Firearms insurance?

[branford]

49. When most people discuss "insurance" with respect to guns,

what they really mean is a punitive tax to deter people from owning guns (largely poor people of color) or a desire to institute some form of victim compensation fund. Neither of these ideas is really insurance by any technical or accepted definition, and the term is used because it's politically palatable and maintains the usual comparisons to car ownership where insurance is common and expected.

First and foremost, unlike car ownership. any regulation, tax, etc. concerning firearm ownership will be met with some level of increased constitutional scrutiny because the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, irrespective of the opinion of people opposed to firearms. At the very least, any proposed law must serve a legitimate important government objective and be substantially related to achieving the objective (e.g., no felons or adjudicated mentally ill can possess firearms). The desire by politicians that simply less people exercise a right like firearm ownership is most definitely not by itself a important government interest.

As is evident from many laws across the country, firearms may indeed be subject to certain regulations and basic matters like non-onerous or punitive state and local sales taxes may be assessed against them as with any other consumer product (although there is some current interesting and related litigation on the tax issue in Seattle). As I indicated in my prior post, the problem with firearm "insurance" is that there's absolutely no evidence that it would actually lower the number of firearm deaths or injuries or in any way address the problems it purportedly seeks to solve, at least if any policy is designed and implemented as actual insurance.

The primary reason why firearm insurance is often discussed, but never actually passed into legislation even in the most anti-gun jurisdictions, is that it's just impossible to correct the numerous legal and practical difficulties. Many localities additionally fear an unsuccessful policy or one struck down by the courts would be a serious net loss for the gun control movement at a time with very few victories and more liberalized gun ownership and popular support for gun rights (to say nothing of the fact that even an attempted policy would be a financial windfall for groups like the NRA).

As to your "no fault" idea, it wouldn't solve the primary insurance policy problem. Due to very long-standing and quite practical reasons, insurance doesn't cover insured's intentional criminal conduct. "No fault" doesn't abrogate this rule in any way, and really only seeks to mitigate ligation costs and ensure people are covered for standard accidents and other negligence by their own insurer. A true general no fault policy would essentially require everyone in a state, regardless of whether they owned a firearm, to carry firearm insurance, and it still wouldn't fix the criminal misuse issue. I don't very much that this would be palatable to many on the gun control side.

The NRA sponsored insurance riders and most basic homeowner's and renter's policy cover accidents in the home and related properties. There are usually no exclusions for firearm accidents, although people can certainly choose to take out extra or specialty coverage, including for matters like self-defense scenarios which often have significant legal costs. People generally forget that most lawful gun owners already possess firearm insurance (real insurance), and those in criminal possession of a firearm would be ineligible to purchase such insurance, no less be covered for criminal acts.

Lastly, to the extent my prior post was dismissive of you questions, I apologize. Your inquiries appear quire sincere. Unfortunately, the insurance issue is a very common argument among gun rights advocates and opponents, and many proponents of the insurance idea are not nearly as amicable as yourself, nor try to hide the fact that very serious problems with the policy, including punishing lawful and safe gun owners or backdoor gun bans, are considered features, not bugs, of these proposals.