Stuff like this always makes me contemplate the proper uses of agitprop in modern society:
On Tuesday, I came across the following at the Daily Caller: “A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.”
Gun purchasers without such insurance would face a fine of “as much as $10,000″ if the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” introduced in March by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and seven other Democratic congressmen were ever to become law.
It’s a complex situation. You see, I know that the odds of actual Speaker John Boehner ever letting this legislation hit the floor is only slightly higher than the odds of hypothetical Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing that. I know, I know: never underestimate how likely it is that bad (or wicked) legislation can get passed. But this is like trying to mandate a federal ban on anteaters; the probability levels are simply too low to realistically worry about.
…On the federal level. That’s the other half of the problem; while this is effectively impossible to pass Congress, something this stupid might make it past a state legislature. Which, bluntly, would be great for civil rights supporters, because it will end up in front of the Supreme Court with unseemly haste. And the Supreme Court quickly loses its temper when the legislatures and lower courts do not listen to it. Bottom line is, DC v. Heller was supposed to serve as a window for the Court’s thinking for at least a decade; people ignore that, they risk a spanking.
In other words, I’m not exactly worried about this particular form of legislation. But I’m also not inclined to simply ignore it, because that’s how bad situations start. It’s a puzzler, really.