little angel" to be able to sue (and get paid), as long as it was not "LEO" that did the shooting.

This is typical of this Senator, and sole sponsor: Coleman Young II

[RDak]

Oh, it is worse than just forcing us to buy insurance, it also creates another one of those "catastrophic" funds that will fund all sorts of actions against "illegal" guns. I also looks like it will create a way for the "Mommy of that little angel" to be able to sue (and get paid), as long as it was not "LEO" that did the shooting.

This is typical of this Senator, and sole sponsor: Coleman Young II

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gray Man]

Oh, it is worse than just forcing us to buy insurance, it also creates another one of those "catastrophic" funds that will fund all sorts of actions against "illegal" guns. I also looks like it will create a way for the "Mommy of that little angel" to be able to sue (and get paid), as long as it was not "LEO" that did the shooting.

This is typical of this Senator, and sole sponsor: Coleman Young II


Funny, I didn't see anything about an LEO exemption in this legislation. FWIW, I oppose this legislation, gun owners should not have to carry insurance unless they personally decide to for themselves. .

[Caliper]

Also a bit of a "back door" registry.

Never mind that crimes are not typically committed by the legal gun owners.

[brass hat]

(v) PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY

*

ORGANIZATIONS OR BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS FOR PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO

*

REDUCE ILLEGAL FIREARMS.
And just who do you think those organizations would be? brady,bloomberg,ect.They want gun owners to be forced to fund the anti-gunners with our own money. Total garbage!

[Roundballer]

Funny, I didn't see anything about an LEO exemption in this legislation. FWIW, I oppose this legislation, gun owners should not have to carry insurance unless they personally decide to for themselves. .
Second sentence first section:
Senate 2016-SIB-0851 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2016-SIB-0851.htm)

Sec. 4901.
An owner of a firearm shall provide security against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by a person arising out of the discharge of that firearm. This section does not apply to a governmental agency. As used in this section, "firearm" means that term as defined in section 1 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421. However, firearm does not mean an antique firearm as that term is defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.
That certainly would include ALL LEOs, as well as any "other" individuals that carries a firearm as part of the governmental job.

red

And for the troll that dinged me for actually reading the bill and giving my impression:


Why bring up LEO's in this topic? Just have to get in more shots on the Police SMH

Kiss my grits. Coleman Young II put it in the bill, not me. Step forward an discuss the issue instead of hiding behind the "reputation" feature!

[bkglad]

Second sentence first section:
Senate 2016-SIB-0851 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2016-SIB-0851.htm)

That certainly would include ALL LEOs, as well as any "other" individuals that carries a firearm as part of the governmental job.

red

And for the troll that dinged me for actually reading the bill and giving my impression:



Kiss my grits. Coleman Young II put it in the bill, not me. Step forward an discuss the issue instead of hiding behind the "reputation" feature!

Boom headshot!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gray Man]

Second sentence first section:
Senate 2016-SIB-0851 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2016-SIB-0851.htm)

That certainly would include ALL LEOs, as well as any "other" individuals that carries a firearm as part of the governmental job.

red

And for the troll that dinged me for actually reading the bill and giving my impression:



Kiss my grits. Coleman Young II put it in the bill, not me. Step forward an discuss the issue instead of hiding behind the "reputation" feature!

Nope. It involves the agency's having to buy insurance, not the individual cop. Nice try in your attempt once again smear Police Officers. Agencies would be exempt. And again, I don't support any individual citizens having to buy insurance.

But, you missed that point didn't you?

[DEVIL DOG]

Can't wait to see the line up for Hoodlums in the "D" to buy insurance.

[jack1943]

":tsk:"

[jack1943]

At least we now know who to encourage others NOT to vote for next time around.

[DrScaryGuy]

Can't wait to see the line up for Hoodlums in the "D" to buy insurance.

yeah, if people there won't even buy car insurance...

[Snowy.vtwin]

Just for handguns or rifles as well?

So come cpl renewal time we'll need a proof of insurance? With all the serial numbers listed?

The end is near?

[JasonJ]

This bill and resulting legislation has me all sorts of pissed off right now...

[DP425]

Stop getting all worked up as if it's already happened- this is going to die in committee.

[Go2A]

Section 4913 is scary! Essentially, it seems to imply that this insurance is not payable if you shoot someone without a firearm. I guess you're liable if attacked by a group of thugs with knives, baseball bats or bare fists. Also, the reporting clauses by the firearm owner appear to bypass the 4th and 5th amendments to the U.S. constitution.

Fair disclosure: I am not an attorney. I just slept with a law student once .😀

[sigfan]

I am all for reducing illegal firearms. But probably don't support this legislation.

But this is crazy. The best way to carry insurance protection (PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR AGENT AND READ THE POLICY) may be to purchase what's called an "Umbrella Policy"....they cover you against pretty much anything you could possibly be liable for and $1-2 Mill in coverage is pretty affordable. Last time I had one of these it cost me $25/month. I got it when I has doing some major remodeling to my home and running a crew of unemployed carpenters with myself as contractor. Was pretty sure non of them had insurance.

[Leader]

Lets pass a law requiring insurance unless you have a gun to protect yourself.

The insurance companies will love it.

[sigfan]

Lets pass a law requiring insurance unless you have a gun to protect yourself.

The insurance companies will love it.

In this state they may not get a lot of takers.... lots of guns...

[Leader]

Not enough

[giqcass]

This is the primary reason I use this forum. So I can see what BS they are trying to shove down our throats. I haven't figured out who I'm voting for yet but now I have one more person to vote against.

EDIT: There is some language in the bill referring to the number of firearms which makes me think each firearm must be insured rather then each firearm owner. That sounds an awful lot like a firearm registry.