Gun Liability Insurance

[martybegan]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

Its because vehicles are not a constitutionally protected right. The right to travel is protected, but not the method.

On the second point if someone steals your car and then crashes it into some else, are you liable?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

Some states have passed laws that require safes or some other method for the safe keeping of firearms. I personally have no problem with that.

Safes are not big deal until you need the gun in a hurry that is.

I don't have kids, no kids ever come to my house, if i want to keep a weapon within arms reach at all times what business is it of the fucking government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

Except that this equates to a poll tax, which violates the constitution.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

Yes... to exercise the privilege to use public roads. Non-sequitur.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

Only if it acan be proven he was negligent.

 

[westwall]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

Some states have passed laws that require safes or some other method for the safe keeping of firearms. I personally have no problem with that.

Safes are not big deal until you need the gun in a hurry that is.

I don't have kids, no kids ever come to my house, if i want to keep a weapon within arms reach at all times what business is it of the fucking government?

I'm talking about when you're not at home. I have a weapon close to hand don't get me wrong, but when we leave the house to go out for dinner or some such i put it in the safe with the others. When we get back out it comes again.

 

[DaGoose]

RETARD ALERT. Guess what nimrod? So few accidents occur as to make the insurance pointless. BUT none of that matters. It is simple, the Government can not force you to pay to exercise a given right. A REQUIRED Insurance policy would be EXACTLY the same thing as a Poll tax. And the Courts already ruled on that.

By the way nimrod? Driving is not a right. And unless we have people target practicing on crowded thorough fairs trying to compare a requirement for Insurance to drive and insurance to simply own a firearm is moronic at best.

Boy!! You sure get mad when you're losing an argument!!

I never said driving was a RIGHT. I just made the point if you own a gun and have no insurance then you're one stupid assed mo-fo.

Again....if you're playing John Wayne and accidentally shoot me and you have no insurance guess what? You're gonna work for me the rest of your miserable life plus you will sign everything you own over to me.

And again.....If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too. In fact, I'd lay money on it.

The only one losing the argument is you. The only way there will ever be firearm insurance is if it is mandated. Try going out and buying "firearm insurance", Go ahead try.
It doesn't exist. There have sadly been many accidental shootings over the years and you know what? The people who did it are not broke or working as slaves to pay off their debts to those they injured. Your little fantasy is amusing but it is ignorance personified.

Sorry but sadly.......you are WRONG. I personally know one guy who accidentally shot his hunting buddy and crippled him for life. There was a lawsuit and the wage garnishment is still in effect after nearly 10 years.

Another guy that I work with accidentally shot a neighbor kid in the knee with an arrow. Luckily his home owners policy covered it.

You said, and I quote, "Try going out and buying "firearm insurance", Go ahead try.
It doesn't exist." So I did a quick search and guess what? It took me less than 5 minutes to find this.......

Own a gun? You may want self-defense insurance | InsuranceQuotes.com

One of the best-known policies for self-defense is provided through the National Rifle Association; that coverage is underwritten by Lockton Affinity of Overland Park, Kan

The NRA-endorsed coverage offers a $100,000 policy for $165 a year and a $250,000 policy for $254 a year. The policy pays legal fees for criminal and civil defense as long as the person is not guilty.

So I guess you lose the argument too.

 

[DaGoose]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

Except that this equates to a poll tax, which violates the constitution.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

Yes... to exercise the privilege to use public roads. Non-sequitur.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

Only if it acan be proven he was negligent.

I would say "losing a gun" would be pretty negligent, wouldn't you?

And we'll see if requiring insurance is constitutional or not. If FOID cards and CC permits (both of which costs money) pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

Except that this equates to a poll tax, which violates the constitution.


Yes... to exercise the privilege to use public roads. Non-sequitur.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

Only if it acan be proven he was negligent.

I would say "losing a gun" would be pretty negligent, wouldn't you?

That's -entirely- circumstantial.

And we'll see if requiring insurance is constitutional or not. If FOID cards and CC permits (both of which costs money) pass Constitutional muste...

They cannot. Both are infringements that cannot pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

Its constitutonally imposible to require you to purchase a commercial product of an arbitrary value in order to exercise your rights.

 

[DaGoose]

Except that this equates to a poll tax, which violates the constitution.


Yes... to exercise the privilege to use public roads. Non-sequitur.


Only if it acan be proven he was negligent.

I would say "losing a gun" would be pretty negligent, wouldn't you?

That's -entirely- circumstantial.

And we'll see if requiring insurance is constitutional or not. If FOID cards and CC permits (both of which costs money) pass Constitutional muste...

They cannot. Both are infringements that cannot pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

Its constitutonally imposible to require you to purchase a commercial product of an arbitrary value in order to exercise your rights.

Mishaga v. Monken - Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would say "losing a gun" would be pretty negligent, wouldn't you?

That's -entirely- circumstantial.

And we'll see if requiring insurance is constitutional or not. If FOID cards and CC permits (both of which costs money) pass Constitutional muste...

They cannot. Both are infringements that cannot pass the Strict Scrutiny test.

Its constitutonally imposible to require you to purchase a commercial product of an arbitrary value in order to exercise your rights.

Mishaga v. Monken - Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss

I'm not sure how you think this speaks to anything I said here...?