Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance

[Zargon]

ssssh only the pro gunners need to cite their facts!

 

[classy]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index....ts_bill_would_requi.html#incart_most-comments



another way to gouge the American people.

Well most home owners policies will require extra insurance if want a certain type of dog, especially those prone to biting. So this isn't a stretch.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Well most home owners policies will require extra insurance if want a certain type of dog, especially those prone to biting. So this isn't a stretch.

The difference is that owning a home w/ a dog is not a constitutional right

Requiring insurance for a gun is equivalent to a poll tax.
Interferes with a constitutional amendment.

 

[classy]

The difference is that owning a home w/ a dog is not a constitutional right

Requiring insurance for a gun is equivalent to a poll tax.
Interferes with a constitutional amendment.

Ehh......

I won't totally disagree with your point, duly noted. But in response, requiring insurance I would argue doesn't interfere with the constitutional right. I would argue on this point that it would be a way to define the constitutional right further, which we have done in other circumstances. If the constitution is a living and breathing document, then it should be allowed to be shaped further.

 

[Zargon]

Ehh......

I won't totally disagree with your point, duly noted. But in response, requiring insurance I would argue doesn't interfere with the constitutional right. I would argue on this point that it would be a way to define the constitutional right further, which we have done in other circumstances. If the constitution is a living and breathing document, then it should be allowed to be shaped further.

its actually I thikn illegal to make a legal right financial not viable for a majority of the poplation

 

[EagleKeeper]

Well most home owners policies will require extra insurance if want a certain type of dog, especially those prone to biting. So this isn't a stretch.

The difference is that owning a home w/ a dog is not a constitutional right

Requiring insurance for a gun is equivalent to a poll tax.
Interferes with a constitutional amendment.Ehh......

I won't totally disagree with your point, duly noted. But in response, requiring insurance I would argue doesn't interfere with the constitutional right. I would argue on this point that it would be a way to define the constitutional right further, which we have done in other circumstances. If the constitution is a living and breathing document, then it should be allowed to be shaped further.

its actually I think illegal to make a legal right financial not viable for a majority of the population

I do not think that it is so much the"just"; but the fact that one is being force to pay for a constitutional right.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ehh......

I won't totally disagree with your point, duly noted. But in response, requiring insurance I would argue doesn't interfere with the constitutional right. I would argue on this point that it would be a way to define the constitutional right further, which we have done in other circumstances. If the constitution is a living and breathing document, then it should be allowed to be shaped further.

So can we force people to have voters insurance so when their bad decisions cause problems we are all justly compensated? Just think how much we could have collected from the Bush and his Republican Congress tragedy.

 

[piasabird]

Any politician/elected official has to take an oath to defend the constitution, including freedom and the 1st and 2nd Amendment. So any official the wants to limit the right to bear arms is not doing his job and needs to be summarily fired. Just turn in your credentials and risign, and pay America back all of the funds you have been paid.

 

[Fern]

Well most home owners policies will require extra insurance if want a certain type of dog, especially those prone to biting. So this isn't a stretch.

I did a little research on homeowners insurance and whether the homeowner would be covered if they got sued for damages involving a gun. BTW: the incident need not always occur on the home property.

In general, it seems theoretically possible. However, since you can not claim insurance for an intentional act it seems only an accidental discharge would qualify for coverage.

Otherwise, the idea seems stupid/unworkable and likely unconstitutional.

I hate when people compare cars to guns.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Accidental death policies will more than likely start at $10M and up.
If the death is justified, no payout even in a civil suit.

Either the cost of the policy to a policy holder will be outrageous - in essentially depriving one of the 2nd Amendment rights or the policy holder will go under with a couple of claims against them.


In Mass, figure maybe 1% would register for insurance.

Assume that the population of Mass is 6M.
1% of that is 60K. 120M/100K

Statistics have Mass having 5 deaths per 100K population - 30 per year
$300M in claims then per year.

That requires insurance coverage by the registered owners w/ insurance of $5000 per year.

Is there any existing insurance that covers a persons actions if that person purposely commits a crime?

 

[sactoking]

Homeowners' insurance generally will cover damage or injuries resulting from accidental discharge under the general liability coverage, even when the incident occurs away from home. However, this varies greatly from "firearm ownership insurance" on several fronts:
1) Limits of liability- A HO policy typically will carry $300,000-500,000 in general liability coverage. In an accidental fatality, this will not cover the settlement. It is likely that any "ownership insurance" law would require limits of liability in excess of these amounts. This will push the cost of standalone policies upward, making them unaffordable and unconstitutional.
2) Coordination of benefits- What are the legal coordination of benefits ramifications for someone covered under an ownership insurance policy and the general liability of their HO policy?
3) Payment of claims- Insurance, by law, generally does not cover intentional acts. Gun discharge is much more likely to be argued about intent. This will push insurer's litigation expense (really, loss adjustment expense) higher, again making it unaffordable and unconstitutional.
4) Continuation of coverage- What happens when someone is grossly negligent? Can the insurer cancel the policy, maybe as part of their risk reunderwriting process? If so, the person is unconstitutionally deprived of their rights. If not, premiums will go up (again). Will the state institute and assigned-risk/high-risk pool?
5) Adverse selection- part of the reason that firearm liability can be covered in HO policies is that the risk can be spread to non-firearm households. If you create a firearm ownership insurance law, the only people who will purchase coverage are those with firearms. Since the pool of firearm owners < the pool of home owners, risk cannot be adequately spread, premiums go too high, and you violate the constitutionality.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Is there any existing insurance that covers a persons actions if that person purposely commits a crime?

I would not expect so.

 

[z1ggy]

They are trying to pass bills like this here in CT, too. Also an out right ban on AR style guns and a clause in there, and I paraphrase, "Fair compensation for AR style guns..". Sounds like they are hinting that they want to confiscate all AR style guns to me.

 

[Greenman]

Wouldn't requiring insurance take guns out of the hands of poor people? Isn't that the real point behind this? They would still have the right to bear arms, they just won't be able to afford it.

 

[SaurusX]

Wouldn't requiring insurance take guns out of the hands of poor people? Isn't that the real point behind this? They would still have the right to bear arms, they just won't be able to afford it.

Kind of like a poll tax, wouldn't you say?

 

[Doppel]

Honestly I cannot recall any tragedy that has made so many law makers go full retard. Missouri senator Maria Chappelle-Nedal has proposed a law that requires a gun owner to notify their kid's school or face a fine, so that presumably the school can educate them on the gun's safe care.

If law makers keep comin up with batshit crazy rubbish like this they will be laughed out of office and never get anything they want.

 

[sm625]

People who dont own guns should have to pay liability insurance, since it is far beyond proven that guns prevent crime and loss of property. Hell, just overlay insurance rates with gun ownership rates and you can see that there is a clear correlation there too just like there is with gun ownership vs crime rates. This is yet one more factual correlation the traitors will ignore.

 

[DrPizza]

Voting: Constitutionally protected. Voting tax: ruled unconstitutional.

Gun ownership: Constitutionally protected. Gun insurance - will be argued that it amounts to a tax on gun ownership. Probably will be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Phanuel]

Goat ownership: Constitutionally vague. Goat tax: ruled Constitutional!

Tax DrPizza's goats!

But yeah, I hope this ends up unconstitutional. If I'm going to pay insurance on my guns, it's because they might get stolen and I want them replaced. But I'm also worried about giving my insurance company my serial numbers (even if they are USAA) because it's another registry someone can demand.

 

[micrometers]

Hardly like a poll tax.

For starters, the act of voting does have any danger in causing the death of people.

 

[jpeyton]

Hardly like a poll tax.

For starters, the act of voting does have any danger in causing the death of people.

Unlike owning a car, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution.

You have to repeal the 2A before you can start knee-capping gun owners.

Good luck with that.

 

[micrometers]

Unlike owning a car, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution.

You have to repeal the 2A before you can start knee-capping gun owners.

Good luck with that.

I would love to repeal the 2nd. But you are still allowed to regulate guns under the 2nd.

Let me ask you this: do you believe in unfettered access to abortion or do you want there to be restrictions on the practice?

 

[Phanuel]

I would love to repeal the 2nd. But you are still allowed to regulate guns under the 2nd.

Let me ask you this: do you believe in unfettered access to abortion or do you want there to be restrictions on the practice?

Unfettered.

Next idiotic comparison?

 

[jpeyton]

I would love to repeal the 2nd. But you are still allowed to regulate guns under the 2nd.

Let me ask you this: do you believe in unfettered access to abortion or do you want there to be restrictions on the practice?

Unfettered, and hopefully we can advance medicine to the point where it would be much less invasive to perform.

If you're not ready for a child, please don't have one.