Democrats love guns…in the hands of the proper people. Stalin, Mao, and the Kims of North Korea, all held or hold this same opinion. Guns are great, but the state must hold the monopoly on force. Order is dispensed by the privileged few (the governing) and imposed upon the rest, regulated by the will of the State.
House Democrat Katherine Rogers, as an ideological descendant of Stalin and Mao, understands this, and has proposed a legislative path to achieve this in New Hampshire.
Rogers’ House Bill 1368, would require proof of a qualified liability insurance policy before being able to legally purchase or own a firearm. The legislation makes no effort to explain what a qualified liability policy is, what it should cost, what it should cover, only that violators can be fined $10,000.00 dollars per violation by the state and that it applies to every firearm carried or owned in the Granite State, whether you live here or not.
In an email to their membership about the bill, Alan Rice of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition writes,
We have made some informal inquiries and we cannot find even a single insurance company that sells such a policy. HB 1368 will create a statewide gun ban because either the required insurance will not be available for sale OR the insurance industry will realize that they have been given a green light by the legislature to fleece firearms owners who will now be required to purchase liability insurance and the cost will be astronomical. Maybe, $1,000, $1,500 or even $10,000 per year per policy. They might even charge a higher premium if you have a concealed carry license! Self-defense will be out of reach to all but the very affluent.
This is gun grabbing with layers. The state demands something that is not even available. Any insurer willing to provide insurance would be under the regulatory eye of the state. Mandatory coverage would provide the gun-grabbers with a list of every firearm and every gun owner insured. Most New Hampshire residents who do not own a firearm will be dissuaded from legally owning one. Those who have them will either have to choose to become criminals under HB 1368 and risk being fined or worse, to sell off their firearms to avoid the cost of mandatory insurance, or find insurance that only the affluent (very likely) will be able to afford.
This limits the right of self-defense to the rich and, of course, the government. The legislation exempts all state and local agents from the liability insurance provision. All existing gun owners would become criminals on January 1st, 2017 and subject to a $10,000.00 dollar fine for failing to comply for each weapon they own that is not insured.
This is fiscal regulatory force wielded to achieve a desired progressive end. Disarm the rabble.
Does it have any chance at passage? Probably not in this legislature, as soft as it is on many a ‘Republican’ priority, but by its presence it establishes a goal for elitist gun-grabbers, among them the primary sponsors: Rep. Rogers, Merr. 28; Rep. Rollo, Straf. 18; Rep. Berch, Ches. 1; Rep. Horrigan, Straf. 6; Rep. Cilley, Straf. 4; Rep. C. Chase, Ches.
Here is the text of the bill they have sponsored or co-cosponsored, emphasis mine.
1 New Chapter; Firearm Liability Insurance. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 407-D the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 407-E
FIREARM LIABILITY INSURANCE
407-E:1 Purchase and Sale of Firearms; Liability Insurance Required.
I. No person shall:
(a) Purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
(b) Sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
II. Any person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this section shall purchase and maintain a qualified liability insurance policy for the firearm.
III. Paragraphs I and II shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the state of New Hampshire or any department or agency of the state of New Hampshire, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of the state.
IV. In this section, “qualified liability insurance policy” means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that:
(a) Provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and
(b) Is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the state insurance regulatory authority for the state in which the purchaser resides.
407-E:2 Penalty. Any person who violates this chapter shall be fined not more than $10,000.
2 Applicability. Any person who possesses a firearm on or before the effective date of this act shall comply with the requirements of this act on or before January 1, 2017.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2017.
Note to gun-grabbing Democrats. Section III(b) will impact tourism. The language prevents them from getting insurance in New Hampshire while assuming such a remedy exists outside our political borders to a degree that would not impact tourism.
I’m quite certain you have not decided to treat residency as it relates to firearms possession the same way you treat residency for voting rights, not that this would change the impact on tourism. HB 1368 as written appears to end hunting-tourism for all out-of-state residents and will limit it to the wealthy residents who do hunt. How few are they? I do not know. There are other articles that can be written regarding the consequences of this one provision. The increase in starving wildlife under-hunted in the absence of suitable predators. The increase in wildlife and predators and their effect on citizens in the absence of hunters. I’ll leave those for someone like Rick Olson who is more qualified. With or without this, the bills original purpose remains in-tact. To remove the right to self-defense for the general population.
As for the fiscal note at the end of the HB 1368 it states that, The New Hampshire Insurance Department states this bill, as introduced, will increase state revenue by an indeterminable amount in FY 2017 and in each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county or local expenditures or on county or local revenue.
No cost to government, and government takes money from the people until it has disarmed them properly.
Ideally you disarm the citizens by making weapons illegal. In America we have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms in our own defense, so the political class has had to play word games to advance their disarming agenda. They limit what, who, where, and when. The result; the law-abiding are disarmed by the state to be preyed upon by criminals who operate outside the law. Crime-riddled armpits like Chicago are monuments to this success.
Outside the Democrat controlled urban arm-pits most of the nation has been going the other way. Concealed and open carry laws dominate. The pro-government elites can’t stand that. So Democrat elitist Katherine Rogers has come to their rescue in the Granite State with the notion that if you use the power of the state to make it too expensive to own a firearm, then exclude agents of the state, the government and it’s deep-pocketed backers will eventually have the force monopoly desired by every totalitarian regime in history.
Mao and Stalin would approve.
