Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders’ View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit

[NutmegYankee]

195. You fail to get that no insurance company will cover intentional acts.

This was actually discussed in Connecticut's legislature in hearings. It's a dead issue except on message boards.

You also fail to get that case law prevents burdensome fees or taxes against a Constitutionally protected activity. Legislation that add $15 to a gun sale to cover a victims fund would probably survive strict scrutiny. Fees like you propose or an annual insurance requirement won't. Like it or not, keeping and bearing arms is Constitutionally protected, meaning the people (like 4th and 9th, individuals) may own and use them for legal purposes, like hunting. The well-regulated clause refers to the power Congress already has in Article I, Section 8 to regulate the militia, and is not a power granted to Congress to limit private ownership.

In addition, cars are terrible example - they are a different class of property and the registration, fees, and licensing pertains to operation on public (government-run) roadways. If you don't pay insurance for your car, you only lose the privilege to operate the car on a public roadway. The state can't take the car away - it's your property. It doesn't have that power because of the 5th Amendment.



I do want to know your solution in the hypothetical situation where such laws did pass and people did not pay the fee. What would be the government response? Guns are private property and cannot be taken without court hearings under due process. And if taken, the government has to pay for them at fair market value (also 5th Amendment). This is a key reason you can't be charged an annual fee to keep guns - at that point it's rental, not ownership.