By Tred Law
Manasquan, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has been pushing gun shops to agree to a oppressive list of demands, that they are calling the “Gun Dealer Code Of Conduct” ( http://tiny.cc/fd970x ) .
Among the many over reaching and so called “Common Sense” demands on small mom and pop gun shops, is this gem.
6. Maintain insurance for victims who are entitled to compensation.
Most businesses maintain adequate insurance to potentially compensate victims of wrongful conduct who are entitled to compensation. Victims of gun violence whose injury or loss was caused by the irresponsible practices of a gun dealer deserve to be compensated for their injuries. A responsible gun dealer should not keep profits that resulted from its failure to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Gun dealers should therefore secure liability insurance that will insure the dealer against liability for damage to property and for injury to, or death of, any person as a result of the sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition.
First off, and as expected, the whole tone and premise of this document is that gun shops are irresponsible and money grubbing leaches that apparently sell guns to psycho killers and criminals every chance they get, innocent victims be dammed.
The whole idea that Gun Retailers should pay for extra insurance for the random bad acts of customers is a joke, but for any liberals that may stumble onto this article, let me throw out a few examples to illustrate why.
Applying this same train of thought, should we require car dealerships to carry extra liability insurance for accidents their customers cause with cars they purchase from the dealer? Customers who, by the way, do NOT go through extensive background checks and waiting periods before they take possession of, in many cases, scary black high-power cars.
What about so called “Gun Safety Organizations” shouldn't they have additional liability insurance if someone is killed or injured in one of their much touted “Gun Free” zones. They are clearly at fault for disarming the victim and enabling the shooter with a self defense free space.
Gun Safety Organizations should therefore secure liability insurance that will insure the group against liability for damage to property and for injury to, or death of, any person as a result of the gun free zone. It would be an irresponsible practice not too.
Using Brady Campaign logic this make perfect sense to me. What do you think?