Breyer retirement

[Seattle Husker]

Curious what you'd do with the following scenarios, if anything more than what current laws allow:

1) a gun owner who let his/her insurance expire
2) a gun user (not the owner) who didn't have insurance as the gun wasn't registered [this case is weapon not used - just found on the person]
3) a gun user (not the owner) who didn't have insurance as the gun wasn't registered [this case is weapon is used]

What happens when your car insurance expires? You can't drive first and foremost. You can't use that gun (for those open/concealed carry people).

First, if you are carrying the gun you better have insurance. I'd argue the insurance follows the operator, like car insurance. Would you lend your car to an uninsured motorist? If so, tell me what happens if they get in an accident? This applies to whether the person uses the gun or not. If someone is shooting the gun, handling it they should have insurance. Gun ranges can include temporary insurance in their range rental if a gun is needed.

This isn't rocket science. We have a ready made example of automobile liability insurance to work from.

 

[Mr. Deez]

My issue with Rhode Island was that Congress wasn't about to intervene because of everything else going on in 1850. So Taney was like "welp... have at it Rhode Islanders" and that's obviously not a good decision in terms of preventing actual human cost. While he's right that Congress should be able to know it when they see it, I think many instances show that Congress will do what Congress does without regard for consequences. Like allow a civil war instead of legislate. They very well could have ruled that the original government charter of RI was nullified by ratification of the US Constitution, but they left it up to kismet.

So they should have sided with a shadow government that claimed legitimacy? You don't see how that could go badly?

And again, you're calling on judges to step into the role that the legislature and executive branch are supposed to fill. The judge isn't supposed to prevent human cost unless that role is assigned to him by law. He is supposed to apply the law to facts. The legislature is supposed to write laws to prevent human cost, and the executive is supposed to enforce those laws. If they fail, that is a political cost to be incurred on them, which the people can enforce.

Like allow a civil war instead of legislate.

Dred Scott was an act of legislation by judicial fiat, and it was a catalyst for the Civil War. It suggests the opposite point of what you're arguing.

wouldn't have an issue with textualism if we were just an amorphous blob of a country with one overall set of laws. It'd be a hell of a lot easier to decide cases and eliminate activism. And

There's another option. You have a federalist system with clearly defined jurisdictions and with courts that apply the laws enacted in them. That way each court is only working with one set of rules at a time.

, I think it's kind of a reason that liberals are jealous of places like Denmark and wherever else they cite as socialist-capitalist utopias. Paid maternity leave? Sure! Everyone! Not just people from this province or this department or this _____.

Yep, respecting the sovereignty of other people is a *****. Of course, what liberal states could do is simply adopt paid maternity leave in states they control and leave other states that don't adopt it alone. The Right could do the same on gun control. If California or Washington want to ban guns, let them do it. If Texas and Alabama want to ban abortion, let them do it. What's hurting us isn't a lack of judicial activism on these issues. It's an overabundance of busybodyism.

Personally, I'm not a fan of paid maternity leave. However, if Denmark or California want it, let them have it. It's not my business. And yes, liberals tend to like places like Denmark (mostly because they get their way in Denmark quite a bit). However, even Denmark and most countries that adopted the Nordic model in general didn't do it by judicial fiat. They adopted it by their elected parliaments adopting laws and appropriating money. If they adopted those programs the way you suggest (by court's breaking logjams at the state level), Denmark's highest court would force paid maternity leave and then order an invasion of nearby countries that may not have it or have it to the same extent to force it on them.

My issue with being against all of your caselaw is that it creates a need for a court that has to go and figure out what those issues really come down to, and a lot of the time, it comes down to political leaning, popular support (or lack thereof),and what the number of justices out of those 9 think about it. Using the text of Chicago's law for McDonald or Texas's law against abortion means that it's going to come into conflict with not just beliefs but laws from other levels of government. So, the answer divides people, both figuratively in political leaning and potentially physically (if one sochooses to move to a state more fitting of their needs).

It's like 50 toddlers and the Supreme Court is expected to wrangle all of them in time for lunch. And that takes activism sometimes.

For starters, Chicago's gun law didn't run into conflict with any law of relevant jurisdiction. The state of Illinois didn't say Chicago couldn't pass that law. The US Constitution didn't say they couldn't. The same was true with Texas's abortion law. Those were legitimately-enacted laws passed by the elected representatives of those governments, and they had every right to pass them. The written Constitution signed by our founding fathers and adopted by them was completely on their side. If you want to carry a gun, you can leave Chicago. If you want an abortion, you can leave Texas. It is not the responsibity of any of those places to give in to the political desires of people who lost at the ballot box just because they say so, and the judges who forced the issues against the will of the people without the textual authority were acting without legitimacy.

But putting that aside for a moment, think about what you're suggesting. You think that unelected judges who account to nobody should be the ones to decide what an "issue really comes down to" and to "wrangle" the 50 toddlers (meaning the duly elected representatives of the institutions closest to the people and given the broadest authority by the Constitution precisely because they were closest to them) to force some outcome.

I seriously doubt you'd think that way if the forced outcome was against your preferences. What if they went the other way? With all due respect, I think you'd be shitting your pants about the arrangement if they weren't doing what you generally like. What if they said a state couldn't allow abortion? What if they said a state couldn't recognize gay marriage? What if they said a school had to have teacher-led prayer? What if they said every school had to be segregated? Would you be as comfortable with this arrangement? Because if you don't follow the constitutional text, those positions are every bit as viable and defensible as what the courts ultimately did on those issues. The reason why is that if you abandon the text, it all comes down to issue-framing, and I and any lawyer who's worth a damn can frame any issue to "look good" if I want to.

So who's truly in charge? In your world, it's not the elected representatives of the people. It's 5 people that the public never chose and can't remove and aren't bound by the text of the written law. Do you realize how authoritarian that is? Voter ID and having to vote in person is a threat to democracy but this isn't??? This makes an absolute sham of democracy. I'm not usually a hyperpartisan, but this is why Democrats are so full of **** when they pull the "threat to democracy" crap. It's such a friggin' fraud.

Because the only recourse otherwise is just to have all libs move to blue states and all conservatives to move to red states and stick with the texts of whatever they produce.

YES! That is the whole point of having state governments. People in the various states don't all think alike and shouldn't think alike. This is a diverse country of different kinds of people. They didn't think alike in 1789 and they don't now. The big difference is that in 1789, people mostly respected the sovereignty of the other states. If Massachusetts wanted to do X and Virginia wanted to do Y, it was OK unless they were actually violating the text of the Constitution, and that is precisely how the system was designed to work. Their citizens weren't busybodies, and Virginians who wanted X badly enough could move to Massachusetts and vice versa. That's the entire purpose and basis for having states. That's how you avoid polarization the way we have it now. That's how you keep Supreme Court nominations from being partisan political ****-shows. That's how you prevent civil wars from happening. Break that system, and you're inviting conflict and violence.

 

[OUBubba]

Even someone from Oklahoma should be able to see that there is a difference between legalizing theft and not having the government imposing an artificial encumbrance on the right to buy a gun.



I'm sure it would be cheaper, but that isn't the point. The point is that firearm ownership doesn't meet the criteria most legislatures apply in deciding to require auto insurance.

So requiring the gun seller to perform a background check prior to sale is an artificial encumbrance?

 

[Mr. Deez]

So requiring the gun seller to perform a background check prior to sale is an artificial encumbrance?

You're throwing me, Coach. Are we talking about a background check or liability insurance? They're apples and oranges.

 

[Horns11]

So they should have sided with a shadow government that claimed legitimacy? You don't see how that could go badly?

And again, you're calling on judges to step into the role that the legislature and executive branch are supposed to fill. The judge isn't supposed to prevent human cost unless that role is assigned to him by law. He is supposed to apply the law to facts. The legislature is supposed to write laws to prevent human cost, and the executive is supposed to enforce those laws. If they fail, that is a political cost to be incurred on them, which the people can enforce.



Dred Scott was an act of legislation by judicial fiat, and it was a catalyst for the Civil War. It suggests the opposite point of what you're arguing.



There's another option. You have a federalist system with clearly defined jurisdictions and with courts that apply the laws enacted in them. That way each court is only working with one set of rules at a time.



Yep, respecting the sovereignty of other people is a *****. Of course, what liberal states could do is simply adopt paid maternity leave in states they control and leave other states that don't adopt it alone. The Right could do the same on gun control. If California or Washington want to ban guns, let them do it. If Texas and Alabama want to ban abortion, let them do it. What's hurting us isn't a lack of judicial activism on these issues. It's an overabundance of busybodyism.

Personally, I'm not a fan of paid maternity leave. However, if Denmark or California want it, let them have it. It's not my business. And yes, liberals tend to like places like Denmark (mostly because they get their way in Denmark quite a bit). However, even Denmark and most countries that adopted the Nordic model in general didn't do it by judicial fiat. They adopted it by their elected parliaments adopting laws and appropriating money. If they adopted those programs the way you suggest (by court's breaking logjams at the state level), Denmark's highest court would force paid maternity leave and then order an invasion of nearby countries that may not have it or have it to the same extent to force it on them.



For starters, Chicago's gun law didn't run into conflict with any law of relevant jurisdiction. The state of Illinois didn't say Chicago couldn't pass that law. The US Constitution didn't say they couldn't. The same was true with Texas's abortion law. Those were legitimately-enacted laws passed by the elected representatives of those governments, and they had every right to pass them. The written Constitution signed by our founding fathers and adopted by them was completely on their side. If you want to carry a gun, you can leave Chicago. If you want an abortion, you can leave Texas. It is not the responsibity of any of those places to give in to the political desires of people who lost at the ballot box just because they say so, and the judges who forced the issues against the will of the people without the textual authority were acting without legitimacy.

But putting that aside for a moment, think about what you're suggesting. You think that unelected judges who account to nobody should be the ones to decide what an "issue really comes down to" and to "wrangle" the 50 toddlers (meaning the duly elected representatives of the institutions closest to the people and given the broadest authority by the Constitution precisely because they were closest to them) to force some outcome.

I seriously doubt you'd think that way if the forced outcome was against your preferences. What if they went the other way? With all due respect, I think you'd be shitting your pants about the arrangement if they weren't doing what you generally like. What if they said a state couldn't allow abortion? What if they said a state couldn't recognize gay marriage? What if they said a school had to have teacher-led prayer? What if they said every school had to be segregated? Would you be as comfortable with this arrangement? Because if you don't follow the constitutional text, those positions are every bit as viable and defensible as what the courts ultimately did on those issues. The reason why is that if you abandon the text, it all comes down to issue-framing, and I and any lawyer who's worth a damn can frame any issue to "look good" if I want to.

So who's truly in charge? In your world, it's not the elected representatives of the people. It's 5 people that the public never chose and can't remove and aren't bound by the text of the written law. Do you realize how authoritarian that is? Voter ID and having to vote in person is a threat to democracy but this isn't??? This makes an absolute sham of democracy. I'm not usually a hyperpartisan, but this is why Democrats are so full of **** when they pull the "threat to democracy" crap. It's such a friggin' fraud.



YES! That is the whole point of having state governments. People in the various states don't all think alike and shouldn't think alike. This is a diverse country of different kinds of people. They didn't think alike in 1789 and they don't now. The big difference is that in 1789, people mostly respected the sovereignty of the other states. If Massachusetts wanted to do X and Virginia wanted to do Y, it was OK unless they were actually violating the text of the Constitution, and that is precisely how the system was designed to work. Their citizens weren't busybodies, and Virginians who wanted X badly enough could move to Massachusetts and vice versa. That's the entire purpose and basis for having states. That's how you avoid polarization the way we have it now. That's how you keep Supreme Court nominations from being partisan political ****-shows. That's how you prevent civil wars from happening. Break that system, and you're inviting conflict and violence.

Regarding RI one last time, they wouldn't be siding with a shadow government. They'd be siding with "rewrite your constitution," much like courts do with "redraw your districts" and the like.

I don't care either way about voter ID.

You can hold firm to your physical jurisdiction stuff. I think it should give pause to Americans that there are intelligent people such as yourself out there who think that because you're in the political minority of a state that you should just pack up and move if you don't like the text written by people you don't agree with (especially considering there is existing caselaw that goes against ideas like that). Things like "full faith and credit" and the 14th Amendment basically just shouldn't exist at that point.

We can't all be Stephen Douglas, but you're right that if the federal government had just respected the sovereignty of southern states to nullify federal laws, we could have prevented the civil war.

 

[humahuma]

If insurance for guns why not have insurance for knives, they cause harm also.

 

[huisache]

Horns 11: the civil war, so called, did not take place because the southern states were nullifying federal laws. It took place because some people in the north thought the southern states had no right to sever the political bonds which tied them to the others and did believe that the federal government had the right to force the southerners to stay. President Buchanan conceded he had no authority to force them to stay and said to depart, wayward brothers, in peace. Lincoln thought otherwise. Half a million dead people later it turned out he was correct, sort of.

 

[mb227]

What happens when your car insurance expires? You can't drive first and foremost. You can't use that gun (for those open/concealed carry people).

First, if you are carrying the gun you better have insurance. I'd argue the insurance follows the operator, like car insurance. Would you lend your car to an uninsured motorist? If so, tell me what happens if they get in an accident? This applies to whether the person uses the gun or not. If someone is shooting the gun, handling it they should have insurance. Gun ranges can include temporary insurance in their range rental if a gun is needed.

This isn't rocket science. We have a ready made example of automobile liability insurance to work from.

Only the truly gullible believe that a lack of insurance stops people from driving. I can almost guarantee that, if officers were allowed to do random stops just to check for license and insurance, there are many areas where they would find four of ten (or more) who lacked even the most basic of liability insurance in effect.

Lack of license or insurance or even current tags does NOT stop people from driving.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Only the truly gullible believe that a lack of insurance stops people from driving. I can almost guarantee that, if officers were allowed to do random stops just to check for license and insurance, there are many areas where they would find four of ten (or more) who lacked even the most basic of liability insurance in effect.

Lack of license or insurance or even current tags does NOT stop people from driving.

And there is a penalty when a driver is caught without insurance. Next.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If insurance for guns why not have insurance for knives, they cause harm also.

A Google search of death/accident rates between guns and knives would lead you to the answer.

 

[Monahorns]

Lincoln thought otherwise. Half a million dead people later it turned out he was correct, sort of.

Killing doesn't determine ethics, morality, or truth. But it does prove the morals and ethics of the person doing it.

 

[OUBubba]

You're throwing me, Coach. Are we talking about a background check or liability insurance? They're apples and oranges.

I'm talking about background checks. If I sell you a gun I should work in any cost of a background check into that cost to validate that you are eligible to own said gun and if I fail to do so and document that eligibility then I could be held liable for something that you may do with the gun that harms others. Something like 85% of gun owners support universal background checks.

Seattle is talking about liability insurance. I'm not against that but it's my thing.

 

[OUBubba]

Horns 11: the civil war

Did you mean the war of northern aggression?

 

[Horns11]

Horns 11: the civil war, so called, did not take place because the southern states were nullifying federal laws. It took place because some people in the north thought the southern states had no right to sever the political bonds which tied them to the others and did believe that the federal government had the right to force the southerners to stay. President Buchanan conceded he had no authority to force them to stay and said to depart, wayward brothers, in peace. Lincoln thought otherwise. Half a million dead people later it turned out he was correct, sort of.

You're skipping a step in the equation. Severing the political bonds was due to __________.

Buchanan thought that secession was illegal but didn't want to go to war over it.

 

[guy4321]

What happens when your car insurance expires? You can't drive first and foremost. You can't use that gun (for those open/concealed carry people).

First, if you are carrying the gun you better have insurance. I'd argue the insurance follows the operator, like car insurance. Would you lend your car to an uninsured motorist? If so, tell me what happens if they get in an accident? This applies to whether the person uses the gun or not. If someone is shooting the gun, handling it they should have insurance. Gun ranges can include temporary insurance in their range rental if a gun is needed.

This isn't rocket science. We have a ready made example of automobile liability insurance to work from.

You didn't answer the questions. I asked about people who don't want to follow the rules. Also, when car insurance expires you can drive quite easily. No cars are automatically disabled upon insurance expiration.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You didn't answer the questions. I asked about people who don't want to follow the rules. Also, when car insurance expires you can drive quite easily. No cars are automatically disabled upon insurance expiration.

Not sure I ever billed the idea as a silver bullet to fix all issues. If it moves the needle to forces gun owners to be more responsible, like it has drivers based on data, then that's a win for society. Per that site 12.9% of drivers are uninsured nationally in 2019. I fully acknowledge that the Chicago gangbanger will not carry insurance on a weapon that nobody knows they have. Still, were those driver insurance laws not in place there are a lot of accident victims that would be left holding the bag, not too different than gun violence/accident victims now.

Here is a news story from an incident last night where a gun owner (concealed carry permit holder) used a gun irresponsibly. Everyone is fortunate the gun didn't discharge but it's also the perfect example of why the gun owner should have to carry liability insurance. Had it gone off she goes to jail. Maybe the store employee files a civil suit where the woman files bankruptcy leaving him with no compensation. If she were forced to carry liability insurance this store employee would have an avenue to make himself whole, financially.

 

[OUBubba]

You're skipping a step in the equation. Severing the political bonds was due to __________.

Buchanan thought that secession was illegal but didn't want to go to war over it.

What is "slavery" Alex!

 

[Seattle Husker]

What is "slavery" Alex!

Dammit! I was stumped.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Regarding RI one last time, they wouldn't be siding with a shadow government. They'd be siding with "rewrite your constitution," much like courts do with "redraw your districts" and the like.

Who the hell are they to insist that Rhode Island rewrite its constitution?

You can hold firm to your physical jurisdiction stuff. I think it should give pause to Americans that there are intelligent people such as yourself out there who think that because you're in the political minority of a state that you should just pack up and move if you don't like the text written by people you don't agree with (especially considering there is existing caselaw that goes against ideas like that). Things like "full faith and credit" and the 14th Amendment basically just shouldn't exist at that point.

We can't all be Stephen Douglas, but you're right that if the federal government had just respected the sovereignty of southern states to nullify federal laws, we could have prevented the civil war.

Strawman central. I never said the 14th Amendment shouldn't exist or that full faith and credit shouldn't exist. I also never said state laws or federal laws should never be struck down. What I'm saying is that the written law should be followed. Don't strike down laws if the law doesn't say you can. I think laws matter. What a crazy concept.

You don't seem to put any limiting principle on the Supreme Court's right to force its will even when it doesn't have the law on its side. In light of that, I see little point in having legislatures or writing down laws. Just let the Court make all the rules.

 

[Horns11]

Who the hell are they to insist that Rhode Island rewrite its constitution?

Strawman central. I never said the 14th Amendment shouldn't exist or that full faith and credit shouldn't exist. I also never said state laws or federal laws should never be struck down. What I'm saying is that the written law should be followed. Don't strike down laws if the law doesn't say you can. I think laws matter. What a crazy concept.

You don't seem to put any limiting principle on the Supreme Court's right to force its will even when it doesn't have the law on its side. In light of that, I see little point in having legislatures or writing down laws. Just let the Court make all the rules.

I'll admit this is a rare instance, but I see it no differently than my aforementioned example. If they can use judicial review to show how something is unconstitutional, and RI's government was clearly not a republican form of government based on x, y, and z, then declare it unconstitutional. What's the "you know it when you see it" line about pornography? Waiting for Congress to describe it as unconstitutional before declaring it unconstitutional (despite it being a 17th century colonial charter and not a law written after 1787) kind of flies in the face of Marshall. Imagine if it was a well-armed state like Texas today. It doesn't get as much publicity because it was little Rhode Island.

What I'm saying is that the 14th Amendment and FFC might as well not exist if we go with "the text of the majority of the people who reside on this piece of soil." We're back to 50 different versions of the law (plus whatever municipal, county, etc.) with no "correct" version of equal protection if we don't have a Supreme Court who can intervene. But a lot of this was supposed to be rectified with all of those Warren court decisions that you don't seem to like. I think it's preferable to stick with those than to tell blue people living in red states and red people living in blue states to go suck a big one.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

because you're in the political minority of a state that you should just pack up and move if you don't like the text written by people you don't agree with (especially considering there is existing caselaw that goes against ideas like that).

Moving is but one recourse. There are others, including working to amend the laws AT THE STATE LEVEL instead of running to the feds for relief.

 

[mb227]

And there is a penalty when a driver is caught without insurance. Next.

Clearly you fail to acknowledge or refuse to accept what a small percentage of those without insurance actually get stopped...especially now that the soft-on-crime cities have decried law enforcement personnel actually enforcing the law.

You ALSO fail to acknowledge how many of that very small percentage will go to We Insure Anyone and get a one-month policy and promptly cancel it. But because they came back to court, the ticket is usually dismissed and they might pay some nominal fix-it fine...

 

[mb227]

If it moves the needle to forces gun owners to be more responsible

MOST gun owners who own their firearms legally already ARE responsible.

If she were forced to carry liability insurance this store employee would have an avenue to make himself whole, financially.

If you believe liability makes people whole, you don't understand insurance very well. Even now, many States only obligate a driver to $20-30K. After that, you are on your own. Gun policies would be no different.

But carry on seeking to figure out how to deprive people of an enumerated right and how to get into their bank accounts...

 

[mb227]

I'm talking about background checks. If I sell you a gun I should work in any cost of a background check into that cost to validate that you are eligible to own said gun and if I fail to do so and document that eligibility then I could be held liable for something that you may do with the gun that harms others. Something like 85% of gun owners support universal background checks.

Seattle is talking about liability insurance. I'm not against that but it's my thing.

Background checks are ALREADY performed. The results can be flawed because of the failures of some agencies to timely report certain data to NCIC. But according to you, a check that includes NCIC should somehow result in the seller being penalized...

 

[Horns11]

Moving is but one recourse. There are others, including working to amend the laws AT THE STATE LEVEL instead of running to the feds for relief.

OK I know. This is completely derailed from the rest of the discussion, but in most instances, there's just not a chance of that happening with the political climate of 2022. Voters who vote blue in Texas are in a 53-to-47 minority, but with the level of representation in the Senate it's 58:42 and in the House it's 57:43, and the disparities between parties are getting worse due to districting (again, soil). And don't get me started on places like Maryland, where it's more like 66:33 for Democrats when that just can't be the breakdown. Or how Chicago has a stranglehold on the Springfield statehouse in Illinois. Both sides can compromise all they want but there are limits to that, and sometimes limits deal with uncomfortable things that one side isn't going to back down from.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Not sure why a topic on Breyer's retirement slumped down into a some fantasy of requiring insurance to exercise a Constitutional right, but here we are. Time to rip that idea out of the ground like the weed that it is and have it wither and die in the trash heap.

1. First off, save for maybe a few leftist run hellholes - the places where you have to be on a waiting list for a U-haul to escape, requiring people to obtain insurance for firearms ownership isn't happening. Might as well fantasize about dating a supermodel or winning the lottery.

2. The car insurance analogy is rubbish, as you don't need insurance or even vehicle registration or plates unless you drive on public streets. If you drive your car on your own land, or other private land like a race track, have it in your garage, or do the OK thing and show off your net worth by the number of abandoned vehicles in your yard with chickens living in them, you don't need to obtain liability insurance.

3. The only firearms analogy would be if the State required you to have such insurance if you used a taxpayer funded, free to use shooting range. Now if the government wants to fund, build, staff, and equip a large number of shooting ranges open 24 hours a day, with no cost to use as long as you want, and require liability insurance to shoot there, that's an offset case. But for owning a firearm, no.

4. As owning a firearm is a Constitution right, actually found in the Constitution and not in the invisible ink section, and affirmed by recent Supreme Court decisions, traditionally courts have taken a dim view to requiring the payment of money to exercise a Constitutional right. Poll taxes were used to keep people from voting. Requiring insurance to own a gun would be like requiring libel and slander insurance before you could exercise your right to free speech.

5. That said, the Democrat party used poll taxes for years to stay in power, and the modern Democrat party, who's love of censorship is equal only to their hatred of guns, would probably be all for requiring insurance before free speech. Media outlets would get group rates or no-cost coverage from insurance companies in return for slavish praise. Left wing bloggers could join these group polices or just ignore the requirement, safe in the knowledge that no government agency would bother someone on the same side as them. While those on the right would be denied coverage by insurance companies after boycott threats, and then ruthlessly fined by leftist DA's.

6. Here's what's going to happen with regards to the 2nd Amendment this year. There'll be none of this insurance rubbish. President Depends may be able to fill his diaper up on a daily basis, but after 13 months he can't even fill the ATF (or "AFT" as he slurred it out while semi-coherent) Director's job, after his pick of the guy who's last job was at a gun-grabbing lobby firm, when down in flames. Dude was so horrible he didn't even have enough support from a Democrat run Senate.

Some combination of Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Indiana are going to pass Constitutional Carry this year, joining Texas in that, and once a state affirms the right of all law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-protection without a government permission slip, they're never going back to being a gun control state.

Then sometime in June the Supreme Court is going to drop the hammer on New York, and their May-Issue (if you are a politically connected Democrat) gun carry program, in favor of a Shall-Issue program, dragging the remaining 12 or so leftist run states kicking and screaming into modern America.

Good times for the 2A, and I can't wait for the gnashing of teeth from the gun grabbers. They can always move to Mexico where there's both strong gun control, and one of the highest murder rates in the world. I hear the border is wide open.

 

[Seattle Husker]

MOST gun owners who own their firearms legally already ARE responsible.



If you believe liability makes people whole, you don't understand insurance very well. Even now, many States only obligate a driver to $20-30K. After that, you are on your own. Gun policies would be no different.

But carry on seeking to figure out how to deprive people of an enumerated right and how to get into their bank accounts...

I've already shown that your claim of 40% noninsured did not matchup to the facts so forgive me if I simply discount any of your other unsourced claims based on your own anecdotal evidence.

 

[mb227]

I've already shown that your claim of 40% noninsured did not matchup to the facts so forgive me if I simply discount any of your other unsourced claims based on your own anecdotal evidence.

You apparently did not read far enough to examine their methodology...

The IRC measures the number of uninsured motorists based on insurance claims, using a ratio of insurance claims made by people who were injured by uninsured drivers relative to the claims made by people who were injured by insured drivers.

You deliberately choose to ignore that there are other uninsured drivers out there. If they don't have an accident or don't have a claim pursued which involved injury, they would NOT even BE counted in that 'study.'

There is a reason a lot of uninsured illegals will offer cash at the scene to 'settle' before the police can arrive.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You apparently did not read far enough to examine their methodology...


You deliberately choose to ignore that there are other uninsured drivers out there. If they don't have an accident or don't have a claim pursued which involved injury, they would NOT even BE counted in that 'study.'

There is a reason a lot of uninsured illegals will offer cash at the scene to 'settle' before the police can arrive.

I did some research and found some data that has a published methodology for estimating uninsured drivers. You're more than welcome to find your own data to backup your claim that 40% of drivers on the road are not insured. You've got an uphill battle to argue that 28% of drivers are uninsured and simply haven't been cited or in an accident.

 

[mb227]

I did some research and found some data that has a published methodology for estimating uninsured drivers. You're more than welcome to find your own data to backup your claim that 40% of drivers on the road are not insured. You've got an uphill battle to argue that 28% of drivers are uninsured and simply haven't been cited or in an accident.

Your inability to read comes through again. Go back to my post and point out where I said it was 40% of ALL drivers who were uninsured. You won't be able to do it.

Never mind that you ALSO show time and again the inability to properly parse data. You rely on some talking points fed to you by the media.

Oh, and I thought you were going to place me on ignore. I guess that was another lie from you...