Skip to comments.Advocates push idea of requiring gun insurance
Posted on 01/18/2013 2:12:04 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.
A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure. The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.
"Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace," said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill's sponsor.
And insurers have more leeway than law enforcement in some cases, he said.
Massachusetts already has gun storage laws, but police cannot come into a person's home without a warrant, Linsky pointed out. An insurance company, however, would be able to verify that there is proper gun storage before writing a policy.
Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures say to their knowledge no state has adopted a gun insurance requirement.
The idea is already meeting with resistance for gun rights advocates, who say it amounts to more regulation aimed at law-abiding gun-owners.
"Now we're going to have insurance companies telling us how we are supposed to be trained and where we are going to store our guns?" said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts.
Craig Baenziger, who works at a gun- and ammunition-seller in North Attleboro, Mass., called Northeast Trading Co., said requiring liability insurance for guns makes little sense because it targets people who buy the weapons legally instead of going after criminals who illegally possess them.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.com ...
Then only limo-liberals get to exercise the second amendment. These “progressives” are soooo smart. Smart like the devil.
How about voting insurance, so the rest of us can get reimbursed for damages by the idiots who voted in Obama and the other Dems?
Bull Sh!t idea.
Gun insurance? How about STUPID insurance for the legislators?
Notice this bill originates in Massachusetts, the insurance capital of the USA?
What a scam.
Welfare for plaintif lawyers.
Requiring docs to carry malpractice insurance created the malpractice industry.
Can someone explain the LOGIC in that...?
Lemme review that; it's good when laws punish law-abiding people, and leave unmolested the law breakers.
Do I have that right...?
Mentally-ill, lib-dems, flailing-about for anything which’ll accomplish their socialist/marxist/fascist/commie goals of “gun control”. This is also going nowhere. (Unless treasonous John Roberts requires it, by another SCOTUS tax/mandate decision.)
And just how would that reduce crime committed with guns? It wouldn’t. It is just another measure intended to harass gun owner and cost them money.
Hey! Government can compel you to buy health insurance you don't want; the Supremes even said it was constitutional. This is only the logical next step: liability insurance for those DANGEROUS weapons in your home.
Can't afford it? Have to sell your weapons? Too bad.
If someone steals a Bushmaster and raids the local High School. A couple of things are about to happen. The first is that the perpetrator doesn’t have any insurance because he stole the rifle and ammunition. Second the thirty five students that he offed are going to have to apply on their own for burial funds.
I doubly second that motion.....
I'm sure we will soon have a Federal Registration Fee.....RETROACTIVE....and wait until you have tyo report possession on your 2013 Form 1040.
Yep you can have your guns but lts going to cost you $200 month in insurance fee. WTH?! Why? Because I’m the big bad wolf and I sad so - B. Hussein Obama.
The government needs to get out of the insurance business period.
> How about voting insurance, so the rest of us can get reimbursed for damages by the idiots who voted in Obama and the other Dems?
I 2nd that. Now file a WH petition...
Second the thirty five students that he offed are going to have to apply on their own for burial funds.
Everyone lives happily ever after. : )
How about if we have all Criminals, or those MOST PRONE TO BREAK THE LAW (aka, the Usual Suspects), purchase “Liability Insurance”, so they can compensate THEIR victims????
and the school loan business and the mortgage business and the abortion business etc etc etc
Let’s see, when I get auto insurance, the insurance company requires identifying information regarding my autos.
When I get a rider on my homeowner’s policy for particular items, they want identifying information on those items.
When I want to get firearms insurance....
You do all understand that this is a backdoor into registration of firearms, don’t you? As well as, of course, a way in which to make it more expensive to own guns.
Oh, and those that are denied insurance - no guns. How convenient.
Phuck this idea.
By the way, general liability insurance (i.e. an umbrella policy) will cover such liabilities, provided you aren’t engaged in a criminal act when the injury in question occurs.
So, the idea here is to transfer the liability from the misuser of the firearm to the person who owns it? I guess that will apply to hammers, baseball bats, knives etc sometime in the future too?
These guys never give up.
Check this out, as well as #24.
For the left, it is always about money.
You’re right. I think we can expect “mandatory gun insurance.”
As someone in the insurance business you already have liability insurance if you have a homeowner policy. This liability follows you where you go. Check with your insurance agent for specifies though as policy coverage will differ by company.
Here in the DC metro area, one in ten drivers don’t have insurance, so I expect gun insurance would follow the same pattern.
Just like driving a car without insurance.
A separate charge.
Committing an armed robbery and being ALSO charged with no weapon insurance.
Next it will be to individually insure each bullet, with another charge being ‘chain of custody’ on a bullet used in the commission of a crime.
The lawyers AND insurers fall all over each other in new schemes to extort money from us, and if it came right down to it they are probably in collusion.
Few years ago I was raising ‘hell’ with the State over the Uninsured Motorist fee...You threaten me with jail, seizure of vehicle and tags, if I drive without insurance YET I have to ‘pay’ into a fund for others so they can drive without insurance.
The State blames the insurance companies and the insurance companies blame the states.....
Stupid private sector tax payers...Like their cars, lets pass laws making these stupid tax peons to pay to register these things over and over and over and over...every damn year. If anyone mentions the Constitution, or rights, just laugh in their faces. Make them pay 100 bucks each a year, and give them a little pink sticker to stick on these things for their trouble...
Thanks for bringing that up! Always follow the money.
It makes more sense for those who don’t contribute to their own defense and safety by purchasing a firearm and being proficient in it’s use to pay a tax to local gov’ts to cover the cost of local law enforcement.
These people are relentless.
What they really want, and what "gun insurance" amounts to is registration which always leads to...
...say it with me...
the insurance companies are all looking to help. LOL
This is the reason why you need to kill criminals and not injure. To do that you need gun control ... of the accuracy variety.
Excellent! My nomination for post of the day.
The Governor of New York made a fool of himself by signing legislation attempting an end run.
The fools are assuming people will give a damn about their pitiful efforts and follow the law.
Because gooberment interference in the health insurance industry has worked out so well. /s
Reproduction is an unalienable human right and there is a tremendous correlation between criminal behavior of children raised in a household without a strong male presence.
Since far more murders are committed with hands, fists and knives, it would seem that if any insurance is up for discussion, it would seem that requiring conception and child-raising insurance should be required before any copulation is permitted would yield far better social benefits.
Generating trash isn’t the difficult part - disposal is.
The goal here is VERY SIMPLE, and that is to increase the opportunity cost of gun ownership on law-abiding people.
For good people, the cost is a big factor. In other words, why spend an extra $1,000 and fill out all this paperwork for a weapon that you very likely will never need (i.e., I suspect that 95% of law-abiding people never have to display or use their weapon for protection).
For bad people, opportunity cost is simply NOT a factor. You buy the weapon to rob people or businesses (or kill, or whatever)...so you know its value right off and you know it will be used - it often pays for itself the first time used.
So you price-out the good people - and gun ownership drops from 50% to, maybe, 15%. At that point, you confiscate...since there are not enough owners to fight back, as happened in many other countries.
That is why we fight EVERYTHING that makes gun ownership more difficult - our rights are ONLY protected by our numbers, once we’re decreased, it’s simply GAME OVER, at some point...likely sooner than later.
The gun IS my insurance.
Ah, it’s the invincible, invulnerable insurance racket again: a necessary part of New Rome.
No. Taxing something that is a fundamental God given RIGHT is wrong. What would be next? Taxing free speech?
Somehow, I don’t think criminals buy insurance any more than they comply with gun control laws.