You have a gun? Get Insurance. (Y/N)

[Canarr]

And I'm not even going to get into the fact that it would be a government mandated list, which falls under the "freedom of information act" which means ANYONE can have access to MY PERSONAL INFORMATION, and I don't know, publish it in a newspaper, complete with a map, thus endangering my safety, and the safety of my family, with zero repercussions.

The question of whether or not the newspaper should have published the list of gun owners is a wholly separate can of worms, I think, so I'll refrain from touching that. What the article reminded me of, however, was the kind of person who shouldn't be owning firearms: namely, the kind of person who sends death threats to reporters, newspaper staff, and their families over an article they don't like. Those people are just very sorry excuses for human beings.

That aside, however, something I don't get: why, exactly, is it a bad thing if other people know that you own guns? I mean, one of the main arguments for gun ownership I keep reading is the power to defend yourself and your family, plus the fact that, apparently, criminals are less likely to strike in areas where the rate of gun ownership is high, since there is more risk to their own skin in the process. If that were true, wouldn't you want other people - especially burglars, robbers and the like - to know that you are armed and thus able to defend yourself? Sort of like a "Criminals Beware!" or "Dog on Guard!" sign? Here there be guns?

Thereby - if the deterrent effect of gun ownership is really as high as it's been claimed - you'd be much safer, right? Because burglars would certainly rather burgle and robbers would much rather rob your unarmed neighbors, right? Granted, there is a risk of people breaking in to explicitly steal your guns, but that is one kind of item that should definitely be safely locked away as long as the owner isn't around. Yes, locks can be overcome; but a decent gun safe should be above the abilities of your "standard" burglar-for-drug-money type, I would think.

One question: if it's the gun registry that bothers you so much, would you be okay with just a mandatory insurance, without any specific registration? Meaning, a law to the effect of, "Anyone owning one or more guns is required to purchase insurance to the extent of X, Y, Z from the insurance company of their choice, no matter how many of what kind of guns they own." Thereby, there'd be no central register, since you could just pick up the insurance at any provider you choose, and no one would know how many or what kind of guns you own. Would that still bother you?

The phrase "Well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been deliberately misconstrued for some time now. The fact is, "well regulated" back in 1781, when the Constitution was signed, meant something completely different than it does now. "Well regulated" meant, "in good order" or "well disciplined".

Can you provide a source to back up your claim?

[BlaqueKatt]

but a decent gun safe should be above the abilities of your "standard" burglar-for-drug-money type, I would think.

in order to for that, one would need one of the full size "bank vault" type which run over $1000(and can't be installed in apartments), the ones for a single handgun aren't to prevent theft, but to keep them out of the hands of children, they can usually be defeated with a sledgehammer.

"Anyone owning one or more guns is required to purchase insurance to the extent of X, Y, Z from the insurance company of their choice, no matter how many of what kind of guns they own." Thereby, there'd be no central register, since you could just pick up the insurance at any provider you choose, and no one would know how many or what kind of guns you own. Would that still bother you?

And how do you verify that everyone owning firearms is complying with the law?

[Duelist925]

And how do you verify that everyone owning firearms is complying with the law?

If the information that they own a firearm comes up in an investigation--wether it be a legal police investigation, one being done by an insurance company to assess damages due to a disaster or some such, or something similar--the owner is asked to provide insurance documention, similar to how one must provide such when pulled over by a cop for some offence or other, wether its related to the offence or not.

They show that they have insurance, its noted, everyone goes about with their business.

[Canarr]

What Duelist925 says.

[HYHYBT]

Aside from ease of opening, many safes I've seen, the thief could simply steal the safe itself (perhaps with the aid of a hand truck) and then have all the time he wanted to get it open.

Something like that happened at a place I used to work. Someone broke in one night and couldn't get into the safe, but damaged it enough that nobody else could either. To keep the place open until it could be repaired, they borrowed a couple of cash drawers from another store and bought one of those portable safes you can get at Sam's Club.... which was ported that night.

[Daskinor]

The phrase "Well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been deliberately misconstrued for some time now. The fact is, "well regulated" back in 1781, when the Constitution was signed, meant something completely different than it does now. "Well regulated" meant, "in good order" or "well disciplined".

Can you provide a source to back up your claim?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Page 23 starts on last paragraph.


The second amendment does not imply a right to keep your firearms secret from the government no matter how hard someone twists it. As it is read now the two parts have two very basic meanings.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

A state can arm people duly designated in defense of the state. This is everything from a state militia to the police force.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

'the people' are allowed to possess 'arms'.

Getting arms out of the way first. Arms means and even back when the constitution was drafted; weapons meant for non military purposes. This is why an assault rifle ban is possible in the first place. Why you are not allowed to own a functioning WW2 flame thrower. Why miniguns sold before the military adopted them are legal to own and ones built after are not.

'the people' the supreme court did not really touch upon. The issue being that even now the placement and use of the word does not really make sense and do not match the other uses of 'the people' in the constitution and bill of rights. So it is left as meaning all the people.

But my state does not allow the state to posses complicated records of gun owners. Congratulations you live in a state whose state Constitution has a line that goes like this. "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state". You know just in case Pennsylvania needed to rise against the federal government. This had to do with a post revolutionary fear of another tyrannical government. A fear that slowly died away in 30-40 years.



Now the punishing of law abiding gun owners by registering a firearm argument is just odd to me. I don't find needing to fill out a form to make my guns legal to possess a punishment. It can be a hassle since I cant read most of the serial numbers off my Asian WW2 weapon collection. But definitely not a punishment. Just one of those necessary steps to be a law abiding gun owner.

Now why should we force people to register a gun. You go to a gun store and buy a gun, you pass a background check to insure your legally allowed to carry it. You receive a gun and its registered to your name. Not real painful.

Now lets say you go to a gun show buy a gun and take it home. You do not register it because you know your not legally allowed to have it. The benefit now is, possession of said gun, the gun being unregistered and the crime committed are all actionable. And the unregistered gun part is the most easy actionable against.

There is also the possibly of catching someone who doesn't realize they are not allowed to have guns.

Then there is the third reason. Is also the reason that most gun owners fear. Someone took one of their guns and committed a crime with it. The gun is registered and tracked back to the owner and from the owner the taker of the gun. This is why most people do not want their guns registered so if something bad happens it does not come back down on them. If your child takes your gun and shoots someone. You may not be criminally liable (I stress may) but your damn sure can be liable in a civil sense. Depending on how you kept your guns.

So back to insurance for gun owners. In all reality its no different from car insurance. Its to protect yourself and others from that liability.

[daleduke17]

Being required to pay out money for a Constitutionally granted right? Hmmmm....where have I heard that before?

Something about voting and needing an ID?

[Duelist925]

Being required to pay out money for a Constitutionally granted right? Hmmmm....where have I heard that before?

Something about voting and needing an ID?

No other constitutionally granted right has the possibility of, at its most basic level, allowing someone to cause severe damages to someone elses property or self.

The only reason to charge someone for a vote, in whatever way, is to insure they cannot vote due to lack of funds. There is no legitimate reasoning for it, and there are a multitude of ways to ensure someone has a correct ID to vote without charging them a single penny.

There IS legitimate reasoning behind insurance for firearms, much of which has been pointed out by others earlier in the thread. As to wether there are ways to lessen the possible cost, or do away with it while keeping the benefits of insuring firearms, I really don't know.

[Canarr]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Page 23 starts on last paragraph.

Thanks; interesting read.

The second amendment does not imply a right to keep your firearms secret from the government no matter how hard someone twists it.

And good point here.

[daleduke17]

No other constitutionally granted right has the possibility of, at its most basic level, allowing someone to cause severe damages to someone elses property or self.

The only reason to charge someone for a vote, in whatever way, is to insure they cannot vote due to lack of funds. There is no legitimate reasoning for it, and there are a multitude of ways to ensure someone has a correct ID to vote without charging them a single penny.

There IS legitimate reasoning behind insurance for firearms, much of which has been pointed out by others earlier in the thread. As to wether there are ways to lessen the possible cost, or do away with it while keeping the benefits of insuring firearms, I really don't know.

Still, can't play favorites with Constitutionally granted rights. If the state cannot require me to prove who I am to vote because it costs money to get an ID, then I cannot be required to get insurance for my firearm because it costs money.

If the voting ID and firearm insurance are free... then let's talk.

[Duelist925]

Still, can't play favorites with Constitutionally granted rights. If the state cannot require me to prove who I am to vote because it costs money to get an ID, then I cannot be required to get insurance for my firearm because it costs money.

If the voting ID and firearm insurance are free... then let's talk.

This is not "playing favorites" it is common sense.

As I said before: There is no reason to charge someone for the right to vote, other than to prohibit them from voting, especially when simply giving someone a government issued ID to allow them to vote is not prohibitively expensive.

Insurance for a firearm, however, does have reasoning beyond "lets make sure no one can afford guns". There is a reasoning behind it--that people who wan't to own something that can cause so much damage can bloody well pay to ensure that damage is covered, should the worst happen. After all, why should the victims pay? (I don't necessarily agree a hundred percent with this logic, only to a point)

That being said, It would be better for there to be a free alternative--perhaps a government funded version of firearms insurance, or providers offering staggered tiers depending on the gun in question (An antique collectable would be one rate, a hunters rifle another, personal protection handgun a third, etc) much as some insurance providers have differen't tiers for some customers.

[linguist]

Still, can't play favorites with Constitutionally granted rights. If the state cannot require me to prove who I am to vote because it costs money to get an ID, then I cannot be required to get insurance for my firearm because it costs money.

If the voting ID and firearm insurance are free... then let's talk.

which amendment is it exactly that prohibits the charging of money for firearms?

[Seifer]

This much like all the other stuff suggested for gun control will only apply to law-abiding. Yeah yeah that again, before I'd agree to something like this I'd want to see an actual cost to the state for those that were shot by legitimate lawful gun owners. Once you remove the suicides and criminal uses the actual number is fairly small.

Since shooting someone is usually considered criminal, that point is a bit moot. A person can be a law-abiding citizen with a gun, but the moment they use it to shoot someone out of rage or any other emotion, they have officially become a criminal. It doesn't matter if they don't have a prior criminal background, they are now a murderer. It's because of those morons that liability insurance is important.

I'd also assume liability insurance would be important when it comes to accidental shootings, too. (Ex. When children get a hold of guns and hurt either themselves or another person.) If someone is too dumb to properly secure their weapons, they deserve to pay out for anyone injured or killed due to their stupidity.

[Canarr]

I'd like to point to the "Another gun incident in Florida" thread in this very same subforum as another reason why mandatory insurance for gun owners is a good idea.

[Panacea]

If it's done against the constitution, it's done illegally. The constitution is the highest law of the land.

Yes and no. The Constitution is the framework for our government, not the highest law of the land. Many of our laws predate the Constitution, but their application must meet constitutional standards to avoid being overturned.

The Bill of Rights is a list of amendments to the Constitution which affect how laws may be written and enforced; they provide a basis to challenge the government when it overreaches. An act may be unconstitutional, but not illegal based on the current laws of its time. Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but legal until the SCOTUS started throwing them out, or until the CRA finished the job.

One other thing that, to me, doesn't make sense: it sounds like part of this insurance is to make people liable for what is done with their guns even by other people, even without permission. If somebody steals my car, neither I nor my insurance are responsible for anything that's done with it. Why should gun owners be liable for what thieves do?

No they shouldn't. It seems to me this provision would do little else but drive more frivolous civil suits in the court system as insurance companies struggle to get out of paying, and plaintiff lawyers go after homeowners.

We already have civil statutes that cover damages and injuries from negligent behaviors. I don't think we need to create a system of insurance that is probably unconstitutional and impossible to enforce.

Still, can't play favorites with Constitutionally granted rights. If the state cannot require me to prove who I am to vote because it costs money to get an ID, then I cannot be required to get insurance for my firearm because it costs money.

If the voting ID and firearm insurance are free... then let's talk.

Ah, you're using an apples vs oranges comparison. Voter ID laws aren't really about preventing voter fraud, as alleged. They're thinly disguised attempts to restrict voting by groups who tend to vote Democrat. It's a poll tax in disguise. It's an attempt to infringe a right.

People are required to pay to exercise their rights all the time. You have to pay for a permit to hold a demonstration. You have to pay for a lawyer unless you can prove you can't.

The real problem with gun insurance is it's hard to enforce with all the guns out there, and the issue is covered by other forms of insurance (for example, homeowner's insurance would cover an accidental shooting in the home).

The other issue I have with the whole idea is it detracts from the real problems we have to solve when it comes to guns: access to mental health care, and lack of a public health approach to gun violence. We should be treating this as a health care issue, not a criminal one. Educational outreach, and smart legislation can do a better job of reducing gun deaths and injuries than databases, insurance, or bans.

I'd like to point to the "Another gun incident in Florida" thread in this very same subforum as another reason why mandatory insurance for gun owners is a good idea.

Not really. Underwriting for this would be so expensive that no one would buy the insurance. It's not like a car, where if you have one it's pretty obvious to everyone.