What is Gun Violence Liability Insurance?

[SecularMotion]

California lawmakers are pondering a move to make violence liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners. If the measure passes, California would be the only state with the requirement, according to the Associated Press . Similar bills have been introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. AB231 puts the onus of paying for gun violence on gun owners as opposed taxpayers picking up the cost of gun violence.

What is the impetus behind California's legislation?

Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco told the AP he was "moved" by the Sand Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. He felt gun violence insurance is a "constructive" way to deal with gun violence. Ting felt owning a gun is like a car when vehicle owners are required to buy insurance. The legislation's details haven't been worked out as of yet.

How does gun violence liability insurance work?

Much like health insurance and car insurance, violence liability insurance premiums could be calculated using several factors. Insurance companies in the private sector would have their own criteria for gun insurance ownership. Those people more likely to be safe would have lower insurance costs, according to financial author John Wasik in Forbes magazine .

Attorney Tricia Dunlap, writing for The Hill , lists similar criteria. A free market system for gun violence liability insurance would impose fewer charges on an antique Civil War rifle owner who keeps his or her firearm on a wall display and higher premiums for someone who carries an assault weapon around all the time. More gun safety classes would mean lower premiums and less costs for violence insurance. Even regular mental health evaluations would less costs to gun owners. Violence liability insurance would cover costs of injuries from shooters and also covers gun owners in case a weapon is stolen.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-violence-liability-insurance-184900504.html

[iiibbb]

1. Owning a gun is like owning a car

Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco told the AP he was "moved" by the Sand Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. He felt gun violence insurance is a "constructive" way to deal with gun violence. Ting felt owning a gun is like a car when vehicle owners are required to buy insurance. The legislation's details haven't been worked out as of yet.

The funny thing is people only want it to be like a car when it serves their side.

My burning question... is it my insurance policy that's charged if one of my guns is stolen from my house and used in someone else's crime? Does car insurance work that way? If your car is stolen and used for a crime, is it your insurance they go after?


We want to treat guns like cars, right? So should my concealed carry permit allow me to carry concealed in any state? My drivers license allows me to drive in any state. My insurance covers me in any state.

A free market system for gun violence liability insurance would impose fewer charges on an antique Civil War rifle owner who keeps his or her firearm on a wall display and higher premiums for someone who carries an assault weapon around all the time.

Who does this... rare if anyone "carries an assault weapon around all the time"...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Well...

Who does this... rare if anyone "carries an assault weapon around all the time"

Long after government has eliminated the "need" for guns, knives will be next of the list and soon an assault weapon may be a defined as a spork from taco bell. (If you leave the restaurant with the spork, don't break the wrapper till you're ready to eat.)

[apocalypsehow]

2. Another idea bouncing around and gaining traction is requiring all gun owners to be bonded,

just like jewelry dealers and contractors. The best proposal is one that would require a combination of insurance, as mentioned here, combined with bonding and the payment of a deposit - $50,000 is a reasonable figure - by every gun owner who owns either an assault weapon or a semi-automatic handgun. The bond would be forfeit upon commission of crime with any of those types of firearms in possession of the "law abiding gun owner."

This would, of course, require registration of those firearms, but that's coming anyway nationwide over the next decade or two. The trifecta is the most reasonable course of action to take; that, along with the repeal of the law shielding the gun industry from lawsuits. The best outcome would be to put gun manufacturers out of business, while at the same time making "RKBA enthusiasts" take some financial and moral responsibility for the carnage their deadly little hobby wreaks on our city streets.

[madville]

3. So only rich people get to own those weapons?

That won't fly in the courts, it's an unreasonable amount and discriminates against then poor an middle class.

[apocalypsehow]

4. It'll "fly" in the courts alrighty, and some version of it is coming to the USA. Bank it.

[Straw Man]

11. So you're going on record ...

... in favor of putting a price tag on the exercise of rights?

[apocalypsehow]

14. Dishonest frames and brazen Straw Men always make me smile. Please try again. n/t.

[Straw Man]

25. That's not answer; it's a dodge.

How else would you a frame a $50,000 bond for the exercise of a Constitutional right?

[apocalypsehow]

28. It's the answer your dishonest frame deserves.

"How else would you a frame a $50,000 bond for the exercise of a Constitutional right?"

There is no "constitutional right" to own either an assault weapon or a semi-automatic handgun, sport. Please try again.

[Straw Man]

30. Dishonesty.

There is no "constitutional right" to own either an assault weapon or a semi-automatic handgun, sport. Please try again.

To the extent that they are arms that are in common use, there certainly is, ace.

[apocalypsehow]

33. "To the extent that they are arms that are in common use" - LOL. Funny stuff. n/t.

[Straw Man]

43. You tap-dance divinely.

Haw haw.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Unconstitutional. See "Poll Tax". N/T

[apocalypsehow]

7. Constitutional. See "non sequitur":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Pro-tip: you should craft your replies in such a way that they have something - even if only marginally - to do with the subject you are replying about. It really looks rather silly when you don't, and we don't want that, now do we?



Edit: typo.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. You can't charge for a right.

Even if you call the charge something else, if it is a required payment to exercise the right then it is unconstitutional. Hence my reference to the poll tax. Most people here likely understood it.

[lastlib]

10. The government isn't charging you. Every dime of your premium goes to a private insurer.

And that private insurer provides you with protection from the misuse of that right. With the poll tax, no one was protecting you from using your voting right to vote for a Republican.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. It really doesn't matter...

...if the check is payable to the Easter Bunny, a mandated charge to exercise a right is unconstitutional. A processing fee < $100 for a FOID card may fly but > $1k won't happen.

[SayWut]

26. Tax or premium, it amounts to the same result.

It's a monetary expenditure imposed on citizens, by the government, as a requirement, to their exercising a Constitutionally protected right. Plain and simple.

Furthermore, the true purpose of this "novel" approach to "gun control" is not to simply encourage gun owners to secure their firearms, but to discourage firearms ownership via a financial burden or impediment.

[apocalypsehow]

29. "Plain and simple" - LOL. So put your money where your mouthy keyboard is, and sue to have all

sales tax's on guns and ammo that is imposed right now overturned as "unconstitutional." Or sue to have the licensing fee for FFL tossed. By your absurd standard all of those taxes are "unconstitutional." How about it? Willing to do more than just pontificate anonymously on a website and actually put your money where your mouth is?

You won't, of course, because even you know that your argument is absurd on its face. You're just here trying to stir up trouble on a progressive discussion board with your NRA talking points and gun lobby propaganda. Absurdity abounds & abounds.

[SayWut]

36. Who was talking about taxes?

Ohhh, right you were

Okay, lets do that.
Lets start with taxing items commonly used items to express our 1st amendment rights: the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

Do you pay a tax on pens, paper, ink, carbon paper, typewriters, etc?
Ohhh... excuse me, that's from a bygone era for some of us.

How about taxation for a more modern age?
Your computer, toner, laser-jet, software, the digital interface, equipment and infrastructure that allows us to have this lovely discussion?

Do you complain to the poor underpaid slave labor at Staples about your refusal to comply with an unconstitutional abridgment of you 1st amendment rights? Or, do you just "pontificate" to them about the "absurdity" of such a moral outrage?

How about that "mouthy keyboard" of yours? You know, the one you "pontificate anonymously" behind, the one that you're angrily sweating over right now? The one you more than likely paid a tax on?
Do you feel violated or outraged that your rights have been "infringed"?

Where's your lawsuit?

You know, there are people who shouldn't be near a firearm, and there are people who shouldn't be near a keyboard or Internet connection. And then there are people that shouldn't be near either
(that's a hint you know)

[apocalypsehow]

38. Except, I'm not the one claiming such taxes are "unconstitutional" infringements on a "right":

You Are.

Laughable stuff.

[SayWut]

41. Educate yourself.

Learn, live and be happy.

Poll tax = insurance requirement = unconstitutional.
Sales tax = constitutional (within reason).

"Except, I'm not the one claiming such taxes are "unconstitutional" infringements on a "right"

Neither am I, nor anyone else here, you're the one who made the lame, irrelevant attempt
to bring that issue up; as if the two practices were somehow similar in nature.

[apocalypsehow]

42. You don't follow along so well: I didn't bring up the "Poll tax," your pal upthread did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=108812



I mean, seriously: how much fail can be crammed into one sub-thread from a replier? You're going for a record here, Wut!

[apocalypsehow]

39. "Who was talking about taxes?" -->"Tax or premium. It amounts to the same result"

Linky:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=108849

All too easy: funny stuff.

[apocalypsehow]

13. You go right on believing that nonsense. Next time you purchase your next PRD at Gump's

Sporting Goods, you be sure and tell the cashier that you're not going to pay any taxes on your shiny new toy because to do so would be to infringe on your "right." See what the cashier tells you. Ditto for the next time you've strutted into Wal Mart with a pistol perched in your pants to purchase ammunition: tell the Wal Mart clerk that you're not paying taxes on any ammo purchases because it interferes with your "right."

Absurdity abounds.

[Glaug-Eldare]

45. A sales tax imposed on consumer goods is not an infringement.

Firearms sales are, for the most part, subject to the normal rules of commerce. The right to keep and bear arms (in my opinion) does not override the state's power to levy reasonable sales tax on firearms transactions. What is not acceptable is creating a fee or insurance-based barrier to exercising the right to purchase a firearm in the first place. Converting the right to keep and bear arms into a fee-based privilege would be like requiring that citizens have liability insurance before petitioning the government, requiring that citizens purchase a $100 license to refuse warrantless searches, requiring that suspects pay a $200 fee for the privilege of refusing to incriminate themself, or charging a $50 admission fee at polling places.

As for the constitutional right to own SA handguns and modern rifles, read the Heller opinion, specifically why handguns are protected as a class. Semi-automatic handguns and modern rifles are enormously popular, and are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes. There is no question in my mind that they are protected classes of arms.

[apocalypsehow]

46. Except, the "fee" proposed - actually a bond deposit - applies only to SA handguns and

assault rifles, a specific (and special) class of firearms the "stricter scrutiny" regulation of which would not violate Second amendment rights in the slightest, anymore than the licensing fee for a FFL does at the current time. Or the federal excise tax on ammunition, which is collected right now and has been for decades.

See what I mean?

[Glaug-Eldare]

47. I am not convinced "in the slightest"

that SA handguns and so-called "assault rifles" are less-protected than revolvers and bolt-action rifles. This is a scheme to burden and discourage the exercise of a civil right, reduce the number of gun owners who will oppose total prohibition and confiscation, and advance in the multi-generational quest to disarm the 99%. Lester Maddox would be proud of you.

[gejohnston]

48. I don't know about Lester Maddox

but certainly Jay Gould. It does seem to support the theory that there is a classist element to the gun prohibition lobby. I think it serves the same function as the transference tax did in the 1930s, NFA supporters thought a ban would be struck down by the SCOTUS, so they came up with what amounts to an economic ban, forgetting that the high cost of Thompsons and BARs already created an economic ban and very few people actually owned them.

[apocalypsehow]

49. Absurd. I don't interact with repliers who compare sensible gun regulation measures

and advocacy for them to a guy who stood in front of his restaurant and handed out axe handles to customers to use on potential African-American customers, so good evening to you and good bye.

Parting pro-tip: Lester Maddox was actually a big endorser of "RKBA" during his rancid lifetime, so he'd be more "proud" of the entire gun lobby and pro-NRA shills as a matter of historical fact. Might want to educate yourself before you make such a similarly ridiculous analogy in the future on DU. And enjoy your, ummmm, stay. However long it turns out to be....

[Glaug-Eldare]

50. For whites, or for everybody?

Even in Maryland, the intent and practice of supposedly race-neutral licensing and carry laws was to ensure that they could place economic and criminal barriers against blacks that would never be enforced against whites. The last vestiges of this remain in Alabama, where until quite recently, their may-issue carry permit system turned away minorities because they have no legal obligation to issue a permit to anybody. I strongly doubt that Gov. Maddox ever said a word in favor of blacks enjoying the right to keep and bear arms, because he felt that sensible gun regulation measures included making sure negroes didn't have them. Doesn't that sound like a reasonable way to protect our wives and daughters?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Question

If I post the bond and then buy a gun, can I get the $50k back if the gun is lost or stolen?

[Deep13]

27. No that's a penalty for doing something that is not a crime.

It's effectively a $50k fine for owning a gun. I am taking zero responsibility for crimes I did not commit. My hobby causes no harm to anyone.

The whole gun owners are evil argument is going to get you nowhere because it is a theological argument, not a practical one. Taking that view makes the NRA's case for them.

Insurance is the practical solution, especially if gun makers are paying into the risk pool. After all the thousands of military pattern guns and pistols sold to organized criminals through straw men will never be insured. Yet makers profit from those sales.

[apocalypsehow]

31. No, it's not: no one is forcing you to purchase/own an assault weapon or SA handgun.

It is a bond that take into account the immense harm caused by the proliferation of guns in the hands of people who practice your deadly little hobby of owning military-style weapons and magazines capable of firing 50 rounds from them. There is no "right," constitutional or otherwise, to own those implements.

But all of this is academic: the idea of bonding along these lines is gaining traction in Blue states, and is coming whether you like it or not. And as the country goes Blue in the generation to come, we'll move beyond bonds to straightforward criminalization of owning assault rifles or semi-automatic handguns: there is no need for any civilian to own such weapons in the United States in the first place.

And I'll tell you this: you will comply with such a law, or you will no longer be a "law-abiding gun owner." Brave internet talk about non-compliance is simply that: talk. It's coming, you can bank it. And you will get over it.

[Tumbulu]

44. I like these ideas

Carrying a 50 k bond would have an impact all right. For the WAY better!

[GreenStormCloud]

6. It would actually be fairly cheap.

The anti-gunners are hoping that the insurance will be so expensive that very few would have guns. However, the insurance will not cover criminal acts, only accidents.

It may be unconstitutional, and even if constitutional will only be in states like CA & NY.

[slackmaster]

9. John Wasik's commentary in Forbes goes into that a bit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/17/newtowns-new-reality-using-liability-insurance-to-reduce-gun-deaths/

Your premium would depend on things like your age, gender, marital status, personal history, and where you live. As a middle-aged homeowner who lives in a low-crime area, I think it might be workable.

The anti-gunners are hoping that the insurance will be so expensive that very few would have guns.

From some of the comments in other threads, there are certainly people whose intentions in imposing an insurance requirement are less than honorable.

[lastlib]

12. Insurance will only cover accidents? Wrong.

It's *liability* insurance--it covers any financial responsibility you have for the use/misuse of the firearm. If it's stolen from you and used in a crime, you become liable for whatever is done with it because you didn't secure it from theft.

[kudzu22]

15. You would have to establish that liability by statute

since there is none now. As I've said in other threads, it's an extraordinary step to impose a financial liability on one person for the criminal acts of another.

[lastlib]

34. not a problem, really. If you enable another person's crime through

your own irresponsibility, why shouldn't you pay, too? You fail to secure your weapon, you're partly responsible for its misuse.

[kudzu22]

35. So if a kid takes your lighter and burns down an apartment building

then you should pay for it, right? Come on, this flies in the face of centuries of jurisprudence on who is liable for what.

[lastlib]

37. that's not beyond the realm of possibility;

in fact, notions like that have been argued in courts for centuries, with varying results. Any tort-law casebook is filled with 'em. In our legal system, it mostly comes down to some judge's idea of "reasonableness". Unless you've got a court packed with Scalia-bots, it's entirely possible that an insurance/bonding requirement would stand up.

[kudzu22]

40. Ok so tell me, how long does this liability last?

Suppose I left my safe open one night and someone broke in and took my gun. Then 15 years later it turns up as a murder weapon. Am I liable? Do I have to maintain my liability insurance even though I don't have the gun anymore?

I'm no lawyer but I do know what proximate cause means.

[slackmaster]

17. That's a novel theory and would be an unprecedented form of insurance

No car insurance policy covers liability for the actions of a thief who steals the insured party's vehicle. Establishing a baseline for what constitutes "securing an item from theft" would be problematic.

It's *liability* insurance--it covers any financial responsibility you have for the use/misuse of the firearm.

Every liability policy I've ever had explicitly excluded liability resulting from criminal activity by the policyholder.

[kudzu22]

16. What if my gun is stolen, and then stolen again from the guy who stole it?

Who is then liable -- me or him? After all it was his negligence that allowed it into the hands of the criminal, not mine.

What if my gun is stolen, and then a year later I cancel my liability policy? I don't own a gun anymore so I have no need for the policy, right?

There's a lot about this idea that hasn't been thought all the way through.

[iiibbb]

18. I've thought it through

[Taitertots]

20. It is just a scheme to prevent the non-rich from having access to firearms

People who prevent gun ownership with arbitrary and capricious fines have just changed the brand of their scheme.

[madville]

23. Having insurance could have negative effects

Think about your car insurance. Say you have a $20,000 car and were not required to have any insurance on public roads. Would you be more careful in traffic, pay more attention to where you parked, protect it from theft, worry about paying out of pocket for damages and injuries you were at fault for in an accident?

Now think about how you might act with insurance. Most of those worries are greatly reduced when covered by insurance. I don't worry so much about my car being damaged or stolen, I know I'm covered for damage and injuries to others, I don't worry about driving everyday.

If I had no insurance I would pay better attention to the risks involved because there is no safety net. It could lead to even more lackadaisical attitudes towards firearms since people wouldn't have to worry as much about liability.

[Puha Ekapi]

24. It is legislative...

...masturbation. It'll never fly, but it might be interesting to see who's hands are slathered with lotion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Gun Violence Liability Insurance is a bright idea

and here's a bright idea kit for those so inclined: