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

General General Discussion
1

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2546/text

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.

114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2546

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by,
a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance
coverage.

                IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          May 21, 2015

Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Lynch, Ms.
Tsongas, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. Clark of Massachusetts) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             A BILL

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by,
a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance
coverage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Firearm Risk Protection Act of

2015’'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON SALE OF FIREARM TO, AND PURCHASE OF FIREARM BY,
A PERSON NOT COVERED BY APPROPRIATE LIABILITY INSURANCE.

(a) Prohibitions.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is

amended by adding at the end the following:
(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy. (ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless,
at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is
covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy. (B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a
firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of
the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political
subdivision of a State.
(2) In paragraph (1), the term `qualified liability insurance policy' means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that-- (A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser
specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while
it is owned by the purchaser; and
(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.''. (b) Penalty.--Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: (q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than
$10,000.‘’.
(c) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall
apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with
the date of the enactment of this Act.

2

I loathe politicians…

3

2nd and 14th amendment come to mind.

4

Stupidest thing ive read in my entire life. They can kiss my ass. Time to contact your reps people.

5

Called it all the way back in 2004…

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=260365

I need to start a psychic hotline.

6

Do we make publishers have ‘libel insurance’?

Are we required to keep a lawyer on retainer in case we are charged with a crime?

Is it legal to have a poll tax to vote?

The step after this is making any insurance company that will write the policy be the target of activists and cut from any govt programs like obamacare.

ETA: this is the BS we’ll be facing if people decide that the GOP candidate isn’t ‘pure’ enough.

7

So, what does this mean for the 400,000,000 firearms already in circulation?

8

Imagine the policy every mosque should be required to have.

9

Yet another “common sense” plan.

10

Just another way to license and track gun owners.

11

It means you would have to register them with your insurance company.

12

Yea, I’d love to see how that’d work out.

13

For better or worse all mine are with USAA by serial number because they are a large chunk of change. With this bill the govt would know about them.

14

It says only for gun owners who buy guns after a certain date.

Get ready for the “cars have to have insurance” mantra.

15

Allow me to be more accurate and correct that a bit: “This is the BS we’ll be facing if spineless moderate primary voters decide everyone else must vote for a RINO yet again because they’re too pussified to pull the lever for a real conservative”.

16

I hope they do use that…you don’t need a drivers license to buy a car. And in Texas you don’t need liability insurance, you just have to show that you have to minimum dollar amounts on hand required by law. But most do not have access to that kind of liquid assets so they get insurance. Either way it blows a huge hole in the argument if they go that direction.

17

Of course the flaw in that argument, and one liberals will intentionally overlook, is driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right.

18

I think you can safely assume that anything registered with a large private business like an insurance company is also in a government database somewhere.

Ditto for anything purchased on a 4473, notwithstanding that law passed by Congress prohibits BATFE from making a database from those forms - there are plenty of reports indicating they have done so anyway.

Ditto for anything that started as an 80% lower but was purchased online or using a credit card. Probably not in their file if you paid cash for it at a gun show while wearing a disguise.

This bill is just one more type of harassment aimed at gun owners, trying to make criminals of them and give people who don’t feel strongly a strong disincentive to buy a gun. The same sort of “boiling frog” approached used on many issues across many generations in many countries.

19

Viewed reasonably gun ownership is a right, and the Second Amendment isn’t at all ambiguous, but never underestimate the power of self-deceiving thinking and brainwashing children and sheeple.

Also, while driving is treated as a privilege, it should not be, since in most of the country there is no viable way to move around without being able to drive. That’s another issue, but I would limit comparisons to driving because of that.

20

It’s apples and oranges, but you don’t need insurance to buy a car, either. I can buy a car and have it towed or trailered to my property without a license, registration, OR insurance, as long as I don’t drive it on public roads. The “cars have to have insurance” argument is only sounds good if you don’t think about it.

The insurance companies are sure coming out of this well, aren’t they?