New plan: mandatory gun insurance

posted at 8:31 am on February 9, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

What to do if the nation fails to fall in line behind new gun grabbing legislation and doesn’t want to put limits on ammo capacity? How about if they rebel against the idea of taxing the heck out of ammo? What if it just seems like there simply isn’t a majority on board with new gun control legislation? Well, if you follow the Obamacare model, you could always consider making extra insurance on weapons technology mandatory.

If you can’t force people to do what you want, force them to buy insurance: That seems to be the strategy of the liberal left in the Obama era. We refer not only to the ObamaCare health-insurance mandate but to the latest bright idea under consideration in mostly Democrat-dominated state capitals.

“Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons,” FoxNews.com reports. The idea isn’t brand new: “Bills have been offered unsuccessfully in Massachusetts and New York since at least 2003,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But the idea has drawn added attention amid the inevitable delirium following a horrific crime involving firearms: “Similar bills have been introduced in other states after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.

Whenever people make the “slippery slope” argument, naysayers arrive in droves to proclaim that hyperbolic extremists are creating straw men to frighten the public. I seem to recall a time when Obamacare was being debated where some of us were asking the question, if the government can force you to purchase a product such as insurance to regulate private activity, is there any human commercial engagement which they could not regulate? Pshaw, said the critics. You’re clearly being hysterical.

In this case, we’re hearing the same arguments being made about gun insurance that we heard about health insurance. Proponents claim that it’s actually for your own good, not to mention being beneficial to society at large. And we’re not trying to take your guns away, we’re just making you safer. As Taranto notes, this is unlikely to be the real motive.

In Pohlman’s account of the virtuous incentives his insurance scheme would purportedly establish, he leaves out the most obvious: By burdening gun owners with an additional cost, it would encourage some to give up guns altogether. We suspect that the real goal here is to deter gun ownership or, failing that, to punish law-abiding gun owners. As for criminals, we doubt any of them will ever hesitate to use a gun because it is uninsured.

Does it pass constitutional muster? I’m hearing a lot of people saying no. But many of those same folks said that about Obamacare. And according to the Supreme Court, as long as you call the insurance mandate a tax, there’s no problem. So now, if gun regulations fail to pass, apparently we can start a new fight over “gun insurance.” And if the Supremes call it a tax, it would likely pass. Welcome to the 21st century. I hope you enjoy it. Or at least survive it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sure, insure the guns. That way, some thug or his family can sue the carrier and make money off his crimes if he gets shot. If they can’t successfully steal something, then they can sue for it.

Liam on February 9, 2013 at 8:36 AM

“Bill are you ready to rob the bank?”

“Not quite. I need to get gun insurance first.”

Ted Torgerson on February 9, 2013 at 8:36 AM

It’s just a tax. So it’s Okey Dokey.

JellyToast on February 9, 2013 at 8:37 AM

“shall not be infringed.”

Why is that so hard to understand? The AR-15 is the modern equivalent of the 18th Century musket.

rbj on February 9, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Was it in California that this was brought up the other day? Other states sometimes think about it too. I bet the insurance companies are all giddy about it. What an unenforceable mess if it ever comes to be.

cozmo on February 9, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Step 1 – Mandate insurance on guns.

Step 2 – Have government take over the gun insurance industry.

Step 3 – Make insurance so prohibitively expensive that only the rich liberals who can afford bodyguards can get it.

Related – California looks to seize the “assault weapons” they previously required to be registered with them.

Steve Eggleston on February 9, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Surely some liberals must understand that people can only be pushed so far, and when the camel’s back finally breaks they will come after those people who stole all their money and took every liberty away … right?

I know some liberals have to realize the time is coming … it always does. Tyrants never know when to stop and they never win in the end, and as we can all attest, liberals never, ever, ever, ever stop.

darwin on February 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM

This would be a defacto registration.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Well most of us saw this coming as the ultimate backdoor. Get ready for your 20k Barrycare premium topped off with your 40k weapon insurance, then add to that your car insurance topper for transport of explosives.

Limerick on February 9, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Mandated insurance means that my name goes into a database. I have a problem with that because it’s only a matter of time that someone leaks the names and addresses for the ‘public good’ making me a target.

debg on February 9, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Does it pass constitutional muster?

Under Benedict Roberts there is no Constitution. Our government has escaped the domesticating constraints of our Constitution has gone totally feral – from which it will never be domesticated, again. It’s time for a national divorce to start over without these America-hating lunatics.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 8:46 AM

In order for this to make any sense, there has to be a risk to insure. Right now, I don’t believe anyone is liable if someone steals your gun and commits a crime, any more than if they steal your car and commit a crime. They would have to create the liability for the insurance to accomplish anything.

AcidReflux on February 9, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Nothing would surprise me at this point. It does remind me of Dr. Carson’s comment about politicians being lawyers, that they can only think of winning at all costs and its implication: “Common sense be damned. As long as I win the argument”.

tru2tx on February 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Can you imagine being a home or store owner who is forced to shoot? You would have to show proof of insurance as well as all the other evidence required to have it declared a legal shoot. It’s insane–no insurance, and the victim gets arrested or fined, and loses his weapons.

Liam on February 9, 2013 at 8:53 AM

There is no constitutional equivalence here to Obamacare. Healthcare was an issue not expressly covered in the constitution.

Just like you cannot license gun ownership (i.e., you cannot license a “right” only a privilege, like driving) you cannot force a burden on gun ownership which is an express right in the constitution.

Unfortunately, because the Supremes have often said you cannot place “unreasonable burdens” on exercising constitutional rights (see arguments about state limits on abortion), the issue is whether the Supremes will deem this restriction or burden “reasonable.”

Firefly_76 on February 9, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Mandate away! I’d just be one of the “uninsured” gun owners. Hey, we have millions of uninsured drivers in this country. Heck, many of them don’t even have driver’s licenses. If their ability to remove guns from gangs and criminals is any indication, how much success will they have with forcing liability insurance.

The Dems have mass produced their talking points and sent them out to their talking heads and elected officials. The main topic is to yell “squirrel” and distract everyone with gun control and immigration and get the people’s minds off the left’s abysmal failure with the economy.

iamsaved on February 9, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I just really don’t feel like this is reality.
It’s so surreal.
My God the $hit just keeps on coming & more people line up to think these hings are so reasonable.
Somebody stands to make $$ off of this.
Forcing someone to buy insurance for their health & gun insurance just to own a gun? It’s legalized racketeering.
I can understand a person electing to buy uninsured motorist coverage. Bcs the uninsured motorist will still be held (hopefully) legally liable for things, but good luck in bleeding a turnip dry.
But this $hit?
This is tyranny. Pure & simple.

Badger40 on February 9, 2013 at 8:57 AM

iamsaved on February 9, 2013 at 8:56 AM

What’s they’ll do is refuse you a mortgage unless you get the coverage, like they make you buy certain coverages to obtain a mortgage, or loan of any kind for any property.
They’ll deny you all sorts of things to force you to do it.
So why it may be easy to say “I just won’t buy it!”, those of us still on the grid are going to be punished so mightily that we lose everything.

Badger40 on February 9, 2013 at 9:01 AM

This is fundamentally different than healthcare.
This is a bill of rights issue, not a commerce clause issue.
I would argue that mandating insurance constitutes infringement.

If you argue that it’s a tax, then it becomes a tax applied to a specifically enumerated right.
I think that’s a revolutionary idea.
Naw…actually it’s revolting.

See what I did there?

connertown on February 9, 2013 at 9:01 AM

So despite Roberts’ twisted logic that was somehow supposed to limit government, the government is seeking to expand and abuse this new power to tax? You don’t say…

Gingotts on February 9, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Another tort stimulus package.

Wigglesworth on February 9, 2013 at 9:03 AM

I won’t pay.

I won’t surrender a single weapon.

I ain’t playing.

hawkdriver on February 9, 2013 at 9:03 AM

New Plan: Civil disobedience.

DavidM on February 9, 2013 at 9:06 AM

You may not of realized it at the time. But this was a turning point in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

Once your gubRmint realized they could get away with this. Well… the flood gates were opened.

To quote H. L. Mencken

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM

What the hell would gun insurance for a year actually cost?

I’m guessing around $5 a year or some ridiculously low number.

I’ve had guns for 30 years and NEVER had an instance where I might need to make a claim.

HondaV65 on February 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Firefly_76 on February 9, 2013 at 8:55 AM

“Seems reasonable to me”, said every liberal on the Supreme Court.

boomer on February 9, 2013 at 9:08 AM

What the hell would gun insurance for a year actually cost?

I’m guessing around $5 a year or some ridiculously low number.

I’ve had guns for 30 years and NEVER had an instance where I might need to make a claim.

HondaV65 on February 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM

But if any people in your county did, or if overall the county is considered high crime, the insurer will set your rate accordingly. That happened to me once with car insurance–my monthly rate went up $30. When I called to ask why, the woman told me it was because they had to make higher than normal payouts in my county the previous year.

Liam on February 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM

One way to kill it is to amend it that it also requires every household to own a gun.

boomer on February 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Great idea. And every media outlet should be required to have ‘libel insurance’ before they’re allowed to use their first amendment right to freedom of speech. /s

Bobbertsan on February 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM

hawkdriver on February 9, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Ditto. Try and make me buy insurance for my gun.

Cleombrotus on February 9, 2013 at 9:15 AM

The ‘plan’ is not new.

The ‘new part’ is that NOW it is more likely to get the nod.

Sir Napsalot on February 9, 2013 at 9:15 AM

One way to kill it is to amend it that it also requires every household to own a gun.

boomer on February 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Excellent.

Cleombrotus on February 9, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I have no guns nor do I associate with anyone who does.Make note of that internet monitors.

docflash on February 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM

So now, if gun regulations fail to pass, apparently we can start a new fight over “gun insurance.” And if the Supremes call it a tax, it would likely pass. Welcome to the 21st century. I hope you enjoy it. Or at least survive it.

So? Make the lawmakers call it a tax and propose it as a tax. Make them go on record as proposing a new tax. Should have learned a lesson from Obamacare.

Then we ought to get a tax on media outfits for protection against incitement and libel.

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM

How would they enforce this? Whene you rob a bank the teller ask to see your insurance card.
While hunting, a conservation agent checks for the insurance card? Then what? Fine you, Take your weapon away until you pay the fine?

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Great idea. And every media outlet should be required to have ‘libel insurance’ before they’re allowed to use their first amendment right to freedom of speech. /s

Bobbertsan on February 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM

This makes about as much sense…But why stop there…

So legislate every computer & smart phone owner/user get liability insurance in case they offend,blaspheme through meme or bully anyone in the ever increasing and vocal grievance lobbies.

workingclass artist on February 9, 2013 at 9:24 AM

How would they enforce this? Whene you rob a bank the teller ask to see your insurance card.

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM

When you buy ammunition.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM

How would they enforce this? Whene you rob a bank the teller ask to see your insurance card.
While hunting, a conservation agent checks for the insurance card? Then what? Fine you, Take your weapon away until you pay the fine?

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Not only pay the fine, but also show proof of insurance. Maybe after a little jail time, too. And if the confiscated weapon is an expensive one or a hard to find classic, it’s also possible it’ll somehow get ‘lost’ in the evidence locker.

Liam on February 9, 2013 at 9:26 AM

How would they enforce this? Whene you rob a bank the teller ask to see your insurance card.

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM

When you buy ammunition.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Well then it’s time to go into the bootleg, ammo business.

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:30 AM

It’s the individuals who don’t possess arms to defend themselves who ought to be required to buy insurance. They are the ones who are the danger to society, going everywhere, attracting crime.

It’s irresponsible and if they are incapable of preventing it themselves, they should be made to repay society for the cost of doing it for them. And the claim that they pay taxes to have it done doesn’t cut it. It’s the individuals who negligently prepare to defend themselves by refusing to possess arms who cost society the most.

I think only fair that all people should carry anti-crime insurance and an individual gets a significant discount if they possess weapons for self defense. The bigger the gun the bigger the discount.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Well then it’s time to go into the bootleg, ammo business.

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Yup. That said, after a few years they will have a database on 80-90% of firearms. Some people will give them up entirely, and new buyers will of course be required to purchase insurance before sale and that will also tell them who owns what. Of course a private sale will require that you only sell to an insured purchaser or face X-number of years in jail.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 9:35 AM

On the bright side, Freedom Munitions is about to start taking orders again, today.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 9:35 AM

How about automatic transfer to an uncharted Pacific island for all these delusional liberals and leftists?

rplat on February 9, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Because unalienable…is alienable to King Obama.

Fascist is as Fascist Does.

FORWARD!

workingclass artist on February 9, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Feeding the trial lawyers ass. first that’s mandatory for democrats.

Speakup on February 9, 2013 at 9:43 AM

The simple solution is this:

“I don’t own any firearms”

“But, we have a record of you buying around 20 over the last 10 years”

“Yeah, that sounds about right. But I sold every one of those at gun shows…and I don’t know to who. There wasnt’ any background check requirement then…..sorry.”

You don’t have to register or insure any weapons you don’t own.

wink wink

BobMbx on February 9, 2013 at 9:44 AM

If you can’t force people to do what you want, force them to buy insurance: That seems to be the strategy of the liberal left in the Obama era. We refer not only to the ObamaCare health-insurance mandate but to the latest bright idea under consideration in mostly Democrat-dominated state capitals.

So despite Roberts’ twisted logic that was somehow supposed to limit government, the government is seeking to expand and abuse this new power to tax? You don’t say…

Gingotts on February 9, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Bingo Gingotts!!! And a big thank you Mr. Roberts for doing your due diligence in protecting American Citizens from their government. How many ways can you say Pandora’s Box is wide open.

Rovin on February 9, 2013 at 9:45 AM

wink wink

BobMbx on February 9, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Unless you live within 100 miles of the border—then all bets are off.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/electronics-border-seizures/?cid=co5746764

Rovin on February 9, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Tax=theft=tyranny=legal prosecutions=prison

Soon they will be taxing any woman who refuses an abortion.

onomo on February 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I’ve had guns for 30 years and NEVER had an instance where I might need to make a claim.

HondaV65 on February 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM

This isn’t about you making a claim. This is about other people making claims and litigating against you or your insurance company. Liability insurance would have done nothing to stop Sandy Hook, but would, in theory, give the families of the victims a throat to choke. In the twisted mind of a liberal, going through court proceedings and/or getting your hands on some cash makes it all better.

Of course, we know this is just moving the ball, and the next incident will be an excuse to move it farther.

stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Well then it’s time to go into the bootleg, ammo business.

Vince on February 9, 2013 at 9:30 AM

That works to a point, but you can’t make ammo without primers, so they will simply apply the same laws to primers.

stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 9:52 AM

What the hell would gun insurance for a year actually cost?

I’m guessing around $5 a year or some ridiculously low number.

I’ve had guns for 30 years and NEVER had an instance where I might need to make a claim.

[HondaV65 on February 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM]

It’s not a question of cost, Honda. It’s a question of logic. If you accede to an illogical premise without argument you approve the construction of a new road and grant your opponents the right to define how it’s built, and they’ll build all the twists and turns they can to make it more costly to you, not them.

It’s the law-abiding individuals who don’t possess guns to use in self-defense who cause the greater costs on society, not the individuals who possess and use them for self-defense.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Liability insurance would have done nothing to stop Sandy Hook, but would, in theory, give the families of the victims a throat to choke.

stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM

It may also allow lawsuits of ammunition manufacturers and gun companies which would increase costs of firearms and may induce them to cease production of some weapons, or entirely.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Yup. That said, after a few years they will have a database on 80-90% of firearms. Some people will give them up entirely, and new buyers will of course be required to purchase insurance before sale and that will also tell them who owns what. Of course a private sale will require that you only sell to an insured purchaser or face X-number of years in jail.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 9:35 AM

And for post number 3 in a row (that breaks some kind of interwebz etiquette rule, doesn’t it?), I will submit they already have a database of all new firearms sold in the last few decades. Remember that they do write down the serial number during all background check transactions. If it is just a background check and not a registration, why do they track the serial numbers? All they have to do to create an electronic database is recall the records of all FFL holders, which they have the ability to do, and FFL holders are obligated to comply.

stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM

those eof us that were against the Seat belt laws and helmet laws shouted about slippery slopes 20 years ago. And now here we are. Once you allow the government to tell you what to do in the name of protecting you from danger any and everything is possible.

Either the government can tell you what to do for “your own good” or it can’t. You can’t have it both ways. I personally don’t think the gov has a right to tell me to wear a helmet or a seat belt or buy insurance, use drugs, smoke tobacco0, buy beer or anything regarding my health and/or safety. And that goes for children too. It is the parents job to look out for their children not the governments.

unseen on February 9, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I will submit they already have a database of all new firearms sold in the last few decades. Remember that they do write down the serial number during all background check transactions. If it is just a background check and not a registration, why do they track the serial numbers? All they have to do to create an electronic database is recall the records of all FFL holders, which they have the ability to do, and FFL holders are obligated to comply.

stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I agree, but that’s a database at point of sale only. Private sales aren’t covered as far as I know. Required insurance will allow them to maintain an up to date database and anyone who isn’t on it and owns firearms is an outlaw.

The gripping hand of leviathan grows ever tighter.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Up next:

Mandate for Libel insurance if you are going to have a website or blog.

Mandate for slander insurance if you are going to speak

Mandate for liability insurance in case a member of a federal SWAT team gets injured blowing down your front door…

“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

That’s not hard to understand. Unless you are a democrat. Equally.. “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW”.

All of this will be upheld by “Justice” Roberts of course, as taxes.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Liability insurance would have done nothing to stop Sandy Hook, but would, in theory, give the families of the victims a throat to choke. In the twisted mind of a liberal, going through court proceedings and/or getting your hands on some cash makes it all better.

Of course, we know this is just moving the ball, and the next incident will be an excuse to move it farther.

stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Nope, the families would get nothing.

This is nothing more than an attempt to strangle the second amendment via litigation. The only people who will be enriched are the John Edwardses of the world.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:03 AM

In California, auto insurance is mandated. If you drive with no insurance, your vehicle can be impounded and possibly confiscated. Also true if you drive without a valid license.

I’m sure similar provisions would apply to firearms. No insurance? We’re taking your weapon.

RINOs are people too on February 9, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Some of you are missing the point in my humble opinion. This isn’t so much about insurance as it’s another way to have/force Americans registrar their weapons. The government will have legal access to these insurance records.

Location, location, location!

Rovin on February 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I don’t worry so much about the gangbangers carrying an AK as much as worring about the arch criminals under the dome in Sacramento.I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!

jeffinsjvca on February 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I don’t worry so much about the gangbangers carrying an AK as much as worring about the arch criminals under the dome in Sacramento.I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!

jeffinsjvca on February 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Politicians are the only distinct criminal class in America.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:08 AM

So despite Roberts’ twisted logic that was somehow supposed to limit government, the government is seeking to expand and abuse this new power to tax? You don’t say…

Gingotts on February 9, 2013 at 9:02 AM

I could like it – as long as it opens a legal gateway to poll taxes. Supreme Court killing taxation requirement for voting is where the doodoo we’re now in started.

Archivarix on February 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM

[stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM]

Right. They want the ability to sue others having any connection with the weapon involved in the crime, no matter how what their motive or intent was in that connection.

That is why I suggest countering the argument by proposing everyone be required to carry such crime insurance, since that fits the logical premise much more fairly. Indeed, if I had to shoot two men because they staged a home invasion, which is my right, I would still suffer from it with damages to my property and the pain and suffering I will have to live with all my life. If it was determined that these men had done this just a few days ago at a home whose owner didn’t stop them because they negligently didn’t defend themselves, I should be able to sue them for damages.

I know that that homeowner didn’t intend to let these guys rob my house, but that is not relevant. They were negligent in any event, because they didn’t follow a reasonable minimum standard of care in defending himself, the evidence of which was that that homeowner didn’t possess a firearm.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 10:14 AM

And if the Supremes call it a tax, it would likely pass.

So you have to pay a “tax” to exercise a Constitutional Right?

I don’t thinks so Jazz.

Here’s a thought. How about a “tax” on those who speak or write about politics. Five cents a word should cover it.

GarandFan on February 9, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Archivarix on February 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM

AAAAMEN!

OldEnglish on February 9, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Here’s a thought. How about a “tax” on those who speak or write about politics. Five cents a word should cover it.

GarandFan on February 9, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The doors to that and a bunch more unspeakable atrocities were opened by “Justice” Roberts tortured ruling.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:18 AM

In California, auto insurance is mandated. If you drive with no insurance, your vehicle can be impounded and possibly confiscated. Also true if you drive without a valid license.

I’m sure similar provisions would apply to firearms. No insurance? We’re taking your weapon.

RINOs are people too on February 9, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Unless you are an illegal and then they let them keep the car.

chemman on February 9, 2013 at 10:21 AM

This would be a defacto registration for the morons who submitted to it. sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Akzed on February 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM

New plan: mandatory gun insurance

‘Cause in Obama’s America, someone has to pay.

Fallon on February 9, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Unless you are an illegal and then they let them keep the car.

chemman on February 9, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Yep. That’s pretty much the way it works around here.

stvnscott on February 9, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 10:14 AM

“Insurance” like this wouldn’t cover intentional acts.

Now if you shot yourself in the foot your health insurance would cover the foot repair and your homeowners would cover your home repair (if any).

But no one would issue a policy covering intentional shootings! Even of home invader scum. (I hope that doesn’t sound racist.)

Akzed on February 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM

It may also allow lawsuits of ammunition manufacturers and gun companies which would increase costs of firearms and may induce them to cease production of some weapons, or entirely.

[sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 9:54 AM]

True, but that could happen anyway if it weren’t for the law immunizing those manufacturers. So the barricades are up for the manufacturers and the gun control zealots are testing out burdening demand rather than supply and I doubt this proposal would provide the link necessary to skirt that immunization law to get at supply again. It seems to me the intent of this proposal is just to burden the individual owners because they can’t get at the manufacturers right now.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 10:28 AM

This would be a defacto registration for the morons who submitted to it.

Akzed on February 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM

True, but realistically what percentage of people do you think wouldn’t pay their 25$ a year?

What percentage of those holdouts would pay after the stories of homeowners being charged after the police respond to a burglary and arrest the homeowner, not the burglar?

How many would pay after a trip to the gun store for some shells in hunting season and being refused?

They don’t need a 100% compliance. 90% would probably do the job nicely.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 10:28 AM

It seems to me the intent of this proposal is just to burden the individual owners because they can’t get at the manufacturers right now.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 10:28 AM

I agree that is the primary focus along with a database of who owns firearms and outlawing private exchanges of firearms outside of that database. They will keep trying until they succeed. England is the model of what they want.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 10:32 AM

True, but realistically what percentage of people do you think wouldn’t pay their 25$ a year?
sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 10:28 AM

The income tax started out at a “harmless” 1% too.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The income tax started out at a “harmless” 1% too.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

And Social Security, and Medicare. They are always small almost harmless programs when they begin and they expand in scope and cost year after year. Even when the programs no longer make any sense or even work the bureaucrats running them need to justify there employment.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth! – Ronald Reagan

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM

One problem for those pushing insurance is the fact that the lack of a policy becomes a marker for the unarmed citizen. There are no secure data bases and criminals could and would quickly utilize a knowledge base of armed and unarmed citizens.

wukong on February 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb

1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.

Paul-Cincy on February 9, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The income tax started out at a “harmless” 1% too.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Voluntary, even.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 10:43 AM

One problem for those pushing insurance is the fact that the lack of a policy becomes a marker for the unarmed citizen. There are no secure data bases and criminals could and would quickly utilize a knowledge base of armed and unarmed citizens.

wukong on February 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Why is that a problem for them? You would think that the killings in gun-free zones would be a problem, and the killings in Chicago would be a problem for gun control advocates, until you realize that they are willing to sacrifice your life or indeed any life, for the great socialist experiment.

sharrukin on February 9, 2013 at 10:46 AM

“Insurance” like this wouldn’t cover intentional acts.

Now if you shot yourself in the foot your health insurance would cover the foot repair and your homeowners would cover your home repair (if any).

But no one would issue a policy covering intentional shootings! Even of home invader scum. (I hope that doesn’t sound racist.)

[Akzed on February 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM]

True, but intentional acts is not what I described, is it. In fact, I was careful to note it was not an intentional act of the previous victimized homeowner and emphasized that intention was not relevant, in so far as negligence has any quality of intent.

Negligence has to do with what reasonable people should know and would do in conducting their affairs as it relates to interactions with other individuals or parties. I don’t think that the purpose of insurance that the gun control zealots are proposing is to have gun owners covered for intentional shootings, but to cover for negligence, because as you note one could never get a policy for intentional shootings.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Would gang members qualify for subsidized gun insurance?

BobMbx on February 9, 2013 at 10:47 AM

But no one would issue a policy covering intentional shootings! Even of home invader scum. (I hope that doesn’t sound racist.)

[Akzed on February 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM]

If you’ve been involved in a shooting, never admit guilt. Get the other persons’ information (name, DL number, gun serial number, and insurance company/policy number).

You’ll need this to file a claim.

BobMbx on February 9, 2013 at 10:49 AM

The income tax started out at a “harmless” 1% too.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Voluntary, even.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 10:43 AM

And look how quickly the IRS became all powerful. It was THEY who got Capone, not the FBI…

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Speaking of insurance, I’d have to bet the LAPD premiums are going up soon……………..

Details emerge in LAPD’s mistaken shooting of newspaper carriers

The women were victims of ‘a tragic misinterpretation’ by officers working under ‘incredible tension,’ LAPD Chief Charlie Beck says.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

To “Protect and Serve” takes on a whole new meaning.

Rovin on February 9, 2013 at 10:50 AM

[Rovin on February 9, 2013 at 10:50 AM]

I misinterpret two women in a car for one man all the time. The only important thing is that it’s same freakin’ car that a million other people drive.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Does it pass constitutional muster? I’m hearing a lot of people saying no. But many of those same folks said that about Obamacare. And according to the Supreme Court, as long as you call the insurance mandate a tax, there’s no problem. So now, if gun regulations fail to pass, apparently we can start a new fight over “gun insurance.” And if the Supremes call it a tax, it would likely pass. Welcome to the 21st century. I hope you enjoy it. Or at least survive it.

Except that the right to bear arms and the non-infringement thereof is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution (the health care mandate was not). A tax will be construed as sufficiently infringing enough to be wholly unconstitutional. It’s classic Mill: tax things that aren’t explicitly laid out so as to deter unwanted behavior. Guns, however, are explicitly laid out. This is a dead end.

mintycrys on February 9, 2013 at 10:58 AM

And according to the Supreme Court, as long as you call the insurance mandate a tax, there’s no problem.

Not true. You can call it whatever you want. According to the SCOTASS, you don’t have to call it a “tax” and you can stomp and scream that it isn’t a tax, but Benedict Roberts will correct the record and call it a tax at the Constitutionally appropriate time (LOL). Of course, you can also count on the traitorous idiot Chief Injustice to call it “definitely NOT a tax” earlier in the proceedings, so that it can be adjudicated (Ha, ha, ha) to the point at which it’s determined to be Constitutional … because it definitely IS a tax.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 11:01 AM

For the record, I am against this attempt by Democrats to add liability to gun ownership at either the state or federal level.

Be that as it may, I don’t see how Obamacare fits into this discussion from a legal and constitutional point of view. According to C.J. Roberts, doing nothing is taxable, which is what Obamacare does; if you don’t buy health insurance, you will have to pay a tax. It was and is a ridiculous and stupid argument, but there it is. In this case, someone isn’t doing nothing; they legally bought a gun. We conservatives did and do laugh at lefty arguments that Obamacare was no different than auto insurance; of course, those arguments were ridiculous because A) you don’t need auto insurance if you don’t buy a car, and b) auto insurance isn’t federal. But if you buy a gun, just like if you buy an auto, it would be legal for a state like California to make California owners buy insurance.

Where this gets dicey is where the gun is purchased and who would be required to carry the insurance. If I live in California but get the gun in another state, would all the states be required to make me buy California liability insurance if their state doesn’t require it? Or what if I live in one state without this insurance mandate and bought a gun there, then travel to California; obviously, I won’t have California insurance. If I accidentally shoot someone in California, the need for insurance doesn’t exist since I can be taken to court and still be held liable for the accident. The same would be true if I was a California resident who had bought a gun in another state that didn’t require insurance but I accidentally shot someone in California. This wouldn’t even be a federal issue either, just as auto insurance isn’t a federal issue, even liability. Once we start delving into issues across state lines, that’s when the consitutional element would come to the fore to strike such a law down. At least by real conservative judges and Justices.

It’s a stupid bill being written by stupid people who only care about wanting to look like they are doing something. But as with Justice Thomas’ dissent of Lawrence v. Texas where he cited Justice Stewart’s dissent in Griswold, just because a law is “uncommonly silly”, or in the case of this potential California legislation, grotesquely stupid, doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

Steve Tsouloufis on February 9, 2013 at 11:02 AM

How about Worship Insurance.

Just in case the tenets of your particular religion happen to offend anybody.

What a marvelous wealth transfer to to LGBT community.

trigon on February 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Except that the right to bear arms and the non-infringement thereof is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution (the health care mandate was not). A tax will be construed as sufficiently infringing enough to be wholly unconstitutional. It’s classic Mill: tax things that aren’t explicitly laid out so as to deter unwanted behavior. Guns, however, are explicitly laid out. This is a dead end.

mintycrys on February 9, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The Constitution, as King Hussein himself lamented, is a “charter of negative liberties”, meaning that anything not spelled out in it is DENIED. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

For Obamacare to be Constitutional it has to be enumerated as a power or added as such via an Amendment. Obamacare originated in the legislature as statutory law.

The court has been wrong before. MANY times. Dred Scott, for example.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 11:17 AM

I’m not sure of the legal on this. But, wouldn’t this have made Lanza’s dead mother responsible? I would think death would cancel any personal coverage contracts you may have.

In essence, it sounds like they are encouraging the mad man to be sure to kill the owner of the gun he just stole.

Sapience on February 9, 2013 at 11:20 AM

“Shall not be infringed” is not difficult to understand at all, especially if your intent is to ignore it altogether like the lib/socialists. Never mind that a tax won’t work to deter criminals any more than any other gun law does. It does however aid control of law abiding citizens and paves the way for a database to be used for future full disarmament – which the end goal. And don’t try bringing logical arguments into this either; lib/socialists simply reject your reality and substitute their own. I am really curious as to how they got to ‘Justice’ Roberts.

ghostwalker1 on February 9, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The Constitution, as King Hussein himself lamented, is a “charter of negative liberties”,

Actually, as usual, Barky was dead wrong about that. The right to a jury trial is a positive right that lays out specific actions that the governments must take. Further, the bulk of the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights, but the meat of the document, itself, which is charter of all sorts of requirements and prohibitions on the various arms of government. Barky was trying to express the general lefty view that the Constitution consists of nothing but a few parts of the Bill of Rights that they like and that the rest of the document is trash.

anything not spelled out in it is DENIED. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 11:17 AM

That’s true, but it has nothing to do with Barky’s idiotic musings about the Constitution – a document that someone as stupid as he would never even begin to be able to comprehend.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 11:26 AM

“…liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.”

As Taranto noted, if criminals don’t care about laws now, why would they care about proper insurance? But that’s not the true objective of such punitive regulations, now is it?

I really want to vomit on these legislative fascists.

locomotivebreath1901 on February 9, 2013 at 11:28 AM

These people are like a kid with a stick poking a big old rattler.

claudius on February 9, 2013 at 11:30 AM

OT – It’s time for the ammo manufacturers to put a limit on the quantity of ammo that the government can buy. It’s putting a strain on the market, and we’re left with limited supplies. I know, I know, that’s the plan, but the ammo factories can put a stop to it right now. Of course, they win either way, so where are their allegiances? Oh, that’s right, corporations have no allegiances. How dumb of me.

HiJack on February 9, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2