GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-31-2013, 05:05   #1
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Latest anti-gun rubric: require all gun owners to have liability insurance

I'm hearing discussion in the media that the proposal is being floated to require all firearms owners to purchase liability insurance.

a) This would legally define firearms ownership to be a privilege, no longer a right.
b) This proposal would very handily achieve back-door registration
c) I predict this will appeal to many of the general population of the U.S. and be argued as "a reasonable restriction"


Discuss-
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 05:10   #2
doodi1
Senior Member
 
doodi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Reston Virginia
Posts: 124
What a load of crap! What's next, make us pay more of our fair share for Obamacare?

This insurance idea is probably put forth by the insurance lobby.

Btw, did anyone see we slipped into another recession? Probably will be blamed on Bush again!
doodi1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 05:20   #3
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 19,621


Insure this.
The Okie Corral
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:01   #4
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,155


Probably be seen as a tax...
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:08   #5
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,782
Elitist liberals disenfranchising poor minorities.
__________________
Fear the government that fears your guns.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:10   #6
arclight610
Senior Member
 
arclight610's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,016
What about liability insurance for the first amendment?
arclight610 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:13   #7
Fox
Varmit Control
 
Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,168
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
Elitist liberals disenfranchising poor minorities.
Gun control is about making the world safe for urban youth.

Remember the media disinformation and legal lynching of George Zimmerman? How about the baby pictures of Trayvon Martin being broadcast on TV news?

Remember that gun control is not about stopping crime, Democrats are soft on crime. They are going after people that would defend themselves from what is their voting base.
Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:32   #8
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by doodi1 View Post
Btw, did anyone see we slipped into another recession?
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We have one quarter to go.
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:42   #9
kensb2
pistol n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Apache, OK
Posts: 1,464
Just to throw this out there: The guy who taught the certification class needed for an OK carry license actually recommend that all gun carriers get liability insurance. The NRA recommends Lloyd's of London, and I think he said his $1M policy costs him around $150/yr.

While I wouldn't agree with making it mandatory, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to do on your own.
kensb2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 06:59   #10
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,703


Everyone should have a PUP.

We should add that one should have a nice liability policy before exercising their First Amendment rights in case they misuse them and get sued for slander.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 07:10   #11
ked
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: tennessee
Posts: 2,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox View Post
Gun control is about making the world safe for urban youth.

Remember the media disinformation and legal lynching of George Zimmerman? How about the baby pictures of Trayvon Martin being broadcast on TV news?

Remember that gun control is not about stopping crime, Democrats are soft on crime. They are going after people that would defend themselves from what is their voting base.
no, gun control is about making the world safe for the Govt.

ked
__________________
if a man speaks, and there's not a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong ?
ked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 07:11   #12
rgregoryb
Sapere aude
 
rgregoryb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Republic of Alabama
Posts: 12,703


My PUP is about 80.00 a year
__________________
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

"demography is destiny"
rgregoryb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 20:36   #13
Shark1007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: orlando
Posts: 392
See my lengthy analysis under HerrGlock's post on the same subject, might shed some light on insurance and how lawyers evaluate claims.
Shark1007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 21:54   #14
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,395
I can just see the gang bangers lining up outside insurance agent offices!
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 00:01   #15
RenoF250
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,326
What would the insurance cover? Pay the family if you have to turn off a tick? I don't see any logical justification for it. You smash someone's car, your insurance can buy them a new one and make it okay but money cannot fix shooting someone.
RenoF250 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 01:15   #16
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 17,257


Quote:
Originally Posted by ked View Post
no, gun control is about making the world safe for the Govt.

ked


"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions." -- Thomas Paine
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 07:18   #17
Shark1007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: orlando
Posts: 392
Lawyer's perspective:

Every insurance policy I've ever read, in the insuring agreement, it generally states " we will pay, up to our policy limits, for damages resulting from negligence for which you are determined legally liable"

Negligence, in my jurisdiction and most, is defined as doing something a reasonably prudent would not do under similar circumstances or failing to do something a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances"

There are cases discussing the distinction between "intentional "and "negligence". For instance, you intentionally threw a beer to your wife at a ball game, you overthrew and hit the octogenarian in the next seat, killing him. You intended to throw, but didn't intend the consequences.

That's step one in claims handling, DENY,DENY,DENY.
The insurance carrier often denies claims (actually very often) and issues you a "reservation of rights" that says we will complete our contractual duty to defend you in a claim, but we don't believe the loss is covered. They may even file a thing called a declaratory action to ask a court to determine the claim is not covered.

Example: A case where my client was killed by a steroid head high school football player. Mom and dad were separated, my redneck met the wife, put the moves on her and came back to her house. Her 12 year old lied and called daddy across town "mommy has some man over and he said he'd whip my ass" Daddy brought the son that he had been buying roids for, had a bad history of aggression. Daddy wheeled in the driveway, yelled "get that guy and hold his ass" to the roid head and daddy ran in the house. The roid head picked my guy up and dropped him on his head in the driveway, game over.

Insurance denied, "it was intentional", 2 years later at trial, the judge determined it was covered just like having a bad dog and bringing it to a party, the father was negligent for bringing and not supervising the 17 year old.

Firearm negligence is generally covered under homeowners, but you need to read the specific policy.(some thigs are excluded, like jet skis and other stuff) Example, fellow in Jacksonville hotel cleared his Glock 23, ND, sailed thru 5 sheets of drywall, thru my sleeping client's left arm and fell on the bed 2 inches from his heart. Negligence case, carrier paid and my guy's a little more likely to drive home all night these days rather than get a hotel. The thing that amazed me was it was a Corbon 135 grain that never expanded and looked like it could have been reloaded.

These types coverage laws have failed many times and probably will fail again, there just isn't a product out there that offers complete firearms coverage they are espousing.

Scenario: You try to shoot a 7-11 robber, miss and hit the clerk. It would likely be a giant debate, reservation of rights and your insurance carrier would fight. They deny you alleging it was "intentional" You simply were a bad shot and intended no harm to the clerk. You were trying to shoot the guy in the hoodie. Your position was that you just screwed up. (training, training, training) You'd hear that at trial, "he took a one day concealed carry course, fired one round and never took any profession training on the evil gun he carried everywhere!!"

Buy as much coverage as you need to protect what you have and then a little more. If your estate is a million bucks, you need high limits. This is where you need to get a lawyer shooting buddy and discuss umbrella coverage and such. I get people all the time and am glad to help, even at the range. 50% want to see the Colt New Agent with the trench sight/laser or the Glock 27 with the sig lone wolf ported .357 barrel and laser, the other 50% want to ask legal stuff.

What makes people suing you drool? Big assets and big coverage. What makes insurance companies sweat? Their "exposure", a guy with a million policy presents a bigger financial risk to the money changers at the insurance carrier that the one with 50K. Those claims are handled differently.

Lawyers, ethical ones, have a duty to paint the whole picture for their client, get an asset investigation done and fully apprise the client of the reasonable options. " The guy that shot your wife accidently and paralyzed her has 100K insurance, owns a condo free and clear at the coast, a 52 Hatteras free and clear and several high end cars. The wife's medical bills exceed 400K and the friendly local hospital already filed a lien on your house when the insurance ran out, guess what happens next?

Sometimes cases have to get filed because of uncontrollable circumstances like bankruptcy for medical bills versus suing your friend, tough world out there.

I don't like the constitutional implications here either, but another time.
Shark1007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 08:53   #18
Drjones
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: CA, just outside the United States
Posts: 17,810
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via AIM to Drjones


Quote:
Originally Posted by doodi1 View Post

This insurance idea is probably put forth by the insurance lobby.

No, actually someone had posted an article here within the past few weeks that said the insurance companies actually strongly opposed this idea for a variety of reasons, one of them being a fear it would lead to increased recklessness with guns and cost the ins. cos. more money, IIRC.
__________________
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
Drjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 10:02   #19
paynter2
It ain't over
 
paynter2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: upper mid-west
Posts: 8,696


Mandatory liability insurance sounds like an 'infringement' to me.
__________________
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous." ...William Proxmire, US senator, reformer (1915-2005)
paynter2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 10:47   #20
390ish
Senior Member
 
390ish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: virginia
Posts: 1,182
The solution is already in existence. If you are worried about someone killing you with a gun, buy life insurance.
390ish is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 721
183 Members
538 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42