Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Latest anti-gun rubric: require all gun owners to have liability insurance

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Atlas, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. Atlas

    Atlas transmogrifier

    Oct 1, 2001
    north of the equator
    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"

  2. doodi1


    Dec 18, 2008
    Reston Virginia
    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!

  3. Blast

    Blast 'nuff said

    Aug 2, 2002
    NKY/Cincinnati area
    Insure this.
  4. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Jan 9, 2002
    Outside the perimeter
    Probably be seen as a tax...
  5. GAFinch


    Feb 23, 2009
    Elitist liberals disenfranchising poor minorities.
  6. arclight610


    Dec 2, 2009
    What about liability insurance for the first amendment?
  7. Fox

    Fox Varmit Control

    Nov 7, 2001
    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.
  8. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We have one quarter to go.
  9. kensb2

    kensb2 pistol n00b

    Mar 19, 2012
    Apache, OK
    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.
  10. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    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.
  11. ked


    Feb 12, 2007
    no, gun control is about making the world safe for the Govt.

  12. rgregoryb

    rgregoryb Amerikaner

    Oct 20, 2004
    Republic of Alabama
    My PUP is about 80.00 a year
  13. Shark1007


    Jul 17, 2011
    See my lengthy analysis under HerrGlock's post on the same subject, might shed some light on insurance and how lawyers evaluate claims.
  14. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    I can just see the gang bangers lining up outside insurance agent offices!
  15. RenoF250


    Feb 23, 2008
    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.
  16. janice6

    janice6 Silver Member

    Apr 4, 2006

    "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
  17. Shark1007


    Jul 17, 2011
    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.

  18. 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.
  19. paynter2

    paynter2 It ain't over Millennium Member

    Apr 25, 1999
    upper mid-west
    Mandatory liability insurance sounds like an 'infringement' to me. :upeyes:
  20. 390ish


    Dec 6, 2004
    The solution is already in existence. If you are worried about someone killing you with a gun, buy life insurance.