llinois proposed law!

[edge]

FROM:
www.ussportsmen.org//Page.aspx?pid=1849&srctid=1&erid=2192555

llinois Bill Forces Firearm Owners to Get $1 Million Insurance Policy

Legislation Increases Costs to Law Abiding Residents
2/11/09



A new Illinois bill represents another assault on the rights of law-abiding firearm owners in the state by forcing them to maintain a $1 million liability insurance policy or risk losing the right to own a firearm.

Most individuals in Illinois, with some exceptions, must obtain a “Firearm Owner’s Identification Card” to legally own a firearm. House Bill 687, sponsored by Representative Kenneth Dunkin (D- Chicago), would force all of those individuals to obtain a $1 million liability insurance policy. This policy would cover any damages that take place from the use of a firearm owned by the individual.

The bill also authorizes the Department of the State Police to revoke and seize the identification card from any firearm owner that does not supply proof of the liability coverage to the Department.

Finally, not only will HB 687 increase the cost of lawfully purchasing a firearm, language in the bill puts owners at risk of liability should their firearm be lost or stolen. The bill states that a person shall be considered an owner until they report any stolen or lost firearms to their local police or sheriff’s department. This means that an owner could be held liable if a firearm is stolen or lost and used prior to their knowledge.

“This is terrible legislation that will harm Illinois’ sportsmen community. Not only will the bill make it cost prohibitive for many to own firearms, it also runs the risk of criminalizing innocent owners,” stated U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance senior vice president, Rick Story.

[fowlplay]

I hate to say this but this is only the beginning to an assault on law abiding gun owners. Stupid laws like this that violates our American freedoms will make us all outlaws.
Steve

[petev]

It is unbelievable. Here in N.Y. there is legislation proposed to have serial numbers on handgun ammunition. It is already law (called COBUS) that new handguns have to have two spent casings sent into the state when they are sold. Maybe lawmakers will add onto the list for liability insurance- knives, baseball bats, dog ownership, etc. I was talking to our local, incredibly talented gunsmith yesterday, who happens to be a Korean War veteran, and we both felt that it is more important than ever to retain the right to own firearms now, with terrorism not going away any time soon, probably for decades. Yes, we are more protected by owning firearms, but lawmakers seem bent on legislating away any perceived threats to peace, instead of enforcing the laws that are broken over and over again by repeat offenders before they are put behind bars. I guess the legal system wouldn't make enough money if they disposed of hardened criminals more quickly or efficiently.

[Buckrub]

As I have stated repeatedly, look for new laws constantly to be proposed everywhere such as making it illegal to own lead, or illegal to TRANSPORT your 'legal' firearm anywhere in public, or making most ammunition illegal........there are more ideas to make the effective USE of a firearm illegal than you can imagine. Oh, they'll stop challenging the legality of OWNING it. They just won't let you USE it.

Boys, the chasm is widening, on so many fronts. I hope I don't have to live to see the ultimate armeggedon fight that is inevitable.

[petev]

Buckrub, I think you have it right. I used to not be as concerned, when every 10 or 15 years a law would come along, such as the one requiring a trigger lock. (I have a coffee can full of them, and never used one yet). But now it seems that more radical gun laws are coming up quicker, and at a time when gangs are gaining more control in a lot of our cities, and terrorism is still a threat. I have no answers, but we may "live to see the ultimate armeggedon fight". My ancestors were in the Revolution here in N.Y., as well as being settlers in the 1600's. Do some people really think that gun ownership serves no useful purpose for the everyday people anymore? In our state, so many of the liberals come from N.Y.C. Didn't 911 serve as a wakeup call to them, as well as all of us, that gun ownership is great protection against those who would try to attack us here?
On a little lighter note on the morning of 911, when everything seemed kind of crazy, several of us students and a couple of professors were talking after class (I was a youthful 46 y.o. engineering student then), and one student, Mark from Philadelphia said that he was going to "get a gun". I said in front of everybody: "Well, maybe there is some hope for the country then!" Certainly there is always room for hope, but a little uplift on such a day as that helps.

[joe21a]

We are looking at some dark times. Why do people feel the need to impose their beliefs on others and curtail their rights.

[chuck41]

Feb 15, 2009 11:54:44 GMT -5 joe21a said:

We are looking at some dark times. Why do people feel the need to impose their beliefs on others and curtail their rights.

Egotism and stupidity mostly.

How many of the people who argue against private gun ownership would be willing to post a sign in front of their home that states "THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOUSEHOLD"?

[tcmech]

I guess I can understand the mentaflity of this law. If I steal your gun and commit a crime the crime should be attrbuted to you.

If you steal a hammer from my garage and build a house, is it mine?

[craigf]

Can everyone now see why I mostly hate the state that I live in? Honestly, if the state could be split into North Illinois/Chicago and South Illinois/the rest, it would be great to live in and raise a family in. Let Chicago live the way they want to and let the rest of us live the way we want to. One thing is for sure, I don't want Chicago's crime rate or people how are responsible for it tell us what to do downstate.

[chickenhunter]

JMO. This started when the first guy was willing to give the first inch because somebody else convinced him he would feel good about it. Keep entertaing the thought that negotiating and FEELING good about it latter is the answer. Kinda like denying a persons RIGHT to selfdefence with the use of deadly force because of their age, or inabilty to hit an 8-inch target at seven paces, & on &on & on. Since no Policeman,teacher custodian, government official, or parent has a duty to protect anyone, or the ability, who will?.

[chickenhunter]

tcmech, good logic. More likely, he would be able to sue you because he mashed his finger with your hammer.

[pfw4666]

With the list of corrupt politicians growing in IL. Gov. Ryan who is in prison, Gov Blagojevich and now his nominee for Obama's senate seat Roland Burris is in trouble for perjury. These guys all hail from Chicago. The city where the police cannot control crime....at one time they were thinking of having the National Guard come in to restore order.

Just remember that the crime rate in Chicago really started to climb when they banned citizens from keeping a handgun in their home.

National guard and no handguns.....it sounds like martial law is coming to IL.

I live 15 miles from Iowa..If this bill passes, I will take my construction business and move to Iowa. Just like a few gun manufacturers did a couple of years ago

[petev]

I wonder how it is that owners of automobile don't have to have this $1million insurance , since cars cause several times as many deaths in the country than do firearms. Not to mention that owning a firearm is a right, unlike driving which we were taught is a privilege.

[chickenhunter]

I question anyone who expects me to be accountable for the decsions I make without having tobe accountable fof theirs.