Gun Liability Insurance

[Jim Lane]

108. You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours.

I repeat my question: Do you support compulsory automobile liability insurance?

I'll add a follow-up: Do you agree with me that the impact of such laws falls more heavily on the poor, and that they are therefore, by your reasoning, examples of classism and racism?

You write, "It should also be noted that where cars are effectively required for people to get to work (most of SoCal) the high gas taxes in CA are regressive and have been discussed as such."

Yes, I must concede your point. Gasoline taxes have a regressive effect. So you get another question: Do you support the repeal of gasoline taxes?

You also write, "As a lawyer you should also understand the historical stand in the EEO community about defacto even if unintended impacts. When the effect of a program falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities, back when we had real EEO in this country, that kind of disparate impact got you sued by the Federal government."

That's an oversimplification. A disparate impact (when a job requirement operates to exclude proportionally more members of a protected class) creates a presumption of unlawful discrimination, but the employer can rebut the presumption by showing that the requirement is a bona fide occupational qualification. For example, fire departments used to require that applicants be able to bench-press a certain weight, because firefighters have to be strong. This disproportionally excluded women. Courts overturned the requirements, because, although firefighters have to be strong, they don't have to bench-press on the job. Now, fire departments use tests that are more carefully tailored to actual job requirements. An applicant might have to put on a 50-pound backpack, run from the starting point to a building, climb four flights of stairs, pick up an additional weight at the top of the stairs, descend the stairs with it, and run back to the starting point, all in under two minutes. It still has a disparate impact on women, but it's legal.

The practical result of even properly enforced EEO laws is that it's harder for women to become firefighters. The practical result of compulsory automobile liability insurance and of gas taxes is that it's harder for the poor to drive, even if they live in SoCal and need to get to work. Those are unfortunate consequences, but they aren't deal-breakers. There are other public goals that are furthered -- having firefighters who can do the job well, adequately compensating accident victims, and forcing drivers to bear part of the cost that their driving inflicts on society. In each case, I believe that the sexist or classist impact is an acceptable price to pay.

Your reply to me invoked the Second Amendment. I wasn't getting into the constitutional issues. I was addressing only your argument that compulsory firearm liability insurance would be classist and racist. My response is that a disparate economic impact is only one factor to be considered.

There are other problems with the OP's suggestion. For example, what minimum coverage would be set? In New York, where I practice, the minimum auto coverage is a joke, being far too low to compensate even one seriously injured victim. Would all gun purchasers be required to obtain insurance that would cover the eight-figure liability of a Newtown-style massacre? The insurance idea is worth considering, but I'm not yet convinced that this and other problems could be dealt with.