Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners?

  1. #1
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449

    Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners?

    {This is my first attempt at writing an op-ed type article.. let me know what you think.}

    The latest in a long line of backdoor gun control proposals is a call for all gun owners to be forced to buy liability insurance policies as a condition of owning firearms.

    Let’s take a look at what this is likely to entail. First, a gun owner clearly would be required to list each firearm in their possession, which is on its face plenty of reason to reject this idea. Then, we’d likely have to open our homes for inspection to prove our firearm storage provisions meet some arbitrary standard. I’m sure premiums would be increased for those who carry in public under the authority of a carry license, due to some arbitrary perceived risk. Will we have to prove our level of training beyond what is legally required to carry?

    Read the entire article at okoca.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    this is something i am worried about. mainly because it is a way to get around the constitution, and only the elite will be able to afford it. i wonder how enforceable it would be with out a national registration
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    You missed out on how this, like about 90% of gun control measures, is discriminatory. Additional sales taxes, NICS checks, insurance, CPL requirements (especially ones that require pricey training), permits in general, requirements to have two safes and keep firearms and ammo separate, and this insurance proposal.... They all increase the cost of firearms directly or indirectly, and in so doing put LEGAL ownership of firearms out of the reach of many poor people. Out of reach of the very people who need a firearm the most to protect themselves and their family. The end result? Many otherwise law abiding poorer citizens are forced to become criminals by buying a firearm illegally "on the street". And as a side effect of doing so they will be even more reluctant to report crimes and to act as witnesses, for fear that any interaction with a police officer may result in them finding out about the illegal gun. So basically these laws tend to make more criminals and make finding and prosecuting criminals much harder.

    My response to someone who proposes such laws is: Why do you want poor people to die so badly?
    Which is similar to my response for gun control laws that make CC of handguns in public areas difficult or impossible (especially the people who want to get rid of ALL guns): Why do you want women to be raped so badly?
    Last edited by arentol; 02-22-2013 at 12:10 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    So we would be required to purchase a product from a corporation to excercise our inalienable rights?

    If that's constitutional then so is a poll tax!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1P2 View Post
    So we would be required to purchase a product from a corporation to excercise our inalienable rights? ...
    The SCOTUS ruled that such a requirement is constitutional as long as the only consequence for not making the purchase is an increase in your income tax.

    Of course, using that model available to us, the one that was ruled constitutional, one should be able to pay the (required to be relatively) small tax and not purchase the insurance until his having shot someone and been sued for it becomes a "preexisting condition." Then he buys the insurance for retroactive coverage! Also, everyone, not just gun owners and carriers, should be required to purchase the insurance (or pay the tax) to help keep the cost down for those who are more likely to need that insurance coverage, so that they do not have to pay what will surely become sky-high premiums.

    It's only fair.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Liability insurance should not require you to register your guns, just as liability insurance to be build a house does not mean that you have to build houses. It only means that when you do build a house, or purchase a firearm, you have liability insurance.

    What should be mandated is that all citizens, young and old, be required to carry firearm liability insurance, provided by the federal government, similar to flood insurance. Failure to purchase firearm liability insurance should result in a $2,500.00 processing fee payable directly to the US Treasury general fund.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Re: Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners?

    Clearly the purpose of such a scheme is to price people out of gun ownership. Never mind that some people who can't afford insurance (a security guard who makes $9/hour, for example) still need guns for their livelihoods. The people making these laws hate guns and don't want anyone to have them, unintended consequences be damned.

    Sent from my Acer Iconia A200 tab using Tapatalk HD

  8. #8
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Liability insurance should not require you to register your guns, just as liability insurance to be build a house does not mean that you have to build houses. It only means that when you do build a house, or purchase a firearm, you have liability insurance.

    What should be mandated is that all citizens, young and old, be required to carry firearm liability insurance, provided by the federal government, similar to flood insurance. Failure to purchase firearm liability insurance should result in a $2,500.00 processing fee payable directly to the US Treasury general fund.
    Wait.. wut? Did you even read the article? Or are you being sarcastic?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    This nation deserves to die when we've strayed so far from freedom that we'd even contemplate such an absurb idea. I'm so ******* glad that I never had kids to leave behind in this god forsaken country.
    Last edited by John Pierce; 02-25-2013 at 11:00 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Mandatory=Fail

    Putting aside the legal and constitutional aspects of this idea for a moment it still is a very bad idea.

    As the pool of money grows that the insurance companies collect, lawyers will see this pool as an untapped resource and start suing on strenuous grounds and the insurance costs will rise and rise.

    They do this to contractors mandated to have license and bonds, it may not be the contractors fault but because of that mandated pool of money that is where they bring the fight to, and our costs go up.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oil City,Pa
    Posts
    14

    Angry

    Just another thing for an average gun owning family has to worry about! Bad enough have to worry about what Obamacare is gonna do to my families health insurance!!



    T-R

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by matt2636 View Post
    BUT what does this do to stop gun crime or mass killings? thats how this whole debockle got started to begin with.
    Maybe the potential victims will say "when you need a good neighbor, state farm is there?" and a state farm agent with a M16 shows up?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Putting aside the legal and constitutional aspects of this idea for a moment it still is a very bad idea.

    As the pool of money grows that the insurance companies collect, lawyers will see this pool as an untapped resource and start suing on strenuous grounds and the insurance costs will rise and rise.

    They do this to contractors mandated to have license and bonds, it may not be the contractors fault but because of that mandated pool of money that is where they bring the fight to, and our costs go up.
    Oh quit being so rational. This is about guns and for the children. Be emotional.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I just want to see who will underwrite this.

    Even Lloyds of London has things they will not touch, regardless of the premium to be had.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Oh quit being so rational. This is about guns and for the children. Be emotional.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Oh yea sorry my bad.......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The SCOTUS ruled that such a requirement is constitutional as long as the only consequence for not making the purchase is an increase in your income tax.

    Of course, using that model available to us, the one that was ruled constitutional, one should be able to pay the (required to be relatively) small tax and not purchase the insurance until his having shot someone and been sued for it becomes a "preexisting condition." Then he buys the insurance for retroactive coverage! Also, everyone, not just gun owners and carriers, should be required to purchase the insurance (or pay the tax) to help keep the cost down for those who are more likely to need that insurance coverage, so that they do not have to pay what will surely become sky-high premiums.

    It's only fair.
    LOL, Absolutely brilliant!

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Neplusultra View Post
    LOL, Absolutely brilliant!
    Thank you. I'll be here all decade. Be sure to tip your mods and admins.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by okiebryan View Post
    Wait.. wut? Did you even read the article? Or are you being sarcastic?
    Well, what do you think. All good comedy must have a grain of truth. Sadly, this liability idea is not funny, ironic, but not funny.

    Liability insurance does not require that a firearm owner list all firearms just that ownership is evident. Now, the insurance company can, as a condition of insurability, require that the firearm owner applying for liability insurance provide a complete list of their firearms including serial number.

    Then the insurance company will review medical information/data and assess if a increased risk is present due to firearm ownership. Thus, the justification to increase, significantly, liability insurance. Kind of like young drivers and auto insurance. Marital status. Documented mental conditions that do not preclude firearm ownership under the law but would/could indicate a increased risk. Heck, even your driving record could be used to show a demonstrated lack of acceptable decision making which would/could affect firearm liability insurance premiums.

    A national gun registration is not about guns, but a gun ownership tax. The tax could be 10% of the retail value on the date of purchase starting 1 Jan 2013, or the estimated retail value if purchased before 1 Jan 2013 as a annual tax. A retail purchase cannot be completed without proof of liability insurance just as we must prove some form of state approved auto insurance to complete a retail car sale.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I hope you are not advocating such. This ain't like owning a car. There is no enumerated right to keep and drive a car.

    If you are advocating the above, you are advocating gross infringements on the Right. BTW, we already pay large taxes on each purchase of a firearm. They are built into the price, already jacking up the price--IMO, unreasonably infringing on the right. No additional taxes should be levied on firearms that are not already generally levied on almost all other consumer goods.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Do I advocate for such? No.

    Illuminating my fellow citizens to the liberal mindset regarding liability insurance schemes or a onerous tax is warranted. Obamacare has shown us, once again, who liberals are and what they desire.

    We have a right to own property and thus we have a right to purchase a car (with our property, our money). I believe that we do have a right to drive our property on the public roads and not to be taxed for mere ownership of the car. We are taxed via fuel taxes that are in addition to the fuel sales transaction to maintain the public roads. Car property taxes go to other segments of the government and not to maintain the roads, at least mine do.

    I view a tax for mere ownership of any of my property to be unconstitutional yet I must pay a tax or be penalized.

    Firearm liability insurance (and a yearly ownership tax) is a means to the liberal end, to make firearm ownership as difficult as possible for the less than affluent citizen. Liberals can not infringe upon our right. However, if we cannot afford to own a firearm, even after lawful purchase, that is our problem and not a constitutional issue thanks to SCOTUS.

    I'll betcha a dollar to a doughnut that the liberals would never go along with a tax for not owning a firearm and then we being exempt from the tax once ownership is confirmed.....via registration of course. Which could require liability insurance to complete the retail sales transaction.

    We must have liability insurance at a minimum to operate our car on the public roads. And we must pay a yearly tax to permit driving on the public roads. Don't pay your yearly tax, or have insurance, no registration for you, and thus no lawful operation on the public roads.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581

    Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners?

    I am curious. What happens to those who use their guns illegally to rob, rape, murder, et cetera? Is the insurance penalty going to prevent crime?

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Good question. How does your auto insurance work if you use your car illegally?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    I'm surprised David hasn't replied in this thread yet on his recent discovery through some foia documents he obtained regarding mandatory firearm insurance.

    in short; if your insurance lapses at ANY point in time, they confiscate your firearms, all of them
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    153
    Just bought my Free Speech Policy from Geico. For $39.85 a month, I get up to $15,000 of protection in the event that someone sues me for hurting their feelings. You can't beat that. Thank you, Geico.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Re: Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by shastadude17 View Post
    Just bought my Free Speech Policy from Geico. For $39.85 a month, I get up to $15,000 of protection in the event that someone sues me for hurting their feelings. You can't beat that. Thank you, Geico.
    Priceless!

    .45 or bust

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •