You don’t have a RIGHT to own a car.
You do have a RIGHT to own a firearm.
This is more like requiring a poll tax to vote.
Am I required to own a firearm?
That was the analogy, not whether or not it is a right.
Rights do not equal requirements.
An innocent person who is shot has a RIGHT to collect damages – to pay his/her medical bills and take care of his/her family. Requiring gun insurance is an equitable way to protect the victim as well as the gun owner from financial ruin.
Just when I begin to think our politicians can’t possibly come up with any dumber ideas…
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
How is this a dumb idea?
More regulations, more restrictions on honest, responsible gun owners. What possible effect would it have on criminals – do you think they will be standing in line outside your agency’s door to buy this?
These are not regulations or restriction. Just providing coverage to victims and, hopefully encouraging proper handling and storage of firearms. This is how the insurance market can help play a role in reducing incidences of gun violence. There will always be gun violence, but isn’t it worth some effort to lessen the impact it has on innocent victims?
How do you separate responsible gun owners from non-responsible? Are all non-responsible gun owners criminals?
By all accounts, Nancy Lanza was an honest law abiding gun owner who did not store her firearms properly. If she had, we are not having this conversation and 26 innocent victims would have celebrated Christmas with their families.
Nancy Lanza did not kill anyone. Her gun was stolen. Focus on the shooter rather than the trigger. It is NOT the insurance industries job to police gun training or gun storage. There ar plenty of laws that ban murder. Enforce them. MOre ‘feel good, worthless regulations for those who don’t want to deal with the real issues of mental illness, violent movies, violent video games….I have not seen any ‘rushed’ legislation to control this stuff???
Nice reactive approach. What ever happened to personal responsibility. Doesn’t she have any responsibility as a gun owner to keep them away from her mentally ill child?
Please present your solutions without increasing my taxes. Good luck.
I have never, and will never advocate for gun control personally, but I can understand why there are many people who believe there should be some restrictions.
My point was that if she stored the firearms properly, her son would not have been able to access them. Did he any other way to access firearms to commit this crime?
So, it is OK to restrict 1st Amendment rights, but not 2nd rights? Is that what you are saying?
I believe in the Constitution as a whole, not just the parts that support my position.
I have played countless violent video games, have spent countless hours watching Stallone and Schwarzenegger blow people up, and have listened to countless hours of gangster rap. I have never once wanted to shoot an animal, let alone a human. Oh, by the way, this goes for a strong majority of my friends and they haven’t wanted to shoot anyone, either. Grand Theft Auto, Natural Born Killers, and Dr. Dre are not to blame. All of those are created and intended to entertain. A gun is created and intended to shoot and most often, shoot people rather than animals. Our armed forces are the biggest purchaser of guns in this country. I don’t think they are taking them deer and pheasant hunting.
Ms Lanz taught her son to shoot. She knew he was crazy, needed medical help.. She failed to take any action thereby failing as a mother and a citizen.
The result is as much hers as her child.
What good is insurance money going to do to replace these lives?
Ron: “By all accounts, Nancy Lanza was an honest law abiding gun owner who did not store her firearms properly.”
Nothing is so demeaning as to blame a murder victim for being killed. There is no evidence to say she did not store her firearms in a reasonable and prudent manner. These reprehensible type of statements have been the excuse of rapists and murderers for centuries. Don’t fall into that company.
It is not demeaning, just pointing out her responsibility as a law abiding gun owner. I am not blaming her for being murdered, but she is partially responsible for the events of that day including her own death. You know, personal responsibility and all.
My evidence is the fact that her mentally ill son was able to access her firearms. That tells me that she did not secure her firearms properly. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide.
Comparing this to rape is reprehensible. When is the last time someone was raped using a tool that someone has to protect themselves from rape?
Don’t they need this coverage? Seriously, from what I’ve seen in various news sources, plaintiff attorneys will sue the owner of the gun whether they have insurance or not. Just sayin’.
Captain Planet: None of my friends have never committed a violent crime with a gun, yet plenty of people are trying to punish us. The 2nd amendment is to protect a nation FROM oppressive governments, not just hunt. My question is not to impune you for playing a video game, it is conceptual: Why is the mass media only focusing on one element of ‘gun violence’? Clearly the phych drugs and mental illness of THE SHOOTER is a legitimate issue. Violence on TV, movies, music and video games has in fact created the notion that ‘killing people’ an acceptable form of entertainment. This deserves honest debate, for those seriously interested in reducing gun violence. Restricting gun rights of law abiding citizens will not change a thing.
Ron: Lanza was an adult and he pulled the trigger, not his mother. How did she store the gun anyway?
Simply, NOT WELL ENOUGH!!! He was a mentally ill adult and his Mother knew it.
That is the problem. I am not advocating for less gun rights, only more responsibility on the part of gun owners. Is it so much to ask of those possessing such destructive tools?
Please answer my questions:
1. Does the Mother as the law abiding gun owner bear any responsibility at all?
2. Does the responsibility of a gun owner stop when the firearm is in the hands of somebody else?
Don’t you think that if a person is on the edge of going “postal”, that maybe knowing that if he or she went on a killing rampage and had a $500,000 insurance policy backing him/her, it might alleviate the guilt enough to push them over the edge?
No. I doubt that people in that frame of mind would even remember the insurance policy, let alone use that information to rationalize their actions.
No, they are willing to take a hailstorm of bullets and could care less about insurance. Most of these people don’t feel guilt like you and I, either. They’ve already stepped off the edge and when they possess rounds of 30+ bullets, they can do some serious damage. More so than if those rounds were limited.
“Gun Control” does NOT = “Crime Control”
Clearly the goal here is not reducing violence. It is simply an infringement of the rights on law abiding citizens. How many criminals are going to buy gun liability insurance?? The penanties for not having gun liability insurance would be more severe than many of the crimes committed with guns, by the crimianls:
“Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.”
Why should insurance companies be involved in policing gun training and gun storage in a private residence? Why are lawmakers focused every where but on the person that pulled the trigger that caused the bodily injury. THAT is were the responsibility starts and stops. Not with gun dealers, mfgs or insurance companies…
If this is the best work our Public Servants can put out, we need to replace them. They work for us.
So when an innocenrt person is shot, their rights are not infringed upon?
Please cite your source indicating that “The penanties for not having gun liability insurance would be more severe than many of the crimes committed with guns, by the crimianls”
If the majority people of MA are in favor of this legislation, isn’t this what the public servants should be doing? Just because you do not agree with this approach, doesn’t mean there are not people who do. If you do not agree with the legislation, move to a state that does not have it, such as TX, MT, ND, etc.
If an innocent person is shot accidentally (IE negligence on the part of the homeowner) which usually occurs within the home–that is under the auspices of the homeowner’s liabiltiy coverage.
If someone intentionally shoots another person–that is a crime, and I’m not personally aware of any insurance that covers an intentional act.
So how is this liability insurance supposed to work?
You want greater gun control? Most HO policies have a fairly low set limit on firearms coverage. Usually, you need an endorsement to raise that limit.
Instead of adding extra insurance premiums a la MA–instead offer a discount to gun owners endorsements when they prove they’ve taken firearms training courses, or have proof that firearms are kept in a locked safe, etc.
Reward, not punish.
We already have home owners and renters insurance for liability coverage. How about targeting the criminals and leave the rest of us alone. Just more smoke and mirrors from politicians.
Another useless piece of proposed legislation that will do absolutely nothing to reduce violence. Guns are not the source of the violence. It’s a behavorial issue — our society is sorely lacking in respect for life. Watch the news, read the paper, go to the movies – violence is everywhere. I’m not saying that watching a violent news report or tv show would make the average person go out and repeat the act, but it certainly desensitizes us all to violence. In the case of the mentally ill, however, some of these images may be the catalyst for their violent behavior. I don’t know exactly what the answer is, but I think looking at a weapon as the cause of the crime is misguided.
Good plan, further limit 1st Amendment rights to protect 2nd Amendment rights. Is that what you are proposing?
I believe that there are 26 families in CT that would disagree. If Nancy Lanza had properly stored her firearms and ammunition from her mentally ill child, whether or not influenced by mass exposure to violence, they would have had a much better Christmas and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Why are gun owners immune to personal responsibility when someone else uses their firearm, but car owners are still responsible for damage done by their vehicle?
If you think otherwise, you are short-sighted and blinded by the pro-gun ideology. We can have our rights with some limitations.
Not every state makes the car owner liable. That’s a false argument.
Do we know how Nancy Lanza stored her firearms and ammunition? Has that information been released to the public yet?
Do we know exactly how Adam Lanza obtained the firearms? Post murder of his mother, pre-murder. Was she attempting to defend herself when he disarmed her?
A gun owner who is carelessly negligent should be held responsible for her actions.
I don’t think, however, that a murder victim should be considered carelessly negligent.
If she had just handed him the guns, however–that would be a completely different issue.
Basically, an analogue to a dram-shop law/requirement.
Ron, I’m not proposing limits on 1st amendment rights to protect 2nd amendment rights at all. I am anything but short-sighted. My point was simply that violence in America is a larger problem than guns alone. I don’t know what the answer is, I just don’t think more regulation is the best solution. I don’t recall hearing how Nancy Lanza stored her firearms or how her son got access to them. Certainly gun owners need to be responsible with the storage and handling of guns, and I think generally most are. There are many gun owners in my family (ironically, I’m not one of them), and I was raised to treat guns carefully and with respect. As far as car owners being responsible for damage done by their vehicle — sure they are, but not if it’s stolen.
This will not be affordable insurance. Mostly E&S carriers would be the market and offer stripped coverage. Another example of politicians that don’t know how the insurance mechanism works.
Sad in which the area of this Nation being founded like and feel more like the nation we fought to be free..the north east,IL, CA are not America, end of story…
Leave it to Taxachusettes to find yet another cost for gun owners who did nothing wrong.
Anyone who says that some state or region of the United States of America is not American because their views are different is Unamerican. End of story.
This country was built on allowing differences of opinion. That is what our Founding Fathers fought and died for, to not be oppressed by a single ideology.
If MA decides to implement this, they can. What ever happened to states’ rights? If you live in MA and do not like the law, you can move to a state more in line with your ideology. There are plenty.
Didn’t Massachusetts invade another country to suppress the states’ right argument? It seems a curious and historical inconvienient argument to make.
There is a strong feeling of alienation among the flyover states these days. Add in political pronouncements at odds with the Constitution and constitutional rulings by the Supreme Court and people get a little aggravated.
Let us not forget that Massachusetts shopkeepers and farmers shot at their government’s officials when the government tried to seize a legally-owned cannon. Right or wrong, the historical fact is the American Revolution was begun by government gun control. The irony is thick in today’s Massachusetts.
This is only a way for them to try and make more money. Having insurance for your gun will in no way reduce accidents. Just like having car insurance doesn’t reduce the chance you’ll have an auto accident.
Does that mean it’s a bad idea to have insurance?
It is amazing how many people have no idea what the second amendment is for. It is amazing people want to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens of this country for the actions of criminals. Due to criminals who break the laws those of us who obey the law and hurt no one are punished/restricted more and more. Too many broad pictures painted by those who want to restrict the rights of others. I never want to see a criminal with a gun, knife, bat, hammer, etc but it is going to happen. You should focus on outlawing criminals and enforce the laws already on the books. Background checks are reasonable. Mental health evaluations, reasonable. Forcing insurance or more restrictions on those of us who obey the law, unreasonable.
It’s possible to have good insurance which provides for everyone hurt, has the insurers discourage unsafe practices including letting one’s gun be lost or stolen and still is not too much of a burden on legal gun owners. It starts with requiring manufacturers to have a no-fault insurer that only gets off the hook when another insurer takes over. Lost or stolen or diverted guns are still covered by the last insurer. That makes it unnecessary to register guns or enforce the insurance purchase below the manufacturer level.
“Please wait before you break into my home, rape my wife, kill my children and me until I can get my gun out of the locked safe and defend my family”!!!
While funny, and a bit apropos–this is why responsible people who keep a firearm for home defense generally keep it in an electronic or biometric safe in/on their nightstand.
Still safe from accidental misuse. Easy to get to if you absolutely need it.
Why would the insurance industry provide this coverage? Massachusetts has a strict gun law that sends a person carrying an unregistered gun to jail for a mandatory one year sentence. BUT they do not enforce it! No one has gone to jail and the law has been on the books for years. Liberal judges do not enforce “cruel” laws.
Just a dumb idea! MA would probably have to set up a JUA to insure the gun owners!
Seems like a good idea to me….
Presently, liability for firearms negligence is covered under Section 2 of the Homeowners Insurance Forms. Anyone know what per cent of the liability premium load goes to firearms related claims?
If it is substantial, why should policyholders who do not own weapons have to subsidize those who do?
Does it make any sense that Homeowners liability will not extend to a 12 ft. fishing boat with a 20 HP outboard motor, yet it provides free coverage for an AR-15 or a hoard of many?
Congratulations Boone; you’re the only one on either side of the arguing here that has framed the issue at hand with the proper insurance perspective. You might have added, that if owning certain dog breeds are part of the homeowner application, and certain car models when owned, can be declined or surcharged for liability coverage, why not handle firearms liability similarly?
Strict gun laws, mandatory insurance for gun users, will it have any greater affect than those who have had their driver’s licenses taken away for too many dui’s….yet still find a way to drive drunk and kill innocent people? NOT!!!!! Let’s get realistic folks. When you and other parents start teaching their kids values and how important a life is and how to respect others – men, women and children, parents, teachers, church leaders etc. THEN we can hope to see a change but most likely, not before.
It does not have to have a greater affect, just similar. Do you believe that every person who has had their license taken away for dui drives drunk and kills innocent people? If that were the case, we would likely have thousands of people killed every day.
Are you going to advocate that we remove all laws and regulations from the books and rely on all parents to teach there children values and how to respect others? Good luck.
By all means, let us go after the law abiding citizen with increased cost and regulation, and ignore the issue of the criminal element. Criminals don’t follow laws and insurance mandates.
So now does that mean when you shoot a criminal that has broke into your home to rape and kill your wife, family and children that the criminal can sue you for shooting them and collect under this policy. Also does this mean you are penalized (charged more premium, loss of incentives, discounts) because you were forced to shoot said criminal? Try waiting the average 10 minutes for the police to show up during this situation.
This is just crazy!!
Unfortunately, this already happens with great frequency.
The perpetrator breaks in, gets shot, then sues the victim.
Or (and this is from personal experience)
Perpetrator breaks in. Dog bites perpetrator. Perpetrator sues victim.
You should be a better shot so the perpetraor can’t file a claim. Sounds like you need range practice.
I’ve never had to shoot an intruder.
Though personally, I think everyone who owns a firearm needs regular range practice.
The anecdotal part of my statement was about the dog bite.
This is insane. The “bad” guys will ALWAYS get a gun when they want it and they won’t buy insurance. This is just another way to make honest people spend more money – we are the ONLY people who would buy the insurance and get the training.
How can we expect respect for life when more than 1 million babies are aborted in this nation every year? How does Obama have the cahonies to stand in front of a nation decrying violence by guns when he supported partial birth abortion> I don’t know about you but I’d rather die by gun shot than scissors to the back of the head after being “partially” born alive.
What’s a cahonies?
I mean, I know what cajones are…
And, at this point…I’m just as guilty. Oh, the irony.
I’m not seeing how this mandatory scheme will accomplish what is allegedly intended; assuring that “victims” get compensated. For that to work, and work well, the intentional acts exclusion would need to be decalred null and void. Further, the definition of “insured” would need to be broad enough to cover the unauthorized user in the vent that the named insured is entitled to a no liability finding because he/she has complied with the laws that grant him/her immunity from negligence.
And what is next, Unisured/Underinsured Firearms Coverage? In thos estates with mandatory auto liability coverage, a large percentage still go bare; even when proof of insurance is needed to buy a car and get it inspected and licensed.
And where do price controls come in once the poor are denied a firearm because they can’t afford insurance. Someone above said there is no constitutional right to a car; but there is one to a firearm. Will the law be declared unconstituional if it places an undue hardship on the poor? Or the unlucky, who have a bad loss experience but otherwise are legally able to own and purchase a firearm?
Homeowners and renters policies include liability insurance now. The NRA sells liability insurance to members at a very reasonable cost. If someone is injured with your gun, or falls on your sidewalk, you’re liable, insured or not.
Actually, that’s incorrect.
The Medical payments coverage is available to a claimant regardless of cause.
The liability portion of the HO/Renter’s policy still requires that the homeowner/renter carry negligence for the accident.
Ok So, while in a convenient store two tu*ds walk in with a gun and shoot the owner and one or two people in the store, with a big bad AR-15 or an AK47 (most likey and the odds are this will be a 38 or 9mm semi auto). But anyway, where do those who live file their liability claim?
Thats right they don’t because the two tu*ds don’t have insurance, and don’t have a gun permit.
I think this is a state issue. If Taxachusetts wants to require liability insurance, ok with me. I don’t live there nor plan on moving there. Just leave the rest of us alone. Just as long as the Feds don’t come up with somethng that they can’t enforce like the fact that they don’t enforce background check today. In the recent Biden meetings Joe Biden admitted that “The Federal government did not have the manpower to review all of the criminal background checks and take action on them”. OK bright guy, why have a law that you can’t even enforce?
Why is this conversation mostly about intentional shootings and not intentional shootings, something that would be covered by insurance?
In 2010, 606 accidental shootings resulted in death. In 2011, 14,675 resulted in injuries. The number of accidental shootings from guns in the home is 4 times greater than number shootings involving self defense.
Why not require insurance? Accidents happen.
Oops, my first sentence meant to say accidental shootings which would be covered by insurance. Sorry.
Unlike a drivers licence, the right to bear arms is a right not a priviledge. The second amendment specifies that this right shall not be infringed upon. The requirement of insurance places an infringment due to the fact that insurance companies could either refuse to insure and individual or make premiums so high as to be unaffordable to the average person. This is a definite infringement. Personally, I believe that driving a vehicle on public roads should also be a right, not a privledge. After all, who owns those roads anyway?
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
Rights have limitations. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, either. But, you do have freedom of speech as a right.
Just because someone, no matter how revered, makes a statement, does not make it true. Benjamin Franklin’s quote does not hold water. Have you heard of the Patriot Act and all of the liberties on which it infringes? Have you noticed that we have not been attacked by terrorists here since it was passed? 2 different administrations have used it to obtain information that stopped multiple terrorist plots. Apparently we can give up some liberties for temporary safety and still have liberty and safety.
Liability insurance for handgun owners with a concealed weapons permit is readily available and it is cheap. Like 65 to 70 dollars for 1 mill. If you have a CWP you probably have been solicited. My issue is why does it need to be mandated by the federal government when it can’t monitor who has it and who does not? Those who want to buy it, buy it. Those who don’t take the risk just like someone who does not buy cover for a business or personal exposure.
Maybe if Adam Lanza’s mother had been legally required to have her arsenal locked up there might be 27 living innocents today. Your right to be irresponsible is not guaranteed under the constituion. We have the right to live safely without “cowboy” attitudes wanting to “protect” us.
Maybe if gun advocates like Jim Wallace advocated for responsible gun ownership the feds would not have to look at more stringent laws. He is the one who should be demanding classes before purchase.. he is the one who should be demanding background checks on ALL gun purchases.. Until the gun industry becomes more responsible we have to have the feds step in. YOUR 2nd Amendment right does not supercede MY 1st Amendment right…
Quote of the day…you can’t make this up!
“If they decide that mental health are reasons to deny people their constitutional rights, it’s a short step from there to identifying us, Christians, genuine followers of Jesus Christ who believe the Bible and what it teaches … as mentally ill. Guns are going to be taken away from us.”
—Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association
This missing information is that there are laws in place for firearm ownership already. There are penalties for breaking those laws. Many of you act as if there aren’t already laws in place to deal with criminals and guns. Others make broad statements to suggest every gun owner is a “cowboy” or “irresponsible”. You then feel it is your personal “right” to take away a gun owners constitutional rights. So many gun owners lock up their guns, practice with them, enjoy them for sport and hunting. We believe in our rights. Criminals exist and rather than dealing with them you would rather just pass more laws when you don’t enforce the ones you have now. The right to bear arms is guaranteed as much as you would like it not to be. If a criminal harms you there are laws to deal with them. You want to strengthen existing laws to help prevent criminals getting guns then you have my full support. OUR second amendment rights helps make your first a reality.
YOU SAY:”You don’t have to own a gun,” “You don’t have to drive a car” Well Mr. Linsky,….SIMPLY PUT: YOU DON’T HAVE TO RUN FOR A POLITICAL POSITION AGAIN!!!…….EVER!!!! YOUR IDEAS ARE OF A COMMUNIST WORLD, NOT AN “AMERICAN” WORLD!!! GOOD LUCK GETTING RE-ELECTED!!!!
I’ll bet the insurance company lobbyists are all over this initiative. Required insurances are a kin to taxes, just disguised.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of comments via e-mail