Illinois Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance

February 18, 2009

  • February 18, 2009 at 7:46 am
    Corporation says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The Corporation
    Comment:
    A most see movie ” The Corporation a documentary by filmmakers Mark Achbar and Jennifer ABBOTT AND Auther JOEL BAKAN

  • February 18, 2009 at 9:21 am
    Cliff Curlee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Liability specifically does not cover willful acts.

    Rep. Kenneth Dunkin needs to get his finger out.

  • February 18, 2009 at 10:21 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I was kind of curious about that requirement too. I’m not involved in the liability end of the business, but it seemed unlikely the coverage would be available. What’s next, intentional hold up coverage?

  • February 18, 2009 at 10:50 am
    Roc says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yep, this will stop the criminals dead in their tracks as they will have to buy the insurance to cover their misdeeds. Of course it will improve gun safety at the same time. CARS are much more dangerous weapons than guns so guess they will be requiring the same covarage for autos soon there. And politicians wonder why they have such low public confidence ratings. OBTW, why not the same coverage for carrying a knife???

  • February 18, 2009 at 11:02 am
    matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a back door way to limit our fundamental right to bear arms.

    Also, insuring intentional acts is adverse to the public good. We shouldn’t insure intentional acts just like we shouldn’t pay for punitive damages. Insuring intentional acts can be interpreted as creating an incentive to do wrong.

  • February 18, 2009 at 11:41 am
    IL Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Regarding Tim’s question, the minimum limits for Auto liability in IL is 20/40/15…huge nonstandard auto market here.

  • February 18, 2009 at 12:36 pm
    Court Jester says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think it should mandate a $500,000 limit for chainsaw owners too.
    This idiot needs to get his head out of a dark circular place.

  • February 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm
    Amelia says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Duncan is suffering from a severe case of cranial rectosis. He obviously doesn’t understand the concept of insurance. People with licensed handguns aren’t the problem anyway. He’d be better of pursuin liability coverage requirements for owners of pit bulls. We must remember ….. this is Illinois…..the laughing stock of the country.

  • February 18, 2009 at 1:00 am
    Tim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think the point has been missed in these comments. Liability insurance covers injury producing accidents. This includes guns and autos. Both, by accident, have severe probable outcome in terms of injury to other humans. However, I wonder what the financial responsibility limits are in Illinois for automobiles? I’d bet it much below $100,000, possibly as low as $25,000. Yet, what action has been taken to increase this? Nothing happens because its politically not viable. Now, guns on the other had are a hot topic, so this bill may become law.

  • February 18, 2009 at 1:12 am
    Charles says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just another attempt to stifle our 2nd Amendment rights and keep firearms in the hands of criminals only.

  • February 18, 2009 at 1:13 am
    Analyst says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While I do not have any statistics to back up this claim, I would assume the majority of accidents involving firearms occur with residents of the household which would not be covered by insurance anyway. This sounds to me like a foot in the door to revoking our first amendment rights. When will people get it through their heads that people who intend to take illegal actions with fire arms are going to do it illegally. No law or regulation will stop this. If a criminal wants a firearm they are going to get a firearm. Why penalize the responsible, law abiding people for some other idiot’s actions.

    Ps. I believe IJ has the wrong party affiliation with this joker

  • February 18, 2009 at 1:36 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Does the journalist who wrote this article intend to mention that the lawmaker in question is a Democrat? Or does he just consider it so obvious that only a Democrat would author such legislation that it is not newsworthy, i.e a “dog bites man” story? I would certainly hope this omission is not an indication of any kind of pro-Democrat bias on the part of the author.

    BTW, someone look up this lawmaker and see if he is in fact a Democrat. I haven’t checked, because I, too, thought it was obvious.

  • February 18, 2009 at 1:38 am
    not sure says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Since the insurance industry isn’t run by a little green lizard but by Tony Soprano, they’d be the first to push this as mandatory if they thought they could get away with it. Just look at what their front-men at the AAMVA did with car insurance.

  • February 18, 2009 at 1:54 am
    Tim says:
  • February 18, 2009 at 2:01 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Joe kinda touched on it. I don’t have proof either, but surely it’s only coincidental that this comes from Obama’s home state; who is on record as being against the Second Amendment as written. As for the insurance legislation, that’s a joke in of itself which speaks of the source. I doubt Rep. Dunkin knows an “occurrence” from an “aggregate”, but then all he’s doing is carrying out the marching orders issued by the Prez.

  • February 18, 2009 at 2:03 am
    rsmall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am in the insurance business (28 years) and know of no company which currently write a policy for damages (from gun usage) for “willful” acts. Personal liability insurance is generally obtained via the homeowner’s policy which has an exclusion for “intentional acts”. I do represent one company which waives this exclusion if the “insured” is protecting people or property. If this law passes as written, no one would be able to find the coverage required.

  • February 18, 2009 at 2:07 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nothing coming out of the great state of Illinois surprises me. This is the equivalent of having to pay the poll tax to vote. Requiring this insurance is a clear “infringement” on your right to bear arms.

  • February 18, 2009 at 2:41 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Illiniois = Democrat

    You have to keep that fact in mind. There is no other actual party there.

  • February 18, 2009 at 3:11 am
    okt0ber says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here in gun toting Texas, this would be covered under our PUP language… I’m sure it would work that way in Illinois, too…

  • February 19, 2009 at 3:17 am
    Annoyed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I suggest you use a different forum to get free promotion for your film that apparently no one wants to see. You’re posting the same bogus promotion to every article in this journal. If I see you again I’ll report you to IJ.

  • February 18, 2009 at 3:22 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.

    ‘Nuff said.

  • February 18, 2009 at 3:35 am
    Taylor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    lol. Yep. Guns are for crooks, the rest of us dont need them. Just saying that jokingly makes me want to go buy some more ammo.

  • February 18, 2009 at 4:15 am
    Illinois gun owner & ins agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think all of you are missing the point of this article & proposed law. The policy would be to cover the gun owner in the event it was stolen or lost & someone else used it wilfully & then the person it was used on tried to sue the gun owner, not when the gun owner used it wilfully. However in Illinois the owner of a stolen car is not liable for damage or injury to anybodys property or person caused by his car. Thus I can’t see how a stolen gun would be any different.

  • February 18, 2009 at 4:20 am
    Rich Manak says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Illinois is the only state in the country with a FOID card…The criminals don’t get one. The criminals won’t buy insurance. The Democrats in Chicago want to disarm the law abiding. Another phony attempt to disarm the only people that actually reduce crime. Concealed carry states are much safer… The most dangerous place is a “gun free zone”.

  • February 18, 2009 at 4:40 am
    Paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What is this “State” going to come up with next. I have heard horror stories about citizens “NOT” from Illinois who are legally licensed to carry in their home state and in others being stopped and thinking that they had done right by disarming, putting their weapon in a locked box in an un-accessible location having to pay tremendous fines and the threat of jail.

    I guess that those citizens just did not have enough of a backbone to fight this grave injustice and erosion of our Second Amendments rights to lawfully carry and posess protection.

    I am licensed to carry concealed in my state and to carry open, I don’t need one. I am also licensed to carry in the other 47 states by reciporal agreements and additional licensing.

    And just think, the rest of the 49 states thinks of West Virginia of being a backwards third world country

  • February 18, 2009 at 5:12 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I also have a conceal carry permit which I do pretty much every day. Hey, insurance agencies are known to have cash on hand and get robbed. I’m just glad I live in Texas where it’s the MINORITY that either don’t carry or have one in their vehicle (which is legal without a permit). If a Texas legislator even brought this up, first he would be tarred and feathered, then carried down the capitol steps, across the street, and thrown in the Colorado River.

  • February 19, 2009 at 7:18 am
    NY gun owner says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey, Anon – cars don’t kill – people kill. Guns don’t kill – people kill!! Does anyone see “our saviour” Obama here? The Illinois gun owners need to unite against this bill – The NRA can only do so much – I urge you all to start the campaign NOW!! And at the next election – vote him OUT!!

  • February 19, 2009 at 7:31 am
    TheHud says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If I remember correctly, isn’t it illegal to pass any law that makes it financially restrictive to exercise a protected right?

  • February 19, 2009 at 7:32 am
    Guns says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Seems like a slick way for the government to find out who has the guns.

  • February 19, 2009 at 7:34 am
    TheHud says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If I remember correctly, isn’t it illegal to pass any law that makes it financially restrictive to exercise a protected right?

  • February 19, 2009 at 8:52 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ken Dunkin’s bio states that he is a member of the Legislative Insurance Committee!! Is it possible that Dunkin is shilling for the Special Interests by literally selling our Constitutional Rights to the insurance companies that he represents?

    Someone please explain to this doofus that the Second Amendment is a Right and not a privilege and therefore not subject to his greed or stupidity.

  • February 19, 2009 at 9:03 am
    Landon Fitzgerald says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In response to your post…
    I work for an insurance company based in Chicago, and we can write personal liability polices to cover these requirements. Xinsurance can offer whatever coverages are missing from standard homeowners,professional, liability policies.

  • February 19, 2009 at 9:32 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You write coverage for intentional acts? Sounds pretty wrong to me.

  • February 19, 2009 at 9:37 am
    Nick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Folks, an insurance policy is just a legal contract. A private company, or for that matter the govt, can create a policy that covers almost anything.

    In might not be in the public interest, but it is what it is.

  • February 19, 2009 at 9:40 am
    Abe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thats a good point, does anyone really say “Cool, ive got this insurance policy, now I can go out and shoot somebody!”

    ???

  • February 19, 2009 at 10:12 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As the great classical philosopher said “you can’t fix stupid” and requiring coverage for intentional acts is just dumb.

  • February 19, 2009 at 10:42 am
    sandman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I live in Illinois and know of no company that will give this coverage. So we will have to give up our guns. Mayor Dailey had Chicago give up their legal guns and they had more people killed in the city in 2008 than we had military personnel killed in Iraq.

  • February 19, 2009 at 10:43 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Once again, if there is coverage, the money goes to the victim, that’s a good thing.

    And once again, logically speaking, I dont think that just because you know you have an insurance policy, that that will cause you to want to intentionally want to shoot someone.

  • February 19, 2009 at 10:48 am
    No one says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This does not surprise me at all. The minute that all the guns are removed from the public then we become slaves. It doesn’t matter your race or religion. What would have happened if we didn’t have guns to become a free country? What would have happened if we didn’t have guns to free us from slavery? What would have happened if we didn’t have guns for WWI or WWII? We only have the right to talk and disagree about this because we have always had the second amendment right to bear arms! Guns do not kill people, people kill people. If you think guns kill then you must believe that pencils misspell words!!!!!

  • February 19, 2009 at 11:02 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    OK No One, I guarantee you CANNOT kill me without a gun.

    You couldn’t even do it with a knife if I saw you coming.

    Also, do not forget, the govt is now funding what are called Non-Lethal weapons.

    They will use them to incapacitate you. It wont matter if you have a gun or not.

    This will all be moot very soon.

    They can basically do whatever they want now.

    How many well armed militias have stood a chance against our govt in the last 100 years?

    That concept is outdated. If you want a gun for your personal security, or for sport, thats fine, but you arent gonna fight the government.

  • February 19, 2009 at 11:17 am
    Ed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090219/NEWS01/902190347/1002/NEWS

    The suspect in four homicides was denied a pistol permit three times in the past 15 years, until 2007 when a judge gave Frank Garcia the right to carry a concealed weapon.

  • February 19, 2009 at 11:21 am
    Partone says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ed, thats interesting. He didnt kill until he got his gun. Sisnt use his bare hands, didnt use a knife.

    Like most cowards, he couldnt commit the murders withouta gun.

    MAybe Iran should have NUKES, people kill people right?

  • February 20, 2009 at 12:33 pm
    boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In fairness to non-gun owners, firearms liability should be excluded from Homeowners liability coverage.

    A facility such as the NRA has sufficient membership to spread the risk and write
    this liability coverage.

  • February 20, 2009 at 12:38 pm
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yep, absolutely correct. This means that, by statute, the Second Amendment has been nullified or, simply put, Illinois is doing an “end-run” around your constitutional rights. How about if we demand insurance coverage for free speech, religion or the maintainance of search and seizure rights…after all isn’t “Pay for Play” the way they do things in Chicago!

    These are RIGHTS not privileges, we don’t need to pay anyone to exercise a Constitutional Right.

  • February 19, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    FLAGNT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Guns don’t kill people, stupid diets do

  • February 19, 2009 at 1:00 am
    Paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Does this pertain to the people that just elected the president or the entire bunch that is now running our country?

  • February 19, 2009 at 1:43 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To be bipartisan, I think you can say this about most politicians these days.

  • February 19, 2009 at 2:33 am
    Danno says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You cannot expect him to pull his finger out of what he is.

  • February 19, 2009 at 4:40 am
    LimaLima says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Illinois wants an insurance policy for gun owners but Chicago politician Obama won’t produce his college records or his medical records. This “commander in chief” could not even pass a background check to be an FBI or Secret Service agent, much less POTUS.

    Beware of the assault on your 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

  • February 20, 2009 at 8:02 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’ll gladly bet you that $1000 that the Obama Administration will attempt an end-run around the Second Amendment. Clinton raised the federal tax on businesses attempting to secure a license to sell ammunition. The Swecond Amendment still existed however, in my town, we were forced to travel an 80 mile round trip to buy a box of .22’s.

    I’m willing to bet that same $1000 that Obama raises taxes (or maybe even requires insurance or adds restrictive regulations) on ammo and guns to the extent that some people can’t afford them. How about it Dick, wanna’ play?

  • February 20, 2009 at 8:30 am
    TS in GC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think they should IMPEACH Rep Kenneth Dunkin, just like Blago and Burris…
    Throw the bumbs out!

  • February 20, 2009 at 8:42 am
    Lee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When our govt decides to uphold a ridiculous law such as this, and impenge on our own constitutional amedments set forth by these same people, it’s time I moved abroad.

  • February 20, 2009 at 8:49 am
    easyrhino says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What do think they’ll call the next American Revolution?

  • February 20, 2009 at 8:50 am
    Dave L says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    FIne. I want everyone who keeps alcohol to get liability insurance. I just this morning was stunned to get a call from an old friend whose husband got killed by a drunk driver, and this isn’t the first time. Another friend’s daughter nearly died when she drank too much at a party-and the parents were THERE. I know many more people whose lives were affected by alcohol than firearms.

  • February 20, 2009 at 8:56 am
    DL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have to hand it to the insurance industry. This will be a gold mine! They’ll be able to buy even MORE shopping centers and hotels!

  • February 20, 2009 at 9:14 am
    Decon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Based on the comments im seeing – Most of you will be in trouble without your guns. You are all way to FAT and LAZY for hand to hand combat.

    Ill see you at 3 in the morning, lard buts. Better get a home security system.

  • February 20, 2009 at 9:32 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Did I miss something? Where did you see the insurance industry promoting this idiotic law? Or do you just feel the need to blame us for everything/

  • February 20, 2009 at 10:53 am
    Larry says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Laws like this will only create more criminals. Think about it, What is next ?
    Possibly tax on a book of matches, because after all they can start fires!
    Socialism here we come. Or is it Faschism?

  • February 20, 2009 at 11:35 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Once again guys; this is nothing but another pre-meditated, calculated ploy by this radical ( and yes; fascist ) admnistration to chip away and circumvent our constitutional rights. If I lived in this politically sorry state, I would be wearing out the NRA and calling any politician that’s not a democrat ( if there are any ). That’s how these people have come into power to begin with. It’s because the right won’t get agressive.

  • February 20, 2009 at 11:46 am
    Dick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Billy Bum, this is a local story, not related to Obama.

  • February 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    McLovin' says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You stick to your hand to hand combat, Decon. I’ll stick to my fully automatic AK-47 which I’ve modified with a laser scope and rocket launcher.

  • February 20, 2009 at 1:13 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Your comments were obviously meant to be ironic however IF anyone really wants to test that “hand-to-hand” combat theory they might receive a serious beating just prior to getting shot.

    That’s the interesting thing about the Second Amendment, a criminal NEVER knows what’s going to happen and that uncertainty is what keeps law abiding citizens safe.

  • February 20, 2009 at 1:51 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You’re kidding, right? Just because he was a Senator from Illinois that is on record as being against the Second Amendment as written; and just because he voted against the lifting of handgun restrictions, you don’t think his fingerprints are all over this bill? Give me a break Tricky Dick.

  • February 20, 2009 at 1:56 am
    Dicky says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well find out bill, if he is, he can do even more damage from the white houze. Well see……

    I think you are kidding yourself though.

    I bet anything, that Obama does not try to overturn any portion on the constitution the way Bush did with the Patriot act.

    THink about it folks. All they want is a liability policy for when you shoot someone. Its not that big of a deal, and its a huge jump to suggest that this is something Obama did, and that next he will change the constitution.

  • February 20, 2009 at 2:24 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The naive world we live in……..

  • February 20, 2009 at 2:44 am
    Dick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    OK bill, bet me cash money then. $1,000.
    Put your money where your big mouth is.

    The second amendment will not be overturned in the next 8 years.

    Ill wager $1,000.

    Or more, if you are willing

    Id even bet my house.

    So, do we have a bet?

    If so Ill give you my real email and we can get our lawyers involved and draw up a contract for our wager.

  • February 20, 2009 at 3:38 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My, my…..aren’t we testy? You’re missing the point there Dick. If you look back over what everyone has said, for the most part they are opinions; just like mine.

  • February 20, 2009 at 6:26 am
    gun owner says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    my home security system will put a bullet in your brain at 3 am, so come see me. and I’ll be damned if anyone will ever take my guns while I’m alive, or make me buy some stupid insurance

  • February 21, 2009 at 8:07 am
    john warda says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    no way. your crazy. just a way around to ban guns. stop now or i hope you lose reelection

  • February 22, 2009 at 7:05 am
    Allan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I know now that we are lost as a nation, destined to be under the control of private off-shore banks. Traitors to our once free Constitutional Republic, like Rep. Kenneth Dunkin, are bought and paid for by these banks and the corporations that grow up around them. These greedy control freak politicians would gladly sign their children’s freedom away if it meant getting re-elected and being able to exercise control over the lives of the American people. Their god is their belly and screw everyone else. What morons elect these monsters who would deny our right to self-defense by eventually making it financially impossible to own a gun?

  • February 22, 2009 at 9:08 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here is a Link everybody needs to watch.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p

  • February 22, 2009 at 10:50 am
    Allen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That is an awesome video. I haven’t seen it in a while. What I remembered was the look of absolute arrogance and distain on the face of New World Order ***** Schumer toward that brave young lady who knows more about the Constitution than any of those creatures in office whose sole reason to exist is to rape this country and its citizens.

  • February 22, 2009 at 11:48 am
    Jimbo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think this fraek should be required to carry 1 billion dollars in insurance for being able to spew such crap!!

  • February 23, 2009 at 2:09 am
    Allen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow! I just read your strange postings. Obama’s number one job will be to make buying ammunition and owning a gun so expensive and difficult as to be nearly impossible for anyone except the ruling class to own them. If you’ve ever taken antidepressants, seen a psychiatrist, you ain’t going to get a gun. Or if you find jumping through the many tests and registration processes they’ve(Eric Holder et al.) got planned for you too difficult to surmount, you aren’t getting a gun. And if you manage to make it through all that, you are going to pay incredibly high taxes to buy a gun or ammo. By the way, they also are going to try to ban outright the most popular calibers. So, tough luck. Wake up dude. All this stuff was snuck into the latest 1,000 page plus bailout for porkers bill.

  • February 23, 2009 at 2:46 am
    Allen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I meant to say that the gun control stuff was snuck into the stimulus package, not the banker bailout.

  • February 22, 2009 at 2:49 am
    concerned in KC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    seems odd that the law abiding citizen would need that type of insurance, when it is the criminals, that do not have their guns registered, would not have the insurance forced on them. going against our constitutional rights, not cool.

  • February 23, 2009 at 2:58 am
    Allen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I also want to clarify that only more restrictive gun registration laws are found in the stimulus package: H.R. 45 (Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009). The taxes on ammo and guns, along with the banning of certain calibers for us civilians, are down the pike, not in the stimulus package. I get carried away sometimes.

  • February 22, 2009 at 5:38 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What do you want to bet the State Of Illinois will be selling this Insurance, especially with the economic fix their in. Just imagine what the cost would be for this Policy. If this happens don’t think other States won’t follow suit.

  • February 23, 2009 at 7:06 am
    Jan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Exadjuster – you call us all gun nuts. Well, I do not live in Illinois and I don’t own a gun. This country is envied and know as one of the greatest in the world because of our freedoms. That is why our forefathers went to so much trouble to write the Declaration and Bill of Rights. We have sat back and let a minority chip away our rights little by little. One day you will wake up without any rights and it will be too late to complain or do anything about it.

  • February 23, 2009 at 7:15 am
    Jan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wonderfully written!!! Now no one can say there is a question as to what our forefathers intent was.

  • February 23, 2009 at 7:19 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    repdurkin@hotmail.com

    Copy, paste and send him a note to let him know how you feel!

  • February 23, 2009 at 9:19 am
    Exadjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My, my. Why does anything having to do with Guns bring out all the wing nuts,(I mean gun nuts?)

  • February 23, 2009 at 9:30 am
    Shield says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t know much about Illinois politics since I’m in Missouri. However, I suspect Duncan is doing the bidding of some liberal lobbyist who are trying to take guns from the people. This is just another end around.

  • February 23, 2009 at 10:28 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why does the mention of guns bring out the left wing nuts too? I don’t own guns, but still think it’s a fundemental constitutional right.

  • February 23, 2009 at 11:01 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    From what I’ve seen on the subject, the proposed law would make the owner reaponsible for injuries even if the firearm had been stolen from them. If the law passed, I don’t think that any insurance comapny is going to provide coverahe for intentional, wilful misconduct and the acts of criminals who steal a firearm from the legal owner.

  • February 23, 2009 at 11:31 am
    subscriber says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t believe that the legislators who penned the Constitution and Bill of Rights could possibly have anticipated the future technology of current firearms, assault weapons (or nuclear arms, to define “arms” further). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide protectionists (who fled the tyranny of England and feared the possible invasion and overthrow of the “free” states) a “well regulated militia.” Given the abuse of this right by the vastly ignorant majority of Americans, this provision has obviously not been well-regulated, and any assembled militia with the power of today’s weaponry would be a complete and utter disaster.

    Sure, allow anyone who wants arms an 18th century musket (the type of arms available at the time of the penning of the Bill of Rights), train the musket owners well, and regulate them. Just like the Bill of Rights states. (An aside: The bill says “keep and bear arms”–it doesn’t say anything about the right to own ammunition or the right to fire the arms.)

  • February 23, 2009 at 11:47 am
    Gun Owner says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If I’m not mistaken, more people are killed by vehicles than by guns. If that is fact and this official really wants to protect the people, then why doesn’t he offer a bill that would require a one million dollar minimum liability policy for all registered vehicles?

    Or, is he just after the gun owners and hiding behind the “protection theory”?

  • February 23, 2009 at 12:31 pm
    frustrated with ignorance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Didn’t they have any classes in reading comprehension in that highly liberal school that you attended.

    The framers of our constitution were more afraid of an over-bearing Federal Government than they were with any outside threat. We know that all of you liberals want to take our guns and religion so that you can install your anti-christ, communist doctrine. Since, the government will not restrict itself to 18th century technology, and our Federal Government is the greatest threat to our Republic, why would you think the framers of the constitution would want the citizens to render themselves unprepared to overthrow a tyrannical government. Both you and the other people who refer to themselves as government know this is true, you are playing your game of hide(the truth) and seek (deceive the people).

    The government is run by men, most of whom are greedy and self-serving. Why would any right thinking individual want to give such people full power over his life and property?

    You sir are grossly uninformed and in need of some structured counseling.

  • February 23, 2009 at 12:40 pm
    Little Frog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bulls-eye G.U. If this survives a constitutional challenge, just think of all of the other things that could be “discouraged” by requiring prohibitive insurance requirements; abortion, alcohol, free speech, tobacco, personal vehicles…
    A fameous Supreme Court decision declared the principle; “The power to tax is also the power to destroy”. This attempt is nothing short of that.

  • February 23, 2009 at 1:14 am
    Ralph says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I respectfully disagree, subscriber. Remember, when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, flint-lock muskets were still a heckuva lot more advanced than the bows and arrow and knives (among other weapons) that were in use at the time.

  • February 23, 2009 at 1:54 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Remember that the Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought over brass cannon stored in Concord. Brass cannon typified the apex of, what was then, modern technology. The founders were well aware that the people needed up to date, technologically current weaponry to fight an overbearing, intrusive government.

    Do some homework, read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and then feel free to comment on the founding father’s intentions.

  • February 23, 2009 at 1:58 am
    Allen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Subscriber’s comments show his disregard for history or his unwillingness to study it.

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. — Thomas Jefferson
    [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

    I could go on, but the writings of the framers of the Constitution assumed Americans would still be intelligent enough in the future to read and understand not only the Constitution, but history. They also left us the Federalists papers lest anyone question their motivations.
    You can’t be ignorant and free for long. Your stupidity will catch up to you in the form of a tyrannical government, and you’ll spend the rest of your life in serfdom.
    People who refer to us a gun nuts are already serfs to their own lack of understanding. They haven’t the ability to appreciate the sacrifices others made, so they could live in a country where the people are still sovereign.

  • February 23, 2009 at 3:12 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You are spot on Allen. Our forefathers were genuises in that regard of predicting. Unless this naive nation wakes up to what is already on the table and raises hell with their congressman and senator, we will become P.O.W.s in our own country.

  • February 23, 2009 at 5:10 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t understand what the problem is with wanting to own a weapon. Most of us were taught how to use a weapon in the Military or having been Police Officers. These type of people are not Gun nuts. They are only doing what was their God given right for protecting their country. Anti Gun people are the ones who have never served their country in that fashion. If the local and federal Governments teach us how to use These weapons, why do they want to take that right away??

  • February 23, 2009 at 6:45 am
    Jan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is just a back door to make guns illegal so they can deny they are taking away your right to bear arms. There is no insurance company in the world that would write a liability policy like that and the people proposing this stupid law know it. Also, do they think the crooks, gangsters and murderers are going to purchase an insurance policy??? Ridiculous. You should demand a recall of this idiotic polititian. He is just wasting your tax dollars with such ridiculous proposals!

  • February 24, 2009 at 7:49 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Absolutely no one made an original post yesterday – All these comments were already made a week ago when the article came out.

    To repeat my response:

    The cat is already out of the bag. You are all ignorant if you think you have a chance against the government.

    Thats what the well armed militia is for, yes.

    But if the government knows you have this militia, or are forming one, they will destroy you, just like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

    Also, what in gods name makes you think you will have the same weaponry as the government?

    They already have tanks that can shoot a sonic beam that can stop you in your tracks.

    Get a clue and read the news.

    Google non-lethal weaponry.

  • February 24, 2009 at 8:02 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I checked on Snopes.Com on the subject article including Rep. Kenneth Dunkin’s name and found squat. I believe someone falsely started this rumor for what purpose I don’t understand. All of you do not fall for for this as it should be considered just to be a false rumor to just incite tempers. I researched for all of Illinois Bills on Guns and found nothing pertaining to this type of Law.

  • February 24, 2009 at 8:38 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes Virginia, there is a bill and there is a Rep. Dunkin. Please see below.

    Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
    430 ILCS 65/4.5 new
    430 ILCS 65/8 from Ch. 38, par. 83-8

    Synopsis As Introduced
    Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such

  • February 24, 2009 at 8:48 am
    Paul D. Soderholm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Anyone who doubts the validity of this, just Google “Illinois HB 687”. Dear firearm owners, contact Ken Dunkin and your local Illinois Representative to urge
    defeat of this bad piece of legislation. Urge our lawmakers to stop harrassing the lawful firearm owner.

  • February 24, 2009 at 9:37 am
    BB says:
  • February 24, 2009 at 9:41 am
    Allen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Absolutely no one made an original post yesterday – All these comments were already made a week ago when the article came out.
    I don’t know what you mean?
    Anyhow, regarding what you said about going up against the military. You’re right. It would be pretty hopeless. So if it comes to that, see you in the FEMA camps, as we work along side each other laboring as brothers in servitude to our masters.
    The point is to put up a stink about these unconstitutional laws while we are still somewhat free. I guess you’ve already packed your bags for the gulag.
    As this comment section, turned forum, has dealt with all the issues now, I’ll be saying goodbye. I hope you all tell your children what it means to be free and an American, and maybe they won’t grow up to be those, hopefully few, in the military who would fire on their own countrymen.
    We still live in a great nation that has unfortunately been taken over by truly evil, greedy people who will fight to stay in power, even if it means destroying you, your family and their own country. We’re being brought down by design so we can all be forced into a New World Order, and freedom is not include in the deal.

  • February 24, 2009 at 2:54 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The universal reply to tyranny is, and always must be, “Molon Labe”…Come and take them!

    I would like you to do some serious historical research, no offense intended. Start with Lexington/Concord, Saratoga, etc. Militias are by nature inefficient in the short term, they also tend to be very efficient in the long term. While a militia often loses troops at a faster rate than an organized military it also tends to remain active in the field much longer than its enemy. Organized armies simply cannot sustain the constant long term losses and most armies (except in the Soviet Union) are loathe to murder their own prople for the sake of increased government power.

    A former president, who was also a rabid anti-gunner, actually had the military queried about supporting a policy of removing firearms from the public (by force if necessary). The response, which was supposed to remain classified, was a resounding 97% against his policies. After this poll was completed he decided to drop any future plans to grab guns by force.

    Remember that we live in a 3 dimensional world, elected officials can do pretty much what they want however all of their actions have consequences and people accustomed to freedom will not placidly bear the yoke of tyranny. If they want our firearms, “Molon Labe”!

  • February 24, 2009 at 2:56 am
    frustrated with ignorance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m sure glad that you wern’t around before the Revolutionary War, The Barbary War or The War of 1812. I am also sure that the British are happy that you weren’t around during the French and English War and World War II. There are countless other wars and conflicts where brave men took to the battle field against seemingly insurmountable odds, yet prevailed through courage and determination.

    With all of this fancy technology that you refer to, don’t you question why we could not conquer the Iraqi Terrorist without the support of the Iraqi people. I would not want to find myself in a foxhole with a defeatist. Who was it that said the only thing to fear is “fear itself?”

    No tyrannical government can rule a people who refuse to be enslaved and are willing to die for their beliefs.

  • February 24, 2009 at 3:02 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Samaritan. can you give me an example of any militia that currently exists in the US right now?

    If so what are they doing to procure the freedom for Americans right now? And what are they waiting for?

    Are they happy with the way things are going now in this country?

    What is their plan of attack?

    Im not going to do any research, Im sure there was a time when militias were relevant. Now is not that time.

    With the Patriot Act and non lethal weaponry and what happened in Waco, militias are already dead.

    Its too late.

    The only reason to have a gun now is to prevent folks from stealing your stuff if everything hits the fan.

  • February 24, 2009 at 3:04 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with you, but I believe in non violent passive resistence.

  • February 24, 2009 at 3:09 am
    frustrated with ignorance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Then prepare to become their slave.

  • February 24, 2009 at 3:15 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    F.W.I.

    Yourre a pretty cool dude, Ill probably just try to hook up with your militia, so dont shoot me when I come by begging to sign up! I can just work on the supply line or something.

  • February 24, 2009 at 5:01 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To quote a Founding Father the militia is “The body of the whole people”. Secondly you need to lay off the caffine, ya’ know??

    As I stated before…the militia is inefficient in the short term and very efficient in the long term. Take the Battle of Lexington-Concord as an example. Everyone turned out for that fight, including the women (read the journals of officers and civilians involved in the fight). However, prior to the fight, most people hoped that a peaceful resolution could be reached.

    After the British slaughtered their neighbors on Lexington Green the last thing anyone wanted to do was wear a British uniform in Patriot territory, it was open season on the gun-grabbers.

    Think calmly and cooly about this problem, if the “balloon goes up” we will need every thoughtful man and woman to resist tyranny.

    You get a choice about this, you can rush out and die for your country or, only if necessary, make the other guy die for his country. The choice is yours.

  • February 25, 2009 at 7:41 am
    Geoff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ?? That video was a link to pornographic material.

    NOT FUNNY.

  • February 25, 2009 at 8:09 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Appearently you don’t know how to copy and paste a URL. It is a video of HB 687 talk with Fox family news. Try again and do it right. I did by copying and pasting and it took me to right where it was suppossed to go. Here it is again. http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3649902.
    Also did you notice the URL had http://www.foxnews.com? T’m sure they are not playing pornographic material.

  • February 25, 2009 at 8:11 am
    Ben says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nice one BB!! Too bad I cant click on the link now, im at work.

  • February 25, 2009 at 8:12 am
    Jenn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Im sorry but I dont find it funny. A lot of those porn sites install viruses on your computer too. Is that funny?

  • February 25, 2009 at 8:32 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You know I have come to the conclusion a portion of you people here have no idea what your doing or what your talking about. You make statements about a person’s postings with out checking it out. I am a Christian and would never send anyone to a Pornographic Web Site. I truely for give you for your ignorance. With that this is my last posting as I find the subject is a dead issue anyway. http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3649902

  • February 25, 2009 at 3:17 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    BB I think someone is pulling your leg, I pasted the URL and it took me directly to Fox News. Thanks for the info!

  • February 26, 2009 at 7:56 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Samaritan thanks for the comeback. I find the subject at hand about Illinois attempt to pass this kind of law a serious thing as the governments continously find way to trump our God given constitution rights. Then you have idiots on here who act childishly and make statements that are off the beaten path. This country is in a fix because people like them can’t take a stand on issues and have nothing to do but slander people who do. They just don’t understand in the furure the effect it will have on them and their children to. Ignorance is bliss.

  • February 26, 2009 at 8:38 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bb I think people do care about their children, that’s why they dot want their neighbors to own assault rifles.

    Also, as far as “God given constitutional rights”?

    God didnt write the constitution.

    And Jesus would never use a gun.

    You are clueless.

  • February 26, 2009 at 9:05 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No I think you are cluless. No Jesus didn’t use a gun, but this country was founded on rights of faith by our forefathers and faith is all we have left till Jesus returns. We are a lucky country so far as we can practice Religion. Look at these other counties where they are not allowed. I’ve served my country more than once to protect those rights for not only my children but for you also, so don’t bring Jesus into play. The day of reckening will come when Jesus returns. I don’t understand how people get side tracked off the subject at hand. Our views may differ on Guns and religion but as a free country we have a right to those views. This was to be a subject on laws. Most of our laws on the federal level govern the people by Jesus’s teachings. Then there are those who break thoase laws everyday. Not only by mans laws but God’s also.

  • February 26, 2009 at 9:12 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like a catch 22, you are waiting for Jesus to return, and until he does, you will shoot anybody who doesnt respect your “rights.”

    I think you will have a long wait. Jesus has already returned to many people. If he comes to you, please dont shoot him.

  • February 26, 2009 at 9:31 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You don’t know me enough to accuse me of shooting anyone. I spent 24 years in Law Enforcement and never shot one person. Of course I was shot at by people owning a weapon Illegally that were in the process of committing a crime. I expect your anti Police also. As far as Jesus’s return you know what I’m talking about. If your a practising Christian you know there’s a second comming. Are you ready? I am. You are a crack pot who likes to stir up the pot, and now with that I refuse to dance with you any longer on these postings. You can say or do what ever delights your fancy, but your direct nit picking on me will not work. I will not respond to your adolescent ravings.

  • February 26, 2009 at 9:35 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The second coming comes from within. Its not a physical coming to Earth. Ive already been visited. Since then Ive been non violent and sold all my guns.

    I dont seek to ban guns though, as I cannot judge others.

  • February 26, 2009 at 9:45 am
    Shield says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Carl, sounds like your a new ager. Not a Christian. The bible clearly states how Jesus will return and it isn’t from within.

  • February 26, 2009 at 10:01 am
    Jan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Carl, why would you assume that anyone who beleives we have a right to bear arms is going to shoot someone. However, on the other hand if someone entered your home shot your wife,child or parents I guess you would just sit there sucking your thumb since you don’t have anyway to protect yourself any longer.I live in the New Orleans area and this happens on a daily basis. If all the law abiding citizens give up their guns how are you going to get all the violent gun owners who have no respect for life to give up theirs? I guess you only want the violent law breakers to own them.
    Also, you better get out your bible as you have been deceived. There is an actual physical second coming of Jesus just like there was an acutal physical death of Jesus on the cross.

  • February 26, 2009 at 10:38 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jen, is Jesus coming with a big gun to defend himself this time?

    Maybe you should learn something from his story, rather than laughing at turning the other cheek.

    You claim to beleive in him, yet you have no respect for what his life really respresented.

  • February 26, 2009 at 11:22 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Carl, sounds like your a new ager. Not a Christian. The bible clearly states how Jesus will return and it isn’t from within.
    __________________
    Yea it also refers to a talking snake and a guy who lives inside of a fish for 3 days. I wouldn’t take it all litterally.

  • February 26, 2009 at 12:50 pm
    jeffery1 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It seems that most posters have not read the thread. Re: “liability” and “willful”: this seems to have been addressed by “Illinois gun owner & ins agent”, posted On: February 18, 2009, at 4:15 pm CST.

    It also seems that a lot of people who know nothing of the insurance industry or the actual proposed legislation insist on posting opinions and vitriol that get in the way of having a meaningful discussion. Maybe these posters could sit back, let those people in the industry post, research the actual proposed legislation and insurance in general and then make some intelligent comments.

    The meaningful posts are lost amongst those from the peanut gallery.

  • February 26, 2009 at 1:13 am
    jeffery1 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hopefully, a knowledgeable person will tell us what the implications are now when a gun is used by someone other than the owner and that person causes damage or injury with the gun in Illinois.

    1. Can the real owner be sued by the injured party or the owner of the property damaged by the use of the gun?

    2. What would an insurance policy mean in such a situation?

    I’m not in the industry and would appreciate a valid response.

  • February 26, 2009 at 1:30 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “God didn’t write the Constititution”, well that’s true…as far as it goes. However the issue at hand was “God given Rights” and those he did, in fact, write into law…its called the Bible! It’s evident that you like to quote books that you haven’t read so let me help you out on this one (we’ll keep this a secret between you and I). Read John 18:36 KJV. (Hint: It discusses fighting).

    You are correct in saying that Jesus would never use a gun, and again I refer you to the above mentioned bit of scripture however to call BB “clueless” is a bit ironic, don’t you think?

    As far as neighbors not wanting others to be armed let me help you on that one as well. Every one of my neighbors owns firearms, everyone. Would you like to know what our crime rate is like, or can you already guess?

  • February 26, 2009 at 1:47 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “…as I cannopt judge others”. Interesting statement and it probably contains more than a modicum of truth. However this little misquote of yours has been wholly overused by the New-Age types, perhaps even you Carl!

    Try this one, John 7:24 (Hint: It discusses proper judgement). So far I’ve seen you misquote scripture twice out of two attempts. I’m beginning to think you may be more of a “poser” than an actual student of the Bible.

    Jesus would want us to defend ourselves (John 18: 36) and our families and even allows us to “judge” others. Feel free to quote scripture just do your homework first.

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:03 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wasnt quoting scripture man sorry – I was getting it from my new age channelling books. Which are just as valid as the bible with the talking snake.

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:09 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Again like a poor marksman you keep missing the target. What will Jesus do when he returns? Read Micah 1: 3-4 KJV. It’s not a pretty sight. Jesus wants to defend ourselves and our families.

    You are not doing your homework Carl. Please quote scripture accurately and in context.

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:15 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What is this thing called “scripture?” We speak directly. Where is the talking snake in all of this?

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:21 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You seem to want to discuss what type of insurance we will be purchasing, we (amateurs that we are) are stating that insuring one’s Constitutional Right is, by definition, a violation of the Constitution.

    I wonder how many people would happily purchase insurance to preserve their Right to Free Speech, Religion, Freedom from Unreasonable Search or Self-Incrimination? Why then does anyone think that we would purchase insurance to gain access to any other Constitutional Right?

    The reason it is called a Right is that it is not a privilege (Read Black’s Law Dictionary for the difference between these two). My Rights are not negotiable under any circumstances, I exercise them at my own discretion and not the discretion of the insurance company.

    Remember, the futher law makers move away from Constitutional Law the less we are legally bound to adhere to their pronouncements.

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:26 am
    Nick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Samaritan where were you when they passed the patriot act and what do you think of it?

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:37 am
    Jan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nothing happens. Just like if your car is stolen and someone is injured while the thief has posession of your car. The owner of the vehicle is not held liable for the criminal acts of another. If we all are required to have insurance for these type of acts you will begin to see more and more criminals filing and winning suits for committing crimes. They will blame the other because they didn’t lock the car or any other reason they can think of. It can and has boiled down to who has the best attorney. Also, attorneys and jurors see insurance companies as the ones with the deep pockets. Jurors can and have be swayed by good attorneys to help a sympathetic criminal, especially if they are young and or received a dibiliating injury during the commision of the crime. It is already happening in our society. We are already known as the land of litigation and it is out of control. If this legislation win they will not stop just with guns, it will be knives, etc… Then how about being an athelete. When a quarterback it hit by the the offense that player intentionally wanted to put that quarterback out of the game. Maybe they should be required to carry liability insurance incase they cause injury. We don’t need to our problems by implementing more laws. But my biggest fight is that the constitution allows me to have a gun and no one should be able to tell me I have to have insurance in order to have one.I might be able to afford that policy but that does not mean everyone that has a gun lawfully can afford it. Therefore, you have now changed this law to where only the priveledged are allowed to own guns. This is just wrong!

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:41 am
    Jeffery1 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Samaritan,

    Your response has absolutely nothing to do with my question. In Illinois I already must have an FOID card, which I would say already has constitutional ramifications.

    I am asking about how insurance would protect/affect a law abiding gun owner who finds him/herself in the predicament in which his/her gun caused damage or injury.

    I am not interested in anyone’s opinion about the constitutionality of the proposed legislation in this question. Opinions about constitutionality is covered in other posts in this thread, so don’t bother responding to my specific question unless you know something about the law and/or insurance.

  • February 26, 2009 at 2:56 am
    Jan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One more comment. If you are required to carry insurance the insurance company will have to do a complete investigation to determine if the gun owner is liable and if the policy covers the specific act. This takes a lot of investigation, attorneys, time and money. Possibliy years in court, etc.. This is a very expensive ordeal. Depending on how many of these cases a company gets a year etc.. the cost could rise every year until the coverage is so expensive no one can afford it. This is exactly what is happening to doctors liabilty and the reason many are getting out of private practice or only working for hospitals, etc.. My homeowners policy doubled due to Katrina. Also, the insurance company has the right to decide if they want to settle or not. Many times a company pays a claim because it is less expensive then fighting it. This happens every day in the insurance world. Would you want that to be on your record.

  • February 26, 2009 at 3:45 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Not germane? You have used an interesting term and you probably don’t even know it. Let me relate a story from told by Benjamin Franklin:

    There once was a farmer who addressed his cattle, chickens, pigs and sheep. He stated, “I have decided to prepare a fine meal for myself and I am here to ask you if you desire to be roasted, baked or boiled”! “But, but, but” clucked a conspiratorial chicken, “We don’t want to be cooked at all”! But the farmer only smiled and said, “But my dear chicken, you wander from the point”!!

    What is germane IS the Constitution and our Rights, nothing else matters.

  • February 26, 2009 at 3:48 am
    Samaritan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I will be happy to answer your question if you answer mine first. What is your opinion of the Lincoln Administration and its routine violation of American Rights?

  • February 26, 2009 at 3:51 am
    Carl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ive always had a problem with it myself. Maybe thats why he was killed.

  • February 26, 2009 at 3:55 am
    BB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I want to thank those who backed me. As far as a 1M. Insurance Policy, has any one figured out what the financial ramafications on the premiums monthly would cost the Gun ownwer. It would be in the thousands. Look at the cost on your Car, House, and Life Insurance. Besides who would do the Insurance? AIG?? All these Insurance Companys are going to end up belly up to. It’s the sign of the times.

  • March 2, 2009 at 4:00 am
    Gun Totting Pappa says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    They Will take away my guns from my cold dead hands…

  • March 4, 2009 at 12:34 pm
    45guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    how much would the monthly premiums be?

  • March 7, 2009 at 11:59 am
    Don McGrady says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is just another example of how out of touch with reality lawmakers in Illinois are. Either that or they know that the insurance company or companies that would provide the insurance would have a rating scheme that would make most gun owners uninsurable.

    This is just another example that the elected officials aren’t following their oath of office to serve the people and to defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies. It seems to me that the biggest threat on the destruction of the constution lies in the hands of the General Assembly, The Senate, and the Congress.

    What part of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed do they not understand?

    Now would be a good time to start the movement to repeal the AWB in Ill, And the gun license regs.

    You good people in Illinois deserve equal rights under the Constitution same as most of the rest of the USA.

  • October 26, 2009 at 9:01 am
    eric holloway says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    were can i get quote’s about gun insurance

  • February 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm
    Lynn T. Austrheim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The constitution of the US does not state that gun owners need insurance. Where would i find one million dollar coverage?

    A better way would be for the state to protect gun owners directly for their service of defending themselves or others. Why treat gun owners as though they were bad people.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features