Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
03 28, 24, 07:53:18:PM

Login with username and password

Biden Does NOT need a BILL to close the border
He only needs a PEN. Thats all he needed to open it.
Thats all he needed to close it. Thats all Trump needed.
Maybe this is just Proof Trump is better than Biden.

Search:     Advanced search
2653580 Posts in 297939 Topics by 306 Members
Latest Member: chachamukhtar
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: Sneaky Way To Register Guns!!! 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 ... 54 Print
Author Topic: Sneaky Way To Register Guns!!!  (Read 28366 times)
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #264 on: 06 05, 15, 01:37:18:PM » Reply

if you leave your car running in front of the gas station while you go in to pay and someone jumps in and drives off with it then hits someone is it your fault?

that question would be up to a jury to decide, whether you had insurance or not wouldn't enter into their decision.
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #265 on: 06 05, 15, 01:37:56:PM » Reply

A Florida bill, HB255, introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-D4) would allow citizens to sue insurance companies over discriminatory practices directed at those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

In its language, it aims to make insurance companies in the state responsible if they raise rates or refuse policies to residents because they own firearms.

Currently this type of discrimination is already policed by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. But this new bill, which was introduced in November, would allow individuals to sue the companies directly if they feel they are victimized.

“It just gives greater access to courts,” Rep. Gaetz said to the Jacksonville Daily Record.

It would make it unlawful to for insurance companies to “charge an unfairly discriminatory rate in this state based on the lawful use, possession, or ownership of a firearm by the insurance applicant, insured, or a household member of the applicant or insured.”

We would strongly oppose any effort by insurance companies to discriminate against the lawful exercise of a fundamental civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment.


If an insurance company says, we don’t need this bill because they are not discriminating against customers, then why are they fighting against something they say they don’t do anyway?


Chris Eger

         
Now that is what Congress needs to pass for all 50 states.
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #266 on: 06 05, 15, 01:39:14:PM » Reply

now sweaty, why are you trying to deflect?
D2D
Republicans believe every day is the fourth of July! Democrats believe every day is April 15!
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

#SayHisName Cannon Hinnant


« Reply #267 on: 06 05, 15, 01:39:33:PM » Reply

Wrong, Wvit, having insurance virtually guarantees it will be settled out of court establishing liability!
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #268 on: 06 05, 15, 01:42:20:PM » Reply

you and your attorney would only settle out of court if you thought you were going to loose.  it is your decision on whether to settle or not in a civil trial.
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #269 on: 06 05, 15, 01:45:27:PM » Reply

To Settle or Not to Settle? That Is the Question


In today's litigious society, more often than not cases end up being settled before going to court and getting a judgment. Settling means both parties resolve the issues outside of court without a trial.

Typically one offers a payment or award of some sort to the other, possibly less than the initial amount asked. Why do so many people choose to settle their cases instead of leaving their fate in the hands of a jury or judge? Is settling a case more beneficial?

Benefits of Settling a Case

There are many benefits to settlement rather than undergoing a full trial, for instance:

-Expense. Trials involve attorneys, expert witnesses, extensive depositions during discovery, travel and time. If a case settles before going to trial, then most of these expenses can be reduced or eliminated
-Stress. Settlement may reduce some stress that a trial creates. Sometimes it's hard for people to undergo the process of trial. They fear getting on the witness stand and telling their story to a judge and jury, then cross-examined
-Privacy. Details of the case can be kept private when settled. When you take a case to trial, the court documents become a public record and anyone can look at them. When you settle a case, most of the details are kept out of the court documents, and aren't a public record. Many settlement agreements also have confidentiality agreements as part of the settlement, so the case won't be talked about in public
-Predictability. A jury decision is very uncertain. A settlement is much more predictable than having to wait for a jury to reach a decision
-Time. Many trials can last from 1-3 years, sometimes even longer if there's an appeal. Settlement shortens the time frame
-Finality. The losing party can appeal a court (judge or jury) decision, dragging out the process even longer. Settlements can't be appealed and ensure the dispute is over
-Flexibility. During trials, there are strict guidelines and rules about what can be said in court (for example, rules of evidence and procedural rules). When you settle a case, there's more flexibility during discussions and how topics are tackled. Furthermore, in a settlement, one party can even ask for an apology, which wouldn't be possible in court
-No "Guilty" Verdict. In a trial, there's usually a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, but in a settlement the defendant, person or party on the defensive, may not want a record of guilt. Settling a case is a way to pay for a mistake, but not admit wrongdoing


When It Doesn't Make Sense to Settle

Sometimes lawsuits are filed to make an important point that affects society. For cases challenging Constitutional limitations or other rights, settling wouldn't be a good option because it doesn't create precedent and won't affect public policy.

Also, sometimes the settlement terms are so unfair to one side that settling isn't the better option.

Who Decides?

When considering a settlement, lawyers need to examine if the settlement is actually in the client's best interest. Many times, a side offers settlement terms which don't fully compensate the other side's injuries and damages. However, lawyers seeking a quick finality to the case may pressure the client to accept it. The decision whether to settle or not belongs to the client.

Current Affairs: The Outback Settlement

You may have heard some talk of settlements in recent news. Outback Steakhouse has recently agreed to pay $19 million to settle a sex discrimination suit against it.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against the restaurant chain back in 2006. They claimed female workers were denied favorable jobs which prevented them from advancing to profit-sharing management positions.

While refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, The Outback justified its settlement decision because the company decided it was better to settle than to spend time and money on litigation. The company also agreed to institute an online application system for managerial positions and hire a human resources executive.

It also agreed to hire a consultant to monitor its compliance with the settlement and report back to the EEOC on how it's doing every six months. The settlement terms offered the women both money and better working conditions.

Settling a case isn't always advantageous for both parties, and it may seem like an easy way out. However, it is an acceptable way to resolve a dispute.
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #270 on: 06 05, 15, 01:56:25:PM » Reply

Insurance for guns is merely an attempt at controlling black people from accessing guns (thus, an attempt to negate a tool blacks can use in crime).

And, of course, why many more white people are so excited about protecting their 2nd Amendment rights -- to defend their life, liberty, and property from the people most likely to use guns in a malicious manner.
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #271 on: 06 05, 15, 01:57:32:PM » Reply

can you not have a serious discussion sweaty? 
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #272 on: 06 05, 15, 02:27:36:PM » Reply

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) is serious about the black guy who murdered her husband.

This is the second time Maloney, who is one of the biggest gun control advocates in Congress, has introduced the legislation.

Maloney noted that liability insurance coverage would “ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”

This might make sense in a perfect world. But, as gun grabbers don’t seem to realize, our world is far from perfect. Good, honest people are less likely to commit violent crime, and bad people, i.e. criminals, are less likely to obey laws. Accidents are far less frequent than crimes, and criminals aren’t going to bother paying for insurance when they can simply buy a gun off the street (or use a knife instead).

Even if they wanted to follow such a law, could they really afford it? Most gun violence occurs in low-income neighborhoods. Why would someone who can barely afford necessities want to buy “gun insurance”?

As is the trend with gun control legislation, this bill robs law-abiding citizens of their rights, while only empowering criminals. But like most gun grabbers, Maloney has no time for reality. Gun control resonates with her constituency and makes her feel warm and fuzzy inside.


Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose family tragedy in the Long Island Rail Road massacre 20 years ago led her to become the face of gun control in Congress, said Wednesday she will not run for re-election -- a decision reached after health struggles.


wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #273 on: 06 05, 15, 02:40:23:PM » Reply

Like car insurance is a requirement.  However the last couple of accidents I've been involved in the person who hit me didn't have insurance so my uninsured motorist coverage had to pay, the insurance company then persued the responsible person to get their money back.
 
 
 
 
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #274 on: 06 05, 15, 02:42:28:PM » Reply

a question for you sweaty.  Why would you want to risk your home, your savings, your future income, your family's security by not having liability insurance on your weapons?
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #275 on: 06 05, 15, 02:45:13:PM » Reply

I have insurance on everything I own.  I have insurance on my boat even though it's not required because I see the results of accidents and the lawsuits that follow.  I have insurance on my vehicles.  I have insurance on my home.  I have insurance on my guns. 
 
for the small amount that it costs it is worth not taking the risk of something happening that could cause me to lose everything.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 ... 54 Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: Sneaky Way To Register Guns!!!
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.308 seconds with 37 queries.