Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

New Illinois insanity

Just when I thought that the forcible citizen disarmament freaks in this state had tried just about every possible means of attacking that which shall not be infringed, a particularly creative freedom-hater comes along and manages to surprise me. Meet Illinois State Representative Ken Dunkin.

And now, let's look at his bright idea--HB 687:

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.
So this genius wants to require every gun owner to carry at least a million dollars worth of insurance for misuse of his gun.

Actually, I might have given him too much credit for creativity--he's not the first to come up with this . . . inspired idea.

Oh, by the way, he's not averse to the boring old citizen disarmament plans we've seen before, as per his website:
Tougher Gun Control
This year Rep. Dunkin is supporting a package of gun control laws that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on deadly firearms. One measure supported by Dunkin would limit handgun purchases to one per month, which would cut off a supply of guns purchased by “straw buyers.” Another measure would require more parents to use gun locks when minors are present and would stiffen penalties for parents who do not comply. Dunkin also continues to support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Kinda looks as if it would be hard to find a freedom-killing gun law he would not support.


Anonymous said...

parasitic "grieving family" enrichment bill.

How many close friends work in the insurance biz?

Anonymous said...

I sort of like the idea, with just a few modifications. How about this? As it has been proven most gun crime occurs among a group known as "urban youth", which is a polite way of saying black people up to the age of 22.

Therefore wouldn't it make more sense to require every person of dark pigment not living on a farm or other rural acreage to carry $1,000,000 worth of liablility insurance to indemnify others against the acts of themselves and/or their children, er, uh, excuse I meant to say "their urban youth".

Two benefits would be accomplished by this model that the current proposal does not make evident. One would be increased safety for all city dwellers of whatever color. Two, it would expose the unmitigated unwarranted prejudice against an entire segment of the population in the current proposal by shifting it to the segment of the population that is expert in hollering "discrimination".

Let's see how long that shit would fly.

Hand to smile as the word verification for this comment is "brotort". You figure it out.

Anonymous said...

Judging from his picture Dunkin's children could be described as urban youth. I do hope he is carrying one million dollars each on his progeny.

Put his money where his mouth is.

AJ187 said...

Hey straightarrow thanks for posting what many of us are thinking. Crime tends to just center around areas of poverty and most urban crime centers are filled with ethnics. So you got a population of people that are so inclined to commit crime because they have an opportunity to profit over those that aren't living the street life. I being a middle class, white guy with no gang affiliations would do poorly on the streets, working the black market. But someone raised there would. They just so happen to be black and the US just so happens to have a history of slavery and all the white guilt that that entails. So it's about guns and not about who's really committing these crimes, because we sympathize with the poor, black male stereotype.

Anonymous said...

Not me AJ, nobody grew up poorer than I did, I lived in slums. I have suffered from racist bullshit, though I am not black.

I have no sympathy for the poor black stereotype. None. Not even a little bit. Just exactly the same way I feel about any other allegedly human creature with no social conscience or sense of honor.

Color doesn't really matter, culture does. The kind of crap Dunkins is proposing is just an excuse for not demanding responsibility and humanity from everyone.

He knows it, but he must pander to the welfare mothers who are tired of laying out bus fare once a month to visit their "urban youth" at the state pen. Assuming of course, there is bus fare left after the crack cocaine purchases.

This is not a racial problem, but a cultural problem. But putting it in that language would require him to acknowledge that conscious decisions of his constituents is what has placed them in their present circumstances. Much easier to get their vote if one tells them that those decisions weren't the problem, but a non-living piece of equipment is the driving force and they are just "victims".

No one wants to tell a mother that her son is a putrid piece of murderous shit and should never walk free. But if one doesn't want the little brother to follow him, it is his duty to tell it like it is. Unfortunately that won't get you voted our of honest work into the legislature where one can avoid the stress of honor.

Anonymous said...

"...specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts..."

Good luck finding one. Most personal liability or "umbrella" insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for negligent or willful tortious acts.


Anonymous said...

Well hey Curtis Lowe if Dunkins gets that law passed. He can then force insurance companies to cover his "urban youth" or cease to do business.

Once you destroy one liberty the rest get easier as you go.

Anonymous said...

How about Gang banger's required to get business license and Federal tax id number, Liability insurance.

I'm beginning to feel like I'm being discriminated against.