Illinois is at it again
Thought you folks in Illinois would like to learn about the most recent attack on youre liberties.
Mandatory gun insurance in Illinois?
by AmbroseBurnside
Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:48:27 AM PST
That is what's being proposed by Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin.
The synopsis of Mr. Dunkin's bill and my analysis is below the fold.
AmbroseBurnside's diary :: :: 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 person. Effective January 1, 2010.
There are so many things wrong with this proposal it's hard to figure out where to start, but I will try my best.
First of all, I question the constitutionality of this bill (should it become a law). This would seem to violate the equal protection clause, much like Virginia's since-repealed Abusive Driver Fees as this law would only apply to Illinois residents and not gun owners passing through the state.
Past the constitutionality argument, I also have a problem with two specific portions of this bill:
policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000
This is an unfair restriction on a constitutional right. Many will undoubtedly argue that because states can require that drivers have insurance for their cars, they can for gun owners. However, a driver's license is a privilege and thus restrictions can be put on it. There is no constitutional right to a driver's license, but there is a right to bear arms.
The second part I have a major issue with:
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.
This would mean, hypothetically, that while you were at work, if someone broke into your car, stole your gun out of your glove compartment and used it to commit a violent crime before you even know your car had been broken into, you would be civilly liable for that crime. This is absurd and just plain wrong. If a man steals your golf clubs and beats up his wife with your 9 iron, should you be responsible for her injuries? Of course not. A stolen gun should be no different.
At the end of the day, this kind of bill is bad for Democrats and can cost us elections. People are struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck, and Rep. Dunkin wants to add an unnecessary cost to their lives. This kind of bill alienates people who should be reliably vote for our party. They want better health care, they want to get out of Iraq, they want 90% of the same things DailyKos wants. Why is Rep. Dunkin trying to scare them away?