Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance

eom

"... because someone is getting rich off it."

This has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with money. So, our new gun control policy is going to be "only the well-to-do" can own guns? What a crock.

but maybe then the neocon fools will figure this little fact out.

They repeatedly support the hand that slaps them theory... this might turn on the lights.

...every fire arm owned must have mandatory liability insurance with state minimums, mandatory personal firearm inventory affidavits signed, with stiff penalties incurred for scofflaws. They tell me I'm nuts, laugh and joke away, that it'll never happen, well.......

Like how some people are more reckless with rental cars when they purchase the full insurance.

..."more willing".....um, with the specter of being covered in darkness, in stir, for 25 to life? Always exceptions, caveats, apple and orange trees, you see.

Most/all insurance policies don't.

(Also, the car analogy is bad because the insurance/license only applies if you want to drive on public roads, whereas, firearms can sit happily inside your home forever, without setting foot on public property)

Edit to add: That didn't help much.

People that can be injured or killed by a gun may or may not be in public.

Interesting line of logic.

I don't think that is valid.

I'm also guessing someone's comprehensive insurance wouldn't cover damage from taking your lowered Acura NSX through a public ORV park, and trying to rock climb.

This is a whole new category of insurance, and a wise one at that.

It doesn't matter if cars are public, private, blue, green, electric or whatever. This is about guns.

and never take your gun outside of your home, or shoot it into your yard, you probably don't need gun liability insurance.

Except a person with a unlicensed, uninsured vehicle on their property is under no such onus.

kill someone in your house -- or even in your yard. You're not going to make the car blow up and kill someone if you "load" it with gas.

But people are killed every day by making a mistake while loading their guns.

Someone has to pull the trigger. Just like someone has to get in that car, turn the key, and hit the gas.

The three shooters at the gun shows didn't deliberately pull the triggers of their guns, but they managed to shoot 5 people by accident. The same thing could have happened at home.

But no one get can a car to drive without opening the door, sitting down, turning the key, putting it into gear, and hitting the gas.

And no one does that inside their home.

The actions were primed. (Key in the ignition)
Safeties off. (In gear)
Trigger pulled (Foot on the gas)

There is a condition in which a firearm can self-fire. Normally the phenomenon is called a slam-fire. Most firearms that exhibit this 'feature' end up recalled and repaired or replaced. Because it is a design flaw.

None of the firearms in the cited instances slam-fired. The triggers were pulled. 'Deliberately' or not, the triggers were pulled. Period. On top of not verifying the weapons were unloaded, with the actions tied open.

Normally, at our gun shows, when you clear a weapon, you point it into something called a clearing barrel, a 55 gallon drum mounted on its side, filled with sand. So if the worst happens, no one gets hurt. They even use them in police stations. We use them because accidents can and do happen.

No countermeasures were used here.

1. The weapons were assumed to be unloaded. Firearm rule number 1 violated.
2. The weapons were not pointed in a safe direction (clearing barrel). Firearm rule number 2.
3. The weapons were fired. By failing steps 1 and 2, you're so far behind the curve, step 3 is guaranteed to injure someone.

closes the door, turns on the engine, and accidentally pushes the gas pedal.

But people do accidentally touch loaded guns with safeties off (sometimes unknowingly, through clothes) and they do accidentally pull triggers.

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/man-accidentally-shot-at-gun-show

NDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - A person who was loading a gun outside of the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show at the State Fairgrounds was accidentally shot when his gun discharged Saturday afternoon.

The incident was reported shortly after 4:15 p.m. Saturday.

Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show PIO Ashley Varner says the man had been inside at the gun show before the incident.

The man, identified as Emory L. Cozee, 54, was walking back to his car, was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic and accidentally shot himself in the hand, Varner says.

SNIP

Three people were also accidentally shot and wounded at a gun show at the North Carolina state fairgrounds on Saturday.

In Medina, Ohio on Saturday, a dealer was checking out a semi-automatic handgun at a gun show when he accidentally pulled the trigger and shot a man in the arm and leg.

"The man, identified as Emory L. Cozee, 54, was walking back to his car, was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic and accidentally shot himself in the hand, Varner says. "

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=350545

Shit, there are people who run over their own children in their own driveways. The analogy of accidental injuries between firearms and cars is actually pretty apt. It's the intended function where they diverge.

just like car owners, even though you say "the analogy of accidental injuries between firearms and arms is actually pretty apt."

I rest my case.

I'm perfectly fine with requiring liability insurance for, say, a complete parallel: carrying with a Concealed Carry License, in public.

You brought in the ridiculous 'as long as no one comes onto your property' etc stuff.

you're subjecting them to the risk of you or someone else mishandling your guns; just as you subject others to risk when you drive your car on public roads.

Still has the potential for personal injury.

Unfortunately, you can walk into a gun owner's house, or send your children over there to play, and have no idea whether there are guns there, secured or not.


When I was in high school, a freshman boy accidentally shot and killed a friend while the friend was visiting. The parents of the visiting boy had no idea that this could happen; they had been friends since elementary school. And then one day . . . .

Defunct vehicle is now in a garage. Or a barn. Taken out by 'freshman friend' for a joy ride on the back 40, Or on a lift being restored, and comes crashing down..

It need not obviously be in a person's yard, and it need not even be turned on.

Here in WA, we have no link between our CPL's, and liability insurance. I carry extra insurance because its the prudent thing to do. (And not very expensive at all, actually.)

There is a clear and logical link between requiring liability insurance to carry in public. I'd back you to the whole way creating a legal link between CPL, and even open carry (legal in WA) in public spaces, to require liability insurance.

Requiring said insurance for ownership of a firearm that is not being carried in public has no legal or historical precedent. There is no logical basis.

Want to require safe storage? Ok, now we can draw a parallel that works (pools). I'd support that too. Put your goddamn guns in a safe, lock the trigger shrouds, etc. We can require that. Hell, we could require that via interstate commerce. Illicit trade of guns crosses state boundaries. If they can regulate a single pot plant in someone's basement via interstate commerce, we can regulate guns as well, for things like safe storage.

There are some novel mechanisms by which we can make inroads on this problem. Others... not so much. And some of those others might open an unpleasant can of worms, since we are talking about an enumerated, and court recognized civil right. How about liability insurance to post on the internet, where you could defame, or libel someone? Probably see that in the UK before you see it here, but yes, you can damage a person monetarily, via a simple first amendment issue statement. Can we require liability insurance for twitter statements? You are suggesting we probe the murk with our bare hands here, and see what we find. I'll pass. I like my hands intact. There are innumerable things we can do, that have already been tried and tested by legislatures, congress, and the courts. Lets do those. Then we can explore strange stuff like this. (that liability insurance requirement would not have saved the friend of your freshman co-student.)

One question though, would a person that broke into a house be able to file a claim if they are injured with the owners gun?

In some states, yes, depending on the circumstances. In other states, probably not. One provision of the SYG laws is, if the person who fired the weapon cannot be charged with a crime, they cannot be sued for civil damages either.

Most states don't have that, though. For those states, it would have to be some sort of unreasonable exercise of force, or something like that. Not straight up self defense.

Beat one big money lobby group by bringing in even a bigger one to neutralize it...perfect!

Pits corrupting assholes against corrupting assholes!

This is a no-brainer. MA requires insurance to drive a car, there sure as hell should be insurance for shooting a gun.

It probably wouldn't be that expensive, and the rituals involved---paperwork, carrying an insurance card, etc.---would go a long way towards re-establishing gun ownership as a serious matter, rather than the juvenile sport it has become for all too many people.

Liability insurance is included with every membership. It is neither expensive nor difficult to obtain.

Liability insurance is expensive, particularly when the liabilities covered include things like accidentally killing people while hunting.

From YOUR NRA MEMBERSHIP:


No automatic liability coverage.

However:



From NRA Endorsed Insurance Program Online- http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/:



Go ahead and call for a quote. Maybe it's cheap, but I'm guessing not. And try finding that $5 million coverage for when your kid shoots the neighbor's son and sued ... your screwed.

I carry $1 million in personal liability already.

Requiring liability insurance for people who carry weapons in public makes sense. Requiring it for simply owning a firearm does not.

Just like we only require car insurance to operate on public roads.

Want a car? Show proof of car insurance.

Want a gun? Show proof of liability insurance.

I LOVE this.

...for an individual. Anyone who has any assets worth protecting should have personal or professional liability insurance. You never know when a banana peel you dropped accidentally can cause someone to slip and fall and be injured.

You can find a link to insurance specifically for that purpose on a site that I would prefer not to link to. But you can probably figure it out through Google.

BTW, my renter's insurance policy paid out for damage caused by a member of my household who wasn't related to me, but his name was on the lease. I'm not sure the concern raised in your subject line is necessarily valid. I believe a standard renter's policy covers liability for all members of the household.

If a renter has a person living in the home who isn't on the lease, that may be a point of contention with the landlord. Lease agreements are usually very specific about who lives there, and how long guests can stay without being reported to the landlord. Especially when the landlord is paying utility bills.

Cars aren't necessary to a well-regulated militia. Nor no dam insurance neither! I think that last part is right there in the bible.

Sorry guys this won't save a life. A new gun law should aid in saving lives....this will not and just drive gun owners not to register. Massachusetts already has some of the strictest laws in the nation.....just enforce them.

"A new gun law should aid in saving lives" - says who?

That may be your opinion, but it is not mine.

they're coming out of the woodwork now

And yet, we're all better off because it exists.

Besides that, what evidence do you have that enacting such a regulation will "drive gun owners not to register"? Responsible owners would probably enjoy the peace of mind it would offer them.

did you not get the message? WE ARE NOT LISTENING TO NRA CRAP ANY LONGER.

As usual, we're greeted with the "it won't do any good" NRA bullshit.

Liability insurance is NOT expensive. Most people who can afford a firearm already have it.

It could be tied into the background check system.

It won't get all illegal guns off the streets but it will have a positive effect over time.

databases are linked to the DMV. When your insurance expires, the DMV automatically suspends your registration and issues a ticket.

Same thing could be done for guns. If your insurance lapses, the sheriff shows up to confiscate your guns until you re-up your policy.

What happens to that state's portion of the 300 million guns in circulation when people can't afford to keep them anymore, and everyone is trying to sell them?

Going to need a pretty high dollar value buy-back program at the least.

Hint: Only certain people would be willing to flout the law, and hang onto them WITHOUT insurance.

I don't want those guns wandering off into bad people's hands.

No one is guaranteed an income stream. Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business, too.

I don't like the idea of a small business going under, but I prefer it to them trading in weapons built for destruction of human beings.

to poor and middle class folks who want to purchase guns? Maybe gun owners can set up a charitable foundation--contribute here to help a working class family buy its very own gun?

This sounds like a job for the private sector!

This concerns me that so many people want the 1%, and the people directly employed by the 1% to be the only people in this country with firearms.

That strikes me as a problem.

is the unending proliferation of firepower into the hands of people who use it to massacre innocent people, including children.

Your "1%" argument is just another variation of the "I need my guns to keep the government from turning into a tyranny" line of NRA BS. The population of America is already armed to the teeth. Last I noticed, the 1% has been fine with that.

In fact, over the years, the more guns sloshing around in our society, the more wealth and power have accrued to the 1%. It is absolutely in the interests of the 1 % to keep us frightened of each other, and at the moment there is little more frightening to people than the thought that they, their loved ones, or even their children at school might be slaughtered by some maladjusted twerp with a thirst for blood.

And no, I don't think that's fun and games at all.

"Your "1%" argument is just another variation of the "I need my guns to keep the government from turning into a tyranny" line of NRA BS. The population of America is already armed to the teeth. Last I noticed, the 1% has been fine with that."

This is wrong from stem to stern. See; Laws regarding 'cheap' 'Saturday night special' handguns. Upper income people have been long ok with the idea of stripping 'poor people' of access to firearms. Never mind that there has been no solid correlation between economic mobility and crime. The crime rate has continued to decline right through the biggest recession in the last 70 years.

The tactic of simply making firearms more expensive to reduce proliferation is not a great idea. It is entirely possible to curtail sales, capacity, cyclic rate, all the things that make modern firearms force multipliers over older firearms, without resorting to making them too expensive for 'the little people'.


It's probably not even permissible, per poll taxes.

"The tactic of simply making firearms more expensive to reduce proliferation is not a great idea."

Why isn't it a great idea? Simply because you think everybody ought to have a gun?

Arnold Schwarzennager owns a tank. It's his rich man's toy. Personally, I'm quite happy that tanks aren't available to anyone with a yen to own one. Imagine a hundred million tanks roaming the countryside.

"It is entirely possible to curtail sales, capacity, cyclic rate, all the things that make modern firearms force multipliers over older firearms..."

I'd agree with all those measures as well. Anything within reason to reduce the number of firearms sloshing around this nation.

Firearms have a legitimate self-defense purpose. This is attempting to artificially price poor people out of firearms. Being poor and wanting a firearm for recreation, food, or self defense isn't the problem.

If both cars and car liability insurance are more expensive, then we can only assume that many people want only 1% and those in their employ to have transportation?

roads. Tie it to the CPL's. Done. Easy peasy.

We have to have it on cars and they aren't even made for killing things.

From Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries:



Some personal liability policies may already cover such cases. However, requiring special gun liability could encourage the use of gun safes, trigger locks, and the purchase of weapons with additional safety devices like a loading indicator.

And it should be expensive too. You want to own a gun, you should have to pay at least $600.00 a year for small hand guns, and over $1,000 a year for your "semi" automatic weapons. AKA Assault Rifles.

if you can't make a corporation very wealthy from it?

I know the government can mandate a minimum amount of coverage, but can they mandate a MINIMUM amount a private company will charge for that coverage?

to the gun insured, and they would report thefts of their gun immediately.The ATF should do the insuring and use the profits to finance their monitoring of whacko groups

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. You really think a criminal or gangbanger is going to buy insurance for his or her guns?

the bad guys always follow the law. There sure are some stupid people in this Country. This will only help the rich Ins Co's.

But this law would do some good over time.

They get their guns from legal owners. Either through theft or straw purchases.

Reduce the number of legal owners, you reduce the number of guns available to criminals.

so noone can remove it and it can be tracked like a cell phone. Dont know if this can work.

And the batteries would eventually run out.

Also, with interchangeable parts, it would be easy to remove the chip and replace it with a non-chipped part.

It might be easier to put trackers on crazy people instead.

can that particular science be used- no battery required.

easy to hide that is why you get the cover for most new credit cards. Metal on gun will block signal and will be easy to defeat.

guns are dangerous? Who knew?

This will cause economic and legal hardship for law abiding citizens. Everyone in the state will bear the cost of implementing this nonsense. It will do little to stop actual gun crime in the state.

Obviously, the insurers are not going to cover criminal acts.

Yeah I'm sure some not so well off person living in a crappy part of town will love this.

Now it's a trade off...gun or food.

Don't like regulations, let the industry regulate itself, oh, that doesn't work, LaPierre has already blown that to bits, get more guns. NRA has had their opportunity and has lost so it will be up to sensible laws and regulations. NRA can only blame themselves or at least the senseless board for dumb results.

or in two years, when we have the house, nationally.

Wouldn't this just make the NRA richer both through more policies AND through more memberships?

But there are other ways to get it, such as a conventional homeowner's or renter's insurance policy.

And help the NRA pick up several hundred thousand more dues paying members.

For those who might yell fire in a theater, etc.

There will always be a few among the many who use their rights to harm others - and sending money to private insurance companies is a great way to keep them in check (especially the poor people who cannot afford it - can you imagine if we let homeless people own guns and have free speech without paying something to others for it??? OMG).

In fact since I have had gun safety training and passed a background check as is required to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Florida, my rates should be extremely reasonable. People like me rarely misuse their firearms, have far fewer firearm accidents and rarely commit crimes that involve the use of firearms. Of course there are a few exceptions. We would prove a lucrative market and the competition would keep the expense of such insurance very reasonable for us.

Often laws have unintended consequences and this might be true if such a law passed at a national level. Many gun owners might decide to get a carry permit to significantly reduce the cost of such insurance and consequently may decide to actually carry their handguns in public.

For example over 800,000 Floridians have concealed weapons permits. A good percentage got this license in order to avoid the three day waiting period required for a person who doesn't have a permit when he/she buys a handgun or to be able to have a handgun locked in their car at their employer's parking lot while they are at work.

Of course obtaining a concealed weapons permit is fairly cheap , easy and takes three months in Florida but much more difficult, expensive and takes up to a year or more in states like New York. This might lead to changes in the laws of "gun unfriendly" states that those who support strong gun control would dislike.

Beware of what you wish for as you might actually get it. The recent effort to pass another assault weapons ban has led many people to buy a firearm as they worry that it might not be possible in the future. All types of firearms are flying off the shelves of gun stores not just merely "assault weapons." Ammo is also on back order as is reloading supplies. Gun owners are buying these items because prices are skyrocketing due to the demand. People who have no safety training and no real need for a firearm have decided to buy their first gun now. Many of these people will misuse their firearms or fail to safely store them and tragedies will result. There maybe some minor positive changes in our laws that will improve them and another watered down "assault weapons" ban might pass but I predict that 10 years from now civilians will still legally own semi-auto rifles and handguns. In fact 100,000,000 citizens might own a firearm or a collection of firearms while only 80,000,000 own them today.

Of course I might be wrong, Time will tell.

In addition to requiring:
1.) background checks
2.) mental health clearance
3.) training
4.) supervision for youth
5.) registration of guns
6.) waiting periods
7.) a license to purchase a gun or ammunition

Insurance applications would ask questions about your health background; drugs that you might be taking for depression; your home situation and firearm security; demographics that correlated with gun misuse.

Requiring insurance would be one addition road to a safer world.

It would never hold up in a court challenge. Imagine the DMV denying someone a drivers license young men but not young women- on the basis that young men are involved in the majority of accidents.

And for very old ones. Rates also vary based on gender.

Rates for car insurance in California are based partly on your Zip code.

That may seem like discrimination to you, but it's withstood many court challenges.

every insurance company knows the profile of more risky applicants. They may not say so, but rates reflect age, sex, race, and a bunch of background correlations.

If you had to apply for firearm insurance, and you had to fill out an application, you can be sure that the underwriters would not give you a policy (or they would charge a lot more) if you put down certain red flags. Even your zip code, the kind of auto you own, affiliation with organizations (NRA, church denomination, etc.) would give away a demographic profile. They don't have to directly ask for your race most of the time - they can just look it up from the information on the application.

I suspect it would make it harder to keep some potentially dangerous people from possessing guns if they had to have proof of insurance.

Make these people pay for their toys every month.

Most homeowner's and renter's policies already cover liability for the insured party's mistakes, even when the insured isn't at home.