General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)just like AARP is a broker/vendor of health and life insurance. The NRA offers and number of services and products relating firearms and gun owners. As the unquestionably largest and most respected gun safety organization (notwithstanding your opinion about the organization; also note the difference between the NRA and NRA-ILA), its endorsement of relevant policies is also quite lucrative. Simply, mandating firearm insurance, to the extent constitutional, would provide significant additional revenue to the NRA's preexisting business operations. Many would further choose to purchase insurance through the NRA or other gun rights groups as a form of political protest. Never underestimate unintended consequences, just like how calls for gun control increase firearm sales.
Your post explicitly questioned whether any insurer would insure a gun owner. You obviously didn't realize that most homeowner's and renters policies already provide coverage for firearm accidents, and independent policies and riders are currently cheap and readily available. Despite the occasional scary news story or tragic anecdote, firearm accidents are actually quite rare in relation to the number of lawful gun owners and number of firearms in the USA, and no need for insurance for uncompensated losses has been demonstrated, no less insurance of more than very minimal cost.
Nevertheless, it is generally unconstitutional to require the payment of sums targeted to condition or restrict the exercise of constitutional rights (similar to a "poll tax" . Since firearm insurance cannot compensate for criminal misuse of a firearm, uncompensated losses for accidental firearm events is not a proven national problem, and there's no actual evidence that a insurance requirement would reduce firearm accidents or criminality, a mandatory insurance scheme would almost certainly be held unlawful. Good intentions would not change the constitutional analysis.
Your claim that insurance must be mandatory because there's "no reason testing, including written and practical, in addition to psychological tests to own a gun" is simply ludicrous as a matter of law and policy. You are certainly entitled to your personal opinions about gun ownership and insurance, but such beliefs are not consistent with current jurisprudence concerning product liability, no less concerning a constitutionally protected product, nor consistent with public opinion, electoral reality, and polling trends.