Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

[East_TN_Patriot]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/31/170700177/should-gun-owners-have-to-buy-liability-insurance

A friend of mine who is self-admittedly riding the fence on the current gun control efforts sent this story to me.  My response to her was this:
 

 

Interesting, but I think the arguments they pose are based on false logic and incorrect assumptions. First, the final economist said, "Gun ownership, even in the hands of responsible people, increases the risk of death and serious injury to others." That is simply incorrect. Gun ownership has increased substantially since the 1970s, but rates of gun crime and accidental shootings has almost continuously declined. A second problem with the idea is that vehicle ownership is not a right, but a privilege. By saying that a Constitutional right must be accompanied by a financial obligation like liability insurance is just like instituting a poll tax. Poor people, the very group that arguably needs access to a firearm for self defense the most, will be the very group that will be prevented from owning a firearm due to cost. Third, there already are financial and criminal penalties for negligent firearm use and possession. If I negligently store or provide my firearms to another person, I can be criminally charged if the weapon is used unlawfully. I can also be sued civilly for my negligence.

Curious what other people thought.

 

[10-Ring]

Although it may be smart to do so to CYA I don't think in any way that it should be mandatory.  If people who own guns are required to buy insurance then people that own hammers or knives should be required to as well.  This is nothing more than a proposal from a bunch of scared, uneducated gun grabbers who are trying to control us.

[TMF]

Of course owning a gun puts you automatically at higher risk for a gun related accident than someone who doesn't own one. That's like saying that I'm more at risk for a lawnmower accident than someone who lives in an apartment. However, lawnmowers aren't covered in the Constitution. The mere mention of a requirement of liability insurance in order to possess a firearm should be met with a "you're a effing moron look" and walk away because the person lacks basic reasoning skills.

[Jonnin]

obama can provide any insurance we need, let HIM take care of it.

[battleop]

It should not be mandatory but you would be crazy to not carry liability insurance in general. 

[hipower]

It should not be mandatory but you would be crazy to not carry liability insurance in general. 

 

Please explain. Are you advocating the purchase of personal liability insurance for the ownership of a gun?

[DWARREN123]

Not mandatory, no.

[hipower]

Do you have extra liability coverage pertaining to owning a firearm? Something above and beyond homeowners coverage?

 

Not trying to start anything...just asking and trying to see where you are going with this.

[Rowdy]

Do you have extra liability coverage pertaining to owning a firearm? Something above and beyond homeowners coverage?
 
Not trying to start anything...just asking and trying to see where you are going with this.

It is possible to get an umbrella general liability policy connected with your home owners policy. If you're an up standing citizen it is very affordable.

[chances R]

Liability insurance isn't needed until it's needed :popcorn: sort of like any other insurance.

[Randall53]

[quote name="Rowdy" post="901323" timestamp="1359678784"] It is possible to get an umbrella general liability policy connected with your home owners policy. If you're an up standing citizen it is very affordable.[/quote] I'm very interested in this. I've heard of this, but thought it was expensive. I guess I need to talk to my agent....

[battleop]

[quote name="hipower" post="901159" timestamp="1359667060"]Please explain. Are you advocating the purchase of personal liability insurance for the ownership of a gun?[/quote] Not just for owning a gun but for general liability. I think we pay around $100/year per $1,000,000 for our umbrella policy.

[Rowdy]

It's a good idea because homeowners doesn't cover every possibility and the limits are a lot lower. If your dog bites the neighbor kid or if you are the cause of a car crash and your auto policy limits out, GL would kick in and cover the rest.

[chances R]

NRA also has some options

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Even though the loss rate on mandatory gun insurance would be low (as pointed out by EAST_TN_PATRIOT's stats), I have a feeling that such insurance would be real expensive if mandated by law. Legally mandated gun insurance would be like giving the insurance companies a license to steal.

 

I remember seeing this idea pushed by gun ban nazi's back in the clinton era. Nothing new under the sun apparently.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Monkeyman2500]

Let me get this straight, they want me the law abiding, tax paying, legal citizen to pay high insurance for all the irresponsible law breaking thugs. This sound vaguely reminiscent of my health insurance plan.

[battleop]

Let me get this straight, they want me the law abiding, tax paying, legal citizen to pay high insurance for all the irresponsible law breaking thugs. This sound vaguely reminiscent of my health insurance plan.

 

I doubt this is the reason for the insurance but.....

 

There are a lot of "law abiding, tax paying, legal citizens" out there that are responsible for accidents.   I think we have read about recent accidents at gun shows and children who were killed due to carelessness.   Should it be mandatory? No.  Should you loose everything if you are responsible for injury or death? Absolutely! and if you are too damn cheap to not carry some sort of liability insurance the sorry about your luck.  

[Hershmeister]

Any law requiring purchasing insurance to
Exercise a constitutional right would be struck down. No differently than poll taxes were stuck down.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Any law requiring purchasing insurance to
Exercise a constitutional right would be struck down. No differently than poll taxes were stuck down.

 

Supreme court judges can wave their hands and devise a "logical legalistic" argument to approve or reject anything they happen to personally like. Kinda like bible interpretation. If the majority of justices happened to like the insurance angle, it would be upheld. 

Edited February 1, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[JRWnTN]

Let me get this straight, they want me the law abiding, tax paying, legal citizen to pay high insurance for all the irresponsible law breaking thugs. This sound vaguely reminiscent of my health insurance plan.

Right. Just look at how the mandatory auto insurance laws solved the problem of uninsured drivers.

[RobertNashville]

Frankly, I don't have a big problem with this idea (and I know I'm bucking the trend here).  I'll admit up front that this is an "off the cuff" reply in that I haven't thought through all the "constitutional" issues, or done extensive research but at least at first blush, I don't see this as either a bad idea or an undue burden on gun owners nor, at least not automatically, unconstitutional.

 

A gun owner is already legally responsible fore EVERY bullet he/she fires from a gun regardless of the shooter's intent or rightness of discharging the weapon.  Meaning that if you accidentally or otherwise, injure a innocent person YOU are responsible, criminally and/or civilly (i.e. financially).  That being the case and already a matter of law, I don't see it as a burden or unconstitutional for someone who does own a firearm to be required to be able to MEET those civil/financial responsibilities should something happen that bring them into play...usually that means the person is either financially well-healed (effectively self-insured) or he/she has liability insurance to cover such issues.

I basically carry such insurance now through USCCA (and possibly would be covered to some extent through my umbrella policy).

 

I understand that many won't agree with me and perhaps after thinking on it more I'll change my mind. ;)

[RobertNashville]

Any law requiring purchasing insurance to
Exercise a constitutional right would be struck down. No differently than poll taxes were stuck down.

Yeah...just like a law requiring everyone to buy medical insurance. ;)

[Hershmeister]

Yeah...just like a law requiring everyone to buy medical insurance. ;)

There is a mighty big difference. The Affordable care act was upheld as a TAX.

Since the 2nd amendment is a RIGHT, it would be impossible legally to tax it or require insurance to exercise a right. Now it might be possible to require insurance for HCPs but even that might not pass constitutional review since Heller declared you have the right both inside and outside your home.

[RobertNashville]

There is a mighty big difference. The Affordable care act was upheld as a TAX.

Since the 2nd amendment is a RIGHT, it would be impossible legally to tax it or require insurance to exercise a right. Now it might be possible to require insurance for HCPs but even that might not pass constitutional review since Heller declared you have the right both inside and outside your home.

There you go again...using logic and reason when many justices prefer to act like legislators and make rulings based on emotion, political pressure and how they think the world should be.

There SHOULD have been no way that the Obamacare mandate was upheld either, tax or not a tax, but it was.  Saying it couldn't happen in this situation is hopeful but I wouldn't bet $0.02 on that hope.

Edited February 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest nra37922]

The only reason I would see to need this would be if you missed and shot an innocent bystander.   One can be sued for just about anything and I don't have 'just about anything' insurance either.