More Insanity: "Liability Insurance" for Gun Owners???

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Has anyone heard or read of this claim yet? I read some online posting that claims some states are considering a mandatory "liability insurance" for gun owners, as a roundabout way to circumvent the Second Ammendment right. One of the claims I read said that a proposal would mean that gun owners would have to prove they have at least a million dollars in liability insurance and if not, they cannot legally purchase a firearm. This is insane. Would there be any legal counters to this that gun owners could access to get around that if it was put through?

Here is one of the links that the poster gave for evidence:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bi ... s%C2%ADBjY


Do you think there are enough sane Pro Constitution folks in politics who would block such a thing from going through?

[The Mastiff]

The anti gun left have talked about that for the last 20 years that I'm aware of. If they are actually serious about proposing that for a vote then they are pretty sure their jobs are safe from the reprisals that often come to politicians the next election. Some areas are so overwhelmingly democrat party controlled they can run and win open and not just concealed Marxists.

If they really expect to have that kind of government then getting rid of all guns not under control of the organs of government is not just a nice thing it's a requirement. They need a monopoly on the use of force. It will not work any other way. Whether they can or not remains to be seen. Merry Christmas. :)

joe

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Thank you and Merry Christmas, Joe.

[Bodog]

The anti gun left have talked about that for the last 20 years that I'm aware of. If they are actually serious about proposing that for a vote then they are pretty sure their jobs are safe from the reprisals that often come to politicians the next election. Some areas are so overwhelmingly democrat party controlled they can run and win open and not just concealed Marxists.

If they really expect to have that kind of government then getting rid of all guns not under control of the organs of government is not just a nice thing it's a requirement. They need a monopoly on the use of force. It will not work any other way. Whether they can or not remains to be seen. Merry Christmas. :)

joe

It's about high time we start exercising our rights as intended by the people who founded this country.

[ChrisinHove]

Unless the legislators specify the exact insurance contract terms, and are prepared to constantly review it, then insurers can issue policies with such endorsements and limitations to make any such policy a) pointless and b) cheap. I’ve worked with underwriters and they can be pretty canny in such matters. Or you could tick the “million dollar excess” box on the proposal form and effectively be paying for just the certificate.

[TomAiello]

I have a million dollars (more actually) in general liability coverage that costs me less than $100/yr.

I'd be against any insurance requirement from the government (in anything, actually, not just firearms) but I don't think it would make the sky fall, either.

[awa54]

A group like the NRA could probably sponsor a group insurance policy/pool that allowed individuals affected by such a requirement to be insured for an affordable rate. If the policy has a low enough claim rate then it ought to be fairly inexpensive.

IMO, you'd be a fool not to have some sort of indemnification if you carry a firearm... The potential for financial exposure if you're ever forced to use it is huge.

[Bodog]

A group like the NRA could probably sponsor a group insurance policy/pool that allowed individuals affected by such a requirement to be insured for an affordable rate. If the policy has a low enough claim rate then it ought to be fairly inexpensive.

IMO, you'd be a fool not to have some sort of indemnification if you carry a firearm... The potential for financial exposure if you're ever forced to use it is huge.

In principle if they attach pre-requisites to exercise a certain fundamental right then they should make similar pre-requisites for all rights. It wouldn't get very far...and that's the point. By saying you need an ID to buy and carry a firearm then you should need an ID to vote, to publicly assemble, to worship your chosen deity, or even to remain silent when being questioned by the police.

If you need insurance to buy and/or carry a firearm, you should need to carry insurance when peacably protesting or when publishing news. If insurance could conceivably be necessary when exercising one right, it could conceivably be necessary when exercising any right where something bad could happen.

[awa54]

A group like the NRA could probably sponsor a group insurance policy/pool that allowed individuals affected by such a requirement to be insured for an affordable rate. If the policy has a low enough claim rate then it ought to be fairly inexpensive.

IMO, you'd be a fool not to have some sort of indemnification if you carry a firearm... The potential for financial exposure if you're ever forced to use it is huge.

In principle if they attach pre-requisites to exercise a certain fundamental right then they should make similar pre-requisites for all rights. It wouldn't get very far...and that's the point. By saying you need an ID to buy and carry a firearm then you should need an ID to vote, to publicly assemble, to worship your chosen deity, or even to remain silent when being questioned by the police.

If you need insurance to buy and/or carry a firearm, you should need to carry insurance when peacably protesting or when publishing news. If insurance could conceivably be necessary when exercising one right, it could conceivably be necessary when exercising any right where something bad could happen.

You nailed it! This is exactly why most individuals have insurance of some sort, all companies doing business carry insurance and most states require liability insurance on motor vehicles...

Laws requiring insurance are just a societal way of nudging those who don't think about their responsibility to others in to doing the "right thing".

If OTOH you are advocating for the ability to use guns without any repercussions for accidental or intended damages, then you just threw out the whole Rule of Law...

[Bodog]

A group like the NRA could probably sponsor a group insurance policy/pool that allowed individuals affected by such a requirement to be insured for an affordable rate. If the policy has a low enough claim rate then it ought to be fairly inexpensive.

IMO, you'd be a fool not to have some sort of indemnification if you carry a firearm... The potential for financial exposure if you're ever forced to use it is huge.

In principle if they attach pre-requisites to exercise a certain fundamental right then they should make similar pre-requisites for all rights. It wouldn't get very far...and that's the point. By saying you need an ID to buy and carry a firearm then you should need an ID to vote, to publicly assemble, to worship your chosen deity, or even to remain silent when being questioned by the police.

If you need insurance to buy and/or carry a firearm, you should need to carry insurance when peacably protesting or when publishing news. If insurance could conceivably be necessary when exercising one right, it could conceivably be necessary when exercising any right where something bad could happen.

You nailed it! This is exactly why most individuals have insurance of some sort, all companies doing business carry insurance and most states require liability insurance on motor vehicles...

Laws requiring insurance are just a societal way of nudging those who don't think about their responsibility to others in to doing the "right thing".

If OTOH you are advocating for the ability to use guns without any repercussions for accidental or intended damages, then you just threw out the whole Rule of Law...

I just don't think there should be double standards where one right is subject to restrictions based on fear, rational or not, where another right with the same reasonable fears could be attached. Let people decide whether they want restrictions or not based on the same principles that apply across the board.

[awa54]

I just don't think there should be double standards where one right is subject to restrictions based on fear, rational or not, where another right with the same reasonable fears could be attached. Let people decide whether they want restrictions or not based on the same principles that apply across the board.

Yeah, the sticky part is separating the gun/knife/weapon (just a thing that has no Rights) from the right to have and use it...

[The Mastiff]

This really has nothing to do with liability and everything to do with finding a way to keep more people from owning guns. Especially the ones with little resources. You know, the Plebs.

Gun control here in North Carolina was promoted and enacted strictly by the Democrat party and begun as a way of keeping Black citizens disarmed. That is a fact whether unpalatable or not . These laws are all about people control then and now.

Joe

[Bodog]

This really has nothing to do with liability and everything to do with finding a way to keep more people from owning guns. Especially the ones with little resources. You know, the Plebs.

Gun control here in North Carolina was promoted and enacted strictly by the Democrat party and begun as a way of keeping Black citizens disarmed. That is a fact whether unpalatable or not . These laws are all about people control then and now.

Joe

I have no issue with disarming a probable criminal who is currently or likely will commit unjustifiable violence with anything that could be considered an effective weapon if used as such. For those who don't already know, I'm in law enforcement, I've temporarily but fully disarmed a good number of people. In other words, revoked their right to possess a firearm without genuine due process and without any immediate oversight. In every instance they possessed a specific trait: the likelihood of committing unjust violence with the weapon i took from them. I seized those weapons with the full knowledge that there would be a strong possibility that either they or i would die if they chose to fight against my revocation of their right to bear arms, even if that meant me not fully proving they committed a crime at the time of seizure. Only that i reasonably believe they did or were going to.

The real question is not truly about the disallowance of the right of anyone to possess a weapon, but rather how to properly, reasonably, and truthfully identify people who possess the traits necessary to inflict unjust violence. We sadly don't have the ability to read minds. We can only rely on instinct and evident facts, circumstantial or not, that can be articulated to a reasonable pool of people after the fact, and history of what a certain person in front of me would likely do in certain environments in certain circumstances that which we are currently involved. Then comes the sometimes (oftentimes) gray area of how that conclusion is reached. And there's where we get into cultural norms, statistics, experience, and common sense. People in western society have had their brains and consciences whipped into submission where they disregard anything valid if it means they might be called a racist or whatever BS word that's meant to psychologically twist the truth, even if it means their own death at the hands of someone they should have known would kill them.

We as a society need to ask ourselves, where and how did the brainwashing occur to rid us as a society from our innate survival mechanisms? How do we reclaim it? How can we as a society accept truth without being scared or apprehensive about being called a racist, or a bigot, or a xenophobe, or whatever other word meant to strip us as a society from surviving? How can we reclaim truth without fear of reprisal for understanding and defending against liars and predators seeking to harm us, very often using politically correct language to strip us of our defenses, while simultaneously giving a fair shake to people who deserve it?

For reference, i believe law enforcement officers are not super citizens. We should have no rights, privileges, or demerits not accordingly afforded to any other free person. We only get paid to enforce laws on behalf of people that build and sustain societal growth. Or some semblance of that. Not be above the law. Nor should we be held to any higher or lower standard than any other specific person. The law is the law, approved by society. Nothing more. No one is more or less sovereign than another. At least, that's what i believe was meant when this country was made.

[awa54]

This really has nothing to do with liability and everything to do with finding a way to keep more people from owning guns. Especially the ones with little resources. You know, the Plebs.

Gun control here in North Carolina was promoted and enacted strictly by the Democrat party and begun as a way of keeping Black citizens disarmed. That is a fact whether unpalatable or not . These laws are all about people control then and now.

Joe

all of which may be true (not doubting, just haven't verified myself), but takes nothing away from the fact that *weapons* can be used to harm people and property... when a wielder of such weapon causes bodily harm or property damage, they must be accountable for such.

Just because you have a Right, that doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

I'm not trying to say that forcing gun owners to carry insurance is good in all ways, just pointing out the fact that the Constitution confers other rights as well as the one being discussed here and where they may overlap or be in conflict, compromises and remedies have to be made to accommodate *both* Rights.

[awa54]

I have no issue with disarming a probable criminal who is currently or likely will commit unjustifiable violence with anything that could be considered an effective weapon if used as such. For those who don't already know, I'm in law enforcement, I've temporarily but fully disarmed a good number of people. In other words, revoked their right to possess a firearm without genuine due process and without any immediate oversight. In every instance they possessed a specific trait: the likelihood of committing unjust violence with the weapon i took from them. I seized those weapons with the full knowledge that there would be a strong possibility that either they or i would die if they chose to fight against my revocation of their right to bear arms, even if that meant me not fully proving they committed a crime at the time of seizure. Only that i reasonably believe they did or were going to.

The real question is not truly about the disallowance of the right of anyone to possess a weapon, but rather how to properly, reasonably, and truthfully identify people who possess the traits necessary to inflict unjust violence. We sadly don't have the ability to read minds. We can only rely on instinct and evident facts, circumstantial or not, that can be articulated to a reasonable pool of people after the fact, and history of what a certain person in front of me would likely do in certain environments in certain circumstances that which we are currently involved. Then comes the sometimes (oftentimes) gray area of how that conclusion is reached. And there's where we get into cultural norms, statistics, experience, and common sense. People in western society have had their brains and consciences whipped into submission where they disregard anything valid if it means they might be called a racist or whatever BS word that's meant to psychologically twist the truth, even if it means their own death at the hands of someone they should have known would kill them.

We as a society need to ask ourselves, where and how did the brainwashing occur to rid us as a society from our innate survival mechanisms? How do we reclaim it? How can we as a society accept truth without being scared or apprehensive about being called a racist, or a bigot, or a xenophobe, or whatever other word meant to strip us as a society from surviving? How can we reclaim truth without fear of reprisal for understanding and defending against liars and predators seeking to harm us, very often using politically correct language to strip us of our defenses, while simultaneously giving a fair shake to people who deserve it?

For reference, i believe law enforcement officers are not super citizens. We should have no rights, privileges, or demerits not accordingly afforded to any other free person. We only get paid to enforce laws on behalf of people that build and sustain societal growth. Or some semblance of that. Not be above the law. Nor should we be held to any higher or lower standard than any other specific person. The law is the law, approved by society. Nothing more. No one is more or less sovereign than another. At least, that's what i believe was meant when this country was made.

Great post!

[Crux]

You men from the bank?

[Bodog]

.

Great post!

The sad part is that if we took action that really did try to dig out the roots of unjustifiable violence in order to protect our society, it could be very easily construed as racism, even though the actions would generally be based on logic, reason, statistics, history, etc., of certain people that fall within certain cultural belief systems. It just so happens that most cultures divide themselves along protected class lines so when actions are taken against subcultures that degrade a good society, it's very easy to point and accuse discrimination or bigotry, when in reality, if there was some cohesive culture, most perceived bigotry along protected class lines would disappear. But i think that was the entire point of creating protected classes. Diversity is the downfall of great nations. I'm not speaking of shallow differences, rather, deep seated and genuinely held conflicting foundations of various cultures. Look no further than the troubles between Ireland and England. It wasn't race that divided them, it was religion. Or the middle east, again, primarily religion. In other words, differences in what morality means to a subsect of people vs. a different subsect of people and whether the differences are too great to accept. For a long time and even still, religion equates to morality. It wasn't genuinely religious differences, but moreso moral differences.

I know white people who've wholly accepted the general black American culture and they're accepted unequivocally by black people who otherwise hate white culture. Same in reverse. I contend it's not race or other superficial differences which cause issues. It's differences in cultural foundations.

80 years ago it wasn't a big deal to allow a homogeneous society to bear arms, even children at school were fine. It was a rare occurence that there was a mass shooting, serial killers and the like notwithstanding. But then multiple generations of very different cultures were forced together due to political correctness and now people of a certain demographic that historically abhorred unjustifiable violence are committing it in despicable ways and people of other cultures are murdering and raping anyone they can. That usually means naive people from other cultures or weaker people within even their own subculture. And they tell us we should all peaceably coexist even though that's completely opposite of everything in our genes. Alligators don't live peacefully with crocodiles. Pit bulls don't live peacefully with labs. Gorillas don't live amongst chimpanzees.

When we take these things into account, it's fairly easy to see how and why the foundations of this country were set in the manner they were. They didn't expect anyone and everyone from any and every other culture on this planet to come here and expect the culture of this country to accept them and their foreign culture. The country was forged with the expectation that if foreign people with foreign cultures came here, it was with the demand that they accept our culture and integrate into our culture and our national boundaries just codified where our culture begins and ends.

With our national borders (meaning homogeneous cultural boundaries) being completely shattered, it's only a matter of time until the rights and understandings of what made this country great disappear along with the cultural homogeneity.

People fighting for what this country once was are actually fighting to reinstate the culture of what this country once embodied. That's the battle that will eventually be won or lost. Right now it's not looking that great. If they want to win the war they need to understand that our American culture is being attacked and subverted on multiple fronts. It has nothing to do with anything as shallow as portrayed in 99% of any media or even history books. We are in a culture war. Doesn't mean it's a pretty idea, but it's the truth. Some people are fighting to retain the culture, others are fighting to destroy it. Each person picks a side. I'm wholly American, nothing more, nothing less.

[awa54]

.

Great post!

The sad part is that if we took action that really did try to dig out the roots of unjustifiable violence in order to protect our society, it could be very easily construed as racism, even though the actions would generally be based on logic, reason, statistics, history, etc., of certain people that fall within certain cultural belief systems. It just so happens that most cultures divide themselves along protected class lines so when actions are taken against subcultures that degrade a good society, it's very easy to point and accuse discrimination or bigotry, when in reality, if there was some cohesive culture, most perceived bigotry along protected class lines would disappear. But i think that was the entire point of creating protected classes. Diversity is the downfall of great nations. I'm not speaking of shallow differences, rather, deep seated and genuinely held conflicting foundations of various cultures. Look no further than the troubles between Ireland and England. It wasn't race that divided them, it was religion. Or the middle east, again, primarily religion. In other words, differences in what morality means to a subsect of people vs. a different subsect of people and whether the differences are too great to accept. For a long time and even still, religion equates to morality. It wasn't genuinely religious differences, but moreso moral differences.

I know white people who've wholly accepted the general black American culture and they're accepted unequivocally by black people who otherwise hate white culture. Same in reverse. I contend it's not race or other superficial differences which cause issues. It's differences in cultural foundations.

80 years ago it wasn't a big deal to allow a homogeneous society to bear arms, even children at school were fine. It was a rare occurence that there was a mass shooting, serial killers and the like notwithstanding. But then multiple generations of very different cultures were forced together due to political correctness and now people of a certain demographic that historically abhorred unjustifiable violence are committing it in despicable ways and people of other cultures are murdering and raping anyone they can. That usually means naive people from other cultures or weaker people within even their own subculture. And they tell us we should all peaceably coexist even though that's completely opposite of everything in our genes. Alligators don't live peacefully with crocodiles. Pit bulls don't live peacefully with labs. Gorillas don't live amongst chimpanzees.

When we take these things into account, it's fairly easy to see how and why the foundations of this country were set in the manner they were. They didn't expect anyone and everyone from any and every other culture on this planet to come here and expect the culture of this country to accept them and their foreign culture. The country was forged with the expectation that if foreign people with foreign cultures came here, it was with the demand that they accept our culture and integrate into our culture and our national boundaries just codified where our culture begins and ends.

With our national borders (meaning homogeneous cultural boundaries) being completely shattered, it's only a matter of time until the rights and understandings of what made this country great disappear along with the cultural homogeneity.

People fighting for what this country once was are actually fighting to reinstate the culture of what this country once embodied. That's the battle that will eventually be won or lost. Right now it's not looking that great. If they want to win the war they need to understand that our American culture is being attacked and subverted on multiple fronts. It has nothing to do with anything as shallow as portrayed in 99% of any media or even history books. We are in a culture war. Doesn't mean it's a pretty idea, but it's the truth. Some people are fighting to retain the culture, others are fighting to destroy it. Each person picks a side. I'm wholly American, nothing more, nothing less.

The USA is still a work in progress... both Culturally and Governmentally. As a country of 325 million individuals from hundreds of different origins, it's never going to be a system that everyone is happy with, but the only way to make it better is to keep moving forward. Right now we seem to be on the cusp of some major changes and there is bound to be more tension and anxiety associated with that, I just hope that we collectively find a balance again and that the great American experiment doesn't have a major breakdown.

[The Mastiff]

all of which may be true (not doubting, just haven't verified myself), but takes nothing away from the fact that *weapons* can be used to harm people and property... when a wielder of such weapon causes bodily harm or property damage, they must be accountable for such.

Just because you have a Right, that doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

I'm not trying to say that forcing gun owners to carry insurance is good in all ways, just pointing out the fact that the Constitution confers other rights as well as the one being discussed here and where they may overlap or be in conflict, compromises and remedies have to be made to accommodate *both* Rights.

Being accountable is not the same thing as being forced to buy insurance.We all agree on being held accountable for actions. As long as we have a second amendment here we have a right to own firearms. That doesn't mean hunting only firearms either. The constitution does not state that you have the right only if you buy insurance. Do you need insurance to vote? Perhaps you should have as long as we are limiting our constitutional rights.

You can convince me this would be legitimate when you need insurance to vote. Voting for a socialist government is more dangerous to us Americans than legally owning a firearm. Socialist governments have killed more people by far in the last hundred years worldwide than all world wars as well as other wars combined during that time.

See how that works? Both seem equally ridiculous to me quite honestly. One thing is a fact though. Push anyone too far and they push back. If your goal is to corrode the ideals and traditions that bind us people as a nation than things like mandatory firearm insurance and permits to buy or store any ammo seem like a good idea but if maintaining the country is truly your goal than not stepping on others rights is the better course. :)

J

[Daveho]

I can see the rationale here-
Kind of like having to have car insurance (it’s that way here, ymmv) but driving a car is a privilege and the RIGHT to bear arms is a different thing, for better or worse.
Mmm tricky one.