Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

No Ohio push for gun insurance

Calif. proposal would require coverage

March 4, 2013

Drivers must carry liability insurance on their vehicles, so why not require similar coverage for gun owners? That’s apparently the thought behind a proposed California law that would force anyone......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-04-13 5:48 AM

Insurance for gun owners is nothing more than a punishment for exercising 2nd Amendment rights.

11 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 6:11 AM

I'm glad It's not even being thought here in Ohio. I'm not for anymore laws on guns at all. People that live in states that are thinking about it should be out in numbers agains't such things .It's Just plain worng .

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 7:26 AM

The Castle Doctrine Here in Ohio is a great one that protects you from lawsuits.Also as the saying goes "Dead Men Tell No Tails " if he's still moving empty the clip ......

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 7:52 AM

Absolutely, we already have plenty of laws on the books to make people responsible. The problem is, the lawyers and the courts do not hold them responsible!

Requiring insurance opens the doors for insurance companies to gouge gun owners, just like they do with mandatory auto insurance. Do you remember how much insurance cost before the "mandatory" auto insurance? I do, mine went up almost 3x.

Anytime the state requires anything, the end result is the consumer (you and me) gets screwed.

Keep your insurance and I'll keep my guns in a safe and locked condition.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

US Patriot

Mar-04-13 7:58 AM

This country is WAY out of control with laws. How about people being taught to be responsible and be held accountable for their actions? The lawyers of this country have enabled the public to blame someone else for their stupidity and ignorance.

14 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 8:00 AM

I think we should have “stupid” insurance in order to insure that people are protected from themselves.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 8:49 AM

Requiring insurance just forms another list in which gun foes will use to futher enhance their agenda of removing firearms from the law abiding citizen.Secondly,cars and the required insurance are not included in the constitution as guns ARE.And finally,If you are a politician that has grown tired of being such,please identify yourselves now with this type of legislation so we can promptly vote you out of office in a timely,efficient manner.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 8:50 AM

I am not sure but what I do know is that everyone that purchases a gun should have a backround check. Everyone that works with kids and old people are required to have one why not gun purchasers?

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 9:20 AM

Very interesting..........why were ALL of Workingstiff's comments removed?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 9:29 AM

One more way of making money has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe,it's all about the money!

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 10:12 AM

3 things about this. One is, I agree with slogoin that the Constitution allows for the Right to individual arms. Driving is not a Constitutional right. It is a privilege. Second, only the lawyers will benefit from any kind of additional insurance laws as proposed. Third, the politicians would exempt themselves from any new law like this because, as they have demonstrated, even locally, politicians consider themselves above the law.


12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 11:15 AM

Laws like this coming out of california from the cesspool of liberal nanny state meddlers who think more laws on law abiding citizens are the answer to gun crimes committed by criminals are no surprise to me.

These people are nothing but anti Constitution slimeballs who have no idea about guns other than what they've heard on the news.

Now, if authorities in california want to do something to stop gun crimes they can get their fat behinds down in these gang infested hoods and clean out the trash. That is where the problem is.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 11:37 AM

CP - Perhaps the Aliens took Workingstiff away????????????

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 11:38 AM

concernedpatriot, i have a feeling that they were removed from the site. possibly to many abuse reports. their topic in the national politics forum section was removed as well.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 11:41 AM

*too....oldhickory, that is an interesting theory...humorous but doubtful. :-)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 11:43 AM


3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 11:57 AM

I wonder if any criminals read this article. These people who say they have no guns in their house and give their names and the town they live in could surely be prime targets for local criminals.

This sounds to me like another criminal protection zone. Good luck with that!

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 12:21 PM

Daddy doesn't lock up his gun. Johnny has Susie over to play. Susie shoots herself in the face with the gun. Insurance invoked.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 12:49 PM

@oldhickory WorkingStiff went duck hunting with Former VP Cheney and Joe Biden........

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 1:36 PM

Maybe oneill is holding WORKINGSTIFF

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 2:09 PM

Rocker,now THATS funny! lol

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 2:45 PM

Rocker and Josh- Funny-you are both good with the one liners! I think Stiff has gone underground and intends to make a screen name change!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 7:11 PM


0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 8:24 PM

@verymad - The National Instant Criminal Background Check System has been in effect for 20 years. Anyone wanting to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer is required to complete a form 4473 and then submits to a background check with the FBI or other designated agency. The information sought on the 4473 is more extensive than information sought for working with children or elders.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 12:23 AM

asknot, I find that claim very difficult to believe. The "No Fly" list has been around half the time the background check system has, and it's even filled with names of little children.

The NiCS's system depends on the FBI's criminal records division, and there are "holds" put on some transfers because the buyer has a common name, or there's somewith their name that has a criminal record. I doubt seriously that the FBI lacks the manpower to add criminals names to the data base.

There is a void of information on people with mental health issues, that one is the government's fault! Laws exist that prevent mental health professionals from reporting patients that are a danger to society, based on privacy issues.

Yet, in this entire debate, there is total push to punish law abiding gun owners, when the mentally ill are the true issue.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web