Well, actually, the only ones who would be forced to obtain the insurance, which would be expensive for people with legal firearms, and unaffordable for people who live in high crime areas, would be the law abiding
Can mandatory liability insurance for gun owners reduce violence?
The idea has been floated for years, and it may seem straightforward enough: if gun owners were required to purchase liability insurance, proponents argue, they would have to follow safe practices to limit their financial and legal risk, thus reducing incidents of gun violence.
But as New Jersey and the city of San Jose, California, have found, actually implementing the idea can be quite difficult.
A recently enacted gun control law in New Jersey that among other things required gun carriers to purchase mandatory liability insurance was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, until it was blocked by U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb.
Bumb, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision on gun carry permits, ruled that parts of the law went too far and infringed on the right to bear arms. “The insurance mandate does regulate who can carry firearms in public,” she wrote, explaining how the state was overreaching its constitutional authority, thus dealing a blow to the measure.
It’s essentially placing a tax, a fee, on a Constitutional Right, and it meant to make owning a firearm to expensive for Citizens. That’s it. Nothing else. Nothing more. They know it will do almost nothing to stop idiots from shooting other people, and since the majority of intentional shootings are by those who do not own the firearm legally, it is meaningless except to disarm people.
Can insurance change behaviors?
No. The people committing most of the violence using firearms are not legal owners. And have you driven out on the road? How many people are blowing stop signs and lights? How many change lanes without signaling? Cut in front of other vehicles? Speed excessively? Drink or do drugs and drive? Pay too much attention to their phones? Make illegal turns?
An insurance marketplace, proponents say, would ensure gun owners follow safe practices and avoid risky decisions in order to avoid paying high premiums or losing coverage, similar to the auto or health insurance model.
Have you driven on the roads lately? Etc. Does having the insurance actually reduce accidents? I cannot find a study that covers this. Perhaps if the insurance is really expensive, but, then, the ones I see who would be paying hundreds every month will also drive like morons, the answer is probably “not much” at best.
Proponents say that mandating liability insurance for gun owners harnesses long-held and trusted American ideas around the power of the market to tackle a uniquely American problem.
In their amicus brief, Brady referenced the first property insurance company founded by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1752 to encourage homeowners to implement safety measures after a series of fires in the city. He started it so homeowners “would come together to share the risks,” the company said on its website and highlights the lengthy history insurance plays in American culture.
Is owning a home a Constitutional Right? Is it made so expensive that it is not worth buying the home?
The NRA filed a lawsuit with its affiliate Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs against the New Jersey legislation which “requires gun owners to acquire insurance that does not appear to exist in the state.”
And when the San Jose ordinance passed the NRA published a news statement saying; “Taxing lawful ownership and requiring insurance will do nothing to reduce gun violence, which is often committed by repeat criminals who will not be paying the fees or obtaining insurance.”
That San Jose ordinance is mired in legal wrangling, and has yet to be implemented. And through this long CBS News piece there’s not one shred of evidence that forcing the law abiding to obtain insurance will reduce shootings. It’s a poll tax designed to make ownership so expensive you won’t have a gun.
Now do Obamacare.
Our esteemed hos began:
With ‘progressive’ policies and prosecutors, the public have learned that they need to protect themselves:
The law-abiding people in the City of Brotherly Love — and Philly’s homicide rate pales in comparison to St Louis’ — felt a need to arm themselves, but this proposal would force many to choose between being able to defend themselves, and paying a fee to the government to be able to protect themselves from the predators the government can’t stop.
Of course, the gang-bangers and wannabes won’t be paying the insurance fees on the guns they illegally possess in the first place.
One wonders if the Phili PD are now accepting mail-in applications for carry in those same districts where Mail in ballots made such a huge difference. Could be a connection.
As a Philadelphian I can testify that mail in ballots made zero difference. Every Philly ward id democommie and has been for years. In fact though most go 80/20 dem a few go 105-110% dem making mail ins moot.
[…] Pirates Cove-Leftist stupidity, on steroids! […]