Every gun purchaser should be required to have insurance on certain

[diehardblue]

types of guns. Owning those guns without proper insurance should be a crime and penalized appropriately, to include loss of driver's license. In this country we require insurance for almost everything. Why not guns?

[FBaggins]

1. Most do

It's normally covered by homeowners' insurance.

[Wounded Bear]

8. But is there liability coverage for the weapon itself if used by another...

kind of like cars?

There should be.

[mitch96]

12. "kind of like cars?" I agree. You need to show proficiency with the car? same for a gun

You need a drivers license? same with a gun... you need a license. Auto insurance? same with a gun... And like in a armed country like Israel you need to show every year you know how to use the gun and the gun you were registered to is the same gun you have. A start. YMMV
m

[Maxheader]

2. meh..

Just get ride of them ..

[SmartVoter22]

3. Would "A Well-Regulated Militia" clause stand up in court?

They are the very four first words, of the 2nd Amendment.
The strictest of SCOTUS justices have always placed the first words of an amendment as critical in determining the Constitutionality of a law or regulation.
Has this question gone before any federal court?

If well-regulated is a critical part, and which every part of an amendment is critical... who can regulate that militia?
How is it regulated? Do they need to know where all the guns are, in case we are invaded? How is that regulated?

This is not a state's rights issue, it's competely federal.

The easiest means of regulating it, may be impossing an ammo tax.
Cover the un-insured costs of medical care;
--the horrific initial medical costs to put the victim back together again easily exceeds $100,000 per incident.
--the lifelong medical care? the loss of income potential... because some nut decided to impose it's will on others lives.
--the ammo tax income would not discourage legit hunters or sportsmen. They'd like some civil protections, on the national leevel and not allow a state to impose careless, and costly laws because on lobby wants that.

The legitimate gun owners should stand up to protect that right, but also protect the nation from this avoidable annual expense, or lives and treasure.
This could save the nation hundreds of millions every year. Use it to pay down debt? Cars got hit to pay for roads, guns should get hit to pay for the medical/support services any gun injury incurrs.

Only 44% of all households have a gun. The 56% who do not own a gun;
--should require action and be as greedy as any Republican about taxes.
--demand someone else, like the gun owner or insurances cover those costs. Why are the 56% paying for this and not sharing all car related injuriy costs? Is there a real difference on liability of one's possessions and excluding what many see as an appliance.

Kill the fillibuster with a complete gun regulation, so that we do have "A Well-Regulated Militia" ready to repel invaders or insurgents.

[SYFROYH]

4. There are two groups described in the 2nd.

The well-regulated militia and the people who keep and bear arms. The former is drawn from the latter.

[hack89]

6. The Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is an individual right

Independent from any militia service.

So the answer is no.

[DenaliDemocrat]

22. This! The main argument being

The Bill of Rights is unique is that is specifically states what the government CANNOT do!

Thus the rationale for an individual right

[Mosby]

23. Us v miller

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

The Heller decision ignored Miller and is a great example of judicial activism. Scalia, who was the author of the majority opinion was one of the most activist judges ever to serve on the SCOTUS.

[hack89]

25. Miller was not arrested because he was not a militia member

The case had nothing to do with militia service. It was about whether or not his short barreled shotgun was suitable for military use and therefore protected by the 2A.

If it had been deemed legal then he could have owned it independently of militia service.

Actually Scalia is a gun controllers best friend. He was the one that specifically said the 2A allows strict gun control. Nearly everything gun controllers want is constitutional according to Scalia and Heller. Heller says the only thing explicitly protected by the 2A is owning a handgun in your home for self defense.

[ck4829]

5. I'd actually go further and say ALL gun owners need to own insurance

Which can then go to pay a victims, survivors, and next-of-kin fund in the event of gun violence.

Having a license to own a firearm will require this insurance.

[hack89]

9. Insurance companies will not pay out for gun crimes

no insurance company is going to put themselves on the hook for paying out for another Sandy Hook.

And of course, people who own illegal guns ( ie criminals) will not have insurance at all.

[dsc]

10. For the right amount of money they will

but that said, if they can't get insurance, then they don't get to have the gun, too bad, so sad.

[hack89]

14. Given that there are hundreds of millions of unregistered guns

just how to you plan to keep uninsured people from getting illegal guns? Doesn't seem to be a problem now, does it?

The flaw in the insurance argument is that the people that will get it are the ones you least have to worry about shooting you.

One thing to consider is what a financial lifeline you would be throwing the NRA. Care to guess what company sells the most gun insurance in America? You would make them a fortune.

[dsc]

15. Make it a 100 year in prison penalty for not having insurance on a gun used in a crime

turn it into the marijuana tax. Honestly, I am fed up to my eyebrows with the all rights no responsibility culture we have enabled gun owners to have. Literally no other group gets away with this. I can't buy 60 days of f ing sutafed and can only by 30 days with my drivers' license, yet I could go to a gun show and buy a literal arsenal even if I were on the no fly list. I mean, imagine if pornographers said, we want to open up bookstores next to schools and churches or if people said I want to build a radio station in my back yard. No one can do those things but we literally refuse to do even the most basic regulation of guns. And because of that, I work in a locked school building in which I have to decide whether to keep my door open to lessen the risk of COVID or locked and shut to lessen the risk of school shootings. This is total bullshit.

[ck4829]

11. Hmm...

That would give a little incentive for those who own illegal guns to do a better job of self-policing their guns, keep track of them, not be straw buyers, etc.

[hack89]

13. I don't think insurance fraud is a big concern for criminals

given that they are willing to carry guns while carrying out serious felonies.

[phylny]

26. This is spot on.

We just buried my father who died of natural causes at the age of 93. Total cost was $20,000 and he was put in his family's 100-year-old vault. We looked at each other and thought, "What the hell do people do when they don't have the money to bury their dead?"

All of the family of the people murdered now have to bear the emotional and financial cost of a gun owner who had no business owning a gun.

[hardluck]

27. Insurance would not cover intentional acts like murder

If 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.

Insurance on the actual intentional act, such as murder, would be uninsurable as a matter of public policy. Typically states have 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.”

A workable 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.

[ck4829]

28. So a fee system

Add it to licensing fees, the sale of firearms, and of ammunition?

And the end result is it pays into that fund.

[hardluck]

29. Exactly

I think that’s a workable system that avoids the longstanding prohibitions on insuring intentional acts.

[hack89]

7. It won't have the impact you think it will.

Last edited Wed Mar 24, 2021, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Insurance companies will not pay out for crimes committed by guns so victims will not be compensated. Given the large number of gun owners the premiums will be extremely low - I suspect it would not be a profitable business and many insurance companies won't bother.

And it will have no impact on gun deaths - criminals won't buy it, while mass shooters and suicide victims don't care. Insurance has no deterrent value.

My guns are insured under my home policy - it costs a pittance because insurance companies understand the real risks. They were more worried about whether I had a pool and what breed my dog was than whether I had guns or not.

[ScratchCat]

21. Ding Ding

n/t

[Politicub]

16. Gun design trends toward making murder

and mass casualties more streamlined.

Today’s weapons are consumer goods that are engineered for the lowest common denominator of friction to buy and intellect to operate.

Mass shootings will not slow until we repeal the second amendment. I know... that’s unlikely.

But maybe, generations from now, seeds planted today to remove it will come to fruition.

In my lifetime, I would be happy to see a slowdown in arms distribution and enhanced penalties for using them. But I’m not optimistic, though.

[Kingofalldems]

17. Good post.

Thread swarmed unfortunately.

[inwiththenew]

18. Unless you make them cover suicides it won't really have much of an impact

Suicides with guns are the biggest killer. If you could wave a wand and eliminate all gun deaths where someone shot someone else, whether justified or not, you wouldn't even cut the amount of gun deaths per year in half. Suicides account for 60% of gun deaths.

So if the insurers were forced to cover suicides you might make it so cost prohibitive that almost no one, other than the wealthy could afford to own guns, which would reduce the amount of guns in circulation but then you would likely run into issues of constitutionality.

At the end of the day, if you want to ban guns you are going to have to find the political will and go directly at them. Dancing on the fringes won't do it.

[hunter]

19. A modest proposal: Nobody with testicles should be allowed to own or handle guns.

There should be a castration clinic next door to every gun shop.

Using testosterone supplements while handling guns would be a felony, with minimum prison terms of 25 years.

[lindysalsagal]

24. Absolutely.

[ScratchCat]

20. False Premise

"We" don't require citizens to purchase insurance on anything except vehicles. "Required insurance" isn't an American concept. Don't know what country you live in where people are required to purchase insurance "for almost everything", but its not The United States of America.