David Hogg shares fellow students plan for gun control on Twitter

[johnpowdy]

So amazing that these kids are doing this and great plan Chuck!!!!

My plan for gun control.

The only guns allowed for home ownership should be a pistol (revolver) or shotgun. Hunting rifle may be owned but the types of allowable sights prohibited. (Nothing that will allow a shooter to be further away than the cop can focus on). When going on a hunt, it must be registered with local authorities. System to be determined.

No guns to be sold or owned that have a magazine of any type. Only single fire, non-convertible weapons allowed.

Any other weapon that a person wants to own that is currently legal may still be owned but must be kept at a secure firing range. Gun cannot be checked out but a procedure for safe transport or sale of the weapon would be devised.

Practice shooting outside of a range is prohibited.

Private production of bullets is prohibited.

A gun owner can have a onetime life supply of a small number of bullets to bring home. All other bullets must be bought at the range (price issues to be worked out) and used at the range. Must turn in your shells.
If more bullets are desired by owner, missing bullets need to be explained.

Gun owners must have a license after passing a test and must carry insurance. Owner must do a recertification periodicially.

Carry permit issued to any owner that passes all of the above but only weapon that can be carried is a pistol with no more than a 4" barrel. No concealed carry, the gun must be open carried with some form of identifying badge like a cop has.

[link:

Link to tweet

|

[LonePirate]

2. Maybe it is time we start listening to urban youth instead of rural elders on guns.

I personally don’t think Hogg’s proposals go far enough but it is a good start. In general, if something pisses off gun owners, especially when they shouting about terminology, then we should implement whatever they are ranting against.

Gun ownership is an addiction like cigarette smoking. People may want guns but they certainly do not need them.

[johnpowdy]

3. I agree. We need to start listening to our children

[pangaia]

101. Gun ownership is an addiction

Spread it far and wide....

[samir.g]

4. That's pretty good

It's a good start.

[yagotme]

5. Lots of problems:

Again, I know, technicalities, but you have to be precise in your verbiage in a law:

"The only guns allowed for home ownership should be a pistol (revolver) or shotgun. Hunting rifle may be owned but the types of allowable sights prohibited. (Nothing that will allow a shooter to be further away than the cop can focus on). When going on a hunt, it must be registered with local authorities. System to be determined."

A double action revolver is "technically" a semi auto. Some models hold 7-8 rounds. Banning scopes now, too?


"No guns to be sold or owned that have a magazine of any type. Only single fire, non-convertible weapons allowed."

Nearly EVERY weapon, other than revolvers and single shots have a magazine of some type or other. Some external, some internal. Now they're wanting to ban 80+% of the weapons owned in the US.


"Any other weapon that a person wants to own that is currently legal may still be owned but must be kept at a secure firing range. Gun cannot be checked out but a procedure for safe transport or sale of the weapon would be devised."

Now, your local gun range is a target for every nutjob that wants an "illegal" gun. The security measures would be outlandishly expensive, but I guess that is what some here want anyway, make it a "rich man's" pastime.


"Practice shooting outside of a range is prohibited."

Well, let's make it easy, and just prohibit someone from shooting someone else.


"Private production of bullets is prohibited."

Good luck with that. Now we're going to confiscate stoves and bullet molds.


"A gun owner can have a onetime life supply of a small number of bullets to bring home. All other bullets must be bought at the range (price issues to be worked out) and used at the range. Must turn in your shells.
If more bullets are desired by owner, missing bullets need to be explained. "

So many WTF's here, I'm not even going to try.


"Gun owners must have a license after passing a test and must carry insurance. Owner must do a recertification periodically. "

Again with the cost, another "rich man's" sport. Can't get insurance to do an illegal thing. And to recertify, he has to practice, getting into the range (cuz' it's going to be busy as all get out) will be tough, and expensive.


"Carry permit issued to any owner that passes all of the above but only weapon that can be carried is a pistol with no more than a 4" barrel. No concealed carry, the gun must be open carried with some form of identifying badge like a cop has."

Why that barrel length? Seems to be arbitrary number. And, for open carry, too. "Look bad guys. I have a gun. Do you think you can take it from me?" The idea behind CC is that NO ONE knows you are carrying. You're not advertising to the world you have a valuable item on your person.

[procon]

7. The initial costs of most guns already make it a "rich man's" sport, yeah?

Anyone who has enough discretionary cash to buy a gun should be prepared to pay for the minimum responsibilities needed to keep and operate their weapon safety. It also safeguards the rights of the majority of Americans who do not own guns and do not want someone near them who is so paranoid they feel they must bring their loaded guns into the same stores they shop at with their families.

Your arguments are weak. These are reasonable restrictions that should apply to responsible gun owners as well. As anyone who owns a car will tell you, you can't drive a car on public roads that has illegally modified either, but you can go to a race track and pay to drive one. You can't legally use off market kits to bypass safety and environmental devices either. You can't drive a car if you have certain medical problems or disabilities. Car owners have to take a drivers ed course just to sit for the written test, and they have to pass the practical driving test to qualify for a driver's license. Then, they are required to carry liability insurance and also maintain their vehicles and operate in a safe manner.

And if you reduced to carping about something as ridiculous as the barrel length of your guns, then maybe the real problem lays elsewhere.

[yagotme]

8. You can buy expensive guns,

or you can buy cheap ones. Have seen inexpensive guns go for less than $100 at auctions. Some for just over $50. Semi auto .22's, too. Some new ones are as little as $160.

And, there are "reasonable restrictions" that apply to gun owners. 1934 Act. 1968 Act. I have to fill out a background check form (4473) when I purchase a gun from a dealer, at auction, or a dealer at a gun show. I have to have a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) in my state. I have to carry a license to conceal carry. So, for one gun, that's 3 background checks I have to pass.

And, if they're carping about a specific limit on the barrel length of a carry pistol, then maybe the real problems lay elsewhere.

[procon]

17. You do understand that the arguments in favor of stronger gun safety laws

are not focused on your out of pocket expenses?

You say you passed 3 background checks, as if that is enough to make it safe to be around you and your hidden guns. No, that's not nearly good enough. Afterall, you're a person who brings a hidden and loaded weapon into crowded public venues, fully expecting to shoot people if you believe it's necessary. That's hardy a ringing testimony of your state of mind.

How does anyone know that you are a sane and stable person, or that you don't have anger management problems, maybe you are a substance abuser, or suffer from physical of mental health issues that might jeopardize the public. Why would anyone trust their lives and safety if such an individual was carrying a gun in their midst?

Look, right now there are no regulations in place that make sure you are proficient with guns, that you always hit the target and never some bystander. There is no requirement for carrying enough liability insurance to protect the public from any unfortunate mistakes gun owners might make in firing their guns, or losing it, or having it stolen. That's putting the risk entirely on the public at large, and giving gun owners a free pass by not holding them responsible for the decisions they make to buy and own guns in the first place.

[yagotme]

84. How do you know the police qualify for all this?

"How does anyone know that you are a sane and stable person, or that you don't have anger management problems, maybe you are a substance abuser, or suffer from physical of mental health issues that might jeopardize the public. Why would anyone trust their lives and safety if such an individual was carrying a gun in their midst?"

After all, they are around all the time, armed, and some even carry concealed off duty. You never know WHEN you are next to someone with a gun, because, concealed is concealed.

How do I know you are sober when you get behind the wheel of a car? Let's breathalyze everyone just to make sure. And, for kicks, mandatory drug testing while we're at it.

[procon]

87. Don't move the goalposts. The question is about individual gun owners, not

whether the state has a right to arm and certify its official agents. When you're reduced to these madcap outbursts of whataboutism, you've effectively ended any argument you might have had, yeah?

[yagotme]

109. You say you're talking about individual gun owners,

but you bring up issues that the police are having difficulty with.

"Look, right now there are no regulations in place that make sure you are proficient with guns, that you always hit the target and never some bystander. There is no requirement for carrying enough liability insurance to protect the public from any unfortunate mistakes gun owners might make in firing their guns, or losing it, or having it stolen. That's putting the risk entirely on the public at large, and giving gun owners a free pass by not holding them responsible for the decisions they make to buy and own guns in the first place."

Take the part about being proficient with guns. You have to pass a shooting test in IL to get a carry license. So, technically, you're incorrect on that one.

"Never some bystander". Bet you a soda that the percentage of hits by civilians are better than cop's. Cops tend to get into the "spray and pray" mode when confronted by a perp. And they don't always have the best, fine tuned weapons. Look up "New York trigger" for example. (Glocks with 12-14 lb trigger weights for cops, making accurate shooting nearly impossible.)

And, when cops are off duty, most are allowed to carry, as "citizens". Why them, and not me, as long as I pass the same criteria? Are you advocating for a Police State?

[Sophia4]

78. The problem is that too many people are killed or kill themselves by guns.

Gun owners who want to protect the right to keep their guns need to think of some surefire way to prevent the killings. That's the bottom line.

Americans are getting sick and tired of reading and hearing about murder by gun.

If the killing stops, no one will care about the guns.

It's the killing that has to end.

[yagotme]

85. There is NO surefire way to prevent killings.

Be it by gun, baseball bat, 9 iron, car, or swimming pool. Life is full of risks. If you want to ban all guns, well, then let's not stop there. We want to stop deaths, right? Ban swimming pools for private use. Must pass background check/mental stability check and swim qual to use public pool. All vehicles on road are to be armored with 2" thick steel. No vehicle will exceed 30 MPH speed. Ban drugs and alcohol. Severely restrict knives. No knife over 6", or less that 2". Background checks before ownership. Fill out federal paperwork and wait for many days before receiving knife from store. All knives must be kept under lock and key. Limit on 6 knives per household. 18+ to buy plastic knives. (If you think I'm joking, see Britain's knife laws.) Ban bathtubs. Shower stalls only. If it costs you big $ to refit your bathroom/house, oh well. It's needed to stop deaths, not to worry about your pocketbook, as a previous poster noted. No more skydiving. No more skiing. No more mountain climbing. No more trampolines.

I could go on, but I know I'm falling on deaf ears, and I will be ridiculed as in "All those things are different, because."

[pangaia]

103. " Be it by gun, baseball bat, 9 iron, car, or swimming pool. Life is full of risks."

Of that entire list, none are designed with the primary purpose in mind of killing, and for the most part killing other human beings. So your argument is moot.

I've heard it so many times. it's getting....

And yes, they ARE different because...

[yagotme]

110. If you want to reduce the rate of killings, then I would think

that you would go after the ones that do the highest rate. Start at the top, and work your way down. It will take awhile to get to long guns, BTW.

[pangaia]

111. long guns, bump stock, firearms, breech ballistic coefficient...

rata-ma-cue, double invertible counterpoint at the tenth, cancrizan,second fugal entry, plagal cadence

[yagotme]

113. Fiddle dee de, fiddle de dum,

methinks your answer, needs more strum.

[pangaia]

114. Now you're getting the idea....

[LanternWaste]

14. Could be one reason why this is merely an outline rather than an actual law.

"but you have to be precise in your verbiage in a law..."

Could be one reason why this is merely an outline rather than an actual law... as no one is really arguing this would be the "verbiage" used in a potential law.

But I get it... accepting it simply as a broad outline would take all the wind out of your narrative.

[exboyfil]

29. Agreed it is the first step towards a sensible debate

It would behoove the national high school and college debate organizations to put gun control on the policy debate proposal for the 2018-2019 school year. I haven't kept up with it since high school, but that would energize thousands of very smart students thinking about policy solutions.

[erronis]

41. Excellent idea. More exposure! And the NRA can stand up its strawmen in the debase.

Debate rules will make a hash of the tendentious and non-logical arguments of the weapons lobby.

I'd really like to see how the unreal pResident would fare in a real debate rather than a "talk over everyone else."

[pangaia]

104. Put fascism on the debate schedule if it is not already there,

and coup d'état, while they are at it...

[pazzyanne]

23. "Private production of bullets is prohibited."

My brother belongs to a black powder gun group where they make their own bullets. What should be done by the people who are black powder enthusiasts?

[yagotme]

83. Are you asking me, or the OP?

I was quoting OP, and stating how difficult banning bullets would be. And yes, I have been known to melt a little lead in previous years. There are those here that say "You can keep your muskets." OK, fine. I can cast bullets for mine, myself.

[Sophia4]

77. Guns kill. Just like drugs the possession of which is against the law.

If a drug taken as intended can kill, a person has to have a prescription for it.

It's no more trouble to make possession of certain guns illegal than it is to make possession of certain drugs illegal.

The reason everyone is so interested in limiting guns and gun possession now is the number of shootings of innocent people that are taking place and that are increasing.

People who love guns and shooting for sport have a certain limited time to insure among themselves that the killing stops. If they can't stop the killing without all these laws and regulations, then the public sentiment will demand that the guns and possession of guns be very limited. If the regulation seems too difficult to put into practice, it may mean a constitutional amendment that outlaws private ownership of guns altogether.

The point is: the killing must stop.

If gun owners want to keep their guns, then they should as a group propose a way to stop the killing.

[HopeAgain]

102. Always lots of problems

Did things get so technical on here when health reform came up and the ACA was passed?

Somehow I don't think so...

[procon]

6. He has a very thoughtful and sensible plan.

This is doable. Shooting ranges and gun clubs are a great idea, it's like you have to go to a racetrack to drive a formula one race car, or if you want to fly a fighter jet then you go to the aviation company that offers that opportunity for a price.

People who want to own guns can still have them or go to a gun range to get their thrills, but the military weapons intended for wartime use would be banned. I would also add a provision to include some sort of long term buyback or incentive plan to at least take some of the banned guns off the street. There should also be a way for genuine antique gun collectors to safely have and display their collections.

[yagotme]

9. How far back are you willing to go?

"but the military weapons intended for wartime use would be banned."

You realize that a lot of current arms development is based on military arms? And some people here scream "Let them have their muskets". Those were military arms. I have a repro of an 1858 Zouave percussion rifle. It takes a bayonet. Is it on your ban list also? How about my 1884 Trapdoor Springfield? It also takes a bayonet. Pre-64 Winchester bolt action? Design copied from the 1898 Mauser rifle, and examples used in Viet Nam as sniper rifle. Model 700 hunting rifle? Different stock, heavier barrel, late Nam-current US sniper rifle.

[hack89]

13. There is very little doable about this

it flies in the face of legal, cultural and political reality.

For the past 20 years we have seen a steady liberalization of gun laws in America - there has been no sea change that is going to undo all that and more.

[LonePirate]

31. I am not sure if you are in touch with cultural reality on this issue.

Apart from fundamentalists, there is a profound cross-cultural push for gun control in this country right now. This cultural push spans all ages, races and genders.

As far as a political reality goes, blue states will start enacting new gun control measures. Red states will continue to bow down to their NRA overlords instead of their constituents, at least for now.

With regard to the legal reality, SCOTUS is not immune to the cultural shift we are experiencing. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch may be immovable here but the other six justices could easily interpret a law as constitutional if it protects lives. The Second Amendment is not absolute.

[hack89]

40. Here is my personal indicator that change is coming

I live in Rhode Island - a state with pretty good gun laws (we have UBCs for example.). Yet every couple of years an AWB is proposed only to fail. If Rhode Island passes an AWB then I will pay attention.

You need nothing from the SCOTUS - Heller gives you everything you want. AWBs, registration, magazine limits, etc are all perfectly constitutional.

[Kirk Lover]

10. Yes....there should be insurance. Why are gun owners not liable for their guns?

[hack89]

12. They are.

you can be sued for negligence. What makes you think they are not?

[SunSeeker]

20. No. A lawsuit against an uninsured/judgment proof gun owner isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

What makes you think they are?

[hack89]

24. Ok. So what do you think will be insured?

the problem is that with a huge risk pool, insurance will be pennies per week - because insurance does not cover intentional crimes. And there are very few accidents that will generate insurance claims.

There is a reason why my safe full of guns had no impact on my home owners insurance while they asked questions about the type of dog I owned.

Btw - I pay for liability insurance for my guns - it costs me $47 dollars annually for $100K worth of coverage. If everyone had to pay it would be even cheaper.

[SunSeeker]

26. So if insurance is so cheap, why are you opposed to this requirement?

[hack89]

28. Because it is counter productive

it will make the NRA a ton of money, drive up their membership and bring a lot of single issue voters to the polls. Is a stronger, richer, bigger NRA good for America?

And it is irrelevant to reducing gun deaths. Won't shop suicides, won't stop criminals, won't stop mass shootings. And it won't help the vast majority of people hurt by guns.

[erronis]

44. But the NRA isn't really representing anyone except money launderers and the GOP recipients.

You can bring up membership as much as you want but this "membership" is minimal and manufactured. Show me the actual membership list. Has it been audited?

The NRA is not strong or rich or powerful or big. It is a well-funded blustering lobby that has cowed the repuglicans.

Time for this cancer to die. Of course there will be others to take up the banner of extremism in the name of $$$s.

[hack89]

48. Who do you think is the biggest seller of gun liablity insurance?

what would happen to NRA membership if members were given a significant discount on insurance plus the promise that their money would go to repeal the insurance mandate?

For that matter, care to guess who makes a ton of money from mandatory gun training laws? The NRA has a monopoly on the courses and instructors - CT and NY call out NRA courses by name.

[ooky]

51. I hate to break the news but those single issue voters

are already at the polls, in great numbers. Its a big problem for the dems every damned election. Have you seen the number of gun placards being mailed about 5-6 weeks before every election? This would just be another one of their ignorant bullet points on their placard. The ones who aren’t already at the polls are probably too stupid and too lazy to go anyway. My opinion is it is an incremental drop in the bucket.

[hack89]

52. ok. nt

[ooky]

46. I dont buy into the insurance is not for intentional crimes argument against insuring guns.

It needs to be on the table and studied. In the case of guns, if someone robs your safe and uses your lawfully registered guns to intentionally kill people, that’s a risk that needs to be insured against. If insurance companies are willing to enter that risk market at a reasonable premium then it makes sense to mandate it. Not only does it provide families of victims with financial compensation for their losses, but it introduces an additional background check that the insurance writer would want to perform.

[hack89]

50. Only if negligence can be proven

which means that if a gun owner made a good faith effort to secure his guns he would not have any liability.

And it is hard to imagine insurance companies caring that much - an honest appraisal of the risk, assuming a now massive risk pool, would result in premiums so low as to not make it worth their while.

More to the point, the insurance would not cover a gun owner committing crimes.

[ooky]

53. We are not talking the same insurance market.

I’m talking insurance on the weapon itself, not tied to your negligence or the intent of the crime. Not the same liability insurance market you are buying into now. It needs to be studied.

[hack89]

55. Mine are insured for their value in case they are stolen

but that insurance does not cover the subsequent actions of the thief. No insurance company would leave themselves open to paying out for a Sandy Hook or Las Vegas.

[ooky]

59. Yea thats where we dont agree.

I don’t accept that no insurance company would leave themselves open to paying out Sandy Hook or Las Vegas type incidents. Its an opinion, but it needs to be studied and validated, because if we could insure against these types of incidents it could have a profound affect on all sorts of gun relevant issues. All insurance markets come down to risk vs reward. The answer is in the numbers, once its been studied.

[hack89]

60. But don't we want to stop attacks, not pay victims after the fact?

that's what I don't understand about the insurance argument - people act like it has some kind of deterrent value. It clearly doesn't - there are certain groups of gun owners who don't care - felons, criminals and crazy people for starters.

And I question the notion that that gun owners will get insurance in the first place. First off, without registration it is meaningless. And registration doesn't help matters much - look no further than the massive resistance to registration in CT and NY.

[ooky]

65. Why does it need to just have deterrent value to the shooter to be a viable option?

If it would lead to better or more thorough background checks and provide financial compensation to victims why isn’t that valuable in the fight? If its an added step between the process of legally purchasing a weapon and then killing someone, why not make it harder to complete the purchase? If that person wants to kill so bad, why don’t we drive him into the black market to get his weapon instead of rolling out a red carpet to the door of the gun store for him? That in itself could be a deterrent to a shooting and possibly keep it from ever happening if he can’t get his weapon so easily while he’s still in the mood for killing. That might have prevented this last shooting.

When you say criminals and crazys don’t care you are making the NRA’s argument for doing nothing. Of course we aren’t going to stop all the shootings done with the illegally obtained weapons, but why not reduce the number of shootings by closing off the legal gun market to them in every way possible? As for resistance, that’s easy. Pass a law that makes it illegal not to carry the insurance on their weapons. Then they can decide if they want to be legal or run the risks of being illegal.

[noobareus]

99. the problem is an insurance requirement

will never pass constitutional muster.

Forcing people to pay to practice their 2nd amendment rights will be judged no differently than a poll tax to vote or prohibitively expensive fees to speak in public

[marble falls]

100. Or charging gasoline tax or making childless couples pay real estate taxes, or charging....

for driver's licenses, or requiring urine tests..... you are wrong. Having the right to own weapons can be as regulated as owning a auto is. And why not?

[Abnredleg]

105. Those aren't Constitutionally protected rights

Any tax or fee on the right to bear arms will be scrutinized using the standard of "strict scrutiny", which is a very high standard.

[marble falls]

106. You don't think gas taxes or license requirement interfere with the right to free movement...

but taxes and permits do interfere with the right of belonging to a "well maintained militia"?

You don't think supporting public schools through real estate taxes is an unfair burden on childless taxpayers, but expecting gun owners to pay taxes to cover the cost their rights to belong to a "well regulated militia" is?

You don't think mandatory piss tests violate 5th amendment rights but background checks do violate the 2nd Amendment?

[Abnredleg]

108. Background checks are legal

I'm not sure why you are harping on militias since the right to bear arms is an individual right unconnected to membership, as stated in the past several Democratic Party platforms.

It's not that government can't interfere with a person's activity, but that the standards of review are different depending the activity. There are a lot of restrictions on gun rights that pass the strict scrutiny standard, including AWB, registration, UBC ,magazine limits and many more. I was merely pointing out that you can't say government can do A and B so they can do C, when the legality of C is determined using a different legal standard than A and B.

[noobareus]

107. owning an auto isn't a constitutional right

That is the difference

[marble falls]

116. Owning a gun isn't an explicit Constitutional right, either, joining "a well regulated militia" is.

[Fla Dem]

115. They have to pay for gun, ammo and license in order to shoot a gun.

We don't give it to them free just because it's a constitutional right. If they commit injury, death and mayhem they should have to pay for that just like anyone who commits injury, death and mayhem with an motorized vehicle.

[X_Digger]

73. That's a fundamental principle of insurance. You can't wish it away, and 'study it'.

That's so far away from what we know as insurance as to be asinine to think otherwise.

Should a drug dealer be able to cover business losses from his competition? Should he be able to get coverage in case one of his corner boys shoot a junkie looking to score?!?

For fuck's sake, think about the implications of what you're proposing.

[ooky]

75. What is a fundamental principle of insurance? (What do you mean by that?)

I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Relative to my post your response is just, well, incoherent. What exactly do you think I’m trying to “wish away”?

To be clear, vs. his argument, I am saying that we should study if there could be an insurance market for insuring firearms against intentional shootings. Not just assume that it can’t exist. Because to assume that is patently false. You can insure anything if the insurer will accept the risk, for a price. The question is if the risk/reward is doable. I don’t see how you’ve presented any argument to that, except for making false equivalencies to what I described. If you are saying those false equivalencies are implications of what I suggested, uh, no. Unless you want to be more specific about how you get from A to Z with those equivalencies, although I can’t imagine how.

[X_Digger]

80. The fundamental principle is that you can't cover an intentional act (by the covered).

You can cover against crime (as the victim, or the business where such occurs). But as the actor? No. Not just no, but fuck no.

If you take your car and plow through a crowd of people, your insurance wouldn't cover shit.

[ooky]

82. Im not suggesting to cover the actor.

I’m suggesting to cover the gun itself, so that victims are provided financial compensation. In this case, if your gun gets stolen and a bad actor ultimately uses it to shoot someone, there will be a form of restitution for the victims of a bad actor’s crime, which occured because you allowed him to steal your gun.

Your new example is another false equivalency. Of course no insurance would cover those things. To think so would be silly. We don’t have a widespread problem with people stealing cars and using them to run over people. Its happened, yes, but its a one off type situation. And people aren’t suggesting to ban automobiles to deal with it because it happens so often and nothing is being done about it.

Its about what you are insuring against. I get sick when these shootings occur. I want to do something to help the families of the victims. This is something that could be explored as a possible way we could help them, along with the side benefit of improving the quality of a background check.

[hardluck]

90. Not sure exactly what you are seeking

Not sure what you mean by "cover the gun itself." Under your scenario in which a gun is stolen and a third party uses the gun to shoot someone, the homeowner would be covered by his/her homeowner's policy for a negligence action (negligent storage presumably) brought by the person shot or their estate, subject to the applicable deductible and for the liability policy limits. The insurer would owe the homeowner a duty to defend and potentially a duty to indemnify unless the homeowner acted intentionally instead of negligently.

If you are talking about insuring any party for an intentional act, that is typically uninsurable as a matter of public policy (as the other posters explained). I haven't reviewed every state, but typically there are insurance statutes forbidding such insurance because insuring intentional acts creates a moral hazard, i.e, by insuring such an action, you are actually incentivizing the illegal act. For example, California Insurance Code section 533 states “An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.” California Insurance Code 533.5 provides “(a) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any coverage or indemnity for the payment of any fine, penalty, or restitution in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding this type of coverage or indemnity is expressly stated in the policy.”

It seems the better policy, to avoid the moral hazard, is to set up a victim compensation plan, similar to the vaccine compensation courts, which would provide restitution to victims of intentional shootings. It could be funded by a small tax on ammunition or something similar. It would have to have exceptions for victims that were engaged in illegal conduct at the time of their shooting to avoid public outrage of a criminal victim receiving a payout.

[ooky]

91. Thanks for a thoughtful response hardluck.

Last edited Tue Feb 27, 2018, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, I agree that with respect to my suggestion that the insurance codes in some if not all states as written may have to be waived specifically and only for to allow for the creation, sale and application of the type of insurance I am suggesting. I would argue that with respect to CA code sec. 533 that broad interpretation of the code would not be in conflict because the willfull act is not of, or by the insured, and satifies the conditions for payout as the result of the gun owners negligence. Further, I would argue that this type of insurance does not provide any incentive for the typical criminal who commits these acts. (However, I do acknowledge that it could open up the door for a really heinous form of fraud. How much of a problem that would be is a question to be answered with respect to the concern of creating a moral hazard.)

With that said, if a better policy to help protect victims could be established, such as what you have suggested, I am all for that kind of alternative approach, especially if it accomplishes much the same result. Gun owners need to foot the bill so your ammunition tax would be a good suggestion.

[X_Digger]

92. The gun isn't the insured. The owner of the policy, is.

Insurance to cover the intentional acts of the insured, or a thief of the property? Fucking ridiculous.

If a madman stole your car and plowed into a crowd, it would be just as ridiculous to expect your insurance to cover it.

It's.. incomprehensible to anyone who understands the fundamental definition of insurance.

You would be incentivizing criminal acts.

[ooky]

94. So, okay x digger

You can cut with the insults. I’m only interested in thoughtful discussion, not juvenile cursing and name calling. You can take that nonsense somewhere else.

[X_Digger]

95. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time taking such a half-assed idea seriously.

Silly ideas deserve scorn.

What happens when your neighborhood drug dealer takes out one of these magical policies, then shoots his rival. His magical liability policy not only pays his rival's medical costs, but also his attorney fees (as liability policies are wont to do.)

Study on that for a second, and see if you have a problem with it, eh?

No 'butbutbut...' needed- that's exactly what such a silly idea would promote. You can't say, "Oh but I only meant it to cover the things I want, and you can exclude X"-- intentional, criminal acts are what you're talking about trying to insure.

[ooky]

96. I dont care what you think or what you want.

Obviously you don’t have the capability to engage in a civil discussion. So don’t bother me again. We’re done.

Now let’s see if you even have enough intelligence to comprehend that.

[X_Digger]

97. So, no answer to the pimp or local corner boy taking out such a policy?

I suspect you realized the inanity of such an idea.

That's okay, you're allowed to save face and stomp off in a huff.

[hack89]

11. Nothing like a solution grounded in legal, political and cultural reality.

[LanternWaste]

15. Empty and petulant criticisms are fun!

Empty and petulant criticisms are fun! My ten year old niece does it three or four times a week.

Though I'm sure you'll allege your petulance as something else.

[hack89]

16. For the past 20 years we have seen a steady liberalization of gun laws in America

there has been no sea change that is going to undo all that and more. I live in a blue state that won't even pass an AWB.

There is an element of fantasy in your ideas - as if by believing it can happen really hard can actually make it happen. This is America, not Never Never Land.

[IronLionZion]

21. Nevertheless, they persisted

Ambitious reforms always start with someone's fantasy ideas and believing in it really hard to make it happen.

[hack89]

25. When gun control recovers the ground lost since the federal AWB expired

is when I will pay attention.

[SunSeeker]

27. You seem to be paying a lot of attention right now.

I'll take that as a good sign.

[hack89]

30. Idle chatter on the internet is not "a lot of attention".

Last edited Tue Feb 27, 2018, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

DU is not the place where serious things happen - for that you have to step away from the keyboard and engage with the real world.

[SunSeeker]

33. The Florida kids are doing just that--engaging with the real world.

Thanks for paying attention.

[hack89]

35. I applaud them for their efforts

and I suspect there will be some incremental improvements made.

And of course I am paying attention - this is a riveting moment in American history. But I am not paying attention from a perspective that radical change is coming. I am paying attention because I admire what these kids are doing.

[onetexan]

18. I'm waiting for a great American university to give this kid a full scholarship

he deserves it

[calimary]

49. I'm waiting for voters to give him a new job.

As their duly-elected representative, either state-wide or nationally.

Because he deserves this also. Because we ALL deserve it.

[onetexan]

67. not yet, let him go get a college education

he is part of our party's future.

[SunSeeker]

19. I love it!

[pazzyanne]

22. The outline is good except

I live in a very rural area where the local gun club is a building in the middle of nowhere that is not manned unless there is a meeting or shooting event being held there. This might work in larger metro areas, but there is not one manned shooting range within a hundred and fifty to two hundred miles. Also, this as a stand alone law won't see the light of day, because I can see non-NRA gun holders who presently support sensible gun laws turning off this large and inclusive a bill. I believe we would be better off focusing on the most needed laws right now, such as universal background checks, tightening a nation wide data base, ban gun stocks, raising the age for gun ownership to 21, limit on the number of bullets in a magazine, and working on an inclusive bill that works on banning or at least limiting the ownership of "military" grade weapons. It's not that I disagree with the individual components of the plan, but put it all together and we will reinforce the "they are coming to take away our guns" narrative.

[flamin lib]

34. It's a beginning point for negotiation. I see it as rather modest as first offer seeking compromise

and consensus. If you don't ask you sure as hell won't get.

[Straw Man]

45. Actually, it isn't.

It's so extreme as to short-circuit any discussion. It's a gun-banner's Christmas wish list that no one could ever see as a good faith opener.

[pazzyanne]

58. Agree.

But again you have to consider the people you are trying to persuade and their history. Right now is a good time to push for the changes. If this outline is used to start the conversations, great, but your audience also needs to be considered if you want this to move forward. As for me, I am not a gun humper. I do come from a rural hunting family. There are strict rules for anyone who joins a family hunting party, many of the things in that outline are already part and parcel of my family's hunting protocol.

[Straw Man]

42. Reinforce?

It's not that I disagree with the individual components of the plan, but put it all together and we will reinforce the "they are coming to take away our guns" narrative.

Reinforce it? It will embody it, writ large. That is undeniable.

He's talking about, among other things, outlawing rifle scopes, outlawing the vast majority -- 80 or 90% -- of the firearms currently owned in the US, eliminating all forms of target shooting because practice ammunition would be unavailable ... It would unite and radicalize all segments of the gun owning population, including the ones that currently are complacent because "They aren't coming for OUR guns": the deer hunters, waterfowl and upland bird hunters, trap and skeet shooters, smallbore rifle shooters, cowboy action shooters, and collectors of all sorts. It would bring on the biggest membership surge the NRA has ever seen, and would swell their coffers beyond their wildest imaginings.

Don't overestimate your groundswell of support here. I'm reminded of what Pauline Kael said when told that Nixon had won in 1968: "How could that be? I don't know anyone who voted for him."

[pazzyanne]

57. And I am just saying

that your argument is valid, but when trying to persuade people to your point of view, too much information falls on deaf ears. Good heavens, take a look at what happens when someone suggests banning bump stocks. Don't take me wrong, I don't disagree with most of what is in the outline. I just know human nature.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

32. Yea ok

Smh

[flamin lib]

38. I thought I heard something rattling . . . nt

[flamin lib]

36. With only minor differences this is how the Military treats guns. They seem to know a lot about gun

and how to use them.

[Straw Man]

47. Minor differences?

I wasn't aware that the military uses single-shot weapons and abjures scopes and other aiming devices.

[TygrBright]

39. It's a good starting place.

It could conceivably be negotiated in good faith to legislate the accurate terminology to enact his intent.

As far as I can tell he wants to restrict the availability of semi- and full-auto capable weapons, sights that would enable sniper-style usage at a range greater than the capacity of ordinary law enforcement weapons (which would still enable some sights/scopes for hunting use at moderate distances), and the kind of high-capacity magazines that enable mass shootings.

He appears to want to permit hunters and sport shooters to enjoy their sport at ranges and designated hunting grounds, and those concerned with personal and home safety to have handguns for the purpose.

He doesn't reference certain types of collectors' concerns (black-powder weapons, antique/historical guns, reproductions, etc., but that, too, could be negotiated.

Some of the specifics he suggests sound logistically difficult to implement and potentially costly to enforce, but I suspect there are other negotiable options that would achieve the desired ends.

It comes down to what costs more: thousands of human lives each year? Or the political consequences of attempting to redefine and restrict a constitutional right, and deal with the passionate rage of the disappointed?

Constitutional rights DO come with restrictions. You may not exercise your freedom of speech by painting an advertisement for your product on the side of my house, for example.

I wish I could say it would be greeted with something other than automatic opposition and furious gunsplaining about "WHY THIS CAN'T WORK!!)

diffidently,
Bright

[Straw Man]

43. Not really.

There are several poison pills in there, most notably the insistence on single-shot firearms. You're turning back the clock to the mid-nineteenth century there.

It comes down to what costs more: thousands of human lives each year? Or the political consequences of attempting to redefine and restrict a constitutional right, and deal with the passionate rage of the disappointed?

That's the same type of argument that brought us the Volstead Act. And we all know how well that one worked out.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

54. GEEE, just like owning a car... or a house...

1. Full ownership
2. Subject to local registration
3. "well regulated" as per the Constitution
4. Restrictions on size and safety features
5. Insurance required
6. Must pass a test

Could it be any simpler?

[Lurker Deluxe]

63. Stop already ....

1. Full ownership? WTF does that mean?

2. You do not have to register any vehicle unless you intend on driving it on public roads

3. "well regulated" as per the Constitution - what about a house or car is "well regulated"?

4. Restrictions on size and safety features - such as? There is a restriction on the size of a house? Or car? Really?

5. Insurance required - Insurance is not required on either a car or a house

6. Must pass a test - a test is not required to own either a car or a house

The comparison to cars and houses is not a smart argument .... neither is a constitutional right, and there really are few restrictions to what you can do to either. I can bolt five V8 engines on a car if I feel like it, and there is no law or regulation that says differently.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

68. Not to be picky, but everyone submits to these obvious regulations...

1. "Full" ownership unless you want to run a business from your home or car. Or burn them both down which would be as practical as bolting together five V8 engines.
2. You are correct. I don't need to register a car if I just want to look at. As such I have no issue with weapons of war which are locked in a gun safe.
3 and 4. Cars - A laundry list of safety requirements. Do you recall seat belts. And required to actually use them in most states - and be responsible for passengers as well as self. Width is regulated both locally and federally. Homes - in my neighborhood it can't be more than 45% of lot size. Fire protection now required. In more wealthy neighborhoods - minimum square footage.
5. Car - Minimum insurance required or no plates and cancelled license Home - try changing the insurance clause on a mortgage.
6. Have you heard of Driver License tests? Vision and Hearing tests? Qualifying for a mortgage on a house.

The point of the post (which I guess you missed) is that cars and houses, just like most things in our life, are "well regulated" (to use the words of the Founders) and we accept them and live with them every day of our lives (unless one lives in Houston).

As for guns, even Antonin Scalia, the most conservative Justice in my lifetime, clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment was not unlimited. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) on pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

[Motownman78]

69. Guns are already "Well Regulated"

With hundreds of gun laws on the books.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

72. Which is why there is no Constitutional prohibition against

enacting regulations which prohibit ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

The current SCOTUS position is that restriction IS Constitutional. All we need is more governmental bodies (and hopefully the federal government) to pass such laws.

Federal law would eliminate the need for the hundreds of conflicting laws currently on the books.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Lurker Deluxe]

70. But they do not ... and do not have to

You can change pretty much any aspect of your car and it is not illegal. Manual, want an automatic ... government does not care. If the vehicle did not have seat belts when it was made, you do not have to put them in the car. In most states one can have a bond and not have auto insurance. Your home does not need to be insured, the bank is protecting the asset until it is paid for, after that ... no one cares.

Driver license tests are not required to own a car, a mortgage is not needed to own a home.

The point of post, and others like it, is I do not want guns treated like other property ... I want more strict regulations.

Millions of people drive every day without insurance and licenses, homes go uninsured, and safety features are purposefully disabled with little to no penalty.

You have "no problem" with "weapons of war" locked in a gun safe? I do ... do not think they should be allowed for purchase. Gun treated like a car? Came from the manufacturer that way ... do not have to change it, nothing you can do about that.

Yes, I live in Houston and have property in the country. I have old junk cars and all sorts of other crap that I really have no use for and pretty much no one knows what I have ... and no one cares. I do not think we should treat guns that way.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

71. Thanks for the reply.

Thanks for the discussion. Yes, antique cars don't need seatbelts. But one suffers if they remove the belts from modern cars. I don't begrudge my neighbor for his collection of antique guns. None of them shoot bullets designed to destroy the organs of a target. I think I'm being a realist when I think we will never fully eliminate currently owned weapons of war, either automatic or semi-automatic, which I think is just a semantics game. Like being semi-pregnant. but I think they should no longer be sold.

Yes, I can drive as fast as I want with no insurance and no seatbelts. I can build an addition to my house without benefit of permit. I can drive against traffic in the wrong lane or drive across someone's flower bed. But if caught, I am responsible for the consequences.

Didn't know you lived in Houston. I believe it is still the largest city in the world with absolutely no zoning laws.

[boston bean]

81. What did you want. Insistence on registration only if one plans on using it on the public.

[MuseRider]

56. I like it! Responsible gun ownership.

Very good. Of course there needs to be clarification (don't ask me what or why, it sounds good to me now) but this is what I would call a guide for responsible gun ownership. To those of you who have been responsible and don't like this, I am sorry. You all did not control what people with weapons should be able to do so we will. I would imagine that I would shudder in fright if I knew how many guns were around me in this tiny, rural place I live in, I hear them all the time. It would be so nice if I could sit down to just one holiday dinner without hearing someone blasting away all around me and worrying about my life, my families and my livestock. It is amazing how often one goes down and nobody is ever held responsible for it. Thankfully I have been lucky in that regard.

This would go a long way to making lives a little less frightful and I think they are wonderful for what they are doing.

Responsible gun ownership. Why would anyone think that is a bad idea?

[Straw Man]

62. Excuse me ...

You all did not control what people with weapons should be able to do so we will.

... but could you tell me how and why responsible gun owners are supposed to control what criminals and psychopaths "should be able to do"?

[MuseRider]

86. Blah blah blah

The guns are the problem. Your "hobby" of killing things should not be held as sacred over the lives of the rest of us. Controlling criminals and psychopaths has not helped. Weapons that can knock out that many people before anyone realizes what is going on do not belong in our society. Period. It takes one second for a seemingly normal person to snap. There is only one workable solution, the others have not worked. Get rid of them. Learn to play chess or how about walking in the woods and admiring other animals? If you own them just to own them then let them go. How would you feel if one of them was stolen and killed other people's children? If it would not make you absolutely crazy with grief then you are part of the problem.

All these proposals are is regulation killing weapons. I see no problem with that. If you cannot feel good driving to visit your precious weapons and checking them out and using them under a controlled environment then you are a problem.

[Straw Man]

88. Nice rant.

But also full of false dichotomies and broad strokes. Are you aware the 99.96 gun owners do not kill anyone with their guns?

Before you start telling me that I am the problem, let me ask you a few questions. Do you drink alcohol? Do you use recreational drugs? If the answer to either of these is "Yes," then by your logic of collective guilt you have countless deaths on your karmic balance sheet. See how that works?

There is only one workable solution, the others have not worked.

Really? How many others have we tried? How many have been rejected out of hand because they detract from the overall goal of a ban?

[MuseRider]

89. Don't care.

Your hobby, ego, or desire to feel powerful does not/should not supercede the comfort and freedom of the lives of other people.

It would seem to me that anyone who IS a responsible gun owner would be responsible enough to do this, to see the need. SO really, you have not shot anyone. How responsible are you for your group culture of owning weapons that can kill groups of people rapidly? It sounds so petulant. Not need to answer this because...

I DO NOT CARE.

[Straw Man]

98. That's obvious.

It would seem to me that anyone who IS a responsible gun owner would be responsible enough to do this, to see the need.

To see the need for what? The revocation of a fundamental right, dressed up as a moral imperative and presented as the only possible solution to a phenomenon that screams "Failed society!" out loud? Bullshit. I am a gun owner, but I am not responsible for the creation of Dylan Roof and Nikolas Cruz. I am answerable for my behavior and ONLY my behavior.

The collective-guilt trip is the same old Catch-22: "If you gun owners won't stop buying those things, we'll have to ban them, and it'll be your fault." Please. The warped logic is plain.

Let me repeat: with 80 million gun owners and 33,000 gun deaths per year, 99.96% of gun owners are behaving responsibly in any given year, i.e. not killing themselves or others. Are these people supposed to be infiltrating gangs to thwart murder plots? Trolling the Internet for potential school shooters to interdict? Volunteering on suicide crisis hotlines? Would that satisfy your demand that responsible gun owners do something about the problem? I can tell you right now that the average gun owner has no desire to advocate for new and higher hoops that he/she will then have to jump through despite not being the source of the problem in the first place. But that's what you want, isn't it?

Remove one weapon and another will be substituted. The human mind is endlessly creative. Here's a question: What was the weapon that produced the largest death toll of any single attack in modern American history? Answer: a can of gasoline. It killed 87 people at the Happy Land Social Club in the Bronx, NY, in 1990.

Ask yourself why increasing numbers of Americans want to waste as many of their fellow humans as they can. That's the REAL question.

[Bonx]

61. That's going nowhere at light speed.

[marieo1]

64. minngal

David Hogg, you are one smart young man. I agree and can't understand why anyone can drive with a driver's license until they have an accident. Why not license all guns? A license that you can carry in your wallet with number of guns owned. This could be for a period of 2-3 years and at the end of that time, their license needs to be renewed. Note on the license if there are any violations and if they exceed 4-5 violations then can't ever own a gun again. the shootings have gone on way too long and right now we need drastic measures.

[hunter]

66. Gun fetishes must be denormalized as drunk driving or smoking in the workplace were.

That begins with spouses and lovers, parents and children, friends and community.

We must empower people to reject gun fetishes.

"Honey we love you, but it's us or the guns..."

"No, you don't get to see the grandchildren until you get rid of the guns..."

"Guns. Eeeeewwwww. Bad date. Blocked number."

"Dude, that's fucked up..."

Three-quarters of us can't be bothered to own gun. Most gun owners have one or two they don't think about much, the guns are locked up and come to think of it they haven't been hunting with uncle Joe and the cousins for a few years now. Forty year old guys who wouldn't buy a gun porn magazine at the liquor store any sooner than they'd buy a "just eighteen" porn magazine.

Most new guns are sold to the fetishists, just as most beer is sold to the alcoholics. That's the problem population, that's the gun culture that psychopaths are attracted to, those are the people who keep guns carelessly for burglars to steal or sell their guns to sketchy buyers who let them trickle down into the illegal gun trade.

Gun love is disgusting.

[aikoaiko]

74. I can hear all the palms slapping foreheads among Democrats in office.

Almost none of this is anything Democrats can afford to get behind if they want to stay in office.

But carry on with overreaching.

[Sophia4]

76. I would add no guns for those convicted of domestic violence or violent acts.

[raven mad]

79. He'll either grow up to be POTUS -

or Capo di tutti capi!

[blake2012]

112. Kick and Recommend! Go, kids, Go!