Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Friday, May 17, 2013

Obama's Nuclear Folly

In our posting yesterday entitled "Is Flexibility Another Word For Surrender" we questioned the President's decision to make what we feel is irresponsible unilateral nuclear cuts.  We apparently are in good company. In the following posting, Lord Conrad Black has similar concerns.  

Obama's decision to make these cuts are folly and dangerous.  They must be stopped.
Additionally, not including the Congress in the decision reeks of the Imperial Presidency that Obama has tried to create. He is not the king or emperor and he should submit such a significant action to Congress.

Conservative Tom

Conrad Black: Nuclear Cuts Would Encourage Iran, Other 'Irresponsible' Nations

Thursday, 16 May 2013 07:56 PM
By Todd Beamon and Kathleen Walter
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Any further reduction in U.S. strategic nuclear warheads would encourage "completely irresponsible, ambitious, aspirant nuclear powers such as Iran," former newspaper publisher and author Lord Conrad Black tells Newsmax TV.

"I do not question for an instant the president's good intentions, but it will be just as conspicuous and in some ways more dangerous a failure than the plan of the late Defense Secretary [Robert] McNamara, who allowed the Soviet Union to gain nuclear power with the United States," Black tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. "The assumption was that the Russians would then negotiate more respectably. Instead, they just tended to achieve nuclear superiority."

Unilateral disarmament has never worked. It is exactly the wrong thing to do."
Black, a member of the British House of Lords and the former CEO of Hollinger International, was responding to a Newsmax report that President Barack Obama soon will announce that the United States will unilaterally reduce its arsenal of strategic warheads to around 1,000.T
hat position is expected as part of the Pentagon's long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study that Obama was expected to sign earlier this year, and recent news reports say Obama may make the cuts by executive action, without congressional authorization.

The reduction represents a third of the nation's arsenal. The United States currently has 1,550 deployed warheads, mandated by the 2010 New START arms treaty, according to the Newsmax report.

The author of five books, Black’s latest is "Flight of the Eagle: The Grand Strategies That Brought America From Colonial Independence to World Leadership."

The work chronicles America's strategic development into a world superpower from 1754 to 1992. Black details the specific strategic decisions of such statesmen as Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt that transformed the world and established America's role in it.

"Abraham Lincoln masterfully handled the whole task of finding the underlying cause of the Civil War: slavery," Black tells Newsmax. "Franklin D. Roosevelt did a brilliant job of tying the American national interest to the survival of the democracy, with the defeats of the Nazis and Japanese imperialists.

"These were all tremendous achievements that wouldn't necessarily happen just because the United States is a rich, well-populated country."

Black, 68, calls China one of America's rivals -- not adversaries -- and it's imperative that "they click with each other. The Americans need to make sure that their allies in the area,  the Japanese, the Philippines, the South Koreans and others, are not intimidated by the Chinese."

But radical Islam, Black says, poses a clear threat to the United States. "It is an enemy. It's a nuisance and it's a terrible nuisance. They commit these atrocities, and they kill a lot of people."

Regarding the Middle East, Black tells Newsmax that "no durable achievement will be attained until there is a general recognition in the Muslim world of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

"The Islamic forces in general do not accept that, and Palestine could have its state next week if they would accept that. Israel should not be encouraged to and should not negotiate with anyone who does not accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state."

Black also wrote the 2007 biography, "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full." The president faced impeachment proceedings over Watergate.

And in recent weeks, a bevy of scandals facing the Obama administration -- the four Americans killed in Benghazi last Sept. 11, the Justice Department's secret seizure of telephone records of The Associated Press, and the IRS' targeting of conservative groups -- has led to similar impeachment calls.

That would not be good for the United States, Black tells Newsmax.

"I don't think this is, to be fair, a particularly scandalous administration. I don't think it's very successful, but I don't think they've done anything that should cause the president to be under a moral cloud.

"We just shouldn't be talking in those terms," Black adds. "We shouldn't be getting into this. I would hope that the powers that be in Washington would do something to try and reform the situation, but they're not doing it.

"You have a prosecutorial glasnost -- and it's out of control."

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

IRS Official Moved From Tax Exempt To ObamaCrapCare

The rats have taken over Washington. They go from preventing conservative groups getting their tax-exempt status and now move onto overseeing ObamaCrapCare for the IRS.  Sarah Hall Ingram should be the next person to be "outsourced" from the taxing authority.  She oversaw the unit and so she has culpability with the current crisis. Good bye, Sarah!

Conservative Tom

IRS Official in Targeting Scandal Now Overseeing Obamacare Unit

Image: IRS Official in Targeting Scandal Now Overseeing Obamacare Unit
Rep. Michele Bachmann listens as Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, speaks during a May 16 news conference about the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
Thursday, 16 May 2013 08:46 PM
By Todd Beamon
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
The Internal Revenue Service official charged with overseeing tax-exempt organizations when conservative groups were targeted for extra scrutiny now runs the agency’s office responsible for implementing Obamacare.

Sarah Hall Ingram was commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations from 2009 to 2012, ABC News reports.

But now, ABC says, Ingram is director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office, a move that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said was "stunning, just stunning."

Ingram's successor, Joseph Grant, said he would retire on June 3. He served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit during some of those years.

Obamacare has 47 separate provisions that involve the IRS. It is the second-largest agency, after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, charged with implementing the act.

The IRS has to implement Obamacare's required purchase of health coverage, checking whether millions of Americans are in compliance.

The GOP-controlled House voted 225-to-125 to repeal Obamacare. It was the lower chamber's 37th vote to repeal President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

House Speaker John Boehner said he had "serious concerns" about whether the IRS was empowered as the law's chief enforcer.

"Fully repealing Obamacare will help us build a stronger, healthier economy, and will clear the way for patient-centered reforms that lower healthcare costs and protect jobs," the Ohio Republican told ABC.

"Obamacare empowers the agency that just violated the public's trust by secretly targeting conservative groups," Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., said. "Even by Washington's standards, that's unacceptable."

And Sen. John Cornyn introduced the "Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013" in the debate leading up to the Obamacare vote. The legislation would prohibit the secretary of the Treasury -- or any designate, including the IRS -- from enforcing the law.

"Now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS from having any role in Americans' healthcare," the Texas Republican told ABC. "I do not support Obamacare, and after the events of last week, I cannot support giving the IRS any more responsibility or taxpayer dollars to implement a broken law."

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

IRS Audits 180 Year Old Baptist Newspaper

Baptist Newspaper Said IRS Targeted Them

Thursday, 16 May 2013 07:25 PM
By Todd Beamon
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |

A 180-year-old Baptist newspaper said on Thursday that it was targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for extra scrutiny.

The Biblical Recorder, published by the North Carolina Baptist State Convention, said it was singled out by the agency in March, Fox News reports.

Last summer, the Recorder gained national attention after Allan Blume, its editor, published an interview with Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy.

In the interview, Cathy said that he was "guilty as charged" in his support of traditional family values.

The Recorder also published ads from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association -- which also was targeted by the IRS -- that backed North Carolina's marriage amendment.

The newspaper then received a telephone call from the IRS, Fox reports.

"It raised some red flags and made me wonder why we were being targeted for an audit when we have been around since 1833 and have never been audited before," Blume told Fox News. "Putting it all together made me wonder."

He said the timing might have been coincidental, but "it didn't seem that way."

"There seems to be a very anti-Christian bias that has flowed into a lot of government agencies -- oppression literally against Christian organizations and groups," Blume told Fox. "It makes you wonder what's going on."

The Recorder -- like the Billy Graham organization -- was eventually cleared, but the audit cost time and money.

"It was a lot of time and energy that we didn't have," Blume told Fox. "It took some of our staff literally several weeks of doing nothing but that [audit]."

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Hooray For Joe, Manchin


Manchin: 'Bull' that just two IRS employees were responsible for targeting

By Daniel Strauss 05/16/13 02:06 PM ET
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) scoffed at the idea that just two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees were responsible for applying a higher level of scrutiny to conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
"That's bull — bullcrap," Manchin said in an interview on Fox Radio's "Kilmeade and Friends."
"That's crazy. Two people? You're saying two people? Don't give me that crap. Somehow they believed that that would be acceptable, and if that's been going for one year, 10 years, or two or three decades, something's wrong with the system."
Officials have said that the IRS's higher scrutiny was conducted by a few low-level employees out of the service's Cincinnati office.
On Wednesday, President Obama accepted the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. A number of lawmakers who chair high-profile congressional committees have vowed to investigate the agency's increased focus on the conservative groups.
"I don't care what party's in charge, supposedly, this is just not acceptable," Manchin continued. "And, you know, if this goes to the bowels of someone who's working... [in] government, at any position whatsoever, and pursues a political agenda, that person should be fired immediately, that person should lose all their benefits they've accrued and that person should be facing jail time. And I'm going to introduce legislation along those lines."
Manchin said he had talked to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) about the legislation. Rubio recently unveiled legislation meant to prevent the IRS from acting in a partisan manner.
Obama plans to pick a new acting IRS commissioner sometime this week, senior Obama administration officials said Thursday.

Read more: 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Is Flexibility Another Word For Surrender

Is cutting our nuclear forces the "flexibility" that Obama promised the Russians?  We think so. 

In a world where China  and Russia are building more sophisticated nuclear weapons and other countries like North Korea and Iran are trying to become part of the "club", it makes no sense for us to be unilaterally cutting our numbers. Unless, a President is trying to get us into a position of inferiority where another country could blackmail us into surrender.

The only reason there has never been a nuke used (after Nagasaki and Hiroshima) is that the world has come to know the destructive power of these weapons and understand the devastation that results from their use.  The theory of "mutually assured destruction" kept the Russians and Americans far away from the button.

However, when countries like North Korea and Iran attempting to get these weapons, it is imperative that we keep up with the state of art and numbers.  They might be crazy to use one, but we need to be able to respond quickly and with overwhelming force. Even someone crazy will not take any actions if he knows that he will also meet his end.

President Obama is making a major mistake to reduce our nuke force, it will not lead to peace, it will hurt us and could mean the end of the US as we know it. We could be forced to capitulate and be taken over. Is that his goal?  We don't know but the possibility scares.

Conservative Tom

Obama to Announce Major US Nuclear Force Cuts Soon

Wednesday, 15 May 2013 07:51 PM
By Bill Gertz
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
President Barack Obama is set to announce a new round of strategic nuclear warhead reductions in the near future as part of a disarmament agenda that could reduce U.S. strategic warheads to as few as 1,000 weapons.

The next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks would follow Obama's expected announcement that the United States' arsenal of strategic warheads can be reduced unilaterally to around 1,000 warheads. That position is expected as part of the Pentagon's long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study that Obama was expected to sign earlier this year.

Recent press reports have indicated that President Obama may make the cuts -- fully one-third of the nation's arsenal -- by executive action and without Congressional authorization.

Urgent: Did Obama Lie? Vote Here in Urgent National Poll.

Specialists on nuclear deterrence say further cuts beyond the 1,550 deployed warheads mandated by the 2010 New START arms treaty could undermine the United States' ability to deter nuclear powers like Russia and China, who have significant modernization programs for their nuclear arsenals underway.

Further cuts also are likely to embolden other non-nuclear states, including Japan, to consider building their own nuclear arsenals, analysts say.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is "the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American president attempt to do."

"This is not the time to embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasing their nuclear forces," he said.

A U.S. official familiar with strategic nuclear policy said the delay in signing the implementation study may be the result of concerns among military commanders in charge of nuclear deterrence that China's nuclear arsenal is expanding more rapidly than anticipated, and that Russia and other nuclear states, including Pakistan and North Korea, are modernizing their forces.

"I hear increasing concerns about China," the official said. "We really don't know what they're doing and what decisions are being made" about China's nuclear-force modernization.

In addition to cuts to the nation's nuclear arsenal, the Obama administration appears to be getting ready to limit U.S. missile defenses in a new agreement with Russia.

Obama wrote a still-secret letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin that was delivered in Moscow by White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon during a visit there in mid-April.

Putin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters in Moscow the letter "addresses problems of military policy, including the missile defense and nuclear arsenals issues."

A reply from the Russian president is expected soon, and a deal on both missile defenses and new talks on strategic nuclear reductions could come during Obama's visit to Russia in September.

Despite the Obama administration's pledge to not complete the final phase of its missile-defense program in Eastern Europe, Moscow remains vehemently opposed to the U.S- backed NATO plan to deploy a series of sea- and land-based missile defenses in Europe over the next five years.

Washington says the deployment is meant to counter Iran's long-range missiles, but Moscow insists they are covertly aimed at countering its offensive strategic missiles.

"The administration is hoping to get some sort of missile-defense deal by June, so that by September or October Putin and Obama can announce a new round of nuclear-reduction talks," the official said.

Rogers: Unilateral Reductions of 'Immense Importance' 

The impending nuclear cuts and missile-defense concessions are raising concerns among senior Republicans on Capitol Hill who fear the president is now following through on his open-microphone comment in March 2012 to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Obama was overheard promising the Russians "more flexibility" on missile defenses after the November election.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, said recently the administration's review of the nuclear war plan is nearly complete and "is likely to recommend significant further U.S. nuclear-force reductions."

"As the stockpile shrinks in size, we have reached the point where further reductions take on immense importance to the nation's security and international stability," said Rogers, an Alabama Republican.

Further angering Republicans are concerns that the administration, in order to avoid congressional opposition and a difficult Senate ratification process, is planning to make the next round of cuts through an executive agreement rather than a treaty that requires Senate approval.

Rogers vowed to oppose that process. "Let me be clear: I intend to ensure that no further reductions to U.S. nuclear forces, including New START treaty reductions, will occur without a formal treaty or explicit, affirmative authorization by Congress," he said in an April 24 speech to a breakfast group on Capitol Hill.

In April, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Newsmax TV that "there will be a tremendous backlash" if Obama moves to unilaterally deactivate a significant portion of the nuclear arsenal without congressional approval.

"What kind of signals are we sending? Our nuclear deterrent arsenal needs to be modernized," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As a further indication of the coming nuclear cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Air Force to conduct an environmental impact statement of shutting down an entire wing of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles -- one of the clearest signs of coming additional force cuts. The New START treaty contains no provision for shuttering an ICBM facility.

While the United States under Obama's anti-nuclear weapons agenda is seeking to build down its forces, other nations, notably Russia and China, are aggressively modernizing their weapons.

"The problem is not just Russia. Every other nuclear power is building up their arsenals," the U.S. official said.

Urgent: Did Obama Lie? Vote Here in Urgent National Poll.

The Russia strategic buildup is stark, officials say. It includes the following new systems:

• A new mobile ICBM called the Yars-M to be deployed later this year that will use a more powerful fuel, allowing the missile to better defeat missile defenses. The missile will have a range of up to 6,835 miles and have 10 warheads.

• A new rail-mobile ICBM is being deployed by 2020. The Soviet Union was the first to deploy a rail-mobile SS24 in the 1980s.

• New submarines are being deployed with new submarine-launched Bulava missiles.

• A new strategic bomber to be deployed by 2020.

• A new Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile will be deployed by 2013 and a new Kaliber submarine-launched cruise missile is being developed.

China's strategic nuclear buildup also has been under way for a decade and includes three new road-mobile ICBMs: the DF-31, DF-31A, and DF-41, and a new submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2.

The Pentagon revealed in its latest annual report to Congress on the Chinese military that China is building two new classes of missile submarines -- one for nuclear ballistic missiles and one for conventional cruise missiles. It was the first time the Pentagon revealed the new missile submarines, which were disclosed as China has begun deploying Jin-class nuclear-missile submarines and new Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

U.S. intelligence agencies estimate China has a relatively small nuclear arsenal of around 240 warheads. The intelligence estimate was based in large measure on China's declared policy of "no-first-use" -- that it would not be the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict.

However, the recent Chinese defense white paper, the authoritative statement of Chinese military and defense policy, for the first time made no mention of the no-first-use nuclear policy, raising new concerns that China is on the path for a large-scale strategic nuclear-warhead buildup.

Former State Department intelligence analyst John Tkacik said the rapid deployment of Chinese missile submarines and the shift from single-warhead to multiple-warhead missiles is changing the strategic balance.

"Doing the math, we're looking at 60 JL-2s on five submarines, each with at least three MIRVs (multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles), so that's 180 new Chinese nuclear warheads that we have to plan for," Tkacik said. "It gives me the heebie-jeebies."

Additionally, China recently deployed the first of its unique intermediate range anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to defeat U.S. aircraft carriers that are the key platform that would be used in any defense of Taiwan, the island state that China has said it is prepared to use force to retake. The missiles, known as the DF-21D, are considered a major threat to U.S. naval forces operating in the western Pacific.

Asked during a recent congressional hearing if Chinese naval forces are a worry, Adm. Jonathan Greenert said: "I would just say that I'm vigilant. I would hate to say that I'm worried, yet, because I'm not necessarily worried. Very vigilant, and we need to pay attention and understand the intent. And challenge them on that intent."

North Korea, which has conducted three underground nuclear tests, also is said to be developing small warheads for missiles. Asahi Shimbun reported in January, quoting intelligence sources, that North Korea was ready to test a "fusion-boosted fission bomb" in its next test. The sophisticated bomb could be placed on a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, or North Korea's new road-mobile ICBM, the KN-08.

Pakistan also is developing more modern nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them, U.S. officials said. Pakistan is said to be getting assistance from China, which provided the designs for Pakistan's first warheads, which in turn were based on stolen U.S. nuclear-warhead designs.

India, Pakistan's rival, also recently tested a new intercontinental-ballistic missile and is working on an advanced ICBM.

U.S. Strategic Command Calls for Modernization

With other nations making efforts to expand and modernize their nuclear forces, U.S. military officials have voiced concerns about the need to upgrade America's existing stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The commander of U.S. nuclear forces said he is concerned about cuts in both the number of warheads as well as shortages in funding needed to modernize aging nuclear weapons and infrastructure.

Nuclear forces that need upgrades include delivery systems, weapons life-extension programs, stockpile monitoring, naval-reactor design work, and upgrades for nuclear command and control, Gen. Robert Kehler, head of the Omaha-based U.S. Strategic Command, said during a talk last June at the Council on Foreign Relations.

If further funding cuts are made, "we will have to go back and do what we did with this round of reductions: completely review what those impacts could be and make the appropriate recommendations," the four-star general said.

"Of all the elements of the nuclear enterprise, I'm most concerned with the potential for declining or inadequate investment in the nuclear-weapons enterprise itself; some declining investment that would result in our inability to sustain the deterrent force," he said.

Rogers said he is concerned about "the sorry state of the nuclear modernization commitments made during the last round" of talks with Russia.

Most Senate Republicans opposed the New START Treaty, noting its significant gaps. While bringing Russia and the United States to parity in strategic nuclear weapons of 1,550 each, it allowed Russia to maintain its sizeable advantage in tactical nuclear warheads, with an estimated stockpile of 3,800 such weapons. The United States, in comparison, has less than 500.

In the end, a handful of Senate Republicans supported ratification of New START after Obama promised to invest $85 billion over 10 years after 2010 to fix the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal and infrastructure, which is largely based on outdated technology that spans the Cold War period from the 1960s to the 1980s.

While the Pentagon has said it will try to protect nuclear-force modernization from the devastating effect of across-the-board cuts as part of congressional sequestration, funding for nuclear modernization is being cut.

Rogers said in a recent speech that funding levels agreed to in 2010 were the "minimum required to accomplish this modernization." However, the administration is underfunding nuclear forces by between $1 billion and $1.6 billion, he said.

"Setting aside the gross budget numbers and looking at capability, it is easy to see that nuclear modernization is in grave danger," Rogers said.

Among the weapons systems in jeopardy is the replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine, which is being delayed. Other programs that are being delayed are urgently needed life-extension programs for W-78 and W-88 nuclear warheads, the long-range standoff cruise missile, and numerous other programs. And one of the most urgently needed facilities -- a plutonium laboratory in New Mexico -- was canceled.

U.S. programs being delayed included the submarine-launched Trident D-5, which is now two years late and will not be deployed until 2029 at the earliest.

In addition, Congress and the Obama administration have blocked any development of newer and safer nuclear weapons, allowing only the refurbishing of older warheads.

Urgent: Did Obama Lie? Vote Here in Urgent National Poll.

The U.S. official knowledgeable about nuclear forces said the Obama administration's approach to strategic nuclear cuts fits the model of what the late U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick called the "blame America first" advocates.

"They see everything in the world as all the United States' fault and want to restrict our strategic forces as a solution," the official said.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Is A Required Insurance Policy For A Gun An Infringement on The Rights of The Gun Owner

Should a gun owner be required to have insurance before purchasing a gun? Is this an Second amendment issue?

The Second Amendment clearly says that the right to own firearms shall not be infringed. We believe the Washington D.C. proposal will be invalidated by the courts. If you cannot afford the insurance and you need a gun for personal protection,  you should be able to make that purchase assuming you can jump through all the hurdles.  

If the law is passed, is Washington opening itself up for claims by potential gun owners who were turned down because they did not have the insurance should those same people get hurt and could not defend themselves. Seems to me that would be a great case.

This is just another way of trying to prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing weapons. It will not solve the real issue as illegal gun owners will not purchase the insurance!

We love the quote “These are instrumentalities that, if mishandled or allow others access or mishandling, can cause great harm,” Yup, they can. So can drugs and ladders, both of which cause more damage than do guns and do not require insurance before making the purchase.

Oh, those who think they can legislate morality, good behavior and eliminate crime, they are so naive.

Conservative Tom


Prospective gun owners in Washington, D.C., may be in for a surprise if a proposed bill gains the local council’s support. The prospective law would require that those who wish to license a gun purchase a $250,000 liability insurance policy.
The D.C. Council is currently considering the proposal, which would mandate coverage for negligent and intentional acts not taken in self-defense. Introduced by Democratic Councilmember Mary Cheh, CBS D.C. reports that the bill will be discussed in committee later today.
Rather than impacting only those who wish to purchase a gun, the bill would also require citizens who already have licenses to obtain liability insurance. Its intent is to provide compensation to individuals who are harmed as a result of gun violence.

“These are instrumentalities that, if mishandled or allow others access or mishandling, can cause great harm,” Cheh said in an interview with WTTF-TV.
Critics are speaking out against the proposal, noting the cost it will impose on gun owners. It’s currently unclear how much a $250,000 liability insurance policy would cost, but Cheh also said that she is open to lowering the coverage amount, pending it is too expensive.
“I don’t mean it to be a centrifuge as a ban,” she said in response to those who may accuse her of creating a barrier to gun ownership. “I want it to really be insurance.”
While insurance would surely help victims of gun violence, there is a gaping hole in the proposal, as crimes committed with an illegal firearm potentially wouldn’t yield coverage for victims (i.e. people who own guns illegally likely won’t have mandated insurance). Still, the proposal is an intriguing one that supporters are comparing to home or car insurance.
What do you think of mandatory gun insurance? Let us know, below.