Guns and Insurance

[opinterph]

You cannot tax the right to bear arms, since it is a right.

Since 1919, the federal government has imposed an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers. (26 USC § 4181)

[opinterph]

I'm not talking about a tax...I'm talking about making the people who want to own and operate firearms directly financially responsible for the impact of firearms.

One of principles of insurance law is that you must have an insurable interest in the subject matter or property for which you seek protection. Though it is perhaps possible to create a “logical” system of reasoning to substantiate the use of private premiums as a means to reimburse public costs associated with an item of personal property that is similar to the property of someone else – which was used in such a way as to bring about a claim; the concept seems convoluted at a minimum.

Taken with the recent outcome of NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., it seems unlikely that a federal mandate to purchase liability insurance to cover losses that are only indirectly related to the ownership of a specific type of personal property would withstand the scrutiny of the principles of civil or constitutional law.

[Stardreamer]

One of principles of insurance law is that you must have an insurable interest in the subject matter or property for which you seek protection. Though it is perhaps possible to create a “logical” system of reasoning to substantiate the use of private premiums as a means to reimburse public costs associated with an item of personal property that is similar to the property of someone else – which was used in such a way as to bring about a claim; the concept seems convoluted at a minimum.

Taken with the recent outcome of NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., it seems unlikely that a federal mandate to purchase liability insurance to cover losses that are only indirectly related to the ownership of a specific type of personal property would withstand the scrutiny of the principles of civil or constitutional law.

A more technical phasing of what I was trying to say. A tax approach like what is being done with the ACA is really the only way to levee something like this AND I pretty sure you would have to apply it to everybody not just gun owners. You could essentially tax all Americans to provide for the supposed liability costs of having the second amendment right in a sense. I think that is really the only way you could put it together that would stand up in the courts and even then it would have to go through challenges to determine it limits. Now you could probably do an indirect tax through a sales tax on guns and ammunition I suppose.

[Benvolio]

It's not irrelevant because you're saying you can't tax something you're already taxed for.

I did not say that at all.

[CowboyBob]

Y
The state does not force you to have insurance for owning a car, it forces you have insurance to have a driver's license.

Wrong. You can possess a driver's license and not have insurance. If you plan on driving a car you have to obtain insurance before using it.

[JB3]

Wrong. You can possess a driver's license and not have insurance. If you plan on driving a car you have to obtain insurance before using it.

Not true. As he said earlier, if the car never leaves your driveway, you don't have to have insurance. Of course, you wouldn't be able to drive it anywhere since you couldn't renew your plates, but if its a collector's car and you don't need plates you wouldn't need insurance. The ownership of a vehicle alone does not necessitate having insurance.

[CowboyBob]

Not true. As he said earlier, if the car never leaves your driveway, you don't have to have insurance. Of course, you wouldn't be able to drive it anywhere since you couldn't renew your plates, but if its a collector's car and you don't need plates you wouldn't need insurance. The ownership of a vehicle alone does not necessitate having insurance.

Yes true. If you want to have your car licensed and drive it.... and who wouldn't want a car to drive unless it's a museum piece and then again you would want that insured if it's sitting in a museum... you need insurance.

If you want a car for a paperweight or if you have a cannibalized car sitting in the weeds in your front yard along with your other junk, then it's not a car. It's a piece of junk.



Why don't we get real wrapped up in this trying to prove each other wrong?

[bankside]

I don't think criminals will buy the insurance. All the Democrats schemes are designed to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, while leaving guns in the hands of criminals, and, of course doing nothing to prevent the continuing influx over the border.

What policy do you have to take guns from the hands of criminal citizens?

[Kulindahr]

^ It's not a tax that goes into general spending. It's an insurance policy that covers liability to the many thousands of deaths that happen every year as a result of gun accidents and murders. It's a daunting challenge, but it makes absolute sense. People should be held civilly liable to injuries or wrongful death to the guns they use. We do this for car accidents, why not guns?

Insurance is paid for by the people who want its benefits. This is not insurance. If you want it to be insurance, you'd have to require that every American pay it,

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you can legitimately call a program that takes money from one group to provide coverage to another insurance in the traditional sense it is used. Mandatory auto insurance policies only apply to the auto owner and/or injuries caused specifically by his vehicle.

Right -- it's accurately called "extortion".

[Kulindahr]

But I assume that state law does.

And that they all fall into line.

And, in fact, the idea behind automobile insurance...all the way to pooled insurance reserves...is that auto insurance is intended to cover all the liabilities and damages arising from accidents, even those caused by drunk drivers.

So no. I'm not talking about a tax...I'm talking about making the people who want to own and operate firearms directly financially responsible for the impact of firearms.

And I guarantee Kuli, that my dad's old twin barrel hunting rifle is a far, far cry from the semi-automatic weapons with 100 round cartridges that I and the vast majority of people consider to be military grade assault weapons.

Anyone who considers those to be military grade is merely ignorant, or prejudiced, or both.

[Kulindahr]

State law does. If you have a car you have to buy insurance for it. In my state if you're pulled over they ask for your license and proof of insurance. If you don't have your insurance card with you you're fined.

Since gun violence costs billions of dollars, it's not a bad idea to make those who contribute to the carnage to pay for it.

You're saying just exactly what Wayne LaPierre says is the view of the Left: that all gun owners are criminals.

The proper conclusion toy our contention would be to make all politicians pay for it -- they're the ones who have put the country in this condition.

[Kulindahr]

It seems reasonable to assume that the design of an item is a manifestation of the intention for which it is produced.

The design of a firearm indicates that it is designed to send a projectile in a ballistic path -- nothing more or less.

If you want to claim that the misuse of items defines their purpose, then the purpose of bathtubs and five-gallon buckets is to drown children, the purpose of baseballs and golfballs is to break windows, and the purpose of pipes is to make bombs.

[Kulindahr]

What policy do you have to take guns from the hands of criminal citizens?

Project Exile.

[xbuzzerx]

The design of a firearm indicates that it is designed to send a projectile in a ballistic path -- nothing more or less.

If you want to claim that the misuse of items defines their purpose, then the purpose of bathtubs and five-gallon buckets is to drown children, the purpose of baseballs and golfballs is to break windows, and the purpose of pipes is to make bombs.

A gun is a weapon. It is not a tool.

[Stardreamer]

Wrong. You can possess a driver's license and not have insurance. If you plan on driving a car you have to obtain insurance before using it.

In every state I have been in you have to provide proof of insurance to obtain or renew your drivers license. That and when you are stopped for a traffic infraction on a public road is the only times it is asked for. I can purchase a car without having to prove insurance.

[Stardreamer]

Yes true. If you want to have your car licensed and drive it.... and who wouldn't want a car to drive unless it's a museum piece and then again you would want that insured if it's sitting in a museum... you need insurance.

If you want a car for a paperweight or if you have a cannibalized car sitting in the weeds in your front yard along with your other junk, then it's not a car. It's a piece of junk.



Why don't we get real wrapped up in this trying to prove each other wrong?

Because it is important to understanding HOW The government applies the requirement for auto insurance and HOW that won't work for guns. The auto insurance requirement is applied and is only enforceable because you are using a public road, not because you own a car. You cannot apply the same requirement to owning a gun unless you find a similar hook but since most people do not require any particular piece of public infrastructure to be able to use their guns the hook is simply not there.

[CowboyBob]

You're saying just exactly what Wayne LaPierre says is the view of the Left: that all gun owners are criminals.

The proper conclusion toy our contention would be to make all politicians pay for it -- they're the ones who have put the country in this condition.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. All gun owners are not criminals just like all car owners are not bad drivers. But if I want to drive I need insurance in case something bad happens. Why can't all gun owners carry insurance on their guns in case something bad happens with it?

[Stardreamer]

I'm not saying anything of the kind. All gun owners are not criminals just like all car owners are not bad drivers. But if I want to drive I need insurance in case something bad happens. Why can't all gun owners carry insurance on their guns in case something bad happens with it?

Because the government does not have the power to required it, that was what the whole issue with the ACA mandate was about and the supreme court has ruled on it. You can only apply such a requirement by applying a TAX to EVERY American and then provide an exemption if you are carrying the insurance. That is the hook that lets the government require health insurance. The hook that lets the government require car insurance is that the government builds and maintains the roads and you need a permit (a license) to use them. They withhold that permit if you don't have the insurance. So what hook would you use to do this if you want to limit it to just gun owners? The second amendment greatly limits your ability to use something like a drivers license since you cannot create a permitting process that denies law abiding citizens the right to own a gun for self defense.

[CowboyBob]

Because the government does not have the power to required it, that was what the whole issue with the ACA mandate was about and the supreme court has ruled on it. You can only apply such a requirement by applying a TAX to EVERY American and then provide an exemption if you are carrying the insurance. That is the hook that lets the government require health insurance. The hook that lets the government require car insurance is that the government builds and maintains the roads and you need a permit (a license) to use them. They withhold that permit if you don't have the insurance. So what hook would you use to do this if you want to limit it to just gun owners? The second amendment greatly limits your ability to use something like a drivers license since you cannot create a permitting process that denies law abiding citizens the right to own a gun for self defense.

Wrapping yourself up in the Second Amendment means nothing. When it was written AK47's, Bushmasters & 30 round clips were unknown. Gun lovers who want to cling to the Second Amendment let them have all the muskets they want.

Why aren't they crying about the government taking away your tanks and nuclear warheads too? Aren't those arms? Sure you can own firearms, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what kind you're allowed to own.

These extensions of the penis are an adult toy. Try and take away a spoiled brat's toys or tell them they can't have what they want and watch the tantrums fly.

[Stardreamer]

Wrapping yourself up in the Second Amendment means nothing. When it was written AK47's, Bushmasters & 30 round clips were unknown. Gun lovers who want to cling to the Second Amendment let them have all the muskets they want.

Why aren't they crying about the government taking away your tanks and nuclear warheads too? Aren't those arms? Sure you can own firearms, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what kind you're allowed to own.

These extensions of the penis are an adult toy. Try and take away a spoiled brat's toys or tell them they can't have what they want and watch the tantrums fly.

I don't need to wrap myself up in the second amendment, this is already settled law. The Supreme Court rulings in Heller, et all. Dragging out and wrapping yourself in the old chestnuts about citizens having nuclear weapons and field artillery (the courts have ruled on that too and they can't), the right only extends to muskets (the courts say it doesn't) and Freudian jokes (a lot of women want guns to defend themselves from men) are just distractions from the point. The Heller ruling, the ACA ruling and current tax law combined says you cannot apply this mandate the way it is proposed here. You need a hook to apply it so what is the hook? I can think a couple of ways but I don't think they would withstand a court challenge.

[CowboyBob]

I don't care about the Heller ruling. What I said is true.

Just because the Second Amendment gives you the right to have a gun it doesn't want you can have any gun you want. And if you're going to have a gun you need to be responsible for it. If that gun of yours injures or kills someone, the owner is liable too no matter who used it. Insurance, gun locks, gun safes, limiting the size of clips, banning civilians from owning instruments of war would solve a lot of these problems. If a gun owner is irresponsible then they lose their right to own a gun.

[Stardreamer]

I don't care about the Heller ruling. What I said is true.

Just because the Second Amendment gives you the right to have a gun it doesn't want you can have any gun you want. And if you're going to have a gun you need to be responsible for it. If that gun of yours injures or kills someone, the owner is liable too no matter who used it. Insurance, gun locks, gun safes, limiting the size of clips, banning civilians from owning instruments of war would solve a lot of these problems. If a gun owner is irresponsible then they lose their right to own a gun.

All of that is true but that is not what is being proposed here. If all you are wanting is that gun owners carry personal liability insurance for any harm that 'they' do, that is something you could achieve if its done right. AT least you could make it a condition of getting a concealed carry permit. I'm not sure you could make it stick for weapons kept in the home. The proposal here is to force all gun owners to pay into an 'insurance' fund that would pay for all gun related injury regardless of their relation to that injury, that you would not be legally able to do not even the car insurance example everyone keeps brandying about does that.