Bill Would Force Calif. Gun Owners To Buy Insurance

[Agnosticsherbet]

Bill Would Force Calif. Gun Owners To Buy Insurance
SACRAMENTO (AP) — Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.

Similar bills have been introduced in other states after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.

“I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country,” said Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced AB231 along with Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles. “There’s basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. … I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing those bills.”

Requiring gun owners to be responsible for their actions is a great first step.

[Skittles]

1. NOW we're talking

these gun fucks like to compare guns to cars? Well LET'S GO.

[ellisonz]

67. +1

[CatWoman]

119. LOL Skittles!!

[Skittles]

143. HAAAAAAAAAAY BABY

[Control-Z]

2. Yes!!

Great start!

[X_Digger]

3. Thing is, liability insurance wouldn't have covered Sandy Hook..

Liability policies are always written such that intentional acts are not covered.

Just as your unlicensed minor child taking your car keys without permission and crashing your car into someone isn't likely covered by your car insurance (some states vary, see 'permissive use rule'), a blanket firearms liability insurance wouldn't have covered Lanza for Sandy Hook.

From the article:

No state has enacted the requirement despite repeated previous attempts, said Jon Griffin, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Bills have been offered unsuccessfully in Massachusetts and New York since at least 2003, when the conference began keeping track, he said. Similar bills were proposed in Illinois in 2009 and in Pennsylvania last year. Lawmakers are introducing the bills this year in even more states after the recent shootings.

This is why. It sounds like a great idea on paper, until you actually talk to someone who knows insurance.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Like anything in life, we must begin somewhere...

Requiring people to have liability insurance is just a beginning.

[pkdu]

7. You don't get it do you....

We need to listen to the reasons why any one measure wont solve 100% of the problem and dismiss each one as they come up.

/sarc off

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. That is an excuse to do noting.

No measure will ever have 100% chance to solve anything.

It is absolutely immoral to do nothing.

[pkdu]

10. Note use of... /sarc off. (sarcasm mode off)

[Agnosticsherbet]

37. So that is what passes for the missing sarcassm smilie.

[pkdu]

179. For middle-aged computer nerds like me , yes.

[Coyote_Tan]

63. This will do nothing... 0%...

As stated above...

Any legitimate policy would not cover intentional criminal acts.

Maybe this would cover legal bills if you shot an intruder and he survived to sue.

Feel good fluff that falls apart with just a hint of rational thought.

[Agnosticsherbet]

64. It will make owners of devices designed to kill

more responsible if they must actually pay for liability. You want to own a gun, you should not complain that people insist you take responsibility for your desire.

[Coyote_Tan]

97. Again...

Who are we paying?

No coverage in anything like the shootings in CO, CT or AZ.

Who is the money for?

[Riftaxe]

178. Now we are going after home brewers?

Alcohol is responsible for more crimes in this country, and kills more people as well.

Give me a month to invest in insurance companies, and i will join you in an attempt to force anyone who drinks alcohol to buy insurance first.

Sure, it is a pointless exercise, since any abuse will void the policy, but you are already comfortable with a "tax" on things that you don't care for, and we know that rationality is no barrier as to how you will impose that tax.

If you want to drink, you should not complain that people insist you take responsibility for your desire.

[derby378]

83. Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing

We've seen the consequences of the "wrong thing" before.

[Mojorabbit]

25. Three hundred million plus firearms out there

Many states have zero registration of weapons so no record of who has them. Tough to enforce this proposal.
Peace, Mojo

[slackmaster]

101. It's a sure bet that the people who are most likely to cause harm with a firearm would be the least

...likely to comply with the insurance requirement.

[Mojorabbit]

165. I agree. nt

[rhett o rick]

9. Yes we must do something, anything. Then we will feel better. nm

[X_Digger]

11. Great ideas that don't do what folks think they will isn't a beginning, it's theater.

The unstated motive is to discourage firearms ownership via monetary barriers (shades of 'poll tax').

It's another variation on the 'Chris Rock bullet control' schtick. And just as silly.

[robinlynne]

20. and that is bad because? Do you think having auto insurance is a poll tax?

[beevul]

35. No insurance is required for simple automobile ownership.

Nor is any required for use (driving) on private property.

[libdem4life]

127. I've heard this before...why own a car you can't drive in public?

which presumes no auto insurance. Ridiculous.

[X_Digger]

128. Race cars and farm vehicles are the largest examples. n/t

[libdem4life]

131. So, no insurance? Probably a small minority are going to have a huge investment in

those vehicles and not use them and not insure them. If used in any context and someone is killed, yes the owner is liable.

[X_Digger]

136. Nope, no insurance in most cases.

Most farm vehicles are beat up pickup trucks, so no 'huge investment' involved there.

And it wouldn't make sense to try to insure a race car, as no insurance company would pay for the intentional act of trading paint with other race cars.

[libdem4life]

138. Just plain silly in a gun liability conversation. No one I knew farmed with a beat up pick up truck

however.

And you better believe there is huge liability insurance for the racing industry and I'm no expert, but pretty sure the public doesn't fund it through taxpayer money.

But back to the topic and off the Red Herrings here...

[X_Digger]

141. *sigh* Liability for patrons, not drivers / cars.

Since it was driving we were talking about upthread, that's germane.

fyi.. http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/farm_unregistered.asp

Some states do have 'farm use' tags, requiring registration, but even then, insurance is typically not required.

[libdem4life]

184. This is about weapon liability. Motor vehicles are a false equivalent...responding as such.

Nobody pulls out a car (or a tractor or a race car)and shoots/kills someone accidentally or on purpose, although all are usually covered by liability insurance. The motor vehicle system of insurance and liability is instructive...not equivalent. Sigh.

[X_Digger]

185. I didn't bring up the analogy, I just pointed out it's not quite the way people think it is. n/t

[CTyankee]

153. I was a major gift fundraiser and as I recall, the very rich are really well insured.

They make sure their stuff is protected...interesting...

[libdem4life]

183. This isn't about insuring your belongings or being rich or fundraising.

[CTyankee]

194. not per se, but I am interested in why people do/do not insure themselves. I was just

mentioning certain behaviors and speculating on the rationality of heavily insuring oneself.

[davidn3600]

38. It's bad because the right tries to do the same thing with abortion and we cry foul

The right to bear arms and a woman's right to medical privacy are individual constitutionally-protected rights according to the Supreme Court of the United states. You may not agree with it, but it is what it is.

When the right wing passes strange laws that makes it difficult for a woman to get an abortion, we cry foul and say it's violating the constitution from allowing women to make their own reproductive choices. Yet you sit here and claim its OK for us to make it harder for common law-abiding citizens to own firearms, violating their right to bear arms?

Yes, yes, I understand. Guns hurt other people, abortion does not hurt anyone. But that's irrelevant right now! Because the constitution protects both rights equally. They have the same status legally. Just like the right to a fair trail, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

You would have to change the constitution which I think we agree will never happen. So my advice to you concerning guns is the same thing I tell conservatives concerning abortion...learn to live with it, because its not going anywhere.

[robinlynne]

65. Is it not correct to regulate abortion, i.e. have it performed by a doctor?

I believe you are equating apples and oranges. Medical professionals performing abortions have insurance. Airlines have insurance. Automobile drivers have insurance.

[X_Digger]

45. It's not 'bad', it's illegal- deprivation of rights under color of law. 18 USC § 242 n/t

[robinlynne]

66. requiring insurance and responsiblity is not deprivation of rights.

[X_Digger]

72. Intentionally suppressing a right is.

But hey, I guess you're okay with the 1% having guns, right? Since they can afford it..

Fuck the poor who live in high crime neighborhoods, they don't need to protect themselves anyway. That's what the police are for, right? And if police response times are slower in those (often minority) neighborhoods, well that's an administrative problem, right? So what if they're often as bad or worse to those people as the criminals they're supposed to protect people from, right?

And rural folks who can wait 45 minutes for a police officer? Fuck them, they're a dying breed, right? They should just pack up and move to the city.

[robinlynne]

76. for starters, I dont think anyone has the right to own a semi-automatic, period. We disagree about w

what the second ammendment says. It says in order to maintain a militia to defend the liberty of the country!

[X_Digger]

80. *sigh*

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

[div class='excerpt']In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

[div class='excerpt']A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is why protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
(footnotes removed)

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.


You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.&quot or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.&quot

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

[jmg257]

89. You clearly show that when 'bear arms' means 'self defense', that the use is specifically

enumerated, yet it is not in the 2nd. Why?

The debates in congress went on for several days regarding the article which became the 2nd amendment, and there was NOT ONE mention of the right to arms being related to a use outside of the militia. Why?

The militia was to be well-regulated...so just who was doing all that regulating?
The states, according to the regulations prescribed by Congress.

Why all the hodge-podge rearranging? If any confusion exists with regards to the restrictive clause, one only has to refer to the preamble clause: 'the right to keep and bear arms' obviously was used for its militia connontation.

Of course the security of the 2nd is a restriction against government. Yes the security of the Militias is its intent. DISarming the militias would destroy them. Yet you can still bear arms by joining the well regulated well armed, well disciplined and well organized Militia - the Guard does take volunteers.


Personal use, even for lawful means can certainly be regulated by law, especially as there is govenment interest in doing so.

[X_Digger]

92. Because it was implicit

Those same guys who wrote the second amendment went right back to their respective states and penned state constitutions- some of which were more explicit.

Since you agree that the bill of rights is an admonishment to government, why do you assume that it was necessary to be explicit? How does that comport with the ninth and tenth amendment?

The lack of inclusion of a particular expression of a right in the bill of rights in no way limits that right. Heck, there are plenty of rights that are protected yet not mentioned in the bill of rights at all. For example, the right to travel- it's a protected right, but you won't find it in any founding federal documents.

Personal use, even for lawful means can certainly be regulated by law, especially as there is govenment interest in doing so.

And when you find an absolutist who thinks that no regulation is appropriate, you feel free to take that up with him or her.

[jmg257]

104. And some of those same guys wanted to add "for the common defence' after RKBA to

which would have made it even more obvious what their intent was.

I don't assume a need to be explicit, I think the article is quite clear - the intent is right there in the amendment itself. (as explained previously)

You are right, the right did not need to be secured by enumeration. There are also those who say the government only has the powers that are granted to them. And yet the Congress is charged with the general welfare, charged with securing our liberties; it is the responsibility of government, especially one that gets its powers from the people, to provide for their common good. The people were/are expected to give up a bit of personal liberty so that those that remain, especially thier natural rights, can be better protected.

And when you find an absolutist who thinks that no regulation is appropriate, you feel free to take that up with him or her.

Hmph - so what are we arguing about?

[X_Digger]

106. 'General Welfare' is not a blank check for legislators to do whatever they wish.

When legislators wish to infringe on a right, they have to justify it. That justification has to meet the standard of review established for the right- likely strict scrutiny in this case.

'Because I think it promotes the General Welfare' doesn't cut it.

And some of those same guys wanted to add "for the common defence' after RKBA to which would have made it even more obvious what their intent was.

Yes.. to protect *both*. Otherwise why would these same folks have gone back to their states- if the right didn't exist, and wasn't protected, how could they write it into their state constitutions?!?

[robinlynne]

159. whatever they wish? The American people overwhelmngly want semi automatics banned. Legislators

are way behind the people. just beginning to consider catching up.

[X_Digger]

161. Majority rules? How about we apply that to other social justice causes, eh?

If a majority want the government to make reproductive choices for women, is that cool with you?



for those so impaired.

[robinlynne]

118. and the right to kill?

[X_Digger]

121. The right to use force up to and including lethal force in defense of self or others?

Is protected in every state.

[robinlynne]

158. in defense of self and others. only.

[X_Digger]

160. Care to expand that into a complete sentence?

Not sure what you're trying to say.

What, that there's no right to murder? Of course not; nobody has asserted such.

[robinlynne]

168. Then why the "right" to semi-automatic weapons? The right to purchase firearms without a background

check? self defense is a right. Owning an assualt weapon is not a right.

[X_Digger]

170. Because they are "in common use for traditionally lawful purposes"

That is the criteria used in Miller, Heller, and McDonald.

[robinlynne]

169. i.e:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. not because you have the right to shoot off hundreds of rounds because you think it is fun. not anyone can own a gun, not anyone can buy a gun without a background check . None of those are mentioned in the constitution. IT IS TO KEEP A FREE STATE from invaders.

You quoted it: The right IN DEFENSE OF HIMSELF OR THE STATE.
not for sport. not for testerone. not automatic weapons. not without a background check. not irresponsibly. not leaving them where kids can shoot themselves. None of those are rights.

[X_Digger]

173. That is the reason was protected, yes. It in no way limits the right to that purpose.

If I said, "Pizza being necessary to late-night study sessions, the right of people to grow and eat tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- would you say that tomatoes are only to be used for pizza sauce? That other uses aren't allowed or protected? Of course not.


Know what else isn't in the bill of rights or the constitution? The right to travel. That doesn't mean it's not a right- far from it.

I thought it was republicans who were stuck on silly with the whole "Show me in the constitution where it says {whatever}."

Hunting and sport shooting- both are traditionally "lawful purposes" just like self-defense- that is the criteria for identifying classes of weapons that are protected (e.g., handguns are frequently used for lawful self-defense, therefore Chicago and DC's handgun bans were struck down.)

Which is not to say that all restrictions are unconstitutional. Just as time/place/manner restrictions on the right protected by the first amendment are permissible, prohibiting guns from being sold to felons, etc would likewise not be an abridgment of the right protected by the second amendment.

Government must provide a compelling reason for restricting rights, with the proper standard of judicial review.

[robinlynne]

199. thousands of dead very compelling reasons. More than 90% of Americans are quite compelled.

[X_Digger]

200. Argumentum ad populum? *sigh*

How about we apply that *cough* logic to reproductive rights? Or LGBTQ rights? Religious freedom?

No, rights don't depend on popularity. The right to practice satanism or scientology is just as protected as the right to practice christianity.

[BlueStreak]

13. That is only because the law allows them to

If the law requires the gun owner to purchase a policy that covers ALL consequences, intentional or otherwise, then insurance companies would rate accordingly. And if they thought the risk of loss was high enough, the insurance companies would do investigations to satisfy themselves that the applicant was a good risk.

And if not, they would deny coverage, or impose some heavy restrictions.

And you can bet that the rates for assault weapons would be much higher than the rates for common sporting rifles.

It is called a PRIVATE SECTOR SOLUTION. Republicans should be for this.

[X_Digger]

15. Lol, no insurance company would write such a policy, and you can't force them to.

Commission of a crime is uninsurable. Otherwise organized crime would get policies to cover their attorney's fees and restitution to victims.

[BlueStreak]

27. Nonsense. ANYTHING can be written into a liability policy.

It is only a question of risks and premiums. And if a person has things that appear to indicate excessive risk, than a smart insurance company won't write that policy. That is how insurance works. They make risk vs. reward decisions every day. That is what insurance [font size="4"]IS[/font].

[X_Digger]

43. Please go talk to an insurance agent. You're embarrassing yourself. n/t

[BlueStreak]

47. What does an agent have to do with it?

This is a question of what a law can require in the future, not what some agent learned in a 2-hour training course pertaining to an existing policy.

There is absolutely no question that the law could require gun owners to carry insurance that covers all consequences of their firearm. Lawmakers would probably not write a law in such a way as to make the insurance prohibitively expensive, because that would defeat the purpose. So they would have to consider this carefully to find the right balance. But one way to ensure that insurance companies would be willing to write would be to put caps on liability, and that is done in many other fields.

[X_Digger]

50. An agent will explain about mens rea, and how insurance companies..

.. can't be forced to cover intentional acts.

This has to be one of the silliest ideas I've heard recently.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. You're wasting your breath; that lot regard ignorance as strength...

...as see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240216985

[X_Digger]

122. Gah, I need mind palette cleanser. n/t

[BlueStreak]

125. Insurance companies can't be forced to do anything. They alwways have the option

to not write. You really don't know what you are talking about.

[X_Digger]

126. Thank you for making my point for me- namely that..

.. insurance companies can't be forced to cover criminal acts.

Tell me about this magical policy that you think any insurer would write, of infinite payout, that covers criminal acts.

[BlueStreak]

130. You are the one that brought up criminal acts. I talked about all consequences of

irresponsible gun ownership. And that is not black and white and you keep insisting. This article does a nice job of laying out the spectrum in lay terms.

http://businessinsure.about.com/od/liabilityinsurance/f/intactfaq.htm

The cases that cause this discussion are mostly cases where a person fails to take reasonable care of the firearm, and then the firearm is used by a 3rd party in a way that causes harm to others. In this case the insured did not necessarily commit an intentional act or a crime. It is more a case of negligence, and insurance against negligence most definitely can be mandated by the state.

If it makes you happy, I will stipulate the point you are arguing, which is mostly a red herring, being that if the insured himself goes on a shooting spree, that may not be insurable. But even in that case, there are a lot of gray areas.

This article talks about some of those gray areas. It shows that, in fact, there are many cases where intentional acts are in fact covered by insurance. And it talks of other cases where supplemental riders can be purchased to cover some intentional acts.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/77990/Insurance/Risking+It+All+Getting+Insurance+Coverage+For+Intentional+Acts

[X_Digger]

135. The OP article 'brought it up'

“I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident.."

And then you jumped in at post #13 with:

If the law requires the gun owner to purchase a policy that covers ALL consequences, intentional or otherwise, then insurance companies would rate accordingly.

(emphasis added)

Such a policy does not exist, as crime is uninsurable (the commission of it, at least.)

Re negligence:

I have three more terms for you to google: "foreseeability, duty and proximate cause"

I am liable if I don't fix the front step on my porch and someone breaks an ankle when they come to knock on my door. It's foreseeable to expect an injury from a broken step, the proximate cause of the injury would be my inaction, and I have a reasonable duty to keep people from harm on my property.

My securing (or not) my firearms is not the proximate cause of the harm a thief might do with my firearm when stolen. The proximate cause would be the thief pulling the trigger.

Just as I'm not liable for a car thief plowing into a crowd of nuns, I wouldn't be liable for a gun thief shooting into that same crowd of nuns.

[BlueStreak]

139. Once again, you are going back to the way existing laws are written.

If the laws for guns are written differently, then intentional acts and crimes could be included under mandatory coverage. If is ts not in the Constitution, then lawmakers can pass a law to that effect.

Check out the great vicarious liability wars affecting car rental companies, for example. I have been involved in that for years. States and courts have gone back and forth on that. But ultimately none of that is enshrined in the Constitution. It all comes down to what lawmakers are willing to do.

I am not predicting that lawmakers will mandate coverage of first-party intentional acts, because that does go against some of the insurance tradition and would be fought vigorously by insurance companies so as not to establish a precedent. And it really isn't necessary to take such a big first step as mandating criminal acts by the insured. But it is certainly reasonable -- with lots of precedent -- to mandate coverage for damages that result from negligent gun ownership, even when the actual damage was done by third parties as part of intentional and/or criminal acts. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent that from being legislated, other than politics, of course.

[X_Digger]

146. It's the laws of insurance, not guns.

Liability tort law. Negligence tort law.

Crime is statutorily (by law) not insurable.

Why don't you start repealing all the state laws preventing insurers from covering crime.

Once you've done that, convince an insurance company to write such a policy.

Then, and only then, try to pass a law requiring such a policy for gun ownership.

Then we'll see if it even makes it out of committee, and into law.

Assuming it did (and that's a whole pile of unlikely to get to this point)- let's see if a court would compare it to a poll tax or a literacy test for voting or a tax on printer's ink and paper. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner

[BlueStreak]

148. Thank you. I'm glad to see you have come to the point

that there is nothing natural, universal or Constitutional about it. It is simply the way the laws are written. And they could be written a different way with no Constitutional problems whatsoever.

I agree with your new position that is is not illegal, but highly unlikely from a political viewpoint.

[X_Digger]

150. My hypothetical ends with a constitutional challenge, but okay.

You feel free to try to overturn 200 years of US tort law (proximate cause), 200+ years of common law before that, 48-50 state codes on what acts aren't insurable, a charge of deprivation of rights under color of law, and a constitutional challenge.

That's the thing about hypotheticals. Hypothetically, anything's possible. Realistically, you're kidding yourself.

[TreasonousBastard]

193. That's not entirely true...

look at the assigned risk plan in NY. Anyone who owns a car is required to insure it before registering it. Some drivers are uninsurable, but if they still have a license they get insurance through the pool and every company doing auto business in NY is in the pool so someone will be ordered to cover the schnook.

[BlueStreak]

197. Right, but they have the option to not offer insurance in the state.

And some companies have undoubtedly taken that option. I'm just saying that nobody would be compelled to undertake a business or to take a risk they were uncomfortable. They always have the option to walk away. And as a practical matter, lawmakers need a critical mass of providers, so they can't write legislation that is so extreme that no company is willing to go there.

[Recursion]

94. I don't think it's legal for an insurance company to insure against a policyholder's crime

Not just "nobody would offer it"; it's currently illegal to do.

[BlueStreak]

142. It is only "illegal" to offer that because that is how today's laws are written.

The principle is that the insured should not be able to profit from an intentional act. That principle is completely irrelevant in the case where the insured goes off on a shooting spreed. The insurance would not benefit the insured. It would benefit the victims.

Moreover there are many cases like Sandy hook and the tragic weekly "accidents" where negligent gun owners fail use reasonable care in the storage of their arsenal and third parties are harmed because of this negligence. It is certainly possible to mandate that gun owners carry insurance that would compensate third parties that suffer because of what is done with the insured's guns by a third party.

If you don't believe such a law could stand, then kindly identify the section of the Constitution that would be used to overturn such a law.

[robinlynne]

21. The fact that one has to ahve liability isnsurance, and that therer are consequences, makes one thin

think twice before handing our cars over to just anyone. That alone is already something.

[dsc]

23. yes they are

If a person steals my car and uses it to run over a person, my insurance would pay, provided I filed a police report that my car was stolen. The weapon would work the same way. The kid stole the weapon and then killed.

[X_Digger]

41. No, your insurance would cover damage to your car, it would not cover claims by the victim's family.

You have no liability for what a thief does with your car (assuming you didn't leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition).

[robinlynne]

68. not. Liability insurance for victims is the only insurance required by law. It is not required to

protect your own car.

[X_Digger]

70. Right, I meant CC. The poster said 'insurance'.. comprehensive collision would cover your car, but..

.. the liability coverage would not cover the damage caused by a car thief who stole it.

[robinlynne]

73. if you hand your car over to an unlicensed driver, you are responsible for the consequences.

[X_Digger]

75. What part of 'car thief' did you miss? What you describe would be an authorized user.

Yes, an apple isn't an orange.

[kudzu22]

81. Your auto liability policy would not pay

Since you are not liable for the damages caused by the thief. Your collision policy would pay to repair your car, but you have zero liability in that case. Same goes with guns. I have no liability if someone steals my gun and shoots somebody. therefore I have no liability to insure.

[WinkyDink]

105. I think the point would be to make the insurance cost give one pause before the purchase.

[X_Digger]

109. Ahh, generally discourage gun ownership, k n/t

[Demo_Chris]

4. You realize this HELPS groups like the NRA, right?

http://www.nra.org/benefits.aspx

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. I said it was a beginning...

We have to start somewhere.

[Demo_Chris]

12. Yes, but do you understand my point? I assume you do, but if not...

Under this bill gun owners who are not a member of the NRA now have an incentive to join. They get free insurance, the NRA gets more money and power.

[BlueStreak]

14. Not for 30 bucks a year, they don't

If the law is written to hold the insurance company accountable for all consequences of the gun ownership, the NRA won't be writing those policies for $30 a year, especially not for the mentally disturbed people who want to own military assault weapons.

[X_Digger]

17. An 'infinite' insurance policy? Why not just require all bullets be made out of jell-o?

That has just as much chance of happening as an unlimited policy (that also covers criminal acts).

[BlueStreak]

24. Don't confuse liability with life insurance

Liability requirements can be quite broad and there are many examples of such.

[X_Digger]

42. And coverage limits are well-defined. X dollars of coverage. No intentional acts. n/t

[BlueStreak]

48. There is no law of the universe that says intentional acts must be excluded

I don't know why you keep bringing that up. They can be included if that is how the law is written.

[X_Digger]

51. Common law dating back to England.

You've got about 400 years of insurance law to tackle.

Have fun with that.

[Recursion]

96. Actually yes there is

You currently can't do that.

[robinlynne]

22. exactly. someone is going to havae to check out the people are to write isnurance.Let the NRA pay fo

for it. I already think they should pay every penny of the cost of national background checks and then some.

[drmeow]

16. They don't get free liability insurance

The insurance covers injuries to the member, not injuries to non-members. Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage usually applies to the policy beneficiary - so if an NRA member loses, for example, an eye in an accident "at, or to and from, an NRA event; and accidents that occur during the use of firearms or hunting equipment while hunting" they will receive the policy determined benefit for the loss of said eye. Also, it is only $5000 - that's nothing. Medical bills associated with a shooting injury are going to be way more than that!

[robinlynne]

19. think auto insurance.

[BlueStreak]

26. And specifically, third party liability coverage.

Most people don't understand insurance. Many people think of the property damage portion of their auto insurance. It says that if you are involved in a wreck, the insurance company will repair or replace YOUR car. The equivalent in the case of guns would be if you somehow damaged the gun, the insurance would replace it. That isn't what we are talking about.

We are talking about LIABILITY -- in other words, losses sustained by OTHERS as a result of YOUR gun. If I were an insurance company writing this insurance, I wouldn't even consider writing a policy for anybody who had dozens of guns because that person is probably nuts to start with. I wouldn't write a policy for any military style weapon for the same reason. And for handguns and rifles, I'd do a serious background check -- every year. I'd also require evidence that there is a safe in the house and that the owner and all other occupants undergo safety training every year. Etc etc etc.

A free market solution based on personal accountability -- just the thing that Republicans are always talking about.

And a great opportunity for insurance companies to make some good money if they do an effective job at rating their customers.

[davidn3600]

28. Different situation

If you dont have auto insurance, they can take your driver's license away.

If you dont have insurance on the gun, what happens? Can they take the gun away?

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. So that can be regulated heavily.
Owning a gun on the other hand, according to SCOTUS, is a RIGHT of the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS could see this as a backdoor attempt to confiscate/ban firearms by making a requirement that cannot possibly or reasonably be met.

[Tumbulu]

31. I think you are mistaken

What about " we'll regulated" do you not understand?

[BlueStreak]

34. And maybe it means you cannot purchase any weapons or ammunition

without proof of insurance.

You can own a vehicle without insurance as long as you never drive it on public roads.

And if you are caught driving without insurance, your vehicle can most certainly be impounded.

[davidn3600]

36. "well-regulated" does not equal bans

"Regulated" in this sense means an efficient, well-trained, and well-maintained militia. The constitution guarantees a well-regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As George Mason put it, the militia is "the whole people." And Thomas Jefferson believed everyone should be armed and everyone should be trained in the use of the firearms.

That's what well-regulated means. No it does not mean a wild, wild west. Yes the government can make certain restrictions such as restricting gun ownership by people who are violent criminals or mentally unstable. That's legal. Even Scalia says that is legal. But "well-regulated" doesn't mean that the government can force you to buy liability insurance that no company will grant or most cannot afford or else the government can throw your ass in jail. You actually believe the founders intended that with the second amendment.

And even if you do this, you it won't hurt the rich. They will pay the insurance premiums. They have the money. Meanwhile the poor and middle class lose their guns.

[Tumbulu]

144. Good, no one should have guns anyway, I want it priced so high

that no one can afford to have one.

I OVER with the bullying of the gun crazed crowd in my life, and on this board and I am far from being alone. I am sure that I won't get my wish, but you are wrong if you think that there is some right to own a machine that causes harm BY DESIGN without liability insurance. It is BIZARRE that this is not already the law of the land.

Dream on if you think people have some right to carry around machines of destruction without liability insurance.

[jeff47]

32. Only if they take the firearm.

It is perfectly legal to take the person instead.

[robinlynne]

71. If you don't have auto insurance you can not own a car. Because it can hurt others. Of course this r

requirement can be met. Pretty much all activities in this country have insurance.
if you own a home you have to have insurance to protect others. You are liable if you dot trim a tree and someone slips over a branch. That is how America works. The Constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness. that doe snot mean you have the legal right to hurt others to be happy. the constitution guarantees liberty, but if you commit a crime you lose that liberty. Rights do not mean infer lack of liability.

there is the right to free speech. but when you bully, and cause harm to another, that is not protected by the Constitution.

[X_Digger]

74. No, you can own a car, you just can't drive it on the public streets.

Farm vehicles, race cars.. none are insured.

[BlueStreak]

145. Actually race cars are often insured

This is exotic insurance, similar to policies insuring NBA players against injury. These are the sorts of special risks that Lloyds of London is famous for.

But on the broader question, I agree with your point about usage versus ownership. To follow the auto example, the equivalent case with guns would be to say that if you have a ranch, for example, you could keep and use the gun within your own private property without insurance, but you could not ever take the gun off your own private property without insurance.

This gets a bit tricky because the bullets could easily leave your ranch, and that has some liability.

[X_Digger]

154. I was thinking dirt track..

I drove a couple of summers when I was 15-16. No license, no registration, no insurance. Here's a track similar to the one I drove on-

http://www.wytheraceway.com/ (my parents still go and watch)

[BlueStreak]

157. A friend of mind was a partner on an Indy 500 car

This isn't done much anymore because there are a few big teams that own all the cars. But 12-15 years ago, it was more common for a group to syndicate the ownership of an Indy car. And the only way they could make this happen was if they could offer insurance that would indemnify all the "casual owners" so to speak. The insurance is available. It ain't cheap.

[Tumbulu]

147. My farm liability policy covers my tractor

I cannot sell my farm products without proving to buyers that I have a liability policy. Tractors and all machinery are covered. Pus I have to have workman's comp. Why would owning a machine designed to kill be exempt anyway? Ridiculous that this has gone on so long.

[X_Digger]

156. Is it a requirement to own the tractor, though? That's the equivalent to the proposed bill.. n/t

[Tumbulu]

180. No but who buys tractors anyway?

By farm policies covering them, they are defacto covered as there are no licensing systems in place for them ( unlike other vehicles) . I believe that forklift liability is included for warehouses and many farms as well. Again, without licensing systems the umbrella policy of the business handles it. A licensing system allows the insurance to be for the actual vehicle, not 3 tractors and a forklift all identified by serial number. But make no mistake, a tractor on a public road had better be covered by a insurance policy of some kind.

[X_Digger]

181. So it's comparing an apple to a tractor, hehe.

I learned to drive in a 'farm use' truck- an old 1963 chevy pickup with a wooden bed whose main job was hauling hay or pulling a trailer. No license (I was 11), no insurance, no tags. Every third or fourth year we'd re-paint the big "FARM USE" across the doors.

And you'll note we're not talking about public roads, we're talking about vehicles that are primarily used on private property.

[Tumbulu]

187. It sure is a great way to learn to drive

I taught my nephew on our old ram truck we called "Babe" on the miles of private roads on and around my old farm. My current farm has crumby roads for beginners IMO , but perhaps still better for kids to learn on. I bet you have great memories!

[X_Digger]

189. Absolutely.. you learn quick on a rough road :) n/t

[Tumbulu]

190. And great to learn as a kid, too

My nephew at 13 was pretty stoked. 11 , wow.

[X_Digger]

191. Well, it was mostly, "Slower! Push the brake harder, son!" (as the rest pitched square bales)

Loooong bench seat pushed up as close to the dash as it would go so that I could get good leverage..

My dad would put it in gear (I couldn't manage the clutch) get it idling at walking speed, then hop out and help me pull the seat forward.

My job was speed control and steering. Not sure you could *really* call it driving.

[Tumbulu]

205. Thanks, I've enjoyed imagining the scenes

pretty neat thing to learn at 11, I'd say.

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. Any gun owner with a lick of sense already has liability insurance.

But I suspect that still means a good few don't, and I have no problem supporting such measures. I usually despise car/gun analogies, but in this case I think the comparison to mandatory auto insurance is valid. I can't see it deterring criminals from possessing guns (prohibited persons like felons are already screwed if they get caught with a gun), but if insurance rates are significantly lower for people who properly secure their weapons, I can see some good coming from it.

[Tumbulu]

149. The convicted felons with guns get wrist slaps

A few years a go a neighbor (convicted felon) was high on meth and was shooting high powered rifles down the road. Had anyone driven on the road, they would have been killed. He was shooting at my house and I was terrified on the floor waiting for hrs for the sheriff to arrive. He was not even given a trial, got probation and counseling. I kid you not. These violent things go on in rural areas ALL THE TIME and law enforcement says that there are not enough rooms in the prisons for these people.

I want all guns gone. That is my wish- one I am unlikely to get. But decent laws with some teeth will help.

[Deep13]

163. A beginning of what? nt

[Marr]

39. Is that why they've been trying to block it for years? /nt

[robinlynne]

18. YES! just like cars. get caught without proof pof insurance? ticket or jail.

[hack89]

88. Only on public roads

a car sitting in my garage needs no insurance. If I drive it on private property it needs no insurance (farm vehicle are a perfect example of this - every farmer I know has trucks that cannot legally drive on public roads.)

[robinlynne]

116. still much better than what we have now. I'm sure there is a way to resolve

this piece of the puzzle, given what is going on in our country.

[SheilaT]

29. Okay. For all of you who weep and moan and wring your hands and

say "oh, gosh, there's some 300 million guns out there so how can we possibly control anything?" I say this:

We start by requiring registration. If you're caught with an unregistered gun, you go to jail. Oh, and I would have an absolute forever amnesty to turn in guns, because I really do understand that there might be a gun in the attic or cellar that you honestly don't know about, so I won't hold it against you if you discover it some years from now. You can still turn it in with no penalty.

Every single gun sold, no matter where or to whom requires a background check. Anyone with a criminal record or certain kinds of mental health issues (I'll let others work out those details) can't get a gun. Period.

No extended clips or magazines or whatever they're called, and you don't get to one-up me because I'm not a gun person who knows all the exact language. You know what they're called, so you will help write the rules.

Mandatory insurance. No exceptions. If a gun registered to you is stolen you'd better report it ASAP, because if not, and it's used in a crime, then you're responsible. Remember how you said you're a responsible gun owner? Well, I'm holding you to that.

You're a hunter? How about your guns are held in some central location, and you have to check them out to go hunting. You think you need a hand gun for defense? Prove it to me. Prove that your life is so dangerous that you need a gun.

No more concealed carry. No more open carry. Period.

Other countries manage incredibly well without their citizens owing a gun, and isn't it curious, they don't have thirty citizens each and every day being killed by guns. Nor are they all living under terrible tyranny. Oh, and governments, even recently, have been overthrown by citizens who don't start out armed to the hilt. Wow. Imagine that.

[Tumbulu]

33. I'm with you on this. nt

[Paladin]

46. Well-Stated. (nt)

[Shadowflash]

55. Yup.

Require registration for every gun transaction, public or private, and if that gun is used to commit a crime or is otherwise used inappropriately, the person to whom that gun was registered last should be held, at least, partially responsible or negligent unless they can produce a police report saying it was stolen.

I've got to register my dog, for crying out loud, registering killing machines should be the beginning of the process of owning one.

[robinlynne]

77. you go SheilaT!

[derby378]

82. Another voted to destroy the Second Amendment. Got it. (n/t)

[SheilaT]

133. Right. Just like being required to register our cars

and carry insurance on them destroys our freedom of travel. Gotcha.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Maybe, but...

such insurance would have to available before it's required, and I haven't heard much about insurance companies jumping all over themselves to get into this new market.

If you look at your homeowner's liability coverage, it probably excludes firearms so you would have to replace your policy or buy expensive coverage to cover your guns--just like your liability coverage doesn't cover your car, so you have to buy a separate auto policy.

And, what would be covered? Accidental discharge would be assumed, but how accidental is it if you shoot a perceived threat that isn't a threat? How about your insane kid taking the guns to church and blowing away a good part of the congregation? Is the coverage on-premises only, or if you are carrying? Restrictions on gun storage? And many more questions...

Maybe a good idea, or maybe not, but not an easy law to pass.

[slackmaster]

52. No, that's not correct. My homeowner's policy doesn't mention firearms at all.

If I injure someone by negligently discharging a firearm, my liability is covered just as it would be if one of my trees fell on someone.

If you look at your homeowner's liability coverage, it probably excludes firearms so you would have to replace your policy or buy expensive coverage to cover your guns--just like your liability coverage doesn't cover your car, so you have to buy a separate auto policy.

Do you have a source for that "probably" factoid, TB, or did you just make it up?

And, what would be covered? Accidental discharge would be assumed, but how accidental is it if you shoot a perceived threat that isn't a threat?

No liability policy covers damages from willful acts.

How about your insane kid taking the guns to church and blowing away a good part of the congregation?

Willful act. Not covered.

Is the coverage on-premises only, or if you are carrying?

My liability coverage applies everywhere in the USA.

Restrictions on gun storage?

None.

ETA my agent has advised me to get a "floater" added to the policy in the event the value of my gun collection exceeds a certain amount. Given that all I have is a Ruger 10/22 and a Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver, that's not likely to happen any time soon.

[TreasonousBastard]

192. I make everything up-- it's the thing to do here. But...

the problem isn't with a gun going off accidentally, the problem is what if you're sued for shooting someone you perceive as a threat. As you admit, that won't be covered. Your underage kid blowing away his friends won't be covered either.

What if someone steals your gun, kills with it, and you are sued for not properly securing it?

I spent 20 years insuring marine liabilities (which, admittedly, have little to do with homeowners insurance) and had been involved with mass policy cancellations and rewrites with restricted coverage when Federal laws changed. Personal policies have more restrictions on if, when, and how that could be done, but the fact is that all liability policies reflect the law and how courts apply the law. And personal policies are generally regulated by the states, with most of them following general guidelines, but with a few significant differences.

So, just what is the law on accidental, but "willful," shootings? Not the criminal law, but are any personal lawsuits filtering up through the courts?

And, if homeowners, tenants, and other personal liability policies already cover various shootings, just what is this gun owners insurance that is being called for? Insurance against accidental willful shootings? Sounds like an underwriting nightmare.

[slackmaster]

195. If I shoot someone who I incorrectly perceive as a threat, I will have committed a crime

The idea of having to pay for insurance for something like that seems bizarre to me. Every person is a potential criminal. Why should potential crimes involving firearms be treated any differently than other potential crimes? Most gun owners, a large majority of us, never commit any kind of violent crime in our lives. Long-standing law and tradition holds that only criminals are held accountable for their crimes.

My car insurance wouldn't cover damages resulting from a crash I caused while driving drunk. Nor would it cover damages caused by someone who stole my car and crashed it. To carry that painful analogy a step farther, if the car was stolen when I left the keys in the ignition and didn't lock the door when I stopped at Zippy Mart to buy a six-pack of Duff beer, that would make no difference in the eyes of my insurer - The thief who stole the car would still be 100% liable for damages, and I would not.

So, just what is the law on accidental, but "willful," shootings? Not the criminal law, but are any personal lawsuits filtering up through the courts?

People who improperly shoot people who have stumbled into the wrong house get sued by the people they shot and by their families all the time here in California. That happens even when someone gets shot in accordance with Section 197 of our Penal Code, which prohibits criminal prosecution of people who use deadly force in self-defense in the narrow provisions of our "castle doctrine" law. It says nothing about dismissing civil suits with prejudice, as do the laws of some states.

And, if homeowners, tenants, and other personal liability policies already cover various shootings, just what is this gun owners insurance that is being called for? Insurance against accidental willful shootings? Sounds like an underwriting nightmare.

Frankly I think it's just another example of lawmakers and others scrambling to create the appearance of "doing something" about a problem - violent crime - that has existed since the dawn of time but has recently gotten exaggerated coverage in the media even though it is on a long-term decline.

Here's another example - Earlier this week I heard some member of the House of Representatives, who is a Republican, saying that he was surprised to find out that we had no existing federal statute to cover illegal gun trafficking. A naive person might expect any member of that body, most of whom are trained attorneys, to have made some effort to find out what laws actually exist. In fact we have a substantial body of federal criminal statutes on that subject called Chapter 44 of the United States Code, which encompasses the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and numerous amendments and enhancements. But unfortunately a lot of our legislators are either dumb or think we the public are dumb.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

[SoCalDem]

40. Excellent... (We have personal liability insurance $1M) just in case

and we have no firearms..

It costs us $248 a year and we are covered for a multitude of possibilities .

If someone can afford the thousands of dollars necessary to buy, maintain & operate firearms, they could surely be able to afford insurance to alleviate the potential damage their weapons could cause.

It would also provide a handy cross reference of names, dates of purchase, serial numbers and could also interface with criminal record databases.

If we are to be awash in weapons, the very least we should ask as a society, is to know where they are (as many as possible), who has them and that there is adequate insurance to cover the mayhem they cause.

[hack89]

44. Another profit center for the NRA

it would be ironic if the end result of this would be the NRA getting into the insurance business and making a fortune.

[Hoyt]

53. If NRA gets into insurance, you can bet they'll start supporting things that reduce their risk.

That would be cool. LaPierre would be booted and they'd hire people from Brady campaign or something.

I like it, although too much to hope for because the yahoos who can't live without a bunch of guns at home, one in the car, and one in their pants, will whine.

[hack89]

54. You certainly have an active fantasy life. nt

[slackmaster]

49. I just paid the annual premium on my homeowner's policy, which includes personal liability coverage

I think it's a good idea for anyone who has any assets worth protecting to get a liability policy.

For renters, it's very inexpensive.

[madville]

59. I also have $10,000 of property coverage on my firearms, it's about $100 a year.

[hack89]

56. So insurance will stop criminals, suicides and mass killers?

one group breaks laws, the second doesn't care about laws, and the third group are batshit crazy.

So explain to me how making me pay insurance will reduce gun deaths.

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. It would require that you take responsibility for your weapon.

And back that responsibility with money to help victims should you fail in that responsibility. It is a small part of a solution to the whole problem.

[madville]

61. Actually the opposite could be true

Some People would think they could be more reckless if they are covered.

I wouldn't want to drive an uninsured $20,000 car around, be liable, or risk it being stolen, but I don't even worry about it since it is insured for value and liability.

[hack89]

62. But it would only apply to accidents

which means it would be so cheap as to be meaningless as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.

I have it through my homeowners insurance so it is not a big deal for me.

[MrScorpio]

60. I love this idea!

PAY UP!

[ananda]

69. I like it!

And I'd like it more if the other 49 states would follow.

[goclark]

78. Bingo!!!!

[kudzu22]

79. In order to have liability insurance, there first has to be a liability

I'm aware of no laws or legal cases that hold one person financially liable for the criminal acts of others. So, there is no liability to insure against. The maximum payout from a claim would be zero, and hence the insurance (if anyone managed to sell a policy) would be quite cheap.

Can anyone produce a legal reference where a gun owner had to pay damages to anyone for the criminal act of someone else with his gun?

[Agnosticsherbet]

84. But negligence and accidents make one liable.

I pay for insurance for my car and my house. I have no problem buying insurance if necessary. It is the responsible thing to do.

[kudzu22]

85. Has anyone ever been held financially liable due to negligence

for someone stealing their property and committing a crime with it? I don't think so, but I'm willing to listen if someone has an example.

Without any liability, there is nothing to insure.

[Hoyt]

90. That's the problem, it needs to change. People are held financially responsible when they have pool

that is not protected from kids, or swings, etc., in yard that entices kids and are not well maintained. Why not guns. Gun owners and those who profit from the dang things have been coddled too long. Time to make life difficult for those who thumb their guns at society.

[kudzu22]

93. Well then why limit it to guns?

We could hold you liable if someone steals your car for use in a bank robbery. You can't go leaving your car unlocked and expect to escape responsibility.

Seriously, this blame-the-victim mentality is beneath us.

[Hoyt]

99. Right now we are talking guns. Does being held responsible for your irresponsible behavior,

concern you?

If you are going to buy a bunch of guns, store them unsafely, carry them in public, leave them in your car, etc., you should be held responsible.

Again, we coddled gun owners and those who profit from them far too long. Make them pay for their bad habits and so-called "hobby."

[kudzu22]

103. Actually we're talking about insurance

for a liability that does not exist, but you now say should exist. Maybe yes, maybe no. It would be an extraordinary step to pass a law making someone financially liable for the criminal acts of others. I wonder how that would play out in court. I also wonder what other interesting liabilities could be established by law.

[Hoyt]

108. Let's see, you sell gun to a guy for a fistful of cash without background check, they shoot someone?

I think you should be held partly responsible. I think that can be incorporated into any changes in requirements for background checks.

[kudzu22]

114. I'm sensing some thread creep

Now we're talking about insurance for guns you don't even own? How about guns you thought about buying but didn't, and were subsequently bought by a criminal who shot someone?



Seriously. Private sellers aren't even allowed to request a background check. I've been advocating that we should have access to the NICS system for years. In the meantime, you can't hold someone liable for not doing something they're not allowed to do.

[Hoyt]

120. But you are allowed -- and should -- complete the transfer through an FFL.

No, you should not be able to do background check directly because of privacy concerns, many will not keep proper documentation, accountability issues, etc. It needs to go through FFL.

I hope you are doing that now, even if not required. Unfortunately, my experience is that most heavily into guns don't give a crud about society.

[kudzu22]

123. Well I've had the opposite experience

Most gun owners I've met are extremely responsible.

P.S. I've never sold a gun and don't plan to.

[Hoyt]

124. "Most" -- that's not reassuring. You ever met any like this?

[kudzu22]

129. You can tell from a picture that they don't lock up their guns at night?

They all seem to have their guns pointed in a safe direction with fingers off the triggers.

Sure I've heard stories of people being stupid with guns. Just saying I haven't met any personally.

[Recursion]

100. And if guns were habitually kept in people's yards, they would be like that too

Pools and trampolines are visible to kids walking by, not burglars breaking in to houses.

[Recursion]

98. There are attractive nuisance cases

That would require the guns be clearly visible and outside of the house, though.

[Hoyt]

111. Or you could walk around with a gun, have S&W sticker on car, fly a confederate or tbagger flag, etc

All clear indication you've probably got a bunch of guns around.

[Recursion]

113. No, a visible indoor pool or trampoline is not an A.N.

So, no.

[aquart]

86. NRA vs insurance companies! On HBO?

Fight! Fight!

[mwrguy]

87. Make the premium $1000 per month per weapon. Bankrupt the gun nuts.

Problem solved.

[Hoyt]

91. That my feeling too. Make the "carrying" cost to great, especially for certain weapons and over a

relatively low number.

As far as I'm concerned, those who have weapons caches, carry them in public, promote more guns, etc., should be saddled with the cost of the problems they create for society.

[slackmaster]

95. Your motivation is ignoble; your idea would create obvious unintended consequences.

Your proposal would have the effect of making it impossible for anyone but the very wealthy to exercise the right to legally own firearms.

Your understanding of the purpose and business model of insurance are seriously flawed as well.

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. Ah, advocating deprivation of rights under color of law. How unprogressive!

[Tumbulu]

151. which MIGHT begin to pay for the damages that these weapons cause (nt)

[kestrel91316]

102. I want to see them responsible for harm their guns do EVEN IF STOLEN, unless

they can prove that they were stolen from a highly secure safe/storage setup.

[kudzu22]

117. Guilty until proven innocent

Is that the rule now?

[Tumbulu]

152. me too! nt

[Paladin]

107. Maintaining Insurance Is A Grown-Up Activity.

And if there is a single quality that modern-day gun owners are in desperate need of, it's maturity. The sooner, the better. Just because the firearms you favor look more and more like children's playthings, doesn't give you the right to maintain a comparable mindset. Requiring you to act like responsible adults shouldn't be such a burden.

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. Well, well, well- You lot have certainly changed your tune!

Not a year ago, this idea was widely derided:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002803907

[Agnosticsherbet]

140. Actually, this isn't the same idea as insurance for shootings in self defense.

Stand your ground laws condone murder in the name of self defense.

[libdem4life]

132. An impressive list of state names. And the taxpayer cost is $175 billion.

It is inevitable, if only because this issue is in the public attention with a lot of discourse. Once the support for an issue goes beyond 50% and the MSM gets in on it then bills start being written, newspapers start to print editorials ... pretty much a done deal. Just a matter of time.

[Progressive dog]

134. Insurance should be required

It is time to try something to rein in the gun worshipers. The arguments against this seem to be that even if gun regulation would save lives, the only part of the Constitution that matters is the 2nd amendment.
They even go back to common law arguments--which are moot when superseded by written law.
They use statements made by a handful of the founders, to make the Constitution mean what they want it to mean.
I could go on and on, but the point is this.
There is no reasoning with the defenders of the gun status quo. Since they will oppose any gun regulations, it is time to ignore them.

[farminator3000]

137. Pa. Lawmakers Introduce Gun Safety Bills, Including Assault Weapons Ban

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/02/06/pa-lawmakers-introduce-gun-safety-bills-including-assault-weapons-ban/

State Rep. Dan Frankel, of Allegheny County, said he’s encouraged by conversations he’s had with other lawmakers about their willingness to consider gun measures, including a ban on semi-automatic weapons that mimic fully automatic guns.

But, he says, “I will tell you (an) assault weapons ban is probably a heavy lift here.”

[HooptieWagon]

155. How is that supposed to help?

Insurance will not have to be paid if a homicide (or other crime) is committed. It would only be paid in case of an accident. Given the number of guns, this insurance will be fairly cheap. Homicide victim's families won't collect insurance, their only resort is a civil suit against the perpetrator, which can already be done.

[Deep13]

162. First step to what?

As far as compensating victims of violence and those who care for them, it seems rational, although I would like to see the industry itself bear some of the cost. No one will be insuring guns that end up in the hands of criminals through straw-man purchases. Insurance can be part of a homeowner policy or conceivablely part of an auto policy. One might receive discounts for installing a gun safe or an alarm system.

[Taitertots]

164. Why do you think poor people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?

After all, that is the only thing forcing people to pay arbitrary and capricious fees to exercise their rights would do.

[Agnosticsherbet]

166. You have zero ability to read my mind....

or perhaps didn't read what was posted.

Poor people own cars and pay for insurance. If they want a gun, they can pay for insurance. Your statement is incorrect.

Blowing out the brains of six year olds is arbitrary and capricious. Insisting people who desire a gun be responsible for it does not deny them the right to own it. People have free speech, but are responsible for what they say. Slander isn't free speech. False witness under oath isn't free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, unless there is really a fire, isn't free speech. People can and are held responsible for what they say though freedom of speech is central to our Democracy.

[Taitertots]

167. You have zero ability to understand the unavoidable consequences of your policy recommendations

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/pf/emergency_fund/index.htm
Your plan would prevent MILLIONS of people from being able to own firearms. You are simply living in a fantasy if you think that low income Americans have extra money to pay arbitrary and capricious fines.

"Insisting people who desire a gun be responsible for it does not deny them the right to own it."
Every gun owner is already legally and financially responsible for their actions. Insurance simply makes non-criminals responsible for the actions of criminals.

You mentioned free speech. Do you support fines for free speech?

[Agnosticsherbet]

171. If they can't afford the insurance or responsibility...

then how could they in good conscious buy a gun? Insurance is not an arbitrary or capricious fine. It is a mark of responsibility. I keep hearing about responsible gun owners. It is time for them to actually prove it. Gun ownership has proven to to be a monstrous cost to society. Gun owners can help cover the cost.

[Taitertots]

203. The only people who can't afford arbitrary and capricious fines are poor people

And your whole policy recommendation does nothing but prevent poor people from owning firearms. You can frame the argument however you want, but at the end of the day your policy recommendations do nothing except prevent poor people from owning firearms.

Any costs to society should be paid by the people who are creating the burden, not innocent people. Your policy recommendation simply forces innocent people to pay for the acts of criminals.

[Agnosticsherbet]

204. It isn't a fine...Calling it a fine is a Conservative NRA buzz word.

To try and show why gun owners can b irresponsible.

[Taitertots]

206. Claiming it isn't a fine is just being intentionally misleading

Gun owners are ALREADY responsible for their actions. Your scheme does nothing but make innocent people responsible for the acts of criminals.

[Agnosticsherbet]

207. You insure your car in case you loan it to someone and they drive through a house.

That is liability. That is responsibly.

If car manufacturers make a bad product, they can be taken to court.

Gun owners are not required to buy insurance to protect innocents from accidents. Gun manufacturers can not be sued for making products designed to kill, even if faulty.

The whole system of gun ownership fosters absolute irresponsibility in manufacturers and owners. Calling it a fine is intentionally misleading so gun owners can hide form a course of responsible action.

Gun owners need to quit hiding from responsibility and quit using intentionally misleading language to facilitate hiding.

[Taitertots]

208. You can try to re-frame your scheme however you want, but at the end of the day...

We have to look at the inescapable realities of your scheme. It prevents poor people from owning firearms and makes innocent people pay for criminals. The end goal of this scheme is to deter gun ownership by imposing a financial burden on anyone who wants to own guns.

Claiming this scheme is about "responsibility" is intentionally misleading. Every single gun owner is already legally and civilly responsible for their actions.

[Agnosticsherbet]

209. it insists that people be responsible and deters no one from gun ownership

Saying that just continues to attempt to mislead with words.

Claiming gun owners are "civilly responsible for their actions" continues being intentionally misleading to hide from responsibility.

[Taitertots]

210. Every gun owner is already criminally and civilly responsible for their actions

It is disingenuous to claim that people who are already liable for their actions are in some way being irresponsible.

Forcing a financial burden on innocent people isn't making people responsible. It is creating an arbitrary and capricious burden to prevent ownership. It forces innocent people to pay for the actions of criminals.

[Agnosticsherbet]

211. Wrong. Car owners and house owners are regularly taken to court if they have no insurance.

Insurance takes care of most accidents in the home or cars. it is responsible for them to insure themselves and utterly irresponsible to refuse.

Just because somebody can take you to court doesn't make you responsible. A responsible person will buy insurance in the event of accident or negligence.

Insurance insists that gun owners quit hiding from responsibility. Instead ot telling people "Hire a lawyer and take me to court," which puts an arbitrary and capricious burden on victims of accident or negligence Insurance sets up a system where victims are taken care of.

Gun owners count on a system of "Victim beware. It is your fault if through accident or negligence you are hurt by my weapon. If you don't think so, hire a lawyer. I'll see you in court."

[beevul]

174. People can own cars WITHOUT insuring them.

You're comparing apples (ownership) to oranges (use in public).

[Agnosticsherbet]

175. Intersting information on cars in california.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

Registering a car requires proof of financial liability, insurance.

It is reasonable to require proof of financial liability.

Gun owners need to be responsicible for the possible consequences.

[beevul]

177. If a californian owns a car, are they required to have it in CA?

If a californian owns a car, are they required to have it in CA?

Is one required to register a car in CA simply to own it?

And CA, is beside the point - in the great majority of places in America, one is not required to license, register, or insure a car, simply to own it.

Those things are required for use only in PUBLIC.

When one licenses and registers a gun and carries insurance, are they then legally allowed to carry it openly or concealed in public?

No? Then you're clearly talking about ownership.


Like I said, apples and oranges.

[slackmaster]

196. I live in California. It is not necessary to register a car here in order to legally own it.

Registering it entitles the owner to operate the vehicle on public roads.

[libdem4life]

198. It must be registered as a Non-Op...when last this occured to me.

[slackmaster]

201. You only have to do that with a vehicle that was previously registered to be driven on the street

The state collects the Non-Op registration fee in exchange for the service of flagging the registration as such in its electronic records, which prevents subsequent registration renewal notices from being sent out and fees charged until the owner decides to resurrect the vehicle. And the owner gets to keep the state-issued license plate.

[libdem4life]

202. OK. Well, never having had a tractor or a race car...what can I say? Good to know.

[madinmaryland]

172. EXCELLENT!! Insurance is required to drive a car, which is required in most parts of the country

to get to work so that they can put food on the table.

Insurance so that a gun-nutter can go out and shoot empty beer cans is a small price to pay.

[farminator3000]

176. Lawmakers propose liability insurance for U.S. gun owners - CA, MA, MD, CT - hmm. blue states...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-usa-guns-insurance-idUSBRE91516920130206

The NRA itself offers "excess personal liability" insurance of up to $250,000 for hunters and for shooters at competitions or private ranges, according to its website.

"Because accidents do happen no matter how careful you are," the website says.

A Maryland proposal would mandate that anyone possessing a firearm have liability insurance of at least $250,000. It requires anyone selling, renting out or transferring a gun to verify that the person getting it has liability insurance.

Mandating liability insurance would help pay for damage caused by guns, Linsky said. But the main reason "is to get the marketplace involved in making gun ownership safer," he said.

NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford said the organization opposed liability insurance for gun owners because it was "economically discriminatory."

[libdem4life]

186. Owning a car is "economically discriminatory" as well.

And let the NRA make the money off the insurance...just get it off the taxpayer's dime.

[apocalypsehow]

182. Kick & Rec. n/t.

[robertkdem1965_h89]

188. Great idea

Gun violence is a major problem in this country, with many thousands of victims every year. It's time for better regulations.