The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 2, 2013, 11:21 AM   #1
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,519
HR 1369: Require Insurance for Gun Owners

I was wondering how long it would take them to trot this sickly pony out. Sponsored by Carolyn Maloney, HR 1369 would mandate a $10,000 fine for firearms owners who fail to maintain liability insurance.

Quote:
It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
Quote:
It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
There are two reasons for this. The first is that the policies will be expensive, and in many places, impossible to get. This will have a chilling effect on gun ownership.

The second is to set gun owners up for strict liability if their guns are used in a crime, even if the gun was stolen prior to its misuse.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 11:36 AM   #2
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 719
Passage of that one will surely cause another buying panic.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 11:39 AM   #3
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,791
I saw this also. Do you think this will pass any Constitutional sniff test?

Insure a "right". . . require a background check to include fingerprints to buy a firearm or ammunition?

Have we, as a country, lost our way?

Does anyone in CT know how many 22 rifles hold more than 10 rounds?

I realize the problem is more pronounced back east but it will work it's way to Arizona.

I am really getting perplexed at the demonization of guns and gun owners.

The ads for background checks runs every few minutes here in the Phoenix area and it certainly isn't because Bloomberg and his cronies support Second Amendment rights. They have made it clear they want us disarmed.

What is the tipping point? Where is our Concord Bridge flash point? It really seems to me a violent clash is building and who knows what will set it off?
__________________
Geetarman

Carpe Cerveza
geetarman is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 11:40 AM   #4
Robk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 306
So...which insurance companies would step up to offer this type of insurance?? If mine did, I'm more than sure that all my other rates would go up based solely on the fact that I am a firearms owner. And what exactly would this special liability insurance pay for? I don't see it in the link. But is this possibilily for the scum of the earth bastard I shot while he was breaking and entering, committing grand or petite theft, or perhaps endangering my family or myself? Or perhaps against lawsuits from the family of said scumbag for being shot? Or perhaps for the scumbags funeral? Heard all of these in a conversation with a friend as reasons for this insurance. Now I'm not saying it's true, and I am sure someone hear will clarifiy, but why would I want to be insured for using a firearm against a criminal?

Either way, this is just very bad legislation. We have to stop these politicians the next chance we get. I don't care if we have to elect total unknowns into office, just to get these idiots out. But we need to show the country that we stand united and we will protect our rights. this last part just a rant and IMHO.
Robk is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 11:56 AM   #5
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by robk
And what exactly would this special liability insurance pay for? I don't see it in the link. But is this possibilily for the scum of the earth bastard [crook] I shot while he was breaking and entering, committing grand or petite theft, or perhaps endangering my family or myself?
This isn't the only problem. My main concern is that this law- and the other liability insurance proposals I've read- do not limit liability to incidents in which a person is directly harmed. Insurance claims can conceivably be filed for perceived harm and loss of property value caused by noise. This could result in shooting ranges being shut down and/or legal hunting becoming impossible in certain areas.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 11:56 AM   #6
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,160
Just to be sure we're all clear on who would be covered: everyone who owns firearms purchased on or after the effective date of the this bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by H.R. 1369
(a) Prohibitions- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:


‘(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

‘(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

‘(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
And what kind of insurance this bill proposes to require: a policy that specifically covers losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser
Quote:
Originally Posted by H.R. 1369
‘(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that--

‘(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

‘(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.’.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 12:35 PM   #7
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I will only buy this insurance when the people who vote these anti gun politicians into office are required to purchase "civil rights violation" insurance, to cover the legal costs of all the lawsuits that eventually overturn insane, unconstitutional "gun control" laws. I mean if the people who voted for the politicians who supported Chicago Hand Gun Ban or DC's defacto gun ban had to pay the price themselves, right out of their check books, I think this would come to an end pretty quick.

Honestly though anti gunners, please keep the crazy stuff up you are going to hand the Senate right to the Republicans in 2014 and the White House over in 2016.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".

Last edited by Patriot86; April 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 12:51 PM   #8
Mr.Scott
Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2011
Posts: 55
Well if this passes we are screwed thanks to Obama care. The SCOTUS ruling started that forcing participation is allowable of it is a tax.
The tipping point will be when the media screws up and reports a raid on a gun owner as such instead of their prescripted "domestic terrorist" or most likely they will claim the person was violating gun laws or was a pedophile.
They will eventually come across someone who fights back. I fully expect another bombing of a federal building in my life time. I don't support such an action but having read more about Ruby Ridge and Waco, I can see why this with nothing to lose would strike out. The way the government is pushing the people and demonizing lawful ownership, there will be a tipping point.
There is to much happening to discount that there is a full blown push to Disarm Americans, and we need to really know why.
More people die from hammers than rifles in The US. More kids drown than are murdered. This push has nothing to do with the safety of the citizens, it's about the safety of a select few that are planning on screwing us big time.
Mr.Scott is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 01:05 PM   #9
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
This push has nothing to do with the safety of the citizens, it's about the safety of a select few that are planning on screwing us big time.
I really hate to say it, but I think you have it right. I fear someone is really going to miscalculate the "compliance" of the ordinary American and the crap will hit the fan.

I do not think we are very far from that point.
__________________
Geetarman

Carpe Cerveza
geetarman is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 01:19 PM   #10
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
I know I am going to get into trouble with this post. However, from a lifetime of study of this slow but steady progressive movement I have no choice but to try and tell you the truth.

Many many gun owners are in cahoots with these gun grabbers. Many gun owners are also slaves to ideas that are more important to them than guns.
About half of americans are willing to live free, the tipping point has been reached.
Slavery to promises that can't be kepted has begun and with the help of many a gun onwer.
eldermike is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 01:22 PM   #11
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 261
Doesn't the NRA offer insurance for a nominal fee, or include it with memberships?

Anyways, requiring insurance for a right would seem wildly unconstitutional for an enumerated right. Injunction + overturn == Maloney showing what a waste of organic molecules she really is.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 01:30 PM   #12
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,912
Would most of this not be covered under the umbrella liability coverage on one's renters or homeowners policy?

I agree that this proposal is purely punitive, intended to make the exercise of a right more expensive and less common (of the millions of legally owned guns out there, how many actually cause losses? I'd presume it's very very few...). However, many of us would already have this kind of coverage thanks to our existing insurance coverage.
Technosavant is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 01:41 PM   #13
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,178
Wonder how the insurance companies would react to such a requirement. However, I immagine tort lawyers would be thrilled with such passage.
Just another attempt to throw roadblocks to gun ownership.
JWT is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 04:47 PM   #14
Danxyz53
Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Posts: 26
Poll tax?

I am no lawyer, but isn't requiring people to pay a fee to exercise a right similar to poll taxes, which were ruled unconstitutional?
Danxyz53 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 06:35 PM   #15
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,717
The primary thrust of the bill is to make it cumbersome and expensive to own guns. The secondary purpose is to act as a de facto registration system. How many insurance companies would offer liability insurance for this? A half dozen? A dozen? Anytime the government wants to know Joe Blow owns some guns, it simply subpoenas the handful of insurance companies that issue such policies and they have their information.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 06:43 PM   #16
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
The Bill of Rights will soon be known as The Bill for Rights. How much do you have to pay to receive these rights? I saw one article that wanted a CCW person to have a Million dollar liability policy. I'm sure you will have to register your firearms to have them covered. Where does this end?
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 06:45 PM   #17
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 233
registration without a law to register guns

no insurance co. would insure an item without a serial number.

so, wala, they have registration using a 3rd party.


This makes no sense in that is bans many from defending themselves and like car insurance, many will not pay for it. Who/how will they track them?

Again, penalizing the honest.
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 07:04 PM   #18
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,160
Let's not forget the problem with enforcing this in relation to:
1) Private sales -- Under this, not only would a buyer have to present some documentation of the insurance to the seller, but the seller will have to verify it. (See section (ii)). That means no private sales on Sundays, and maybe none on Saturdays (I don't know when insurance companies are open).

2) Firearms owned prior to the enactment of the bill -- Umm . . . For states where there's no registration, and we don't have to list our firearms on our CCLs, I don't see this as being enforceable. If I'm pulled over for a traffic ticket while I'm carrying and am required to notify, is the officer going to ask me, "License, insurance and registration. Oh, you're carrying? Fine. May I see your firearms insurance?"
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 07:45 PM   #19
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,519
Quote:
Under this, not only would a buyer have to present some documentation of the insurance to the seller, but the seller will have to verify it.
Oh, that can be fixed with a Federal Uniform Directory of Gun Insurance (FUDGI). The cost will be borne by the taxpayers, or better yet, built into gun sales as an additional fee.

Quote:
For states where there's no registration, and we don't have to list our firearms on our CCLs, I don't see this as being enforceable.
Well, then we just need a federal database of firearms, don't we?

As it is, Reid has his package. He's spent a great deal of time, effort, and influence honing it to something that might just get some traction in the Senate. This, like numerous other bills currently floating around, is an outlier that isn't likely to gain much traction.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 07:48 PM   #20
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,160
And therein, as they say, lies the rub.

None of this works without registration of some form.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 11:04 PM   #21
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Not to mention that losses from firearms are typically the result of intentional acts. If anybody has an idea for how you make money as an insurance company by insuring against intentional acts, I'd love to hear it.

It sounds like they are trying to make gun ownership conditional on owning an insurance policy that cannot be supported in a free market.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 12:07 AM   #22
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,260
Sounds like mandatory insurance is the new version of the taxation policies we once rebelled against.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 12:54 AM   #23
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 219
These proposals have been floating around various state legislatures for a number of years, and none have passed,; but that may change this year. California has a proposed mandate, and I suspect Connecticut will go that route as well. Leaving aside the fact that this bill will never make itout of the House, and maybe not even the Senate, let us look at what is sought to be achieved, and whether these proposals have any realistic chance of achieving those goals.

The purpose of this type of law is, according to the sponsors, to insure against the billions of dollars of medical costs incurred annually to pay for gun shot injuries, much of which cost is borne by public entities. The thought is that if the owners of guns were insured, there would be an avenue available to recover these costs. Seems simple enough in the abstract, but does it work in the real world?

In insurance lingo, first parties are the insureds, third parties are the folks suing the insureds. This distinction is particularly important as it explains where these bills go astray. Liability insurance protects the first party insured from liability claims asserted by third parties; it is not protection for the benefit of the third parties. Yet this is what these bills assume--that liability insurance protects the interests of the person shot, rather than the interests of the person doing the shooting.

Instead, these policies will provide coverage only where the insured acts negligently; intentional torts are specifically excluded in policies, and by states in the various states that bar insurers from insuring for intentional torts, the idea being that criminals should not be indemnified by insurance companies for their wrongful acts. In other words, if I shoot you because I don't like the way you look, or your race, gang affiliation, whatever, a conviction of intentional assault and/or battery and/or murder will preclude indemnity (payment of damages) from my carrier against third-party claims. On the other hand, if I shoot you negligently e.g., a hunting or training accident, these policies will provide coverage. Imperfect self-defense will likely fall within the scope of coverage, because the elements of this defense are a negligent belief in the right to use deadly force. But murder is clearly out. Gang shootings are out. The vast majority of shootings are out. This insurance mandate will therefore have little if any meaningful effect on the costs associated with "gun violence" in America today.

Do the proponents of these bills know this? They must. So they have invented a backdoor to create a basis for negligence liability of gun owners whose firearms are lost or stolen, with an escape hatch (just to be fair). If your guns are lost or stolen and not reported to the police/state/government within a specified period of time after such knowledge is gained, then the gun owner is potentially liable for any later criminal act perpetrated with that firearm. The "safe harbor" is the reporting of the loss of the firearm within the statutory period.

It is unclear whether this would be a strict liability or a negligence liability, but he better view is a newly established negligence liability. How would this work? Typically, once out of possession, one is not liable for what someone else did with the gun, particularly if it is an "intervening criminal act." Since it just doesn't seem fair to hold a gun owner liable for what a thief did with the gun, the bills create negligence liability through imposing requirements for "proper" storage of the firearm, i.e, gun safes. If you fail to "properly secure" your firearm in your home (no matter what the Supreme Court said in Heller about the constitutionality of such a requirement), then the subsequent criminal act is "foreseeable" and the gun owner liable in whole or in part. While you are probably liable in most states now if a child gets a hold of one of your guns and shoots himself or another in your home, this law would extend that liability outside the home to wherever the gun ends up and in whoever's possession--unless it is reported stolen. And because insurers are bound to defend where there is a potential claim under the policy, carriers will be more likely to indemnify owners in these cases for their negligent failure to secure their arms. To make it short and sweet, this plan creates a new liability for gun owners and then requires them to buy insurance for it. Cute, huh?

Do we have such coverage now under our homeowner's or renter's policies? Unfortunately, there is no one right answer, because the coverage clauses of different policies are worded differently; while one policy might cover you for a self-defense shooting, others will not; when you shoot someone in self defense, the shooting is intentional, and many carriers will seek to avoid coverage. Claims for accidental shootings are likely to be covered now, so these new insurance requirements will not buy you something you did not already have. But it is clear that your homeowner's carrier will not defend any criminal action brought against you--those are the province of the special policies issued by a number of organizations, including USCCA and the NRA. This is important coverage to obtain, especially if you carry a concealed weapon, as your criminal defense attorney will cost you dearly. These policies are not expensive.

Do these proposed laws result in de facto gun registration? Arguable. If you own expensive firearms, you should probably have them listed (scheduled) on you homeowner's policy any way because of limitation on the insurance for certain valuables. Will insurers decline to insure because you have firearms? Only if there is a strict liability imposed (as there is with dog bites in many places, which is why they will not insure vicious breeds). Otherwise, there are 100 million firearm owners in the US, and someone will gladly insure this market, particularly where the circumstances where claims are actually payable are not drastically different than they are today.\

So the ultimate conclusion that must be reached is that the proponents of these bills--not sure who they are--are more interested in disincentivising gun ownership, not in "doing good" by protecting the "innocent gunshot victims."
62coltnavy is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 06:07 AM   #24
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
Yup, if you make gun ownership expensive, time consuming and unpopular you will slowly reduce new gun owners and eventually the gun haters or indifferent will be the majority. Then legislation will be a breeze.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 06:43 AM   #25
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,243
This has been pushed in a number of states recently, and has failed in every one of them, including Connecticut and Maryland.

If it couldn't pass there, there's no chance of it getting past Congress.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13603 seconds with 9 queries