Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

[RobertNashville]

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.

That's exactly why it would be needed...I assumed that was obvious. I'm not and I don't think anyone else is worried about the bad guy getting shot and at least in Tennessee, we have some pretty good protection if the shooting is ruled to be justified.

 

Of course, no one ever misses the intended target and/or has to worry about over-penetration in a righteous shooting. ;)

Edited February 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Don't let the name fool you... The "Good Idea Fairy" rarely ever lives up to her name. She is responsible for the woes of this country. Maybe, sometimes, not every problem requires a solution and sometimes "problems" aren't really problems.

[Guest nra37922]

                        

From 'Analyze This'
                            

Dr. Ben Sobel:
J-Jelly? Did I do that?

Jelly:
No, Doc. That one's mine. You got the '72 Chevy, and the Amana side-by-side refrigerator-freezer.

                        

Moral of the story is HIT what your aiming at OR don't take the shot.

 

In all honesty this is just another way to backdoor gun control.  Who would set the amount of insurance needed, which companies would offer it, what happens if one is dropped or the company stopped issuing the insurance, who pays for those who cannot afford this insurance. etc...
                   

Edited February 2, 2013 by nra37922

[East_TN_Patriot]

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....

 

After seeing the replies on this thread, I called Geico and they quoted me $175 per year for $1 million and $285 for $2 million.  I suspect we can find it cheaper, but it's not nearly as expensive as I thought it would be.  Unfortunately, their policy doesn't cover anything related to the gun holsters I make and sell.  Even though it's a hobby business, they still consider it commercial, which requires a commercial policy.

[East_TN_Patriot]

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.

 

If you shoot an intruder, even if justified, you can count on being sued by the criminal if they survive or their family if they die.  I promise you of this.  If you ever shoot anyone, plan on getting sued.  In 10 years in law enforcement, I never knew of any law enforcement shooting that didn't result in a lawsuit.  Even if you are right, and even if you win, you can still be out a ton of money to defend yourself.  

We plan to get the umbrella policy because it covers loss over and above your home insurance and your car insurance, plus it covers us from claims made at a rental property we own.  

[Guest nra37922]

If you shoot an intruder, even if justified, you can count on being sued by the criminal if they survive or their family if they die.  I promise you of this.  If you ever shoot anyone, plan on getting sued.  In 10 years in law enforcement, I never knew of any law enforcement shooting that didn't result in a lawsuit.  Even if you are right, and even if you win, you can still be out a ton of money to defend yourself.  

We plan to get the umbrella policy because it covers loss over and above your home insurance and your car insurance, plus it covers us from claims made at a rental property we own.  

Thats true and if you feel the need to get the extra liability insurance then buy it.  The point is that you shouldn't be required to have insurance in order to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.  As I stated earlier this would just be another backdoor attempt at gun control.

[RobertNashville]

If you shoot an intruder, even if justified, you can count on being sued by the criminal if they survive or their family if they die.  I promise you of this.  If you ever shoot anyone, plan on getting sued.  In 10 years in law enforcement, I never knew of any law enforcement shooting that didn't result in a lawsuit.  Even if you are right, and even if you win, you can still be out a ton of money to defend yourself.  

We plan to get the umbrella policy because it covers loss over and above your home insurance and your car insurance, plus it covers us from claims made at a rental property we own.  

Of course you can and likely will be sued but so long as the shooting has been formally deemed justified, no suite is going to get anywhere as you have an affirmative defense that I don't believe has ever been overcome in court (if anyone knows differently I'd be interested in knowing about it). TN law is pretty good to us in that regard.

There are at least two companies that provide insurance for both criminal and civil actions resulting from firearm use, I have mine through the USCCA because if you are ever involved in a shooting, even a justified shooting, I'd expect to have to shell out $25-$50K.

[RobertNashville]

The point is that you shouldn't be required to have insurance in order to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.  As I stated earlier this would just be another backdoor attempt at gun control.

Ulterior motives aside (as I'm sure there are some), exactly how is it "gun control"?  I understand the emotion behind the statement but I'm looking for specifics??? I understand that some might consider it an "infringement" and therefor, unconstitutional but is it really?  An inconvenience, yes...an infringement, I don't think such a requirement rises to that level.  It's doesn't stop anyone from buying a gun or owning a gun; the proposal would simply require you to be insured (or prove you are financially able) to pay for any liability you might have if you cause harm to an innocent person.

 

As I noted earlier, we ARE absolutely responsible for every round we fire...if we do injure an innocent person, is it really a burden on us for the state to require us to carry insurance to make that injured person whole (as much as he/she could be made whole)? 

Edited February 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest nra37922]

...  It's doesn't stop anyone from buying a gun or owning a gun; the proposal would simply require you to be insured (or prove you are financially able) to pay for any liability you might have if you cause harm to an innocent person.

AND what about those who cannot afford said insurance what are they to do?  AND then once again who is going to set the rates and what if the government mandates rates so high that only the rich can afford it?  If you harm an innocent then how much liability insurance is enough $1M - $10M more? 

[runco]

My 2 cents, simply put, you only need liability insurance if you have any assets to protect. I learned this the hard way, no, not my assets, but someone else who had no insurance, and no assets.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't think liability insurance is bad, but gov mandated insurance is bad. Ain't learnt nothing from universal health insurance yet?

 

If you get caught driving without auto insurance they take your license until you jump thru enough hoops. If you get caught without gov-mandated gun insurance, what? Do they take your guns till you pay a fine and prove proof of insurance?

Edited February 3, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[RobertNashville]

I know this will sound harsh but  aren't we firearm owners, especially those who carry in public supposed to be "responsible people"?

 

Aren't we supposed to be self reliant?

 

Aren't we supposed to be people to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions?

Well...at least in my opinion (which is the only thing I'm truly an expert in), responsible people need liability insurance to pay for the harm THEY might do to other people...it has NOTING to do with how many assets they have or don't have...having it only to protect assets, frankly, strikes me as a bit selfish.

 

While not universal, what a person can "afford" often seems to be a very nebulous concept.

I've counseled many people over the years who "couldn't afford" to pay their rent or utilities yet they had cable/satellite (and I don't mean the basic package), the latest TV(s), latest audio system, a significant car payment(s), etc., etc. In other words, what most people can "afford" often has more to do with their priorities than their income or net worth. Liability insurance, especially compared to the cost of even a single firearm is fairly inexpensive...if you can't afford it then perhaps you should reconsider whether owning a firearm is "affordable" or not.

 

Whether it should or shouldn't be mandated or not is one issue; whether one should or shouldn't have it is another...personally, I truly believe that not having such insurance is irresponsible.

 

 

I hope I'm not roughing too many feathers here...I know we all have to make our own choices...just calling it like I see it.

[Paladin132]

Not only no but hell no. Not only do I find it insulting to have insurance to exercise my right, but I know it would simply be used to eliminate the right. Premiums would be above what I could pay. Just look at part of Justice Thomas' writing about gun control being about disarming minorities with fees and taxes, and I think the same thing with this one.

[RobertNashville]

Most liability insurance can be had for less than $10/month...that's like one less meal out per month or one less cigar per month or two fewer packs of cigarettes per month...if people can't afford that, how in the world can they afford to shot their firearm (or even own one for that matter)?

 

I'm beginning to wonder how may folks around here don't have liability insurance on their vehicles. :shrug:

Edited February 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest nra37922]

How about this.   Lets put a tax of $2.00 or more on every box of ammo so that those who couldn't afford to pay for someones ideal of liability insurance could have it paid for out of the common pool?   Kinda of like Obamacare.   If someone wants to buy liability insurance then go for it, it is prudent to have but is up to you to make that decision OR not.  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Having to provide a financial statement or an insurance form before buying/owning a firearm doesn't quite fit the 2nd amendment now does it?

Edited February 3, 2013 by nra37922

[Rowdy]

Everybody answer this in your own mind. If by accident you shoot an innocent by stander, are sued and have judgement against you for $750,000 how are you going to pay it without general liability? Homeowners might cover a fraction of it but you are responsible for all of it.

[TMF]

We plan to get the umbrella policy because it covers loss over and above your home insurance and your car insurance, plus it covers us from claims made at a rental property we own.  

They don't consider that commercial?

[TMF]

Most liability insurance can be had for less than $10/month...that's like one less meal out per month or one less cigar per month or two fewer packs of cigarettes per month...if people can't afford that, how in the world can they afford to shot their firearm (or even own one for that matter)?
 
I'm beginning to wonder how may folks around here don't have liability insurance on their vehicles. :shrug:

Not everyone has the money to smoke cigars and go out to eat. Many folks defend their homes with hand-me-down firearms and firearms that cost less than $100, which was a one time fee/purchase. I realize your moniker is your attempt at sarcasm, but posts like these reveal it to be true.

[RobertNashville]

Not everyone has the money to smoke cigars and go out to eat. Many folks defend their homes with hand-me-down firearms and firearms that cost less than $100, which was a one time fee/purchase. I realize your moniker is your attempt at sarcasm, but posts like these reveal it to be true.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say "everyone" - I'm sure there are some who would find it "too expensive" for them but I find it difficult to believe that most people cannot afford a $100 or so per year for liability insurance. Less difficult to believe is that it simply isn't important enough to them to do it.

 

Why should the life of an innocent be put at risk with no hope of being made whole if the person with the firearm uses their weapon and causes harm to that innocent person?

 

Does our right to "bear arms" supersede our responsibility to others...to make restitution to others if our acts with those arms causes harm to an innocent person?

 

If liability insurance is truly too expensive for some then at the very least, it should be impossible for anyone to escape financial responsibility for their actions if they injure an innocent person with a firearm...make it impossible to discharge, through bankruptcy, any obligations arising from the act and all income/assets/etc., except for an absolute minimum for the basics of life, can be confiscated until the obligation is fully paid no matter how long it takes.

If you fire a weapon and injure or kill an innocent person in the process, even if you were justified in using the weapon against a non-innocent, you should not be able to escape the financial consequences of your actions.

Edited February 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest nra37922]

No issue with having someone lose everything should they injure another, be it with a car, gun, boat, ax, hammer. etc...  Lets just not single out the gun owner as there are way more incredibility negligent car owners doing way more damage with no, or minimal, insurance. 

[Rowdy]

No issue with having someone lose everything should they injure another, be it with a car, gun, boat, ax, hammer. etc...  Lets just not single out the gun owner as there are way more incredibility negligent car owners doing way more damage with no, or minimal, insurance. 

Don't worry about about that. If an uninsured motorist is judged to be liable they are responsible for the entire judgement. If they're broke, it may take years to get it, if ever. However the judgement will follow them for the rest of their life.

The moral of the story is pay your insurance premiums.

[runco]

I am not a lawyer, but I spent about 5 years involved with a case that a uninsured driver hit and killed a loved one in my family a little over 11 years ago. Let me tell you, if the person has no assets, they have no assets. Even if you win a judgment in Tennessee, they only have to file a federal bankruptcy, and they are free from any obligation.   We wanted a $1 a month for life, but couldn't even get this through.  Lessons learned, I have bumped all of my uninsured motorist insurance to large amounts, don't carry the min. on uninsured, its for you.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Thats true and if you feel the need to get the extra liability insurance then buy it.  The point is that you shouldn't be required to have insurance in order to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.  As I stated earlier this would just be another backdoor attempt at gun control.

 

You must have not read my original post that started this whole thread.  That's exactly what I was saying.  I was simply responding to what I read as a comment suggesting that one only has to worry about a lawsuit if you are in the wrong.  Nothing more.

[East_TN_Patriot]

They don't consider that commercial?

 

Apparently Geico does not.  They'll cover our rental condo, but if I sell a leather holster on eBay then it's considered a commercial transaction.  Makes no sense to me.

[RobertNashville]

I am not a lawyer, but I spent about 5 years involved with a case that a uninsured driver hit and killed a loved one in my family a little over 11 years ago. Let me tell you, if the person has no assets, they have no assets. Even if you win a judgment in Tennessee, they only have to file a federal bankruptcy, and they are free from any obligation.   We wanted a $1 a month for life, but couldn't even get this through.  Lessons learned, I have bumped all of my uninsured motorist insurance to large amounts, don't carry the min. on uninsured, its for you.

A perfect (and very sad) illustration of the problem - whether it's a firearm of a car or anything else, no one should be allowed to escape the financial consequences of causing harm to an innocent person.

I don't have a problem with bankruptcy for regular debts and issues that arise through no fault of the person filing bankruptcy but when you cause harm to another; you should NEVER be let off the hook until the obligation is paid.

Gun owners, especially those of us who carry, like to extol the fact that we are responsible, law-abiding people who believe in personal responsibility...if that's true rather than just a fantasy then we ought to be "responsible" enough to carry insurance that we can pay for our negligence if we harm an innocent person.