• 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.

Proposal: MANDATORY LIABILITY INSURANCE for gun owners

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
BOHICA ALERT!!!
:banghead:
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-congresswoman-would-mandate-liability-insurance-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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,163
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Another back door attempt at registration > confiscation. Expect this to gain little traction.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
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?
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
They require us to buy health insurance to breathe American air. This is not much of a stretch.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 
Top