NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

All rights are balanced between an individual's freedoms and the freedoms of others. Your First Amendment rights do not allow you to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, etc., etc. Your Second Amendment rights do not allow you put others at undo risk. Ultimately, it will be up to the Supreme Court to determine where that balance point lies and whether or not this insurance thing fits.

Frankly, I would like to see gun owners not only showing a little more personal responsibility but encouraging other gun owners to do the same. The NRA used to do be in favor of reasonable gun control laws. Now, they fight tooth-and-nail against any.
 
BenBurch said:
I'm pretty sure the NRA will just add it to their existing benefit, too.
Click to expand...

That's the sad truth of it. Decent idea, but not workable.

Unless, the NRA could be put out of business through this sort of insurance . . . nah, a few million in payouts is chump change to them.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Nice how you skipped over the 3rd because you do have to pay taxes to support the barracks of the soldiers that ensure you 3rd amendment rights.

Nailed it!:D
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. The levying of taxes are independent of the 3rd amendment. Even if you don't owe any taxes, the 3rd amendment still applies. In fact, even if you owe taxes and refuse to pay them, the 3rd amendment still applies. Nothing about your 3rd amendment protections are contingent upon your payment of any tax.
 
Sabretooth said:
How does forcing insurance do this, exactly?

I'm guessing you think criminals and nutjobs would gladly go out and hit up a local agent for a gun insurance policy...
Click to expand...

As much as it grates on my nerves to agree on something with a gun lover on the gun debate, you do have a certain point. Many states require that everyone driving on public roads must have car insurance, and yet we have driver's aplenty who drive uninsured.

It isn't a valid argument against car or gun insurance, mind you, but you are right it won't cut down on illegal gun owners.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
All rights are balanced between an individual's freedoms and the freedoms of others. Your First Amendment rights do not allow you to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, etc., etc. Your Second Amendment rights do not allow you put others at undo risk. Ultimately, it will be up to the Supreme Court to determine where that balance point lies and whether or not this insurance thing fits.
Click to expand...

Your comparison of speech to gun ownership is interesting, but not for the reason you suppose. Yes, certain speech can be restricted. But what stops you from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Nothing, actually. You're perfecly able to do that. It's only after the fact that you can get punished for it, IF there was not in fact a fire. Prior restraint on free speech is almost never permitted, almost all free speech restrictions are after-the-fact restrictions. That is how it should be for a fundamental right.

But what about insurance? It serves as a prior restraint on gun ownership, because you might abuse the right. The burden for a prior restraint should be severe. So what's the argument that we need prior restraint here? Well, none so far.

This line of reasoning does suggest that requiring insurance from gun owners who have been convicted of gun law violations would be OK, but as a categorical requirement, it's not enough to just say that no rights are absolute. You need to do better than that.

But you never have. You haven't even really tried.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, you didn't.
Click to expand...

It was a joke.

I'm kind of an expert in modern 3rd amendment law. In fact I run the only blog that details every significant 3rd amendment case at the appeals and SCOTUS level since the late nineties. I spend my nights pouring over the latest 3rd amendment decisions so don't think you can lecture me on 3rd amendment case law.

Nailed it, again?
 
Here's the part I like:
2. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE
OWNER OF A FIREARM IF SUCH FIREARM IS LOST OR STOLEN UNTIL SUCH LOSS OR
THEFT IS REPORTED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR SHERIFF WHICH HAS JURIS
DICTION IN THE COUNTY, TOWN, CITY OR VILLAGE IN WHICH SUCH OWNER
RESIDES.​

So if I am married to some a-hole and want that person murdered, all I have to do is convince a friend to steal a gun and quickly kill my spouse with the stolen gun, which is left at the scene of the crime. As next of kin, I can make a million-dollar claim against the original owner's policy. Then I give my friend $500,000.
 
Ladewig said:
Here's the part I like:
2. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE
OWNER OF A FIREARM IF SUCH FIREARM IS LOST OR STOLEN UNTIL SUCH LOSS OR
THEFT IS REPORTED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR SHERIFF WHICH HAS JURIS
DICTION IN THE COUNTY, TOWN, CITY OR VILLAGE IN WHICH SUCH OWNER
RESIDES.​

So if I am married to some a-hole and want that person murdered, all I have to do is convince a friend to steal a gun and quickly kill my spouse with the stolen gun, which is left at the scene of the crime. As next of kin, I can make a million-dollar claim against the original owner's policy. Then I give my friend $500,000.
Click to expand...

Insurance contracts are usually void if the claim is upon a criminal or intentional act of the policyholder.

Also war, BTW. If we go to war and an enemy bomb hits your house, your insurance does not cover that.
 
Dr. Keith said:
The "barrier" is tied to the cost to society of you exercising that right. As Ben points out:



This is what I tried to show with numbers. Even if you have 30,000 $1Million payouts under this insurance system, that would only be $100 per gun in the US.

Someone like me who has a a few rifles and a couple of shot guns in a massive safe, with no criminal record or criminal associations, no history of domestic violence, no claims on homeowners in over ten years, good credit, and living in a low crime environment could likely negotiate a $10 per year per gun premium addition to my homeowners policy. They are already covering any incidents that occur on my property, so this would be a minor extension of coverage.
Click to expand...
Sounds very reasonable, as long as you are an affluent upper or middle class citizen who lives in a nice neighborhood, and doesn't like the idea of those low class poor people, elderly people on fixed incomes, and gawd forbid, urban low income families owning the means to protect themselves against the very real threat of predators in their own communities.
They can always rely on the police to protect them.
As long as you are imposing a financial barrier to prevent them from exercising their rights, the last time I voted I had to go to a high school auditorium that really needed some repairs. Maybe we could institute some form of sliding scale fee for maintaining the places we vote at. People with good criminal records that have a relatively affluent lifestyle would pay a smaller fee, those who don't fit the demographics would pay a substantially larger one.
Just for upkeep, of course.
 
Ziggurat said:
But not other forms of violence. Got it.
Click to expand...

Yes, people have a right to be protected from other kinds of violence. That's why we have car insurance and other kinds of liability insurance. People want to protect themselves and others needed to be protected from people who perp violence.



So would most violent criminals.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Only legal gun owners would need to purchasse the insurance. And then if what legal gun owners say is true about they being responsible and not responsible for the gun violence then the premium would be very inexpensive. Say $10 for the high risk handgun, $7 for the high risk assault weapon, $6 for a hunting rifle, and maybe $4 for a shotgun. It could even be built into the gun license!

It's the perfect remedy in every way for the rightie, the leftie, the bagger, and the crazed libertarian. It is totally a tax on the perp and leaves the innocent who don't own guns legally alone.

The criminals who own guns illegally would have to be dealt with some other way.

How could any responsible gun owner be against this??
 
monty1 said:
How could any responsible gun owner be against this??
Click to expand...

The same reason the right are against any kind of insurance. I bet you these people are the same one's against mandated car and health insurance as well.
 
Mudcat said:
The same reason the right are against any kind of insurance. I bet you these people are the same one's against mandated car and health insurance as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, because they don't want to shoulder their share of responsibility with car insurance. And with health insurance the same because only universal health care will do the job for the US and they don't want to shoulder their share of paying for that either.

Which shows just how stupid they are because their tax burden could be reduced with universal health care and the quality would improve to them and all poor and middle class people.

This gun insurance is a winner!
 
Mudcat said:
The same reason the right are against any kind of insurance. I bet you these people are the same one's against mandated car and health insurance as well.
Click to expand...

Just as a nitpick, I'm only against this without controls. As slippery as the auto insurance industry is with denying claims, paying bare minimums, and using credit checks and accidents for which the insured was not at fault to ratchet up rates, it smacks of legally-required price gouging for anybody who needs to drive anywhere (meaning damn near everybody who works in the US).
 
If the government wants to make purchasing something mandatory, then that thing mist be important enough to socialize and fund via taxes. I don't like somebody making a profit off something I'm forced to buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom