General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDC Considers Law Requiring Gun Owners To Take Out $250K Insurance Policy
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/dc-considers-law-requiring-gun-owners-to-takeDemocratic Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced the law. CBS DC reported that the insurance would cover damages resulting from either accidental or intentional uses of guns that was not connected to self defense. Washington already has some of the stiffest gun control laws in the country.
Similar insurance legislation is being looked at in multiple state, but has yet to pass.
This will almost certainly pass the DC council, and the GOP in Congress has been making some surprisingly home-rule-ish statements of late, so it could very well survive Congress too. A lot of DUers have been interested in the insurance idea, so keep your eyes on DC to see whether this works well or not. (OTOH, illegal guns outnumber legal ones in DC by a factor of 1000 to 1 or so.)
Also, realistically, this is really just another attempt to avoid issuing permits, but I would imagine there will be an insurer that carries this, possibly even the NRA itself.
ret5hd
(20,518 posts)I see no prob with this.
premium
(3,731 posts)and here it is so, bear with me, it's hard enough and expensive already just to get the D.C. permit, on top of the cost of a firearm, so, how would poor people be able to afford the insurance?
And before anyone says that if they can afford to purchase a gun, then they can afford the ins., here's the problem, a firearm purchase is a one time expense, ins. is a recurring expense.
I suspect that given D.C.'s past record on allowing their citizens to have firearms and the numerous roadblocks they throw up to deter gun ownership, this is just another ruse to discourage the average citizen from being able to own one.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)To discourage ownership.
premium
(3,731 posts)I'll bet the SCOTUS will have a lot to say about it, probably nothing good.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)health insurance,car insurance,and home insurance. ya i can do without them but do i? nope.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm not sure what it's supposed to cover (I still don't think it's actually legal for an insurance company to insure against a crime committed by the policyholder), but assuming this passes we can at least see what it does.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)type of coverage?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Most of what the NRA itself does is provide insurance
but not for criminal or preventable negligent acts.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)to its members. Not too expensive but pretty basic. A few other companies offer insurance with better coverage through gap coverage or general liability.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The NRA must be greedily rubbing their palms together at the very NOTION of this. Think about it... No insurance company is going to want to get involved. Remember how the banks deserted the gun makers like rats from a sinking ship? Was the DC City Council asleep while that was going on? Well guess what: this is a ship the insurance rats won't get on in the first place. Who does that leave in the balance? The NRA. Yep. They'll offer insurance so much cheaper than any other insurance company who DOES decide to get involved; gun owners would be STUPID to go anywhere else. And they'll make TONS of money because most LEGAL gun owners aren't going to be filing any claims, EVER.
This is what happens when emotion trumps smart planning. Way to go DC City Council. So, yeah. Fill the NRA coffers with as much money as you can throw at them, and then piss and moan when they spend that money to get conservatives elected.