Any time you require someone to pay a fee in order to exercise their constitutionally protected rights, this is just another form of poll tax. It's nothing but a way to try to limit who can exercise their rights.
In Illinois, a bill seeks to explore requiring insurance for gun owners, which is just another flavor of a poll tax, and they should knock it off now.
To be sure, other places have floated and even passed some form of gun owner insurance requirement, though it's taken the form of nothing but liability insurance for homeowners and renters, something most homeowners already have just in case something happens to their house.
But that doesn't make it acceptable, and I can settle the question of Illinois without the expenses that would be generated if they pass a bill like this.
HB0043 would create a Task Force on Firearm Insurance to study current and future policies and make recommendations, with members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders and administrative support from the Department of Insurance.
Sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerfield, announced the introduction of the legislation on social media saying, “As we progress through the 104th GA, I remain committed to pursuing legislation that combats gun violence in our state.”
Morgan, longtime advocate of gun control measures, said the proposal is intended to examine the broader impacts of gun violence and whether insurance could play a role in accountability, not to impose an immediate mandate.
Morgan framed the idea as a fact-finding effort rather than new regulation, saying, “The massive financial cost of gun violence is indisputable – for the victims themselves and those exposed to the trauma of gun violence. We have never addressed the question of how insurance for gun ownership could be structured, and whether insurance has an appropriate role in encouraging responsible gun ownership.”
Framing this as a "fact-finding effort" is, without a doubt, the dumbest possible way to frame something like this.
He's presenting the bill as a stepping stone for introducing the legislation and anyone with a couple of functional neurons knows and well that's what he's trying to do.
The idea that they're going to fact-find anything with any degree of objectivity is ridiculous because this is a state that isn't remotely interested in the truth. What the task force is conveniently going to "find" is that they can possibly create revenue for the state, which they'll justify as sufficient reason for passing a mandate.
The insurance companies will be happy to hand over any convenient evidence they can since it means a captured audience to some degree, which means more money for them, and the people who will be left in the cold are gun owners.
But as I said at the top of this piece, adding a fee to any exercise of a constitutional right is tantamount to a poll tax, even if you're telling people they have to spend the money over there instead of over here.
"You've got to have insurance to drive a car," someone will bark at me, and I have no time for that. After all, driving on public roads--what they really mean by "drive a car" isn't considered a right. It's a privilege. Further, the insurance thing is because of accidents, not intentional actions, which is precisely what makes up the vast majority of what people term "gun violence," and we all know it.
Luckily, while this story is fairly new, the bill itself has been stagnant since last year.
Still, the fact that this is popping up in the media hints that someone is trying to revive it. The fact that they only quote Aaron Dorr on the pro-gun side suggests that someone needs an infusion of cash in their supposedly pro-gun group, as well.
Either way, the truth is that this bill is just a waste of time to find "facts" that have already been decided anyway.
