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

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

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?

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!

Z1P2 said:

So we would be required to purchase a product from a corporation to excercise our inalienable rights? ...

Click to expand...

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.

BUT what does this do to stop gun crime or mass killings? thats how this whole debockle got started to begin with.

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.

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

OC for ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wait.. wut? Did you even read the article? Or are you being sarcastic?

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.

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.

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

matt2636 said:

BUT what does this do to stop gun crime or mass killings? thats how this whole debockle got started to begin with.

Click to expand...

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?

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh quit being so rational. This is about guns and for the children. Be emotional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

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.

eye95 said:

Oh quit being so rational. This is about guns and for the children. Be emotional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Oh yea sorry my bad.......

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL, Absolutely brilliant!

Neplusultra said:

LOL, Absolutely brilliant!

Click to expand...

Thank you. I'll be here all decade. Be sure to tip your mods and admins.

okiebryan said:

Wait.. wut? Did you even read the article? Or are you being sarcastic?

Click to expand...

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 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.