RobertNashville

I don't disagree with your premise but we ("we" in the collective sense), have allowed the government at all levels to ignore the Constitution when it comes to the second amendment.  It's been going on for decades and all of us have some of that guilt on our hands.   Any attempt to suddenly revert to what the Constitution says we already have as a right will only bring pain and misery down on the person who does it.   The approach that will work is to keep pushing back against further infringement and to remove infringements that already exist and we do that in a variety of ways including supporting organizations like the NRA, USCCA, GOA, etc. and by being an ambassador to our friends and neighbors who either don't share our views or have no strong opinion on the matter at all.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say "everyone" - I'm sure there are some who would find it "too expensive" for them but I find it difficult to believe that most people cannot afford a $100 or so per year for liability insurance. Less difficult to believe is that it simply isn't important enough to them to do it.   Why should the life of an innocent be put at risk with no hope of being made whole if the person with the firearm uses their weapon and causes harm to that innocent person?   Does our right to "bear arms" supersede our responsibility to others...to make restitution to others if our acts with those arms causes harm to an innocent person?   If liability insurance is truly too expensive for some then at the very least, it should be impossible for anyone to escape financial responsibility for their actions if they injure an innocent person with a firearm...make it impossible to discharge, through bankruptcy, any obligations arising from the act and all income/assets/etc., except for an absolute minimum for the basics of life, can be confiscated until the obligation is fully paid no matter how long it takes. If you fire a weapon and injure or kill an innocent person in the process, even if you were justified in using the weapon against a non-innocent, you should not be able to escape the financial consequences of your actions.

Aside from the loss of a hero, the next saddest part of this is what some of the left-wing loons are saying about this man on twitter and other media....it's truly beyond disgusting and it makes me wonder if this country really has any hope of restoration; even back to the place it was in the 50's; let alone back to what the founders originally intended.   When I read all that's going on and the absolute trampling of our rights; with a new outrage happening almost every day, it makes me just want to give up on our country, find a hole or a cave to hide in and wait for the eventual collapse.

Wow...I hope they catch whoever did this and I also hope he gets what he deserves.

Most liability insurance can be had for less than $10/month...that's like one less meal out per month or one less cigar per month or two fewer packs of cigarettes per month...if people can't afford that, how in the world can they afford to shot their firearm (or even own one for that matter)?   I'm beginning to wonder how may folks around here don't have liability insurance on their vehicles. :shrug:

I know this will sound harsh but  aren't we firearm owners, especially those who carry in public supposed to be "responsible people"?   Aren't we supposed to be self reliant?   Aren't we supposed to be people to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions? Well...at least in my opinion (which is the only thing I'm truly an expert in), responsible people need liability insurance to pay for the harm THEY might do to other people...it has NOTING to do with how many assets they have or don't have...having it only to protect assets, frankly, strikes me as a bit selfish.   While not universal, what a person can "afford" often seems to be a very nebulous concept. I've counseled many people over the years who "couldn't afford" to pay their rent or utilities yet they had cable/satellite (and I don't mean the basic package), the latest TV(s), latest audio system, a significant car payment(s), etc., etc. In other words, what most people can "afford" often has more to do with their priorities than their income or net worth. Liability insurance, especially compared to the cost of even a single firearm is fairly inexpensive...if you can't afford it then perhaps you should reconsider whether owning a firearm is "affordable" or not.   Whether it should or shouldn't be mandated or not is one issue; whether one should or shouldn't have it is another...personally, I truly believe that not having such insurance is irresponsible.     I hope I'm not roughing too many feathers here...I know we all have to make our own choices...just calling it like I see it.

Ulterior motives aside (as I'm sure there are some), exactly how is it "gun control"?  I understand the emotion behind the statement but I'm looking for specifics??? I understand that some might consider it an "infringement" and therefor, unconstitutional but is it really?  An inconvenience, yes...an infringement, I don't think such a requirement rises to that level.  It's doesn't stop anyone from buying a gun or owning a gun; the proposal would simply require you to be insured (or prove you are financially able) to pay for any liability you might have if you cause harm to an innocent person.   As I noted earlier, we ARE absolutely responsible for every round we fire...if we do injure an innocent person, is it really a burden on us for the state to require us to carry insurance to make that injured person whole (as much as he/she could be made whole)? 

Of course you can and likely will be sued but so long as the shooting has been formally deemed justified, no suite is going to get anywhere as you have an affirmative defense that I don't believe has ever been overcome in court (if anyone knows differently I'd be interested in knowing about it). TN law is pretty good to us in that regard. There are at least two companies that provide insurance for both criminal and civil actions resulting from firearm use, I have mine through the USCCA because if you are ever involved in a shooting, even a justified shooting, I'd expect to have to shell out $25-$50K.

That's exactly why it would be needed...I assumed that was obvious. I'm not and I don't think anyone else is worried about the bad guy getting shot and at least in Tennessee, we have some pretty good protection if the shooting is ruled to be justified.   Of course, no one ever misses the intended target and/or has to worry about over-penetration in a righteous shooting. ;)

There you go again...using logic and reason when many justices prefer to act like legislators and make rulings based on emotion, political pressure and how they think the world should be. There SHOULD have been no way that the Obamacare mandate was upheld either, tax or not a tax, but it was.  Saying it couldn't happen in this situation is hopeful but I wouldn't bet $0.02 on that hope.

I feel bad for this guy but is should be obvious by now that New York is almost effectively "off limits" to all who own a firearm...their laws are so draconian that if I currently lived in NY I'd have moved already (or would have at least moved ALL my firearms and related items out of the state).   I agree with Dave (wonder of wonders)...bad law but he should have known better.   I hope it works out Okay for him.

Yeah...just like a law requiring everyone to buy medical insurance. ;)

Frankly, I don't have a big problem with this idea (and I know I'm bucking the trend here).  I'll admit up front that this is an "off the cuff" reply in that I haven't thought through all the "constitutional" issues, or done extensive research but at least at first blush, I don't see this as either a bad idea or an undue burden on gun owners nor, at least not automatically, unconstitutional.   A gun owner is already legally responsible fore EVERY bullet he/she fires from a gun regardless of the shooter's intent or rightness of discharging the weapon.  Meaning that if you accidentally or otherwise, injure a innocent person YOU are responsible, criminally and/or civilly (i.e. financially).  That being the case and already a matter of law, I don't see it as a burden or unconstitutional for someone who does own a firearm to be required to be able to MEET those civil/financial responsibilities should something happen that bring them into play...usually that means the person is either financially well-healed (effectively self-insured) or he/she has liability insurance to cover such issues. I basically carry such insurance now through USCCA (and possibly would be covered to some extent through my umbrella policy).   I understand that many won't agree with me and perhaps after thinking on it more I'll change my mind. ;)

Any weapon not in my safe is LOADED, magazine and chamber.   Should I ever need to use them then every millisecond is precious; I don't want to spend any of that time loading, chambering or wondering if I need to do any of those things!

Actually; I'd say teaching your children how to properly handle and respect guns is exactly what should be done. My only caution is about securing the weapons; not from your children but from "others". Mine stay in my safe for the safety of the firearms. :)

No children in the house so I have a pistol within arms reach in every room I spend time in.  Of course, when I have guests and especially guests with children they all go in the safe and I simply carry as I would were I out in public.   I do understand that not everyone has the $$$ or even the need for a "safe" but I do find it disappointing that some gun owners treat securing their weapons from children in such a caviler fashion - it's just not that difficult (nor does it need to be expensive) to secure them from young hands.

I hate it every time I hear about someone having to say good bye to a beloved four-legged member of the family.  I had to put my cat to sleep last January and it was agonizing...I don't even want to think about losing my hound even though I know that every day that inevitability gets closer and closer.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwGnCIdHQH0    

What the fuck are they doing to my country???   Which three didn't vote for it

Well it's great if people are talking about it and claiming they won't comply...won't get their guns, etc...but I wonder what they are DOING about it?   Talk, as they say, is cheap and actions speak a lot louder than words...we all need talk about it but more importantly, we need to be involved to whatever extent we can...once they show up on your doorstep to take your guns it will be far too late.

There is a significant difference, recognized by courts at all levels and for many, many decades between property used for private purposes and property used for business/commercial/public purposes (i.e. where the public, including employees, are invited and allowed to be). A property owner (or their agent) is not above the constitution...they are allowed a lot of latitude to be sure but there is zero in the Constitution that prevents regulation of property (used for private purposes or not) other than the takings clause...businesses in other states that have sued where these laws have been enacted have been losing most of those battles; mostly because they have been unable to show how these laws violate the takings clause. Yes, they may be able to dictate a pink tutu...for a while...until someone sues and wins (and the plaintiff likely will win unless the business can substantiate an actual business need/reason for such a requirement). Maybe it's just some sort of power play going on with these businesses or maybe it's a precised liability issue but the businesses opposed to this legislation have had a damn difficult time coming up with any rational or Constitutional argument regarding why they should have the power to dictate the contents of a vehicle parked in a parking lot (so long as the contents are legal for the vehicle owner to own/transport) and unless they can come up with such an argument I'd say this legislation has a good chance of being passed in Tennessee and other states.

Why be so redundant in the title of the thread???  ;)

I will not believe any story about what the tin-plated with delusions of Godhood Obummer plans to do or how he plans to do it until he actually does something, i.e. makes some sort of formal proposal, legislation, etc. meaning I will prepare for the worst and work for the best (rather than just hope for it).        

My insurance didn't requite a formal appraisal; I did my own using the Blue Book and prices of similar for sale on sites like Gunbroker.com, etc.   Once I came up with an overall value that's what I insured for; making changes as items were sold, traded, replaced, etc...and I re-evaluate it about once a year.

IS there a difference? Yes, but only in the medium chosen. If I understand correctly, the basis for suspending the HCP was that he was a "danger to the public" but who is truly "dangerous to the public"; the guy who thinks it or the guy who says it? I would suggest that neither is truly a danger but if either are dangerous then both are and both, then, should lose their HCP; at least they would of the standard was applied equally.   I guess whether I'd feel threatened or call LE would depend on the entirety of the situation but as I've said in other posts; the meaning I took from his statements is not substantially different than I've seen posted on forums, TGO included.

After 11 pages of posts, what seems pretty clear to me is that those who always bash Yeager still bash him; but I guess that's to be expected. I don't and am not defending what he said or the way he said it; I think it was at best very foolish and will ultimately harm the firearms community. However, I think it more than a little dangerous that the State of Tennessee can suspend or revoke his HCP because of what he said or that he said it on video. A few pages ago I asked how suspending his HCP on the basis of him being a danger to the public (which if I understand correctly, was the basis for the suspension), makes the public safer? I think everyone here knows that the only answer is, it doesn't...it doesn't make anyone safer any more than declaring a school a "gun free zone" means children in that school will never have to worry about some evil/crazy person from coming into their school and opening fire. Maybe I'm just becoming a little overly sensitive to the rights I see eroding away but it troubles me that this state or any other state can take action like this based solely on what someone said in a video without any underlying physical act or obvious criminality involved...lets' hope they never invent "Pre Crime" (Minority Report) because if they ever do there are probably a few here on TGO who would have their HCP lifted along with James Yeager. At the very least, this situation shows me that we have a serious problem with the HCP process in Tennessee...unless there is an obvious and immediate physical threat, the state, in my opinion, should not be able to take this kind of action against an individual without due process.