Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

Not long after NJ Govenor proposed making liability insurance more difficult for many gun owners (for perplexing reasons), now NJ is trying to make liability insurance mandatory for gun owners.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/dangerous-and-unconstitutional-nj-governor-bans-sale-of-insurance-to-gun-owners/


Now some in the NJ legislatures want to propose a minimum of 50k in liability insurance for all gun owners (obviously it would not effect the cast majority of inner city thugs who dominate the NJ crime stats).

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/A9999/6003_I1.HTM


This is absurd and contradictory, making liability insurance very hard to obtain for gun owners and then later in the same year propose making it mandatory?

This is a clear attempt to make owning firearms harder in NJ, and will likley price out many in the middle class, as due to violence, rates will probably be through the roof...

Does anyone think making liability insurance mandatory for gun owners is a positive move?



In a related note (insurance), now that NJ will issue Driver's Liscenses to illegal aliens, or immigrants whose Visas expired, car insurance rates are expected to spike due to the increased level of collisions with uninsured (illegal) drivers... I have a feeling the same will happen with gun insurance (the vast number of illegal guns in NJ will force the burden of cost onto legal policy holders....)

I've always thought insurance for gun owners is a good way to make the user, instead of everyone be responsible if there is a negative effect.

But I could argue with the details of specific legislation being bad or good.

Quote: rxwine

I've always thought insurance for gun owners is a good way to make the user, instead of everyone be responsible if there is a negative effect.

But I could argue with the details of specific legislation being bad or good.

The user is already responsible. If you have a "negative effect" with a gun, that means you either committed a crime or had a serious accident resulting in injury or damage. In both cases you would be held criminally (and likey) civiliy resposible.


This will just be a hindrance to people trying to own guns legally.

Quote: rxwine

I've always thought insurance for gun owners is a good way to make the user, instead of everyone be responsible if there is a negative effect.

But I could argue with the details of specific legislation being bad or good.

To ease into this non confrontationally, you cannot have this convo without bringing up voter ID. I'm with you on pretty much every argument against it, but none of these details need even be argued because you have the trump card: it's unconstitutional. It is in effect a tax meant to stifle the exercising of a right. Actually, intention don't mean eff all in this; even if completely unintentional and in good faith, it still serves to possibly financially rob someone of their human right. It is wholly undoable from the jump, and this for just a $10, one time spend. You know this is true. So it stands to reason that even such things as a $5p/ weapon registration, let alone whatever tens of thousand in liability would cost each and every month / quarter / year you own a firearm, would far exceed the very threshold you yourself already claimed as the line in the sand (which, if I'm not mistaken, we all agree is $0). I'm not sure what else there is to discuss about it.

I mean, I can go on lol. Just figured I'd leave it lie before I go tearing everything up again.

Quote: Gandler

Does anyone think making liability insurance mandatory for gun owners is a positive move?

Hell no.

It is just the latest gun grabber tactic to male law abiding people decide to not own a gun and a way to lock up people who try to exercise their rights to own one.

Quote: Gandler

The user is already responsible. If you have a "negative effect" with a gun, that means you either committed a crime or had a serious accident resulting in injury or damage. In both cases you would be held criminally (and likey) civiliy resposible.

Well, lets get rid of insurance altogether. Everyone has enough wealth put aside for any misfortunate is what you're saying. Right? Wrong.

Because when you drive down the road and cause a major accident you can pay out of pocket for all the damage and medical care on your savings, and pay with no problem. Most can't in a MAJOR accident.

But let's try guns.

If it was found (as home camera are so common) that you clearly left your gun in a place your kid can easily get , we see your kid access your gun and later goes out and pulls the trigger on the neighbor's kid and kills or paralyses him for life, the fact that you'll be sued for costs you don't have or even perhaps go to jail is being responsible? Sure as hell isn't.

Because you can be punished and sued for money you don't have to fix a problem that was your fault is NOT being responsible.


(also I'm not arguing the rights thing with face as he's right, just making a different point)

Quote: rxwine

If it was found (as home camera are so common) that you clearly left your gun in a place your kid can easily get , we see your kid access your gun and later goes out and pulls the trigger on the neighbor's kid and kills or paralyses him for life, the fact that you'll be sued for costs you don't have or even perhaps go to jail is being responsible? Sure as hell isn't.

Your homeowner's insurance would likely cover this kind of scenario.

The whole "mandatory gun insurance" thing is nonsense. Wanting to blame "the gun" for the crime yet again. The fact remains that criminals do not care about insurance laws (e.g.: look at the number of illegal aliens who drive uninsured.) This kind of law is just there to gun grab.

If you are afraid of guns, just do not own one. Keep the government out of my bedroom. Isn't that what the left keeps saying?

Quote: AZDuffman

Your homeowner's insurance would likely cover this kind of scenario.

The whole "mandatory gun insurance" thing is nonsense. Wanting to blame "the gun" for the crime yet again. The fact remains that criminals do not care about insurance laws (e.g.: look at the number of illegal aliens who drive uninsured.) This kind of law is just there to gun grab.

If you are afraid of guns, just do not own one. Keep the government out of my bedroom. Isn't that what the left keeps saying?

The concept applies farther than just guns. If sin taxes are actually applied to the net costs of cigs and alcohol to society (which unfortunately is not universally so) then that is also a form of insurance. People are covering UP FRONT for some of the problems. That's a good thing. I approve of sin taxes, at least for such reasons.

Of course, there has to be reasonableness in laws. If your kid manages to severely injure another kid with a rake with those flimsy plastic tongs, that's not really a common or typical risk most people face.

Quote: rxwine

The concept applies farther than just guns. If sin taxes are actually applied to the net costs of cigs and alcohol to society (which unfortunately is not universally so) then that is also a form of insurance. People are covering UP FRONT for some of the problems. That's a good thing. I approve of sin taxes, at least for such reasons.

That gets murky. Smokers save the taxpayer money by dying early for example.

If you want sin taxes to raise general revenue, especially if we killed the income tax to do so, then fine. But "balancing costs to society" I do not find a good reason for them.