insurance is tantamount to a poll tax...

lately with voter ID, there may be an expense. I have no problem with requiring a gun owner to obtain a policy if they don't have coverage under renters or homeowners policies, or if they are carrying their weapon in a place other than home.

Hospital bills and dying are not cheap.

Require that licenses be renewable every couple of years (hell, many professional licenses must be renewed every couple of years). At time of renewal, a copy of a certificate showing coverage would be presented.

I don't think this is unreasonable. We aren't talking about muskets any more, but serious, potentially dangerous weapons and ammunition.

Sure, there are lots of problems to work out, but it can be done. I'd like to know that owners are financially responsible through a third party. I don't want to rely on having to sue someone for restitution.

And I'm not saying it can't be done; except that to do so would require the courts to wipe away and/or nullify a bunch of existing legal precedent.

The key word is "infringe" - would requiring insurance infringe on a persons constitutional rights? Probably...

unless the purchaser is giving it as a gift. Is having to pay for a gun an infringement? Is having to pay for ammo an infringement? If I'm blowing money every couple of months at a gun range to keep my skill up, then what's the problem with a few more bucks for insurance?

overcome these will be an uphill battle.

rights, was part of the articles of confederation, and considered so fundamental at the drafting of the constitution as to not need to be enumerated. It's also been upheld by several court rulings.

So yes I think it's comparable. Licensing and insurance are required.

I think if you asked the founding fathers if you had a right to ride a horse (that you owned) they would laugh at you and say of course.

I disagree. It is in the ninth amendment right next to abortion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment

cars but not firearms?

only to use it on public roads. If we were to seriously equate cars with guns, we would have to repeal all current federal gun control laws and replace them with nothing other than requiring them pass a drop test, maybe. Also, more people are killed with cars with guns. Hell, heroin kills more people than guns once you remove suicides. In fact, more people die of heroin overdose than are murdered by all means combined.

public spaces or if you live near enough to other people that your bullets would intersect their property, or public property. If you live a million miles from anyone else and keep your gun at home, fine.

Cars... have other uses...

And I don't care what heroin addicts do to themselves. My brother is one and he is scum. Cut off all contact with him years ago.

IOW, if you live in an a city, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

Car crashes kill something like 30K people a year, not counting property and injured people.

The accidents you are describing are something like ten or twenty, a couple of hundred at most.

The insurance would be dirt cheap. Self defense insurance costs less than a box of ammo a month, and that is for a million dollar policy. BTW, it would be a great money maker for the NRA. In fact, the entire idea was from an insurance executive who wrote a Forbes, or was it Fortune, one of those Wall Street pubs, article on it. For them, it is about easy profit, raking in billions in premiums with little chance of ever having to pay it out.
The value decreases even more if we adopt a single payer or a socialized system.

So it would work. Charge liability to conceal and open carry in public. The more you go out with it, the more chances things can go wrong. Register your gun, show your insurance.

As the single largest seller of firearm liability insurance the NRA thanks you too.

12+ million concealed carriers.

Insured at roughly $300 a year.

That's $3.6 Billion a year more in the NRA Political Victory Fund.

Sooo, how many Senators and Representatives do you think $3.6 Billion will buy, every frickin year?

Gun control supporters have such great, insightful ideas.

Of course the insurance won't pay on any criminal acts and the criminals won't buy it anyway.

I've met plenty of gunowners that I wouldn't describe as prudent, but they will do their best to abide by rules and the law.

Already covers most negligent acts and do not specifically exclude gun acts on the standard ISO forms.

So most gun owners have a typical minimum of 100k protection. Hopefully more and hopefully an umbrella.

Vehicle when they accidentally discharge their weapon?

I think insurance would help victims recover expenses.

Unintended consequences at work.

80,000,000+ gun owners out there.

12,000,000 plus concealed carry permit holders, not counting the growing number of Constitutional Carry states.

My instructors gun liability policy costs around $300 a year for $500,000 - $1,000,000 liability coverage. Of course it doesn't cover criminal acts, no insurance would.

Guess who the largest supplier of firearm liability insurance is? Go on guess?

If you said the NRA you win, and so would they.

12 million CCW holders times $300 a year, wowser!

3.6 Billion $$$ in the NRA coffers, every freakin' year, unless I moved a decimal point in the wrong direction?

Boy that big idea makes Bloomberg look like a piker and is going to let them buy a lot of politicians at Federal, State and Local levels.

So are you still interested, knowing where that money is going to wind up and that criminal activity doesn't count for insurance payments.

of some careless idiot if they hurt or kill my family member(s). What a lovely, vicious cycle of logic that is.

A lot of people that don't really follow the issue that closely latch on to what sounds like a good idea at first, and never bother to look any deeper into it. Mandatory insurance, Universal background checks, magazine limits etc. all sound good, but none of them would ever stop the kind of horrific mass shooting crimes everyone is concerned about.

For example they buy into the; "Only 40% of guns sold are sold with a background check" bumper sticker thinking. That number came from a study conducted 2 years before there even were mandatory background checks. Today any gun sold by an FFL in their store or at a gun show, even private 1 to 1 sales have to undergo a Federal background check in a growing number of states.

Mandatory Firearm Owners Insurance will have no effect on criminals, because they won't bother with it, any more than they obey other laws. And it will basically hand the keys to the Federal and State Government over to the NRA in a year or two. Besides you are probably already covered by basic liability laws and homeowners or renters insurance of a law abiding gun owner.

I'm just trying to point out that it's a bit more complicated than just saying; "OK everybody buy insurance now".

FWIW the vast majority, like 90%+ of gun fatalities and injuries are due to criminal activity. From drug deals gone bad, to domestic violence. You and your family's odds of being shot an injured or killed drop precipitously to almost zero, if you aren't involved in, or adjacent to in your neighborhood, criminal activity.

If you or a member of your family are injured or killed by a careless gun owner in the next toilet stall over, you absolutely have recourse in civil court to sue the gun owner for damages, mental anguish, etc.

But, you can't sue the gun manufacturer, or the dealer who sold it (assuming it was a legal sale) unless there was a flaw in the gun's design or function, any more than you can sue Ford for a drunk driver hitting you with a '96 Explorer.

This is exactly the kind of informed points I was looking for, thanks.

about restitution.

In my husband's office is a smart young man who is wheelchair-bound. He has a professional income and drives a nice car, etc. He is licensed to carry to protect himself. I have no problem with that, given his circumstances.

He accidentally discharged his weapon in the men's room last year. The bullet went through several stall dividers and was stopped by a cinder block wall. Fortunately, the other person kn the men's room had just left. That bullet could have easily gone through my husband's heart if he had decided to leave for lunch a few minutes earlier and started his routine (bathroom/wallet/phones/keys). I have no idea if hubby's coworker has insurance to cover the costs of an accident like this.

Yes, we have life insurance. But I'm still raising kids, and SS death benefits would still leave us disadvantaged. So sure, it's crossed my mind...

to take you to Switzerland.

You can shoot a person in any state, us territory or Canada and still have coverage.

Your premises follows you.

So take the gun to a flea market and accidentally shoot somebody. You're likely covered.

...outside the home, probably reflecting the comparatively low numbers, in terms of incidents and liabilities, when the (falling) rate of gun-related damages is compared with other causes of damages.

If some kind of law requiring insurance outside the home, it would be challenged immediately. The courts would of course look at the intent of the legislation along the lines of: Is that requirement for full hospital admissions for women's clinics a "health" issue, or a de facto but rather bold attempt at restricting a woman's right to choose? Courts have shown a propensity to peruse past debate and the political actors involved, esp. in light of the RKBA's constitutional status.

It seems many shootings are self-inflicted, or are shootings done by bad guys. Insurance would probably not cover the first, and I doubt many criminals would bother with insurance, especially if they are not permitted to be around guns.

I have the same reaction - what exactly is the purpose of the insurance and what do you think it should cover? Criminals aren't going to purchase it and insurers won't pay for criminal misuse anyway.

How exactly could you get coverage or financial help to the victim(s) family(s) in way that's fair to everyone? That's where I was thinking like cars, guns could carry a separate policy requirement. As in that specific case you had someone steal and use lawfully obtained and owned firearms. Criminality aside, if on a per gun basis the legally owned and managed firearms used in similar acts or "uncovered" acts as they may be, could this be a layer of protection for the general public. Or as stated above a boondoggle for the NRA? It's a whole can of worms

That's the thing that so many people who seem to suggest this miss. A deliberate criminal act can't be insured.

unnecessary.

who gets shot by accident by an otherwise law abiding gun owner who just decides to declare bankruptcy and leave the victim holding the bag on medical bills.

With intentional harm and damage being done as a majority of their shootings?

Don't they have insurance for their cars?

But hell no.

Your question is apparently sincere, but terribly misguided.

Let me again copy one of my many posts on the subject (I'm a litigation attorney and my practice includes insurance and underwriting issues).

Similar to pedestrians in NY, would that possibly work in your opinion? Also is their an NRA insurance policy that would pay benefits to any victims of gun violence?

But thanks for the awesome feedback, while you say my question was misguided I was just trying to get some informed minds like yourself to comment on the idea. Get an idea of the bills that have been introduced in multiple state legislatures, why those are failing, really.

But cheers you added to my reading.

what they really mean is a punitive tax to deter people from owning guns (largely poor people of color) or a desire to institute some form of victim compensation fund. Neither of these ideas is really insurance by any technical or accepted definition, and the term is used because it's politically palatable and maintains the usual comparisons to car ownership where insurance is common and expected.

First and foremost, unlike car ownership. any regulation, tax, etc. concerning firearm ownership will be met with some level of increased constitutional scrutiny because the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, irrespective of the opinion of people opposed to firearms. At the very least, any proposed law must serve a legitimate important government objective and be substantially related to achieving the objective (e.g., no felons or adjudicated mentally ill can possess firearms). The desire by politicians that simply less people exercise a right like firearm ownership is most definitely not by itself a important government interest.

As is evident from many laws across the country, firearms may indeed be subject to certain regulations and basic matters like non-onerous or punitive state and local sales taxes may be assessed against them as with any other consumer product (although there is some current interesting and related litigation on the tax issue in Seattle). As I indicated in my prior post, the problem with firearm "insurance" is that there's absolutely no evidence that it would actually lower the number of firearm deaths or injuries or in any way address the problems it purportedly seeks to solve, at least if any policy is designed and implemented as actual insurance.

The primary reason why firearm insurance is often discussed, but never actually passed into legislation even in the most anti-gun jurisdictions, is that it's just impossible to correct the numerous legal and practical difficulties. Many localities additionally fear an unsuccessful policy or one struck down by the courts would be a serious net loss for the gun control movement at a time with very few victories and more liberalized gun ownership and popular support for gun rights (to say nothing of the fact that even an attempted policy would be a financial windfall for groups like the NRA).

As to your "no fault" idea, it wouldn't solve the primary insurance policy problem. Due to very long-standing and quite practical reasons, insurance doesn't cover insured's intentional criminal conduct. "No fault" doesn't abrogate this rule in any way, and really only seeks to mitigate ligation costs and ensure people are covered for standard accidents and other negligence by their own insurer. A true general no fault policy would essentially require everyone in a state, regardless of whether they owned a firearm, to carry firearm insurance, and it still wouldn't fix the criminal misuse issue. I don't very much that this would be palatable to many on the gun control side.

The NRA sponsored insurance riders and most basic homeowner's and renter's policy cover accidents in the home and related properties. There are usually no exclusions for firearm accidents, although people can certainly choose to take out extra or specialty coverage, including for matters like self-defense scenarios which often have significant legal costs. People generally forget that most lawful gun owners already possess firearm insurance (real insurance), and those in criminal possession of a firearm would be ineligible to purchase such insurance, no less be covered for criminal acts.

Lastly, to the extent my prior post was dismissive of you questions, I apologize. Your inquiries appear quire sincere. Unfortunately, the insurance issue is a very common argument among gun rights advocates and opponents, and many proponents of the insurance idea are not nearly as amicable as yourself, nor try to hide the fact that very serious problems with the policy, including punishing lawful and safe gun owners or backdoor gun bans, are considered features, not bugs, of these proposals.

with no benefit in terms of public safety. No thanks.