My suspicion is that, regardless of all other issues it’ll get held up until someone does get their product dept. to crank something out. As proposed currently the law seems to allow impounding of people’s guns if they don’t buy a policy. I can just imagine the NRA lawyers arguing that this is just an illegal confiscation/violation of constitutional rights as you can’t currently buy something that matches the requirements of the law.
I’d love to see a few companies pop something out ASAP so that this argument goes poof.
some very dead white guys once wrote something about the early national guard, and therefore we can’t do a thing to stop a level of violence seen only here and in literally war ravaged nations
we might slightly change the behavior of gun owners if we do.
( wait. we want to change the behavior of gun owners?! go figure. )
Its not much an argument. Just because something doesn’t exist yet doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t. Especially since we are just talking about generating a legal contract.
Oh, I was sure Texas & later…and after actually doing some research it wasn’t Texas, it was Kennesaw (as you said) and then at least 2 other small towns (Virgin, UT and Nucla, CO for example), all with no statistically useful results.
I really don’t think we can “insurance paperwork” our way out of illicit gun sale and straw purchases. I think you are asking insurance to do something it is not meant to do if you expect it to act as a means of record keeping used to prosecute crimes. ( How many people got addicted to prescription painkillers during the opioid crisis while going to half a dozen doctors while on insurance?)
I suppose if you make something too much of a PITA, people will opt for something else. I can’t tell from the article if San Jose HAS a registration system, or is that what the new $25 tax is supposed to be for? But licensing/registration was how governments have attempted to track purchases and limit straw purchases in the past. I think licensing may reduce casual straw buyers. (People who a friends/family who are asked to do it once, not someone who makes a business out of it.)
I guess it has depends on what system is implemented. I don’t see why if it was a liability insurance it isn’t just a blanket coverage. Proof you have firearm insurance, and thus why would it track sales? Your policy number would just be added to the paperwork. The per item insurance is only needed when insuring against theft.
So what is the GOAL of requiring people to carry insurance? Liability? Reduce crime/illegal purchases? Protection from theft? Promote safe practices? Basically a Sin Tax?
People use cars every single day around other people, and can cause both property damage and injury with machines that costs tens of thousands of dollars. Most people don’t outright own their cars, either. They are making bank payments and if their car is totaled, the banks want the balance of the loan paid off. That is the primary reason it is required.
Firearms are typically used in very limited areas for specific activities. If you aren’t engaged in those activities, your risk of encountering a firearm accident is low. Accidents outside of those areas do happen, but are much rarer than car accidents. So if liability is the reason, the risk of accidents is quite low.
Most injury and death come from suicides and people committing crimes. I am not sure how if one had insurance or not would change those statistics.
Insuring them how? For theft? AFAIK, most if not all insurance companies that insure homes will write you a plan to insure what ever you want against theft and damage.
Liability? I don’t know about a liability specific insurance for firearms other than at places likes gun ranges. I guess like you said some sort of umbrella policy? But if owning a gun really messed up their tables so much for homeowners and life insurance, they would either refuse to sell to gun owners, or insist they paid more as part of it, especially for life insurance.
If what you say is correct that they “don’t really like insuring firearms in general”, then are they going to be forced to offer a specific type of policy with this new law?
You’re right. I listed several examples of fees and taxes. There is a point where it becomes infringement and I expect the courts to decide that in this case. I hate to make too early of predictions due to not even understanding all the details, but I predict the $25 city fee may stand, the mandate to have insurance will not. Just as the personal requirement to have health insurance was struck down.
I have never heard of that. Googling it shows that yes, depending on the accident and who is at fault etc, you wearing a seat belt or not can affect your damages. I really would like to see a survey if anyone factors this in when deciding to wear a seat belt or not. But if the point is to promote safety, just pass safe storage laws directly. It would have more of an effect by at least having those that “May not think they need it, but will adhere to the law.” vs being “encouraged” by insurance.
I am not asking for 100% fool proof solution. I just do not see requiring insurance as being a factor for the vast majority of people that will change behavior. If you are being risky, irresponsible, dangerous, or engaged in illegal activities, I honestly do not see how requiring insurance is going to change that behavior.
You may be surprised to know there is a very diverse 2A community out there that is growing that aren’t straight white males. Certainly the minority still, but it isn’t going away with your boomer vet dad.
I mean, that is fine. One can argue what is or is not a right and the limits of them. But the right is enumerated, so thus my statement stands. Obviously different country, different laws and rights.
I personally don’t think we should restrict one right because we are upset we don’t have more rights. Push for more rights.
So can you please explain to me WHAT exactly it does, what it would look like, how it would work, what it would cost?
It’s more than what law enforcement is doing and it lacks the objections that ammosexuals use against such record keeping. Since it’s done by parties which cannot be construed as looking to ban gun ownership. Multiple short term purchases are likely to trigger red flags with underwriters. Plus gun smugglers are trying to avoid being documented.
Yes.
Yes and imagine if all car owners had to support the costs of property damages and injuries in them all out of their pockets! It’s why we insure things. To take advantage of large insured pools to pay for perils we can’t afford to be responsible for ourselves.
Insurance promotes responsible behavior on average because it creates financial incentives to do so. The best part of it is that it creates customized market based gun control. An assault rifle will be more expensive to insure than a vintage single action pistol based on actuarial risk as opposed to arbitrary lawmaker compromise
.
I predict the opposite. The tax will be opposed as gun registration and a tax on an inalienable right - like a poll tax.
It will take a long time, but this will be appealed to SCOTUS. And I think this SCOTUS will repeal it 6-3.
I’ve proposed insurance requirements as a way of making people accountable for the societal costs of gun ownership and to insure that they can pay possible liabilities for anything they do with a gun that might incur such. But that might also be it’s undoing, because if it is a right in the constitution it may not be possible to legally make people pay societal costs via insurance requirements. Dunno,
i also just want to point out how wrong it is to lump a natural right of humanity - free speech, free association, religious expression, some form of fair government, equal protection under the law, civil rights, etc - or even self protection - all intangible rights - with guns specifically
guns are an object. a tangible manufactured good. as such, they already have a monetary barrier to entry. access to guns is very different than every other american right - and it’s perfectly okay to acknowledge that difference in law and regulation
i have no doubt that this will fall if the supreme court keeps its current makeup. this court already has shown hostility to our intangible rights. and since a freedom to live without fear of violent random murder isn’t specifically listed - nor can it be bought or sold - it’s pretty much doomed
ID isn’t a constitutional right that is worshiped the way the right wingers (and their jurists) do the 2A. And they might have valid analogies. Would you tax free speech? Could you? How about $25 a year to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures?
OTOH, argument while your argument may be valid, the question is how SCOTUS will rule. And with the current make up of SCOTUS I think it is almost certain they will rule against this legislation. All you have to do is read the vaccine mandate decision where they declare that a workplace hazard isn’t a workplace hazard to see that SCOTUS will invent a reason to overturn the law if the have to.
that’s why separating tangible and intangible rights matter.
the tangible ones are derived from more core principles ( re: 2a should be seen as primarily about self protection and association for protection, not specifically muskets vs machine guns )
voting is the tangible form of self governance. we do tax voting, and the conservatives are fine with it. so taxing the tangible artifacts of other rights - like guns or broadcasting fees etc - should be more than fine
yup. can you really hurt your back at work if gravity is everywhere? i think not
I dunno. The two big things that affect your car insurance is AGE and car type. 22 with a Mustang or a Challenger? They are going to charge you extra. 45 with a Civic? It is going to be much more reasonable. But there are plenty of 20 somethings with fast cars, some of them originally Civics that they upgraded. I don’t know how much cost of insurance is directing a consumer’s decision on which car to get. Certainly for people with not a lot to spare, it will be a factor.
I am going to have to agree to disagree with the need for insurance as mandatory. But I just don’t think this social engineering via insurance is going to have much real world effect. There already is some of that with health insurance, and while the effect isn’t zero, it also isn’t making the majority of people chose the cheapest/healthiest options because people are not rational creatures who always pick the statistically best choice. They pick what they want.
Quite possibly. IIRC there was a tax in Illinois struck down in the state courts. But there are city and state fees elsewhere, IIRC.
But if we can’t mandate everyone join the healthcare pool because of rights, I am not sure you can force it for gun ownership either.
That’s a horrible analogy. People have to pay for their firearms, ammo, licenses/NICS checks, transportation, and range fees too. The cost of use is not zero.
The cost to live in society and physically go vote is also not zero. (Though I am a proponent of mail in voting so you don’t have to take time off or use transportation. And I am against the oppressive ID laws. When I ran a polling station, we still had some sort of confirmation. Usually it was a drivers license, but it could be your voter ID card or like a gas bill. It shouldn’t be a hassle to get a specific form of ID.)
But you don’t have to pay a poll tax for the “privilege” of voting because it is a “right”.
it doesn’t matter whether you’re for or against these things. it’s about the lack of ideological consistency in how our country approachs rights
we tax voting in almost every way that counts. taxing guns more than we already do? it’s fine. and i already covered the reasons why that’s so above.
but i can’t convince my own family that black lives matter and that vaccines don’t have 5g tracking chips in them. so i don’t expect to convince anyone based on facts anymore
when one group of people take an indefensible position and refuse to entertain the idea that they might be wrong, all you can do is focus on harm reduction and work around them regardless
