Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

[Irving]

The very reason insurance exists is to protect yourself and your livilyhood. The reason insurance was made mandatory, was because people think insurance exists to protect other people.
I giggle when I see stuff talking about a ,andatory liability limit of $1,000,000. 99.99% of the auto claims I've ever handled have not had liability limits anywhere near that. In fact, I've NEVER seen limits that high. Some people get their limits that high by adding an additional umbrella policy. Also, I believe the state minimum for auto liability insurance in California is .... $5,000.

[BPTactical]

Why do you think they pulled the "Assault Weapon Responsibility Act" here so quickly?
They knew the Fed would be doing the heavy lifting.

[Ronin13]

I can understand (but not agree with) the idea of wanting CCW holders to be insured or bonded. I do not think it is a good idea, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind it. I also do not think it should be mandatory. If it were mandatory, it should cover the CCW holder's legal fees in full, as well as shield him from lawsuits, as long as he acted appropriately and within the law.

I cannot understand mandatory insurance simply for owning a gun in your own home. There is NO valid justification for that at all. It is simply punitive.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, if you are found to be justified in use of force you are protected by state law from civil and criminal liability (Castle Doctrine). I remember reading through some stuff so I could have better tools in my classes that it was decided with Castle Doctrine that you should never feel you are "backed against a wall." If your only option is deadly force, you can't be sued or charged with a crime for defending yourself... as I understand it, again, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Dingo]

Somebody with a CCW has already passed a fairly extensive background check and attended training. Good Samaritan laws protect somebody from litigation when acting in good faith, and that should be sufficient for a CCW holder as well. It's not like Jamal can swagger into the courthouse and pick up a rhinestone-encrusted ccw badge to wear in his next garage rap video, hoping to boost his street cred more than all those petty shoplifting charges did.

[Mtn.man]

I used to watch Matlock.

[losttrail]

So we had them attempt it here, and now they're attempting it at the Federal level. The woman who proposed this infuriates me so much she should be walked up to the gallows post-haste for even suggesting this!

Luckily it isn't expected to pass. Maloney was quoted as saying, though not in this story, "We'll make the premiums so high that they'll be forced to turn their guns in." Yeah, bitch, keep thinking that... You [/FONT][/COLOR]

Turn in what guns? I don't have any guns, I just like the conversations on here.

[Clint45]

Alright, I'll try to explain. First, I think gun insurance is a stupid idea that won't do any good and it is unnecessary and unreasonable. However, I can understand why some people would think it would be a good idea for private citizens who regularly carry loaded guns in public to be insured or bonded. I disagree with their reasoning, but I can understand why they believe what they do.

Castle Doctrine does shield citizens of Colorado from prosecution or lawsuits if they defend themselves within their own home, but not all states recognize Castle Doctrine, and it will not cover your legal fees or lost wages due to court dates. Outside of one's home, many states require that a citizen either make an attempt to retreat or use "the minimum force necessary" . . . then the burden of proof is on the gun owner to show he did both of these things and had no other choice . . . that is irrational and completely wrong, but it is also the way the individuals making these laws think.

While I can understand the reasoning behind wanting to require CCW holders to be insured, I don't think it is necessary or workable. Here are a few of the problems I foresee: The insurance would require disclosure of make, model, and serial number of all firearms covered, creating de-facto registration. Additional charges would apply for additional firearms. People who used a gun that was not insured/registered could face fine or criminal prosecution. The cost of insurance would be prohibitively high, or would increase based upon factors such as age, location, profession, traffic tickets, or credit rating. If you miss a payment you could have your insurance revoked and face fines or confiscation. It is like the UBC thing . . . politicians can present it in such a way that the general public believes it is a good idea . . . on the surface . . . but their true intent is to go well beyond what they've presented and sneak in dozens of over-reaching restrictions that the public would've opposed if they were fully informed about the ramifications.

So I'm opposed to mandatory insurance because it is a "feel good" measure that won't do any good, puts conditions on a right, and gives enemies of that right yet another opportunity to sneak a number of new restrictions into the small print.

[Irving]

I think liability insurance is great idea, bit not in the way it is being presented by the people proposing the law, nor for the same reasons. Fortunately, most people understand insurance as little as they understand guns; and this includes the politicians. Also fortunate, is that insurance companies have lots ofoney to fight for their interests. On the flip side, there are lots of examples of stupid insurance related laws that have been put into place by stupid voters.

[johnyfive]

Things bode well for now, but let's not forget how well paid our lawmakers are and how much of their portfolio is invested in insurance. Even if they can't be bought outright by a corporation (as we're willing to believe is largely the case with Bloomburg and other legislation) it would serve the self-interest of anyone invested in insurance companies. Although making the premiums so high that everyone would have to surrender their guns would be the furthest from the goal of any gun owner liability insurance act. That would be bad business.

[Irving]

Considering the rarity of law abiding people actually shooting someone, this coverage would be a gold mine.