Think 'Progress' wrote:One proposal bouncing around the US House of Representatives to help curb gun violence is The Firearm Risk Protection Act, a law that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance for their weapon, or pay a penalty. The federal legislation, put forth by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) with seven co-sponsors, is obviously controversial; gun owners are reluctant to take on the additional cost burden, and see it as an impingement on their Second Amendment rights. Lawmakers have considered similar efforts in California, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut, and all have elicited controversy or been withdrawn.
There's a nice, fine, high flung idea for you. People can't exercise a right they can't afford, right? Before you scoff at the cost as negligible, be assured that it isn't. There are law abiding gun owners who can't afford their mortgages, much less afford another regular insurance payment. There are people who have been obeying the law all their lives in much worse situations.
No problem for limo liberals who want their armed guards - no problem for liberals in general who either hate guns or can afford dozens of them. Its just a thing of beauty to watch an ideological left constantly sounding the alarm of gentrification, to see them working the levers of class inequality to justify the means with their ends. Basically, here is a policy that would affect mostly poor people - the result would amount to a significant barrier to their constitutional right to bear arms; and the left is in love with the concept.