NEW YORK — In a society sharply divided over efforts to curb violence and the right to bear arms, both sides of the gun debate seem to agree on at least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry in a heavily armed society.
But just what that role should be, and whether insurers will choose to accept it, are still in dispute.
Comments
Insurance does not inhibit gun ownership and thus is not an infringement upon the second amendment. No one is saying you can't own a gun -- just that it will cost you.
Good Bumpy, how about we send you a bill for your right to free speech, just in case you say something that causes damage?
Or maybe you need some insurance for the right not to be searched without probable cause?
Oh, and Bumpy? Yes, insurance DOES inhibit gun ownership. Not everyone has extra $100's falling out of their pockets to pay for insurance, therefore it inhibits gun ownership.
Psssst? That is another reason it is a RIGHT, not to be INFRINGED.
These type of schemes have been stuck down time and again in courts. They always sound good to the devious minded.
Now wasn't that a misleading headline?
Once the article is read, it becomes apparent that gun owners are for OPTIONAL insurance, not Linsky's mandatory insurance scheme.
Why would the BG run a headline like this? Simple, to convince voters that gun owners are for Linsky's proposals. How misleading.
Here is what Linsky really has in mind:
Mandatory insurace. This is a backdoor method of gun control.
How it works: State passes law that says gun owners must have insurance, or be in violation of law. They can make it a felony to not have insurance. End of state involvement. Insurance company now creates rules and regulations and sets fees. Gun owner violates a rule, insurance company drops insurance. Gun owner is now a felon subject to arrest, etc. But the state never said what kind of guns he could own, how many, etc. The insurance company will do that. It is the state's way of avoiding running afoul of the 2A.
More importantly, SINCE WHEN DO WE PAY TO EXCERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY?
This is NOT like owning and operating a automobile. A gun may never leave a person's home. Indeed, a person may own a car, and if it does not leave his property, there is NO mandatory insurance requirement. Only when that car is operated on a road must it have insurance. Furthermore, as the states are always happy to point out, driving is a privilege, not a right. Gun ownership is a right.
Anyone who thinks that the 2A does not mean citizens should be able to own and carry guns should contact their representatives and have the 2A changed constitutionally.
This slimey, snakey, Linsky way of chipping away at a constitution he hates is disgusting. And now this man would like to be a DA? Are you kidding? Can you imagine him twisting the law to convict those he hates?
The BG just gets worse, it has edited the article to leave out some very important passages:
"Premiums for such insurance range from around $200 to $300 per year; in general, the coverage is narrowly written and excludes cases where a gun is used to commit a crime."
"The insurance industry is wary of some of the proposals to require gun owners to buy liability coverage — and particularly of bills, like one that was filed in New York thatwould require coverage for damages resulting not only from negligence but also from “willful acts.”
Robert P. Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, said that insurance generally covered accidents and unintentional acts — not intentional or illegal ones. “Insurance will cover you if your home burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson,” he said."
Here is a link to the entire article, which is way more informative than the neutered version offered here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/in-gun-debate-a-bigger-role-seen-for-insurers.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=michaelcooper&adxnnlx=1361538604-+lvmOb+IWwmP+s0F+1Fa6Q
I would suggest people read it, since it shows that these "insurance ideas" are pretty much, well, stupid. The insurance companies aren't going to go for them. Homeowners policies already cover accidental shootings, etc. Insurance companes do not pay out for willful acts. If a state were to create a law demanding that insurance companies pay for murders, obviously the insurance companies would insure no one.
This comment has been removed.