Civics H.R.2546 - Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015

H.R.2546 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (05/21/2015)

Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015

Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) prohibit the purchase or sale of a firearm unless the purchaser presents proof to the seller and the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy, and (2) require any person who purchases a firearm on or after this Act's effective date to be covered by such a policy. Exempts the purchase or sale of a firearm for use by a federal, state, or local agency.

Defines "qualified liability insurance policy" to mean a policy that: (1) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser, and (2) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the state in which the purchaser resides.

This really pisses me off

 

All D sponsors. This is bill is ridiculous and going nowhere fast.

 

More liberal crap. They never give up. They are just hoping maybe this time it will stick.

 

Sounds as if it was introduced by the insurance companies looking to make a buck.

 

Don't wonder too long...you're just wasting time

 

It's the little chipping away at liberty that bugs me. Just like chigger bites. I think we need some liberal insecticide

 

It is a defacto gun registry.

 

I refer back to the "Brass Rat" post!

 

Got one?

 

This is a very dangerous bill. If they manage to pass it they'll be able dictate the amount of insurance each gun owner must carry. And they'll pick a suitably large number for their agenda--like a $million+ in liability per firearm.

 

The bill actually says the insurance co. Can determine the appropriate amount

 

Brokor my experience with the whole 'soverign' citizen movement is two fold

1 most people don't know how to structure themselves legally speaking, to get soverign,

2 the people who get the structure right think it's a one time event rather than a life style to manage. .. and because laws change it does take a lot to manage the details. I can't count the number of people who have gotten fouled up with one or more federal or state agencies because they didn't keep records or do their home work.

 

It truly is sad that one must prove that they are "sovereign" to remain sovereign to those that are our servants..

 

@Dont. I agree with you sentiment and there were laws passed that at the time the common man did not understand the implication. They didn't 'take away' our sovereignty. No one can do that. But many people have been 'enticed' into the system and to opt out takes some finagling. When you opt out, the legal language matters. Alot! It is alot to manage and you run the risk of getting crossways with the system in places you didn't even know about.

So you really need to consider the risk vs reward of living soverign... legally speaking