There is no liability associated with lawful exercise of one's rights, therefore any requirement for liability insurance is un-Constitutional. It's just another attempt to bureaucratically or economically discourage people from doing what they have a Constitutional right to do.
Maybe in your area it's different but I've not encountered any gun shows where I am that have non-licensed dealers selling guns. I'm not talking the whole state of Florida either just my area. Frontline and Ramen can chime in on gun shows in their areas.
You could never get liability insurance because using a gun in a fashion that would result in an insurance payment is usually an illegal act and insurance is not going to pay out for criminal activities.
Would there not be liability for accidents? I've been told many times by gunforge that there is. Was this not correct?
It was correct. We are morally, financially, and legally liable for every bullet that we fire. It's practically a responsible gun owner's mantra.
Of course, one could still be held liable for accidents. But whether one has insurance to cover such liability is one's own prerogative.
Oh I agree with teaching drivers ed in the high schools. For that matter a semester of firearms handling should also be included in high school owing to our commuter and firearms orientated culture. Great. And it winds up being discriminatory against the poor who can't afford it. Let alone the "shall not be infringed" part. That is like saying it's okay to have poll taxes. On top of it, like it's been said, lawful use of a firearm involves zero liability. Now do you think the individual using a firearm in a criminal act is going to give a shit about "liability insurance." In my travels through out the state of Florida as a customer and an instructor I can say that there are no unlicensed dealers selling. Private individuals and collectors do sell, but those are scrutinized by the BATFE and if they even think that you are a "private collector" attempting to be an "under the table" dealer, they will come down on you like the hammers of hell. Now for the private sellers, you know what would be great...allowing them direct access to run an NCIC background search on their own, not through an FFL dealer. Run it through the FFL dealer and you just created an economic hurdle and unnecessary middleman. As it is most guys who sell privately from time to time, and I am one of them, will require someone show me their drivers license, concealed weapons license, and create a bill of sale. On top of it, the data is already out there and it shows that a super majority of firearms used in crimes do not come from gun shows. Per a 1997 study by the DOJ, only 0.7% of criminals got their firearms from a gun show. That is less than 1%. Gun shows do not increase crime. The whole "gun show loophole" is a red herring. For that there are criminal charges and a home owners insurance policy.
Oh...I get it. Not "unlicensed dealers", but "private individuals" selling their firearms. I've been to a gun show or two, and while I've never actually bought or sold a firearm at one, I've had friends that did, and I didn't notice any BATF scrutiny over private sales. I agree. It's a red herring on both sides. Sure, I'll buy the claim that gun shows don't increase crime, but you and I know that a huge part of the "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows. For that there are criminal charges and a home owners insurance policy.[/quote] So what if I use a firearm in self defense, either no charges are brought, or a court rules that it was self defense, then I get sued by the victim's family?
An AR-15 is a weapon of mayhem and destruction? I never got to shoot one with these features! All mine did was fire bullets. Anyway, a guy at work got one for 300 dollars at a "Black Friday" deal a couple of years ago. That's like half price! BTW fatal drunk driving accidents are the price we pay for our rampant "car culture" so why don't we admit it?
Never said you couldn't. Just saying that you're probably not going to find liability insurance as most uses of a gun that would require liability insurance are in of themselves illegal and insurance companies are not going to want to pay.
HA! They started doing this here in Georgia right after my son got his license. He barely squeezed in under the wire. Fuck PAYING some jokers to teach my kid how to drive when I'm accident free for 35 years? My daughter never could get her license in High School because she missed the window - if you are too old (let's say 17) then you have to wait until you are 18 and out of high school. But if you are 18 and still in High School for being held back or whatever, you can't get a license without the extra training bullshit. Once you graduate you just get someone over 18 to train you, and take your road test when you are ready.
Insurance to protect victims of gun violence is very workable. It should be designed for the job. Regular liability insurance is not the best way. No-fault car insurance as it applies to those who don't have their own insurance such as pedestrians is a good model. Worker's compensation insurance is even better. The main problem is that criminals won't buy insurance. If the insurance is sold starting with manufacturers with a term that says that the insurer is responsible until some other insurer takes it over even if the gun changes hands illegally then coverage is guaranteed. That way the government doesn't have to register or track the guns. Lots of details on guninsuranceblog.
Actually, if I was carrying, I would want liability insurance! But requiring it, IMHO, would be unconstitutional.
Oh they are there. One of the biggest sources of intel for the BATFE are the licensed dealers who have no problem, and every reason, to rat out those guys who are masquerading as private sellers. Like I said, BATFE comes down on them like the hammers of hell. Explain that further, I'm not tracking with you. So what if I use a firearm in self defense, either no charges are brought, or a court rules that it was self defense, then I get sued by the victim's family?[/quote] Home owners insurance. Or if your state has a castle and/or stand your ground law, you are then indemnified against legal action.
A lot there in that blog. I've only read the two most recent posts but it seems more complete and generally much better informed than your average gun blog.
When we grew up in MN, if you were a townie, you got your permit at 15 and then took a class, offered by the school, so you could get your license at 16. If you were a cunt (yes, that's what the country kids called themselves) from a farm, you got your license at 14 and drove to school even though you weren't supposed to with such a license. :|
The government has already decided that manufacturers are not responsible for the use by the owner. Also this is discriminatory as it would place a higher burden on the poor to be able to afford a firearm of their choosing. Your blog states that the insurance should be maintained through any transfer, illegal or not. That flies in the face of existing laws and court decisions that state that manufacturers are not responsible for the illegal use of their products as well as use of products beyond their design specification. Were this not the case then Ford or GM (as examples) would be responsible for every death caused by a drunk driver or every pool company would be responsible for ever drowning that occurs in their product. This is nothing more than back end gun control.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/25/6-misconceptions-about-the-sandy-hook-ma 1. Did Lanza have a grudge against the school? "The shooter indicated that he loved the school and liked to go there....As best as can be determined, the shooter had no prior contact with anyone in the school that day. And, apart from having attended the school as a child, he appears to have had no continuing involvement with SHES....The evidence clearly shows that the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School." 2. Did mental illness make him do it? "The shooter had significant mental health issues that affected his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others [including social awkwardness and a lack of empathy that his mother described as Asperger syndrome]....What contribution this made to the shootings, if any, is unknown....The shooter’s mental status is no defense to his conduct as the evidence shows he knew his conduct to be against the law. He had the ability to control his behavior to obtain the results he wanted, including his own death." 3. Could he have been stopped if only people had paid attention to warning signs? "Those mental health professionals who saw him did not see anything that would have predicted his future behavior....[Investigators] have not discovered any evidence that the shooter voiced or gave any indication to others that he intended to commit such a crime...[In high school,] he was not known to be a violent kid at all and never spoke of violence....Despite a fascination with mass shootings and firearms, he displayed no aggressive or threatening tendencies." 4. Did obsessive playing of violent video games warp his mind?" "He played video games often, both solo at home and online. They could be described as both violent and non-violent. One person described the shooter as spending the majority of his time playing non-violent video games all day, with his favorite at one point being 'Super Mario Brothers.'...The shooter liked to play a game called 'Dance Dance Revolution' (DDR)....He regularly went to the area of a theater that had a commercial version of the DDR game in the lobby. In 2011 and up until a month before December 14, 2012, the shooter went to the theater and played the game. He went most every Friday through Sunday and played the game for four to ten hours." 5. What about drugs? "No drugs were found in the shooter's system....Reportedly the shooter did not drink alcohol, take drugs, prescription or otherwise, and hated the thought of doing any of those things." 6. Could a better background check system for gun buyers have stopped him? "All of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types found had been purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the shooter."
Okay, if we want to go down the "compulsory insurance" route (one wonders where the mandates will end), let's explore this a little... Perhaps we should ALL be required to buy insurance to cover us in case we're hurt by gunfire. The Second Amendment is everyone's freedom, after all. The costs to society for its existence should be borne by all. And liability insurance on the part of the shooter is useless if the shooting involves a criminal act. If your goal is REALLY to cover the social costs of gun violence and accidents, wouldn't this be better? It doesn't fall disproportionately on legitimate, responsible gun owners, it doesn't erect economic barriers to gun ownership, and it would cover criminal activity as well. Because the costs would be spread over a much bigger base, individual contributions would be very small. Let me hear your objections.
I'm pretty sure digging a bullet out of me is included in my health coverage. As I'm not the one who shot me, pretty sure I'm not responsible for the bullet getting there. Liability coverage is an unfair burden on everyone whether they choose to own a gun or not, therefore the cost should not be borne by all, but rather by the gun owner. You have the right to all the guns and ammo you can store in your house, and to keep them there. The moment you enter a public area, it becomes everybody's business. You are ultimately responsible for your gun, including if it's in someone else's hands.
I think there should be a mandate for gun ownership. Everyone should be forced to purchase a gun for their own safety. After all, it is a right and right now not everyone is covered by police protection and not everyone has a gun.
The simple answer to Paladin's question is that gun owners are already liable, so they are the ones who should insure against accidents or misuse. If I have no control over what you do with your gun, I'm not responsible for misuse.
If you own a dog, the dog has to be licensed. If the dog bites someone, the owner is liable, whether he’s holding the leash or someone else is.
