A new firearm control idea I've started seeing float around...


PDA






VVelox
January 18, 2013, 09:32 PM
So recently on FB I've started seeing some antis I know float the idea of requiring insurance for firearm ownership and making it fairly prohibitively expensive.

Any one else seen this idea floating about in the wild?

If you enjoyed reading about "A new firearm control idea I've started seeing float around..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cosmoline
January 18, 2013, 09:42 PM
That's been kicked around for years. It's probably taken on new life thanks to Obamacare. But it's always been a way of getting backdoor registration. Has nothing to do with safeguarding gun owners, that's for sure.

USAF_Vet
January 18, 2013, 09:47 PM
Hasn't it been ruled that making any 2A provision (read: infringement) prohibitively expensive is unconstitutional?

M-Cameron
January 18, 2013, 09:49 PM
some politician here in MA has suggested it recently......

it is quite possibly the dumbest idea i have heard of yet....and im not even sure how they could legally justify it.

but if they do require it here, i think that may just be the last bit of motivation i need to finally make the move to NH.

GlowinPontiac
January 18, 2013, 09:59 PM
The CT legislature is considering it..........

kcgunesq
January 18, 2013, 10:52 PM
So what sort of policy would this be? One covering negligent storage? Intentional misuse? How would the state set the premium to ensure it is "expensive enough"? I have most of my valuables listed on a personal articles policy that provides total replacement for loss, theft, fire (all hazards) for about 1.5% in annual premiums. I also have a $1mil umbrella that, when considering the discounts it triggers in my other policies, doesn't cost more than a few hundred bucks a year.

Given that the vast majority of firearms are used responsibly and never cause harm, I can't see a policy limited only to misuse or negligent storage, issued only to someone meeting certain criteria (state firearms license, CCW permit, no criminal record, etc), costing more than a couple of bucks a year if standard actuarial methods are employed. But that's just a guess.

Obviously, any such requirement is immediately suspect constitutionally speaking. I'm not sure how any personal, individual right can be conditioned upon wealth generally or insurance specifically. Can we imagine being entitled to Miranda warnings only if we carried a specific license or paid an annual fee to the PBA annual fund?

As a final thought, any coverage applying to intentional misuse or acts poses a very large set of problems.

r1derbike
January 18, 2013, 11:06 PM
The insurance money gleaned will be used directly against for anti-gun legislative atrocities.

gspn
January 18, 2013, 11:17 PM
Then everyone (male and female) should be required to carry abortion insurance. After all...everyone has the ability to create life and all women have the physical potential to seek an abortion which can be partially paid for with taxpayer dollars.

mrvco
January 18, 2013, 11:19 PM
Uggh...

As with doctors and health insurance asking whether you smoke, own firearms, etc.

I could see insurance companies starting to ask whether you have firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, etc. in your household and how they are stored, etc. when writing or renewing your homeowner's or rentor's policy.

huntsman
January 18, 2013, 11:21 PM
anything that would cost a fee or tax would force me to reduce the number of guns I own because I just don't have any extra $$

Westfair
January 19, 2013, 03:14 AM
Uggh...

As with doctors and health insurance asking whether you smoke, own firearms, etc.

I could see insurance companies starting to ask whether you have firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, etc. in your household and how they are stored, etc. when writing or renewing your homeowner's or rentor's policy.
This - I can totally see this.

What they can't legislate they will regulate.

VVelox
January 19, 2013, 04:21 AM
anything that would cost a fee or tax would force me to reduce the number of guns I own because I just don't have any extra $$
That is exactly the exactly the point, to attack gun ownership among the poor, making it something for the elite.

Blackrock
January 19, 2013, 07:04 AM
That would equate to a ''Poll Tax' on the gun owners civil rights.

Swampman
January 19, 2013, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by: M-Cameron
it is quite possibly the dumbest idea i have heard of yet....and im not even sure how they could legally justify it.

Why do you feel that legal justification is needed or even desired?
We'll all be eatin' that Obamacare stew soon enough and the only "legal justification" needed was that Obama wanted it and that if I didn't like it, I was obviously a racist.

we are not amused
January 19, 2013, 12:38 PM
After Justice Roberts betrayed his oath of office and rewrote "Obamacare" into a tax bill, I have little faith that any limit or protection guaranteed by the Constitution is worth the parchment it is written on. Therefore don't rely on the Constitutional protections and/or separation of powers.

Get out and vote, and join the NRA!

hso
January 19, 2013, 12:44 PM
Goofy idea that gets cut down every time it is proposed.

These are people that want to ban guns, but are too cowardly to take a head on approach and think they can poison us.

If you enjoyed reading about "A new firearm control idea I've started seeing float around..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!