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

WildCat said:
No, you haven't. That's not what insurance does.
Click to expand...

Please show me with the evidence I have linked to that you are correct to say that.

I have shown you that UK vehicle insurance clearly covers third parties and a drivers acts against them. The same can applied to US gun owners and that way they are covered when they do damage to others.
 
In the USA if you crash into another vehicle and it is your fault, who pays for the other vehicle to be repaired?

If you run over and injure a pedestrian and it is your fault, can the pedestrian sue and would your insurance cover you for such?

If you crash into a wall and it is you fault, would your insurance cover the repair to the wall?
 
Nessie said:
If you run over and injure a pedestrian and it is your fault, can the pedestrian sue and would your insurance cover you for such?
Click to expand...

My experience of this is yes, but the limits to liability can be quite low.

In Arizona the minimum is $15,000.00.

What is scary is that I don't think a lot of Americans are actually aware that their cheapest motor insurance also leaves them vulnerable to civil liability which would not be fully covered by the amount in their policy.

Sad part for the pedestrian is that, if the motorist rents and has no savings or other assets, then all the injured party is going to get is the limit of the policy.
 
uk_dave said:
That's right. The state doesn't tend to sue a criminal if murder is committed, they send the perp to prison. :rolleyes:

The relatives of the victim, however, could sue the criminal for civil liability which the insurance company would be obliged to meet.
Click to expand...
You keep making that claim, you've shown no evidence whatsoever for it.
 
GlennB said:
for example, where the bolded part would not be true holding UK-style third party motor insurance.
Click to expand...
So if you discover one morning that someone vandalized your car overnight your insurance company wouldn't pay?
 
Aber said:
Third party insurance as mandated by law, or technically Road Traffic Act insurance. This is backed up by the Motor Insurers Bureau to compensate victims of uninsured or untraced drivers.

Re criminal acts:

Verdict in Hardy vs Motor Insurers Bureau 1964
Click to expand...
"This was a liability which the culpable motorist was required to cover under section 207 of the then Road Traffic Act 207"

The use of the past tense makes it appear something has changed in the meantime, perhaps as a direct result of that verdict.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I think this Insurance policy is probably the beginning, since gun ownership in the US has decreased significantly since the 1970s.
Click to expand...

I think you're going to see drastic increases in gun ownership in the next year or two (or more).

Speaking to my County Clerk this past Friday while adding pistols to my permit, she mentioned that, for all of 2012, the county saw 1,700 pistol permit applications come though. In the 2 months of 2013, they've already received 3,200 applications.

Local gun stores have empty display cases. Ammunition of most calibers is scarce. My local guy was down to his last 6 boxes of 45ACP on Saturday, and his supplier can't restock him until March 28th. While I was there, the only rounds I could get for my .357 were target loads.

I will say this limited ammo supply has triggered (ha!) store owners into doing something I never thought I'd be OK with. It used to be that you could buy any caliber round you want, no questions asked. Now, shop owners are asking that people show their pistol permit anytime they want to purchase a primarily pistol caliber ammo (ie: .32, .357, .38, .44, .45, etc.).

This has caused some griping because some of those calibers can be used in certain rifles...the shops simply ask that you prove it. Gun owners have been dealing with it amicably for the most part.

What is awesome is that the people that have no permit and no rifle are not able to buy ammo for their illegal pistols. Police were called to a popular Buffalo area gun shop because a young man was refused sale of pistol ammo and he got a little wacky. Turns out the young man had a warrant...and they recovered an unregistered .38 special from his vehicle.

It got me thinking, that limiting sale of pistol ammo to strictly pistol owners and special cases as a law might be a good idea. Obviously, before the recent ammo crunch, illegal owners could buy a caliber of choice with no problem...now they'd have to find another illegal way of getting ammo which could make that radar ping on them a bit brighter.

Anyway...that was a big old ramble of my weekend thoughts and experiences...
 
WildCat said:
You keep making that claim, you've shown no evidence whatsoever for it.
Click to expand...


It's really quite simple:

Third party insurance is mandatory under the Road Traffic Act

WildCat said:
So if you discover one morning that someone vandalized your car overnight your insurance company wouldn't pay?
Click to expand...

Okay, you don't understand. No foul.

Fully comprehensive insurance covers the insured for everything to do with owning and operating a vehicle: theft, vandalism, accidents and claims resulting from third party liability.

Third party insurance only covers for the damage you cause to others, i.e a third party. Not you. Someone else.

Third party insurance is the minimum insurance you must have to operated a vehicle on uk roads. Covering your own vehicle (fully comprehensive insurance) is entirely optional, but you must be covered for costs incurred by others.

The Road Traffic Act has been quoted numerous times on this thread and it clearly states that you have to be covered for any liability arising from you operating a vehicle. Any liability.

It doesn't require the insurance company to pay your speeding tickets, pay your legal fees or anything else like that. It is solely there to compensate the 'third party' (that's the person who isn't you) if you cause damage to them or their property.
 
WildCat said:
"This was a liability which the culpable motorist was required to cover under section 207 of the then Road Traffic Act 207"

The use of the past tense makes it appear something has changed in the meantime, perhaps as a direct result of that verdict.
Click to expand...

lol you hope.
 
Sabretooth said:
I will say this limited ammo supply has triggered (ha!) store owners into doing something I never thought I'd be OK with. It used to be that you could buy any caliber round you want, no questions asked. Now, shop owners are asking that people show their pistol permit anytime they want to purchase a primarily pistol caliber ammo (ie: .32, .357, .38, .44, .45, etc.).

This has caused some griping because some of those calibers can be used in certain rifles...the shops simply ask that you prove it. Gun owners have been dealing with it amicably for the most part.

What is awesome is that the people that have no permit and no rifle are not able to buy ammo for their illegal pistols.
Click to expand...
My first thought was not that they were concerned about people buying for illegal weapons, but to prevent people who don't own any weapons (legal or not) at all from buying them solely to resell at a higher price thanks to the shortage. IOW, to prevent scalping.

Because I really doubt the illegal weapons holders are the ones burning through all that ammo, it's not like the local gangbangers and convicted felons are doing time at the range honing up on their marksmanship. I doubt most of those guys even ever fired their gun prior to using it in a drive-by or to shoot a convenience store clerk.
 
And it just occurred to me that there may be enormous differences in US vs. UK tort systems. In the US liability for such things are virtually unlimited, since things like pain and suffering are unquantifiable and punitive damages can be many times actual damages. And punitive damages for a demonstrably intentional act are off the charts.

Maybe this isn't an issue in the UK because the potential payouts are limited to actual, proven damages? Note I'm not claiming to know this is the case, but I suspect something has to be going on or few people could afford auto insurance otherwise.
 
WildCat said:
My first thought was not that they were concerned about people buying for illegal weapons, but to prevent people who don't own any weapons (legal or not) at all from buying them solely to resell at a higher price thanks to the shortage. IOW, to prevent scalping.

Because I really doubt the illegal weapons holders are the ones burning through all that ammo, it's not like the local gangbangers and convicted felons are doing time at the range honing up on their marksmanship. I doubt most of those guys even ever fired their gun prior to using it in a drive-by or to shoot a convenience store clerk.
Click to expand...

You're most likely right, that crossed my mind as well. But it's having an unintended (and welcomed) consequence.

I don't think illegal owners are burning through the ammo, but if something like this is preventing them from stockpiling ammo, I'm all for it.

Thing is...this could be simple law put into place that gun owners may would grumble about quietly, but then realize it's a good thing. And it's easily monitored.

There's two things:
1. Have a valid pistol permit.
2. If you have a rifle that uses a pistol caliber, bring the rifle to your local shop and they can issue a "store card" of sorts, keep your name on file, etc., so that next time you come in to buy that caliber, you're good to go.

It's an easy law to back and actually, you know, helps. We are having trouble getting illegal guns off the street...well, then at least the gangbangers can't buy the ammo legally either.
 
Sabretooth said:
What is awesome is that the people that have no permit and no rifle are not able to buy ammo for their illegal pistols. Police were called to a popular Buffalo area gun shop because a young man was refused sale of pistol ammo and he got a little wacky. Turns out the young man had a warrant...and they recovered an unregistered .38 special from his vehicle.

It got me thinking, that limiting sale of pistol ammo to strictly pistol owners and special cases as a law might be a good idea. Obviously, before the recent ammo crunch, illegal owners could buy a caliber of choice with no problem...now they'd have to find another illegal way of getting ammo which could make that radar ping on them a bit brighter.
Click to expand...

I think that most states don't require a permit to own a pistol (but do require a permit to carry one). My own state is such a case. (What's happening in the stores here is that they are limiting people to a certain number of boxes of ammo per visit).

As an aside... I always had a stereotype that most illegal gun owners probably don't practice that much and therefore aren't burning through much ammo at all.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
As I said before, it's going to get to the stage I mentioned in the quoted post due to:

- Gun Owners being largely "old, white, conserative males".
- Demographics are shifting towards young, minorities and women who are vigorously more supportive of Gun Control and far less likely to own guns.
- Gun Owners, instead of compromising, go for all or nothing.
- When the Demographics have turned in their favour, the latter will just say, "Here's all or nothing. All is Japan's gun laws. Nothing is well, nothing. Take it or leave it."
Click to expand...

Not seeing it. Do you go to many gunshows? Lots of women buying pistols. Lots of young families buying firearms. Lots of minorities buying as well too.

Women are now 23% of gun owners up from 13% 8 yrs ago. And those are just the ones who respond to the voice on the phone.
 
WildCat said:
Then why the past tense?
Click to expand...

Because the UK has had a lot of Road Traffic Acts, including one in 1962 between the events and verdict in Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau.

If you're looking for a more recent ruling try Bristol Alliance Ltd v Williams and EUI Insurance 2011:

Consequently the Claimant was entitled to recover from the Second Defendant, even though the damage to the Claimant’s premises was deliberate and the Second Defendant’s insurance policy excluded such acts
Click to expand...

IIUC the third party can recover damages from the Insurers (Second Defenant) for deliberate damage, even though the wording of the insurance policy excluded deliberate acts.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
Crikey, someone is cranky.

Here: http://www.directline.com/motor/policy.htm

The policy documents are a pdf, so I'm afraid you'll have to do some work, sorry about that, it being a sunday and all....

...basically that particular insurance company does have some restrictions on third party liability....such as when the claim is covered by other insurance, and the *********** cheapskates put a limit of £20million on a property claim (damn them), but everything else is covered by the road traffic act....
Click to expand...

I notice the general exceptions to sections A through H has this exception.

driven by someone who does not have a valid driving licence or is
disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence or is breaking the conditions of their driving licence.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a DUI be breaking the conditions of their driving license?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom