Mandatory gun insurance before lawmakers in 4 states

[SecularMotion]

Lawmakers in four states are considering measures that would require gun owners to maintain liability insurance or face a fine of up to $10,000.

Current gun liability insurance efforts are underway in Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York and Los Angeles. The measures are similar to one introduced last year in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY. Maloney's bill, the Firearm Risk Protection Act, would require proof of liability insurance before someone is allowed to purchase a gun. Failure to have the insurance could result in the fine.

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said at the time of the bill's introduction. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise."

The proposal in Hawaii follows along those lines. Gun owners would be required to have insurance for their firearms and renew their registration every five years, under the bill introduced last week by Democratic State Sen. Josh Green. Hawaii currently requires guns to be registered, but that documentation is only required once.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/mandatory_gun_insurance_before.html

[In_The_Wind]

1. Well, that's nice. Now I'll have to buy insurance to cover a gun I've owned since 1988.

Hope it isn't too expensive.

[SecularMotion]

3. You can thank the NRA and irresponsible gun owners

The NRA's promotion of Guns For Everyone has resulted in too many people owning/carrying guns without sufficient training or education on gun use. New regulations are needed to require responsible gun use.

[In_The_Wind]

4. Yup. Owning a gun isn't a responsibility that EVERYONE can handle.

I've been through gun safety training. I also have a permit to carry but my gun hasn't left home for many years. I don't go anywhere that I truly feel the need to carry it with me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. What your interlocutor is neglecting to mention is --

The NRA already sells liability insurance for gun owners. If these bills pass it is highly probable that more money will flow to the NRA and gun industry.

For those who dislike the NRA exercising its first, as well as second, amendment rights the idea of compelling gun owners to carry insurance seems to be them -- if you'll pardon the turn of phrase -- shooting themselves in the foot.

[In_The_Wind]

9. Ah ha! Thanks for that information.

I've been a gun owner for almost 50 years. I would hate to give up the one I have due to an additional bill I would have to pay.

[shadowrider]

52. Once again, I'm truly impressed.

You've come a long way from where you were when you first got here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. I've never seen any literature from the NRA's "Guns for Everyone" campaign. Do you have any links?

You seem like a guy who has a lot of links. I'm thinking, if anyone would have a link it would be you.

[SecularMotion]

7. "Everyone Gets A Gun" NRA Ad Campaign

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. That's a pretty bold misrepresentation, particularly in context of your OP claiming

there's a need for liability insurance.

You hate the idea of safety training because that would undermine your desire to tax people out of their rights.

[krispos42]

34. Do you expect career criminals to insure their guns?

Jesus, I can't believe you think this is some sort of effective idea. Shouldn't we be requiring career criminals to carry insurance so that anybody they hurt during their criminal activities can get treatment?




"Hi, Geico, my name is John Smith. I'm about to embark on a career selling illegal drugs and I want liability insurance to protect myself and any victims or property I may be forced to damage or destroy during this career".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Gun insurance is just another gun-control brain fart

It won't do what they say and stands no chance of passing into law.

Keep doing your part to annoy the control minded. Everyday that passes finding you and tens of millions of others not taking potshots at anything and anyone from POTUS to your neighbor's parakeet demonstrates their paranoia.

Have a great day.

[In_The_Wind]

12. LOL! Yes, gun insurance is gun-control. I don't need gun insurance.

[Duckhunter935]

2. who knew Los Angeles

Was a state?

[ileus]

5. Hopefully the people will tell these asshats to stuff it....

backdoor gun bans should be exposed and everyone involved outed for just what they are.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. General Correction here addressing Major fail

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said at the time of the bill's introduction. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise."

Where is insurance required to own a car? What country is she talking about? I might understand insurance for those who want to carry in public but to OWN? No.

Motor vehicle fatalities are dropping but I don't see how that has anything to do with car insurance. Motor vehicle fatalities were on the rise from 1999 to 2002 but insurance has been mandatory since the '70s. This is just nonsense.

Any comment from you on this blatant batch of non-logic and lies you posted?

[Duckhunter935]

13. of course not

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. On my desktop...

...I have a couple shortcuts. Clicking them opens my browser directly to the ignore confirmation of some particular members that I choose not read to read before the coffee takes effect. I suspect our OP here may engage in a similar wise practice.

[TeddyR]

14. Thanks for pointing out these disconnects

The insurance = fewer deaths statement stood out to me. I'm not aware of any study (though I haven't looked for one) that shows insurance resulted in few auto deaths. That seems sort of silly actually - perhaps safer cars and strict seatbelt laws resulted in fewer deaths, but I'm not sure why increased ownership of auto insurance policies would decrease deaths.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. In claiming that insurance prevents accidents...

Congresswoman Maloney has moved into second place behind Hank Johnson of Georgia.
At least for me.

[Duckhunter935]

20. oh, that's a classic one

I also like how magazines get all use up during shooting

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. It is an odd paradox...

...how similar a firearm is to some gun-control advocates; both are simple tools.

[Duckhunter935]

27. lol

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. I'm here all week

[krispos42]

35. Nice to know that liability insurance decreases car fatalities.

[DonP]

36. "gun fatalties continue to rise"? Since when?

Ummmm, not according to all those "right wing" those liars in the FBI.

Gun fatalities are way down, at a 40 year low last time I checked.

But Gun control fans probably get their numbers from Bloomberg's nether regions anyway.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. re: "...all those "right wing" those liars in the FBI."

...and "Gun fatalities are way down..."

I know, Reverend, you're preachin' to the choir.

[DonP]

40. I could understand their skepticism a while back ...

When Bush/Cheney were in charge, but this has been President Obama's and Holder/Lynch's FBI for over 7 years now.

Do the grabber types really believe he and his AGs have had the FBI cooking the crime books to make it look better than it is?

I have to go with they just don't read or believe anything that doesn't agree with all the preconceived religious beliefs.

Gun Control is obviously a faith based movement that doesn't require or accept proof.


Meh, we're still winning and crime is still dropping ... for anyone paying attention.

[TeddyR]

16. So one example of firearms liability insurance

Can be found at this website - https://mynrainsurance.com/insurance-products/liability-personal-firearms. Would cost me about $50 year for $100,000 in coverage. Notice that the coverage is very limited - it basically covers any accident while hunting or at a firing range but not any accidental (or intentional) shooting that might occur at the home.

Separately, there's a NRA-approved self-defense policy that costs $165 a year for $100,000 in coverage. This covers defense costs and bodily injury, although $100,000 in coverage will be gone in a hurry if you get sued. Again, this does NOT appear to cover injuries caused by negligence and of course none of these policies will cover suicide. In some instances this insurance is more than the cost of the firearm - are the taxpayers going to provide subsidies to help cover the cost of insurance for low-income individuals?

Would every criminal arrested with a gun be subject to this $10,000 fine and jail time if they can't pay it?

A law like this might pass in Los Angeles, maybe New York, but not likely to pass elsewhere and I wonder about its constitutionality.

[flamin lib]

19. Considering that the average injury by gun costs

about a $million in direct medical treatment, is $100,000 enough?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. I think the insurance...

...would only cover accidental injuries. Is that figure current for accidents or for all firearm injuries?

[Duckhunter935]

29. is insurance required to OWN

a car? If not then the article is a load of bunk.

[flamin lib]

31. No, Duckhunter935, it is not. However if it is operated on public property it is.

If you never leave your property with your gun I couldn't giver a rats ass if you own a gun or have insurance. However if you venture into the public domain with it it's a whole different situation.

[TeddyR]

30. This insurance

Isn't going to cover accidental shootings in the home and isn't going to cover criminal shootings. If someone breaks into my house and I shoot them and am not adjudged to have committed a crime then I hope my insurance isn't going to cover the criminals medical bills. The criminal is on his or her own. So yeah, $100k is plenty

[Duckhunter935]

21. so how does insurance

Cut down on automobile deaths? The truth is that insurance is not required to OWN a car, right?

I will be waiting for you response so we can discuss this per the SOP of the group.

[flamin lib]

32. Well, Duckhunter935, you know full well that the purpose of auto insurance isn't to

prevent accidents but to pay for the damage done by them to innocent bystanders. How about you add something to the discussion instead of following your usual habit of bitching about the OP?

[Duckhunter935]

33. wow, little worked up today

I was just trying to figure out how insurance lowered deaths as stated in the OP. So if it did not, them why the new laws if that is what they are putting out.

It would be nice if the OP would discuss his post, but that might be asking a lot.

Calm down, and have a great day.

[beevul]

38. Interesting standard.

How about you add something to the discussion instead of following your usual habit of bitching about the OP?

Interesting standard. If one "bitches" about the OP, one is at least getting involved.

Please apply your standard to the poster of the OP, wont you?

[Duckhunter935]

39. you would think

They would want to discuss the OP? I guess since it was not going as predicted and in their favor it is now bitching. At least that poster responded unlike the OP who runs away as fast as possible.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Seeing as you are a gun dealer, I have a couple of questions about insurance for you:

Reference:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172155334#post31

I hold a C&R FFL, own more guns than I have fingers, know local and national laws and probably more about firearm development and its effect on warfare than most.

1. Do you buy insurance from the NRA?

2. How much do your premiums run every month?

2. Is criminal use of the firearms you own and/or sell covered by your policy?

[DonP]

43. Ooooh, uncomfortable questions.

I don't think "we" like to answer those.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. That lot tend to quite voluble, until awkward questions are asked

[DonP]

45. Yup, I asked a few and ... nada

Did you know for example, that in spite of the anti types on DU calling for, among other attacks; breaking the arms of a black man carrying concealed, or suggesting that all gun owners should be drowned, and other "good natured kidding around", no one ever actually threatens gun owners?

Oh, and any time a gun grabber says they were threatened by "gun nutz", it must be believed without any proof, even if they have a track record as an accomplished liar.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Since our self-declared gun dealer interlocutor has also stated that they hate the PLCAA...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629055

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

Sounds pretty innocuous as most monstrous miscarriages of justice do, but it's not. This thing was written by the gun lobby and passed in 2005. It effectively immunizes gun makers and sellers from civil suits stemming from the use of their weaponry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629297

It's time to repeal the PLCAA.

...a question comes to mind:

If they ever get sued civilly for selling legally a gun later used in a crime, would they:

1. Settle as quickly as possible, or

2. Mount a defense?

[shadowrider]

53. Arm yourself with cans of beans

or a bicycle tire or a staff. You'll be safe then.

I promise.

[Duckhunter935]

47. you really expect an answer

To some very reasonable questions?

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Not really, it's more to illustrate how the controllers fold when things get tough

[Marengo]

49. To clarify, a C&R FFL does NOT authorize the holder to operate a firearms business

It purpose is mainly to streamline the acquisition process for collectors. He's not, or at least shouldn't be operating as, a dealer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. He would still most likely have insurance, as his collection has monetary value

No insurance underwriter that I know of would cover criminal acts by a policyholder.

And as for his being a C&R FFL:

I've yet to run across a collector of anything that didn't sell off or otherwise dispose
of things that they no longer wanted or regarded as excess (the sane ones, anyway)

If, through no fault of his own, FL legally transfers/sells a firearm, and said firearm
ends up being used in a crime- would FL have the courage of his convictions and
take the (financial) rap if a victim decided to sue him?

It's not an abstract question- he's stated his opposition to the PLCAA several times.

[GGJohn]

23. ....

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said at the time of the bill's introduction.

She is such an idiot, insurance isn't required to own a car, it's just required to drive that vehicle on public roads.

[DonP]

24. Best NRA Recruiting tool ever. Wayne might even send you a T-shirt for the idea!

It's cute when you get all excited about another thing that will never happen. All it takes is some back bencher to propose another gun control scam as a fund raising stunt and you give it life on DU.

This insurance scam, if it ever passes and before SCOTUS kills it, is a prime example of wishful thinking that will wind up with you and your ilk scratching your heads and wondering; "Gee, the NRA membership jumped by another million plus dues paying members, how did that happen?"

Just like all the whining and foaming at the mouth by gun control people is responsible for the record level sales of the AR-15.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. What is it they say about...

...repeating the same behavior but expecting a different result?

I also heard they're building another Titanic.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Religious types don't change their behavior when confronted with empirical evidence

They merely ignore it and double down, all the while fully expecting That Day to happen
Real Soon Now...

[NaturalHigh]

51. Fortunately I live in a gun-friendly state.

[benEzra]

54. Ah, means-testing to discourage the working class and minorities from owning guns.

"Only people with lots of disposable income could be allowed to own guns." That line of thought in the gun control movement goes back a long way.