NRA, InfoWars Attack Proposed Gun Insurance Bill In D.C.

guns-vs-cars

Back in February, Addicting Info published a story about several states that are introducing legislation to require insurance on privately owned firearms. Now Washington, D.C. is making a move to do the same.

City councilwoman Mary Cheh has proposed a bill that would require gun owners in the District of Columbia to carry at least $250,000 of insurance before being licensed to own firearms. The proposed policy would cover ‘willful and negligent’ acts not including self-defense. Cheh feels that requiring gun insurance would provide financial compensation for those who are affected by “negligent acts.” 

Some gun owners already choose to carry gun insurance. The National Rifle Association even endorses liability insurance, acknowledging that homeowner’s insurance often falls short on protection. Homeowner’s insurance sometimes covers accidental shootings, but doesn’t often cover self-defense. Despite the NRA itself recognizing this shortcoming, some are still critical of the proposed D.C. legislation, saying that accidents are already covered.

Many gun owners are up in arms (pardon the pun) over the idea of having to get gun insurance, saying that the proposed measure would make it cost-prohibitive to own a gun, therefore infringing on Second Amendment rights. InfoWars is already launching its assault on the proposal, saying that it “forces” gun owners into insuring themselves, and that any lapse in coverage would strip the individual of their rights under the Constitution. The National Rifle Association contradicted its own words by telling the Washington TImes, “…D.C. leaders are focused more on pushing their political and social agendas than on working to keep their residents safe.” Protecting the residents of the District of Columbia, of course, couldn’t possibly be what they are trying to do through this legislation. (Sarcasm sign.)

Advocates of the measure, however, say it is no different from requiring car insurance. As mentioned earlier, the idea of liability insurance for gun owners is popular enough that seven states – California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland – have all introduced similar measures. The bills in these states are still in the early stages.

What it comes down to is this: If you cannot afford to protect yourself by purchasing liability gun insurance, you cannot afford to own a gun. End of story. Just as, if you cannot afford to insure a vehicle, you cannot afford to have a vehicle. If you cannot afford to insure a home, you cannot afford to own a home, etc., etc. This isn’t complicated at all. Personally, I prefer not to have guns, but my soldier insists on having two guns in our home. Neither of us have a problem with carrying liability insurance for these firearms, even though they are left dismantled and unloaded, locked and stored away, at all times. It is just a common sense precaution that can only protect us.