Gun Crazy - Insurance, Anyone?

[dales]

Measure would force gun owners to buy insurance
DON THOMPSO, Associated Press




SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.

Similar bills have been introduced in other states after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.

"I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country," said Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced AB231 along with Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles. "There's basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. ... I don't think that taxpayers should be footing those bills."

Ting equated the idea to requiring vehicle owners to buy auto insurance. Gomez said it would encourage gun owners to take firearms safety classes and keep their guns locked up to get lower insurance rates.

No state has enacted the requirement despite repeated previous attempts, said Jon Griffin, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Bills have been offered unsuccessfully in Massachusetts and New York since at least 2003, when the conference began keeping track, he said. Similar bills were proposed in Illinois in 2009 and in Pennsylvania last year. Lawmakers are introducing the bills this year in even more states after the recent shootings.

Some proposals would require buyers to show proof of insurance before they could purchase a weapon. The proposal in California would apply to anyone owning a weapon, Ting said, though the bill's details are still being worked out.[I'm sure that the criminal element will line up to purchase a policy, LMFAO! ]

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said most gun owners already act responsibly and can be sued for damages if they don't.

He said the proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law, he said.

Moreover, he questioned whether it is constitutional to require someone to buy insurance to exercise a constitutional right.

"If they don't address it in committee, I'll guarantee they'll have to address it in court," Paredes said.

Ting said he and Gomez plan to work with gun owners and opponents to craft a constitutional bill. It will not require insurance companies to offer gun insurance, but will encourage them to enter the market.

He noted that the National Rifle Association itself already offers its members the chance to buy liability insurance, despite its opposition to requiring gun owners to buy such policies.

Ting also introduced AB232, which would give a state income-tax credit of up to $1,000 to anyone who turns in a firearm to a local gun buyback program. The amount of the credit would be determined based on the value of the weapon.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Meas ... z2K4TGJsyV

[Gob]

Why not? We do it with cars...

[dales]

Forcing law-abiding gun owners to invest in a liabilty ins. scheme is folly.

The criminal element who commit 99% of the blood-letting sure won't, which leaves the rest of the suckers holding the bag.

No thanks.

[Sean]

Just out of interest, how many mass shootings in the US have been carried out by criminals with illegal guns and how many by people with legal guns?

Sandy Hook for one may have been avoided if the gun owner took greater care to ensure that her weapons were locked away.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Sandy Hook for one may have been avoided if the gun owner took greater care to ensure that her weapons were locked away.

Especially when she knew her son was "unstable".

Now the guns used were legally owned by mom. Don't know if the law distinguishes an owner from a user of the guns and how an insurance policy would differentiate that. I would guess the insurance company would do it's best not to pay any lawsuit/damages if the guns were used by someone other than the legal owner (as they try to do in accident cases involving cars).

[Sue U]

Now the guns used were legally owned by mom. Don't know if the law distinguishes an owner from a user of the guns and how an insurance policy would differentiate that. I would guess the insurance company would do it's best not to pay any lawsuit/damages if the guns were used by someone other than the legal owner (as they try to do in accident cases involving cars).

The easiest way to avoid that is to impose strict liability on the owner (and, as a practical matter, the insurer) of any gun used unlawfully to cause injury or damage. Of course, that assumes that the gun used can be recovered and/or identified.

Would end up being a windfall for the insurance industry, no doubt.

[rubato]

The company might require proof that the guns are secured in order to give a lower rate or some other proofs that the owner is well-educated on the subject of gun safety. Companies that sell car insurance require proof that you have a valid license and set rates based on your driving history and other demographic factors. Homeowners insurance companies require you to have a fire extinguisher, smoke detectors, a roof in good repair, and other safety issues mitigated to get lower rates.

The advantage is that the government would not be providing the oversight in this case it would be a for-profit company motivated by greed like good capitalists everywhere. And the person who can do the most to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the gun owner, would now have both a meaningful incentive and someone overseeing his/her behavior.

And, best of all, we would stop hearing about "gun grabbing liberals" and start hearing about "gun grabbing insurance companies" instead.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

"...

Would end up being a windfall for the insurance industry, no doubt.

And we would have a very nice market-based way of determining how much owning a gun really is worth to the average person.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

What would induce me to purchase a "gun insurance" policy?

[Scooter]

The prospect that you would forfeit any gun you currently own, plus the ability to own a gun for the rest of your life, would be a good start.

[rubato]

What would induce me to purchase a "gun insurance" policy?

You can be required to have gun insurance, just as you are required to have car insurance. And you or your insurer can be required to pay all of the costs incurred by a 'lost' or stolen gun; unless, perhaps, you have reported the 'loss' before the harm was done. Reporting 'lost' guns would be reported to insurance companies (like accidents and tickets) and your future rates would be based on your history. if you cannot be insured because of a bad history perhaps you can no longer buy guns or ammunition.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The prospect that you would forfeit any gun you currently own, plus the ability to own a gun for the rest of your life, would be a good start.

I like it!

[Big RR]

You can be required to have gun insurance, just as you are required to have car insurance. And you or your insurer can be required to pay all of the costs incurred by a 'lost' or stolen gun; unless, perhaps, you have reported the 'loss' before the harm was done.

I don't think car insurance works that way; it covers the driver (usually the kisted driver and those (s)he permits to drive the vehicle, but this can be limited--I had a car that the insurance expressly said would not cover anyone under 25 driving it), not the car hence it will cover you in a rented car). Injury damage from a stolen car is covered by uninsured morotists coverage/collision.

[rubato]

I don't think it would be identical. Why would anyone think so?

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

"Gun insurance" would not apply in cases where the owner of the gun -- or someone else in the gun owner's household, or anyone else who was an "insured" under the policy -- deliberately killed or injured someone.

To be more precise, "gun insurance" would not cover the liability of the gun owner (or any other insured) to any person deliberately killed or injured by that gun owner or other insured.

The general principle -- applicable, as far as I am aware, in every U.S. jurisdiction -- is that an insurer cannot provide liability insurance which covers the insured's liability for the insured's intentional acts.

The distinctions here can be exceedingly fine (in the unlikely event that you are interested in the fine points, investigate "fortuity"), but for present purposes, a simple distinction should suffice: An auto insurer can cover you for intentionally stepping on your gas pedal but accidentally running over grandma, but an insurer cannot cover you for intentionally running over grandma.

I emphasize "cannot," because it is not the insurer's choice. Insurers are prohibited from protecting people against liability for harm which those people deliberately cause.

And rightly so. I am more likely to run over grandma on purpose if I know that when grandma (or her heirs) sue(s) me, my insurer will pay the damages, so I will not have to.

If I buy a gun, buy "gun insurance," and then murder someone with that gun, no liability insurance policy will cover me. No liability insurer will pay whatever liability I incur for murdering that someone, and no court will require any liability insurer to pay that liability.

[dales]

The prospect that you would forfeit any gun you currently own, plus the ability to own a gun for the rest of your life, would be a good start.

Under whose authority?

This isn't freakin' Canada!

(we have no laws in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA concerning firearms liability insurance and one does not need to register[non class-3] firearms in CA)

[Scooter]

We are discussing a legislative proposal under which firearms insurance would be mandatory, I would have thought that any discussion about how it would be enforced would begin with the hypothetical presumption that it had become law.

[dales]

Very good - like I posted in another thread.........if 99/100 people are causing all the bloodshead (armed criminals) why should I be left holding the bag?

[rubato]

Criminals get guns because people who buy them legally are irresponsible. This would provide an incentive to be responsible.




yrs,
rubato

[dales]

huh?