Posted on 01/26/2013 1:59:56 PM PST by Graybeard58
Lawmakers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and a number of other states are presenting bills that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance. For the responsible gun owner, it's sensible to have such coverage. Indeed, National Rifle Association members can buy coverage with a $100,000 limit for $47 a year, plus $118 for self-defense coverage. A $250,000 limit costs $67, plus $187 for self-defense coverage.
O. Ricardo Pimental, a columnist for the San Antonio, Texas, Express-News, "reached out to a couple of insurance agents who drew a scenario under which gun owners could attach an excess liability or umbrella policy to existing homeowner or renters insurance. If we're talking as Illinois once did, of, say, $1 million in liability gun insurance, one agent suggested a cost of $250 annually, on top of your existing homeowners premium."
How thoughtful of Mr. Pimental to let his readers know the real-world, real-dollar effects of such proposals. Would it be too much to ask that "journalists" and politicians in Connecticut do the same? To our knowledge, none has.
We reviewed news stories about the proposal by Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury, and Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, and found nothing about costs.
Here as everywhere else in life today, cost matters. This is especially true with costs imposed on citizens who are exercising a constitutional right, as opposed to those partaking of a privilege granted by government.
If a court finds the costs are so onerous as to be an infringement of Second Amendment rights, the law would be deemed unconstitutional.
The Godfrey-Bye bill also would establish a 50 percent tax on ammunition purchased at retail stores. Ammunition sold at gun ranges for use in target shooting would be exempt.
"The object is not to stop legitimate target practice, but to stop people from using them as weapons of mass destruction," Rep. Godfrey told The Connecticut Post.
Of course, a mentally disturbed person bent on mass murder won't concern himself with how much his ammunition costs; nor will he be troubled by rules governing liability insurance. Drug dealers, pimps and robbers likewise won't attempt to insure firearms they most likely acquired illegally.
The vast majority of guns are never used in a crime or accidental shooting, and the coverage mandate would be limited to the owners of these guns.
This bill, like the one by Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, seeking to limit gun magazines to one round, appears not to have been thought out or measured in the context of the law, let alone the reality of gun ownership in Connecticut. Laws that breed costly litigation, or create incentives for law-abiding citizens to ignore them, serve the public more poorly than laws with more modest goals.
Whatever one's attitude about gun rights, everyone should insist lawmakers demonstrate they have given serious thought to the legal and practical implications of their proposals. The fresh memory of the horror of Sandy Hook does not absolve lawmakers of their duty to respond with earnest, constructive, carefully considered legislative proposals.
Will we have to buy free speech insurance soon?
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Our founders set up a system that works at a snail’s pace for a reason. It avoided knee jerk actions that did more harm than good.
It all shows to go ya... you pose a worse danger driving a car than you do as a typical honest, sane man or woman using a gun for protective, hunting, and sporting purposes. Guns don’t go whispering sinister suggestions to that population.
Insure before you yack! I know at least one insurance company that is pushing “internet slander” coverage now.
They seemed to have omitted by accident the real reason for insurance, and that’s to know who the gun owners are.
yup, a kind of private registration. now if some insurance firm wants to hawk such policies to a voluntary clientele, more power to them. but making it mandatory is ungood.
wow
Give this to the insurance folks, too, and...let’s see. Think about the consequences or not. No freedoms for some, no freedom for anyone. IMO, we’re already seeing some of the consequences of abrogations of freedoms for some groups.
Oh really????
Who’s going to mind the data, since insurance companies are just corporations, bendable to the will of government?
What happens if you DON”T do this? How are they going to verify who has bought insurance, and who has not? I bet they will check the background check forms with a start of five years previous.
How are they going to ensure that once you pay for this state-mandated “indulgence”, that you pay it again, and again, etc.?
How are they going to ensure that all those folks that live in apartments, and do not own homes, get put on the bill? The insurance company that made the deal with the property management company might not be up to the task.
Once again, government wants to control the people.
I think it is time, that some of these UFO’s I’ve been hearing about, come and whisk some of these legislators away with them!
The real reason is not to limit future Sandy Hook’s but rather to limit gun ownership and eventually eliminate guns in private hands completely. That is what having a D after one’s name is really all about, as in Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury, Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford,and Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford.
There’s no reason for them to think. They’re after gun owners, not meaningful, thoughful legislation.
Make congress at least read the bills before voting.
Yes, and since gold and silver have been eliminated from the monetary system, I guess we’ll just pay them with lead!
Hmmm....
“This bill, like the one by Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, seeking to limit gun magazines to one round...”
Someone more creative than me explain how a one round magazine would look and work.
I wonder if they realize that the laws will be driving law abiding gun owners into NRA membership, just so they can get insurance. The gun owners will get insurance rather than give up their firearms. The ranks and power of the NRA are going increase dramatically and that will come back to kick these stupid politicians out of office.
This whole gun control movement, should be retitled the “make my day club.”
Can just see the Democrats sticking this in Obamacare: gun owners must but “liability insurance” for $2,000 or they will be assessed a yearly fine/tax of $3,000.
This is just another avenue for government to document gun owners and limit the right to bear arms.
Why on Earth would they start now?
“Will we have to buy free speech insurance soon?”
We don’t have to insure our right to vote when we pass that will be taken care of for us, it’s just thst our party will change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.