Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Proposal: MANDATORY LIABILITY INSURANCE for gun owners

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Proposal: MANDATORY LIABILITY INSURANCE for gun owners

    BOHICA ALERT!!!

    NY congresswoman would mandate liability insurance for gun owners

    Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney today introduced legislation that would mandate liability insurance for gun owners and fine them up to $10,000 if they don’t have it, according to The Hill.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-c...for-gun-owners

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    New York state...who wudda thunk it.
    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    What is she gonna do when she finds out that would be the cheapest insurance ever? Most insurance policies do not cover unlawful acts so the liability insurance would only cover accidents and since there are so few accidents the insurance cost would be next to nothing.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    What is she gonna do when she finds out that would be the cheapest insurance ever? Most insurance policies do not cover unlawful acts so the liability insurance would only cover accidents and since there are so few accidents the insurance cost would be next to nothing.
    Why, find another way to ignore enumerated rights, of course.

    Maybe we need a constitutional amendment requiring NY and CA state legislators to carry malpractice insurance.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    740
    If it is to be mandatory, then registration is needed as a prerequisite to keep track of compliance, of course! That being their goal all along!
    Last edited by OC4me; 05-29-2015 at 07:58 PM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,830
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    If it is to be mandatory, then registration is needed as a prerequisite to keep track of compliance, of course! That being their goal all along!
    Oooohhh snap! And there is a moment of truth. I missed that in the OP. Good eye.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    What is she gonna do when she finds out that would be the cheapest insurance ever? Most insurance policies do not cover unlawful acts so the liability insurance would only cover accidents and since there are so few accidents the insurance cost would be next to nothing.
    I carry a $1 million umbrella on my homeowners/renters policy which gives me something like $1.35 million coverage, cost is something like $5 every 6 months, cheaper than a Big Mac these days. Why everyone doesn't is beyond me, started doing it when I owned acreage in case a trespasser got hurt and sued.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,830
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    I carry a $1 million umbrella on my homeowners/renters policy which gives me something like $1.35 million coverage, cost is something like $5 every 6 months, cheaper than a Big Mac these days. Why everyone doesn't is beyond me, started doing it when I owned acreage in case a trespasser got hurt and sued.
    I have $1 mill umbrella personally and that plus as an officer in my business with some litigation riders for specific issues. I had to up my car insurance liability and some other things to get it though so while the umbrella isn't very expensive, upping the other insurances to get it is where most of the cost hides. Perhaps that is why more people don't obtain it.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,450
    Homeowners' liability does only cover accidents. However, there is another type of insurance that might be considered - tort liability insurance.

    Before she became my ex I covered her with a $5 Million dollar policy as a rider to the homeowners - she was a special education teacher and there was more than slight risk there. Cost something like $12/month. I carried $25 Million tort liability insurance for the outrageous price of $25/month. The risk for my occupation was very much higher.

    Tort liability coverage is based on the actuarial assessment of your actually committing a tort. What does that work out to for all gun owners as an aggregate group? Then let's try to separate out only those that keep/bear arms for personal protection (as if that could realistically be done). Out of all members of that group, what percentage could be expected to commit a tort?

    There remains the question of whether any insurance company/consortium would even underwrite any policy for gun owners. Lloyd's is known for covering just about any risk because they spread it out over a large number of underwriters. When they insured Marilyn Monroe's legs it was mostly a publicity stunt and the movie folks probably insisted on a high premium for the additional publicity that would create. (Not that Lloyd's was not happy to take the money.) But what happens to this scheme (not a new one by any means) if commercial underwriting is not available? Will the .gov provide the insurance, like they do with FDIC for banks? IIRC the past time or two that was suggested it was cut down almost immediately as a political hot potato - nobody wanted to vote for using taxpayer money to insure gun owners.

    I say letCongresscritter Maloney bring it on. It may be the best way to get her out of office at the next election as well as send a message to the rest of the Congress that there are limits which they must not approach, let alone cross.

    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

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    BOHICA ALERT!!!

    NY congresswoman would mandate liability insurance for gun owners

    Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney today introduced legislation that would mandate liability insurance for gun owners and fine them up to $10,000 if they don’t have it, according to The Hill.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-c...for-gun-owners
    Oh, God. Yet another blitheringly idiotic liberal Democrat trying to "protect" everyone from themselves.

    Sounds to me like it's her way of getting around the fact that a lawful self defense shooting results in the shooter walking while leaving most of her constituents boo-hooing over the "injustice" done by ending the life of violent criminal.

    Listen to this: "In 2014, she joined with Senator Ed Markey in sending a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to insert $10 million into the budget for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to resume research on gun violence and “conduct scientific research on the causes and prevention of gun violence."

    Apparently, she's either unaware the CDC completed their original study and concluded much of what we already know, or she didn't like the results.

    Either way, with the statistical likelihood of an encounter roughly once in a hundred years, any sort of "insurance" would be notoriously difficult to calculate.

    Second, I am not a fan of compulsory insurance. My only exception would be for communal activity that's likely to result in damage or harm to others, such as driving on community roads and highways, apartment living, etc. Furthermore, I fully support insurance being tied to the responsibility factor. In other words, folks who build on a flood plain should fully pay for the significantly increased premium. That cost should never be spread to those wise enough to build or buy in safer regions. Same goes for numbskulls who built million-dollar homes on hurricane-prone beaches. The only problem is that the way the insurance industry is set up, they may pay a slight premium for their folly, but the vast majority of that premium is spread out over the insurance base.

    I know what many of you are thinking: "That's the way it's supposed to work."

    Wrong.

    Insurance works when people who are relatively equally at risk pool that risk. That way, if any of them are hit by catastrophe, they all pay a tiny fraction of the cost, and that cost is commensurate with their individual risk. Pooled risk doesn't reduce the probabilistic cost. It reduces the actual cost if you're the one unlucky enough to have the spun dial land on your address.

    Sharing risk across vastly different levels of risk, however, violates the entire concept. It's no longer pooled risk. Rather, it's robbing smart Peter to pay for stupid and foolish Paul.

    Or, since most of the folks who engage in vastly more risky behavior like building mansions on beaches are rich, it's more like robbing smart but not well-off average citizens to pay for the extravagant excesses of wealthy people.

    Historically speaking, Democrats have been at this form of grift in myriads of forms for well over a century.

    There is near-zero risk in carrying a firearm. The only risk involves using that firearm. If you're well-trained, the risk to you is very low, as you will in all likelihood be exonerated, meaning that your shoot was within the law and should never come back to bite you in any way. You didn't perpetrate the criminal action. You merely defended yourself against it. The criminal broke the law, not you. He should bear the full weight of his crime, not you.

    When you're forced to pay insurance for following the law, supposedly to provide for the criminals or their families when they break it, you're being ROBBED.

    Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is attempting to ROB you, the same as would her criminal constituents.
    I no longer have any confidence in the moderation or administration of this forum. Nonetheless, the First STILL protects the Second, and the Second protects the First! Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and other founding documents. If you're going to do anything at all, do it right!

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,830
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    SNIP JUST FOR SPACE
    When you're forced to pay insurance for following the law, supposedly to provide for the criminals or their families when they break it, you're being ROBBED.

    Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is attempting to ROB you, the same as would her criminal constituents.
    Well said, since9. Nice post.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125

    Congress Eyes Requiring Gun Owners to Carry Liability Insurance

    I hope this amounts to nothing. Another attempt to disarm us law abiding Wisconsinites at the federal level. I believe a majority of law abiding CCLers do have some form of protection already. Now we all know that whenever government gets its paws into whatever it usually creates a problem. In this case like with Obummer care it will increase insurance costs by federal mandates. Is this for real? Don't they have something better to do, like wear white gloves for once?

    From the Minutemen: http://minutemennews.com/2015/05/fre...ity-insurance/
    Last edited by Law abider; 06-01-2015 at 03:19 PM.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,545
    Another back door attempt at registration > confiscation. Expect this to gain little traction.
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    Even if it passed, which it won't, I suspect the vast majority of gun owners would not participate even though it was the law.
    How could it possibly be enforced?
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,009
    They require us to buy health insurance to breathe American air. This is not much of a stretch.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,545
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Even if it passed, which it won't, I suspect the vast majority of gun owners would not participate even though it was the law.
    How could it possibly be enforced?



    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    I have $1 mill umbrella personally and that plus as an officer in my business with some litigation riders for specific issues. I had to up my car insurance liability and some other things to get it though so while the umbrella isn't very expensive, upping the other insurances to get it is where most of the cost hides. Perhaps that is why more people don't obtain it.
    I have always carried more than the minimum on things like vehicle medical, uninsured motorist etc so I already had the minimum for an umbrella; I was an insurance agent in an other life and seen people screwed up for carrying minimum coverage.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,830
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    I have always carried more than the minimum on things like vehicle medical, uninsured motorist etc so I already had the minimum for an umbrella; I was an insurance agent in an other life and seen people screwed up for carrying minimum coverage.
    My wife is an agent so we also had quite a bit more than the minimum but still had to increase some limits to get the umbrella we wanted. I understand it differs some between companies.

    That being said, I'm not sure it makes sense for everyone or even most. As we have been more successful we have increased limits but also deductibles. As a small business owner/officer I do carry more insurance than I would if I was employed by someone else.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Well there is that.

    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Another back door attempt at registration > confiscation. Expect this to gain little traction.
    Are you sure?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Are you sure?
    Well, if Obama care can invoke a "tax" for not having insurance, wouldn't this mean that forcing one to have insurance/tax in order to exercise a protected right be unconstitutional?

    As Grapeshot has said, I fear that dog won't hunt.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,545
    Originally Posted by Grapeshot

    Another back door attempt at registration > confiscation. Expect this to gain little traction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Are you sure?
    Yep and I don't stand alone on my thinking either.

    New York Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney showed her allegiance to some of her biggest campaign backers Friday by proposing legislation that would require gun owners to buy blatantly unconstitutional liability insurance:........
    ....Maloney has a proven track record of being dishonest, and a record of hating the right to bear arms, including another bill recently to build a de facto database of gun owners.

    Fortunately, the congresswoman’s bills have no chance of getting anywhere in a Republican-dominated House and Senate.

    http://bearingarms.com/house-democra...nsurance-bill/
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    If I may go slightly astray from the OP:

    It strikes me that liability limits for gun owners--especially those who are victims of theft or who act in lawful self-defense--might be worth considering as a legislative goal.

    Does anyone know of any States with any such liability limits?

    Federal law provides protections for manufacturers against being held liable for the illegal use of their products.

    I believe Utah law provides protection against civil suits if it is determined a person acted lawfully when he used his gun.

    I need to go look for citations. Does anyone have any cites to what might be model language?

    Thanks

    Charles

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    MORE FOOLISHNESS:



    Stuck on stupid: Capitol Hill antis unveil another ‘smart’ gun scheme

    Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was joined yesterday by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey for the introduction of yet another so-called “smart gun” scheme, this one dubbed the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which mandates the exclusive manufacture of so-called “personalized handguns,” according to The Hill.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/stuc...art-gun-scheme

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Yep and I don't stand alone on my thinking either.

    New York Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney showed her allegiance to some of her biggest campaign backers Friday by proposing legislation that would require gun owners to buy blatantly unconstitutional liability insurance:........
    ....Maloney has a proven track record of being dishonest, and a record of hating the right to bear arms, including another bill recently to build a de facto database of gun owners.

    Fortunately, the congresswoman’s bills have no chance of getting anywhere in a Republican-dominated House and Senate.

    http://bearingarms.com/house-democra...nsurance-bill/
    Once again wealthy lobbyists in this case our insurance companies using our premium monies are trying to get more government mandated business. Thus at the same time Dems see this as a way to register our guns. Right, Grapeshot?

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
  •