• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Non-Government Infringement

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
imported post

Insurance companies are also a source of "non-government infringement". A year or so ago, a gun store here in Farifax, VA was forced to close because the landlord's insurance company found out there was a gun store on the property and jacked up the landlord's liability insurance. The gun store had plenty of liability insurance. It was the insurance company of the restaurant owner landlord who forced the store to close.

I am convinced that insurance pricing practices are responsible for more than a few anti-gun regulations adopted by employers and forced upon their employees. Employers are looking for the cheapest insurance, so if an insurance company says they can save x% on liability premiums by inserting "no firearms possession on company property" language in employment contracts and employee handbooks, they're going to go for it.

Insurance companies are responsible for all of the "no loaded firearms" rules in place at the Virginia gun shows I have attended. If the promoter can't get insurance unless he prohibits loaded firearms, then there will be no loaded firearms at the show.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

markand wrote:
I am convinced that insurance pricing practices are responsible for more than a few anti-gun regulations adopted by employers and forced upon their employees. Employers are looking for the cheapest insurance, so if an insurance company says they can save x% on liability premiums by inserting "no firearms possession on company property" language in employment contracts and employee handbooks, they're going to go for it.
Hmmmmm.Thank you for that little gem of information. I hadn't thought of it.Maybe its time to force insurance companies todefend that practice.
 

ProtectMd

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
116
Location
, ,
imported post

Perhaps its time to do some research on which insurance companies are pro gun?
 

tattedupboy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
518
Location
Gary, Indiana, USA
imported post

Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village but they don't believe that prohibiting firearms is the best way to do that.

This to me seems to suggest that residents as well as the managers of Nashboro Villagebelieve that the only people who own or have any use for firearms are criminals:banghead:. It seems to me that rather than keeping criminals out, this rule only serves to keep armed law abiding citizens out. That's like saying that if liquor were not allowed on the premises, there would be no more crashes. Friggin' morons.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

ProtectMd wrote:
Perhaps its time to do some research on which insurance companies are pro gun?
Now there is a little project. Call up the major insurance companies to see if they offer better rates if a business declares a "no guns" policy."And vice versa, or neutral.

Iwonder if NRA has this info already?

It used to be, and still may be, that some offered better rates if your home was located close to a fire station. Protect from fire, protect from criminals--whats the difference? Oh, I'm sure they'll have one to point out. Probably "tort lawyers can't sue for a house fire as often," or some such. Be a nice ideathough, especially inhigh-crime areas: "All DC residents who elect to carry get 5% off their health insurance." NowTHAT would be nice to hear. Maybe even7% off ifthey carry a BUG.
 

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
imported post

tattedupboy wrote:
Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village but they don't believe that prohibiting firearms is the best way to do that.

This to me seems to suggest that residents as well as the managers of Nashboro Villagebelieve that the only people who own or have any use for firearms are criminals:banghead:. It seems to me that rather than keeping criminals out, this rule only serves to keep armed law abiding citizens out. That's like saying that if liquor were not allowed on the premises, there would be no more crashes. Friggin' morons.
You tatally left out the fact that if the housing project was free of weapons they might as well post a sign at the entrance welcome criminals we are totally unarmed and easy pickin, just come on in and take what ever you want or need.
 

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
imported post

In regard to insurance company pricing practices, I have given some thought to the matter. The only thing they really respond to is money, something that applies to insurance companies as well as all of the businesses they insure. Follow the money, as they say.

Currently there is a substantial monetary penalty for a business to be sued, and their insurance company to defend, any lawsuit that involves firearms possession while on company property. Reaction: Ban firearms on company property, and if you are an insurance company, price your liability coverage based upon the percieved risk! Such pricing results in lower lower premiums for policy holders who ban firearms on company property and parking lots and such.

At the very least, it would be necessary to remove the monetary incentive to ban firearms and preferably to provide a monetary incentive to allowing legally possessed firearms on company property.

How do you do that? One way I can think of is to provide limited legal liability immunity to the insured and insurer who ALLOW firearms on company property and NO immunity to those who prohibit firearms on company property.

Is this practical? I don't know. Would invite comment and "brainstorming".

One thing I feel certain of: If the financial issue is not addressed in some meaningful manner, this will continue to be a growing issue. These insurance companies are too big to be affected by anything other than large sums of money or laws restricting their behavior.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

markand wrote:
One way I can think of is to provide limited legal liability immunity to the insured and insurer who ALLOW firearms on company property and NO immunity to those who prohibit firearms on company property.

Is this practical? I don't know. Would invite comment and "brainstorming".

Probably at a big strategic level nationally withplenty of coordination and everything that goes along with making a deliberate issue stick and resolve in one's own favor.

At the state level it might be easier. I don't know much about the subject, but I think in VA, the state licenses insurers. It may be possible to do something at the state level and make it work. It would be interesting to see who opposes it for what reasons. Or even better, it might be a good idea to estimate who might oppose it as part of planning.
 
Top