MA Proposes Mandatory Gun Insurance

[RoyGBiv]

Yet another battlefront....

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=uHtEbe01


BOSTON (AP) - As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.

A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.

The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.

"Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace," said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill's sponsor.

<snip>

"It's time that we think about alternative ways that we can effectively deal with gun violence," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "We need better research. We need better understanding. We need to try different approaches to protect our children."

Obviously (to any sane person) the "you need a license to drive a car" argument doesn't apply here.
Good luck explaining that to the MA legislature.

[LHS]

Yet another battlefront....

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=uHtEbe01



Obviously (to any sane person) the "you need a license to drive a car" argument doesn't apply here.
Good luck explaining that to the MA legislature.

Not only is this a financial disincentive towards firearms ownership, it's also a method of mandatory registration.

[G60]

I'm not one to scream "unconstitutional!" at every new gun law being proposed just because we won Heller and McDonald, but there's no way in hell liability insurance to exercise an individual civil right will fly.
Heck, even here in CA, it's illegal for an issuing agency to require liability insurance for carry permit holders.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm not one to scream "unconstitutional!" at every new gun law being proposed just because we won Heller and McDonald, but there's no way in hell liability insurance to exercise an individual civil right will fly.
Poll Tax, Harper v VBE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_Board_of_Elections)
You think SCOTUS appointments aren't important?

[Ed L]

It's gun control by not so oblique means

How about requiring violent criminals to carry liability insurance to carry liability insurance as a condition of being released from prison?

Their rate of committing violent crimes is something like 100 times to 1000 times that of law abiding citizens who pass the phone-in background check for gunbuyers.

Or how about requiring picture ID to vote?

Nope, we can't do that because it imposes a financial hardship and complication in order to carry out a constitutional right, especially on poor people who might not have such ID.

So what does liability insurance do to someone who may have to scrimp a year to be able to afford a cheap firearm?

[HCM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/in-gun-debate-a-bigger-role-seen-for-insurers.html?hp&_r=0

Latest Front in the Gun Debate Is Mandatory Insurance


Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy auto insurance. Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates

[S Jenks]

Being a native-born Masshole, let me remind everyone that this was the birthplace of mandatory health insurance. Having just filed my taxes, I was required to show proof of year-round coverage in order to not pay a fine to the state. These fines can be over $1000/year, based on one's income.

The clowns on Beacon Hill don't care if it's unconstitutional or goes against common sense or the spirit of government.

Example: when Romney was Governor and Kerry was running for President, they changed state law so a special election would be held if an acting senator was needed. Previously, it had been up to the Governor to appoint an interim senator. They took steps to ensure the GOP Governor would be unable to appoint a fellow Republican if Kerry won.

When Deval Patrick (D) was elected Governor and Ted Kennedy died, they changed the law back, knowing he would select a Democrat to fill Kennedy's spot (which he did). A few months ago, the Boston Globe was throwing the idea around that the law should be changed a third time with Kerry becoming Secretary of State, fearful that Scott Brown (recently defeated GOP Senator) would be re-appointed. They will do what they want, when they want. I'm very surprised NY beat us to the punch with new legislation.

Thank God the girlfriend wants to build in southern NH. My priorities once we move:
1) Submit Class III paperwork
2) Build range in new backyard
3) Destroy berm by ripping off hundreds of suppressed/FA rounds from new purchases while laughing like a madman. Why? Because I can.

[HCM]

. My priorities once we move:
1) Submit Class III paperwork
2) Build range in new backyard
3) Destroy berm by ripping off hundreds of suppressed/FA rounds from new purchases while laughing like a madman. Why? Because I can.

Awesome !