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

[uk_dave]

Unless you can show a direct causal relationship between the ability to own a firearm and the likelihood that it will be used by the owner in the commission of a crime, the relative ease by which one can purchase a firearm is moot.

Are you serious?
A causal relationship between the ability to own a firearm and it's use in a crime? Simply the fact that all firearms were once legally held. Whether the crime is carried out by the current legal owner or a criminal who has stolen it (or been sold or gifted it without the proper background checks being carried out) the fact remains that if a firearm is used in the commission of a crime at some point in time that firearm was legally held.

I still haven't seen where insurance companies in the UK are required to cover intentional criminal acts. Not acts arising from an accident or negligence where a crime was somehow involved (such as a DUI) but covering the willful criminal act itself. The NY legislation requires exactly this type of coverage.

That's right, and no one on this thread has shown where either the Road Traffic Act or individual third party policies themselves actually exclude liability stemming from criminal acts.
And as any law enforcement officer should know, negligence can also be illegal.

This is the part we (the US posters) can't get our head around. The rest of the insurance objections are based simply on the fact that most of those claims would already be covered by other ,already existing, types of insurance.

Well no one has managed to prove that the third party liability as set out in the road traffic act is any kind of fiction.
It can be done, and to be honest it probably should be done with regard to US motor insurance, but of course that would mean people having to pay more in order to make sure they (and the third party they might kill or injure) are fully covered.

Is it the responsibility of the pedestrian to insure themselves against the actions of people operating vehicles on the public highway?
Is it your responsibility to be insured if you walk into a store and a shelf collapses and you get injured? Do you say, no worries Mr store owner, my insurance will deal with the medical bills, the loss of earnings while I'm off work, the damage to my property etc etc. Mr store owner need not have any public liability insurance in that case.
Is it your responsibility to insure yourself against the actions of irresponsible gun owners?

In reality, you want the person responsible for injury caused to you to be the person who pays. But if they have no assets and no insurance you aren't going to get anything, and in the case of US motor insurance even if they do have cover it may be woefully low.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Are you serious?
A causal relationship between the ability to own a firearm and it's use in a crime? Simply the fact that all firearms were once legally held. Whether the crime is carried out by the current legal owner or a criminal who has stolen it (or been sold or gifted it without the proper background checks being carried out) the fact remains that if a firearm is used in the commission of a crime at some point in time that firearm was legally held.

You need to re-read the quote and this time not try to put your own spin on it. I said:

Unless you can show a direct causal relationship between the ability to own a firearm and the likelihood that it will be used by the owner in the commission of a crime, the relative ease by which one can purchase a firearm is moot.

That makes a lot of difference. You have not shown the direct causal relationship here simply by stating the obvious, that all weapons start off as legal weapons.That has nothing to do with the assumption that mere ownership entices a person to commit a crime. All criminals are born innocent, too. And all stolen cars used in robberies and drive by shootings start off as legal automobiles.
Would you penalize automobile owners as well? If not, then you are making a special pleading.

That's right, and no one on this thread has shown where either the Road Traffic Act or individual third party policies themselves actually exclude liability stemming from criminal acts.
And as any law enforcement officer should know, negligence can also be illegal.

Who cares about the Road Traffic Act? We're not talking about insurance law in the UK, we're talking about insurance law in the US, although I'd still like to see where your Road Traffic Act mandates that insurance specifically covers intentional criminal acts. Not where the criminal act is incidental to the claim, such as a DUI, but where the intentional criminal act itself is the basis for the claim, such as murdering someone by running them down with a car.
If my wife gets murdered by someone who runs over her intending to kill her (not as the consequence of some other crime such as speeding or DUI) can I file a claim against the murderers insurance company using the RTA as a basis for compensation in the UK?
I honestly don't know about in the UK, but here there is absolutely no chance of doing so and, contrary to your statement above, I have shown where, and why, insurance companies exclude intentional criminal acts. Again, re-read the links I provided.

Well no one has managed to prove that the third party liability as set out in the road traffic act is any kind of fiction.

No one has attempted to.Blatant straw man argument.

It can be done, and to be honest it probably should be done with regard to US motor insurance, but of course that would mean people having to pay more in order to make sure they (and the third party they might kill or injure) are fully covered.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. What should be done? That willful criminal acts should be covered by insurance? That's a very slippery slope, and I don't think you want to go down it, but if you do, go right ahead.

Is it the responsibility of the pedestrian to insure themselves against the actions of people operating vehicles on the public highway?

No, but the insurance company is not required to cover intentional criminal acts. If the driver intentional uses his car as a lethal weapon, the insurance company will reject the claim based on the exclusionary clause.
Is it your responsibility to be insured if you walk into a store and a shelf collapses and you get injured?[/QUOTE]
No, but the insurance company is not required to cover intentional criminal acts. If the store owner willfully causes the shelf to fall with the intent of harming you, the insurance company will reject the claim based on the exclusionary clause.

Is it your responsibility to insure yourself against the actions of irresponsible gun owners?

No, but homeowner insurance already covers accidents, including negligence, and the number of accidents involving firearms is so small as to be statistically insignificant anyway. Less than .001 % of all law abiding gun owners in the US will ever be faced with such a problem.
And once again, you are conflating accidents with intentional illegal acts, which is specifically the objection I addressed in the post you quoted.
We keep going over this, so am I to assume that you have a problem differentiating between an accident and an intentional act?

In reality, you want the person responsible for injury caused to you to be the person who pays. But if they have no assets and no insurance you aren't going to get anything, and in the case of US motor insurance even if they do have cover it may be woefully low.

But the NY law, as it is written, assumes intent on the part of the prospective insured person merely because he/she owns a firearm. It also creates a responsibility for law abiding citizens to pay for the intentional acts of others, should they become victims of theft and fail to report the theft in a timely manner. No other US insurance mandate requires this.
And I really doubt any other country requires insurance predicated on the assumption that the insured will commit an illegal act, or penalizes innocent parties for he acts of others without their knowledge or consent.
If your car is stolen in the dead of night and used to commit a murder, can the victims survivors claim against your insurance even though you did not know your car was stolen until after the crime was committed?
The NY law can.

 

[Aber]

I still haven't seen where insurance companies in the UK are required to cover intentional criminal acts. Not acts arising from an accident or negligence where a crime was somehow involved (such as a DUI) but covering the willful criminal act itself. The NY legislation requires exactly this type of coverage.
This is the part we (the US posters) can't get our head around.

How you not been paying attention to the postings of the UK insurance requirements of the Road Traffic Act

Verdict in Hardy vs Motor Insurers Bureau 1964

Lord Denning MR repeated the broad rule of public policy that no person can claim indemnity or reparation for own wilful and culpable crime. However the policy of insurance, which a motorist is required by statute to take out, must cover any liability which may be incurred by him arising out of the use of the vehicle by him. That would be wide enough to cover, in general terms, any use by him of the vehicle, be it an innocent use or a criminal use, or be it a murderous use or a playful use. There was no doubt here that there had been an intention to injure the Claimant, but that did not preclude him claiming against the MIB. This was a liability which the culpable motorist was required to cover under section 207 of the then Road Traffic Act

Verdict in 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

IIUC the third party can recover damages from the Insurers (Second Defendant) for deliberate damage, even though the wording of the insurance policy excluded deliberate acts.

 

[uk_dave]

If your car is stolen in the dead of night and used to commit a murder, can the victims survivors claim against your insurance even though you did not know your car was stolen until after the crime was committed?
The NY law can.

You really haven't been paying attention:

1. Who uses your car
We will not cover any injury, loss, damage or liability which takes place
while your car is being:
• driven by any person not described as entitled to drive by the
certificate of motor insurance or schedule;
• used for any purpose not allowed by the certificate of motor
insurance or schedule;
• 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.
This exception does not apply if your car is:
• with a member of the motor trade for maintenance or repair;
•stolen or taken away without your permission; or
• being parked by an employee of a hotel, restaurant or car-parking service

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

It can be done.

So as more states pass self-defense laws, Mr. Monge said that he found several insurance companies that would specifically offer liability coverage in cases of self-defense, usually in the form of an “umbrella” policy that added a higher level of coverage than the routine coverage for negligence in a homeowners’ policy. An umbrella policy adds coverage for unusual, but potentially expensive, incidents.

.......

The current debate over mandatory liability laws is being watched with interest by Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law. Professor Lund proposed the idea of mandatory insurance in a 1987 article in the Alabama Law Review, seeing it as a form of gun control that could be consistent with the constitutional right to bear arms. But he said that he had not studied any of the current proposals, and noted that it made a great deal of difference how they are written.

“If this were done, the private insurance market would quickly and efficiently make it prohibitively expensive for people with a record of irresponsible ownership of guns to possess them legally,” he wrote in the 1987 article, “but would not impose unreasonable burdens on those who have the self-discipline to exercise their liberty in a responsible fashion.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/u...le-seen-for-insurers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

You really haven't been paying attention:



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

It can be done.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/u...le-seen-for-insurers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

No, I have been paying attention.
The NY statute specifically holds the owner responsible for the acts of a thief who steals the firearm then uses it to commit a crime if the owner has not reported it stolen by the time the crime is committed.
Apparently it is different in the UK, where insurance companies my be held liable for the criminal acts of persons not even covered by the policy, but that is not the case here in the US.
And the discussion at hand regards US law, not UK law.

The link provided by you regarding the firearms insurance law states that as of its writing no states have yet adopted such laws and the quotes you gave regarded self defense insurance, that is, a policy which indemnifies a gun owner for a legal self defense act involving his use of a firearm. It specifically states:
"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."
In quoting Monge the article also went on to say:
But he opposes proposals to make liability insurance mandatory. “They’re barking up the wrong tree, if you ask me,” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of gun owners are going to be safe and not go crazy.”
Professor Lund, in your quote, stated that he had not studied the current proposals and qualified his statements accordingly.
Mr Hartwig also made the distinction between coverage for accidental injury and intentional injury.
It is this difference that the pro 2nd Amendment faction is taking issue with.

To levy what is tantamount to a tax on a US citizen for exercising a right is not consistent with our laws, although it may be with yours.
If the legislators want to provide relief for the victims of criminal actions then let them impose a tax on all citizens to pay for it, as all citizens have that same right, whether they elect to exercise it or not.

 

[uk_dave]

No, I have been paying attention.
The NY statute specifically holds the owner responsible for the acts of a thief who steals the firearm then uses it to commit a crime if the owner has not reported it stolen by the time the crime is committed.
Apparently it is different in the UK, where insurance companies my be held liable for the criminal acts of persons not even covered by the policy, but that is not the case here in the US.
And the discussion at hand regards US law, not UK law.

Yes I know that.

The thing is, every time someone says insurance in the UK covers something, it is met with incredulity. Demands are made that we prove it.

When proof is provided, it is met with dismissal because it is UK law and not US.

You asked what would happen if MY car was stolen and used in a crime. I replied with an extract from an insurance policy document.

I bloody well know that's not how things are done in the US, but it doesn't mean such things are not possible and it doesn't mean that things couldn't change in the US to make it applicable.

The essence of your objection to the NY insurance proposal is that it has to cover for wilful illegal acts. You say NO insurance policy would cover such things. We say, yes there are policies which do.
>Prove it.
>Here's the proof.
>That doesn't apply, it's UK not US.



Certainly I agree that a tax is a better way, though it should be a consumption tax rather than an income tax.

 

[Nessie]

No, I have been paying attention.

You keep on saying things which suggest you have not.

The NY statute specifically holds the owner responsible for the acts of a thief who steals the firearm then uses it to commit a crime if the owner has not reported it stolen by the time the crime is committed.

Which I would say is going too far the other way. The middle ground of sensible and reasonable action is being lost as extremists battle to get their way.

Though, does the above applie even if the gun owner has properly secured their gun, or just if they leave it lying around and easy to get hold of?

Apparently it is different in the UK, where insurance companies my be held liable for the criminal acts of persons not even covered by the policy, but that is not the case here in the US.
And the discussion at hand regards US law, not UK law.

No insurance company here has to pay out for someone not covered by a policy.

Again, as simply as I can make it, in the UK if a car driver commits a crime with a car they are not covered. Any victim of their crime is.

The link provided by you regarding the firearms insurance law states that as of its writing no states have yet adopted such laws and the quotes you gave regarded self defense insurance, that is, a policy which indemnifies a gun owner for a legal self defense act involving his use of a firearm. It specifically states:
"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."
In quoting Monge the article also went on to say:
But he opposes proposals to make liability insurance mandatory. “They’re barking up the wrong tree, if you ask me,” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of gun owners are going to be safe and not go crazy.”
Professor Lund, in your quote, stated that he had not studied the current proposals and qualified his statements accordingly.
Mr Hartwig also made the distinction between coverage for accidental injury and intentional injury.
It is this difference that the pro 2nd Amendment faction is taking issue with.

To levy what is tantamount to a tax on a US citizen for exercising a right is not consistent with our laws, although it may be with yours.
If the legislators want to provide relief for the victims of criminal actions then let them impose a tax on all citizens to pay for it, as all citizens have that same right, whether they elect to exercise it or not.

So make those with nothing to do with the problem also pay because it is a right? It is truly a wonderful thing seeing gun owners use the Second Amendment to pick and choose what they want and don't want to apply to them. I see that selfishness has a major role in what applies to the right and what does not.

 

[Aber]

To levy what is tantamount to a tax on a US citizen for exercising a right is not consistent with our laws

So what about charging sales tax on guns? Has this been struck down as incompatible with your laws?

 

[Nessie]

So what about charging sales tax on guns? Has this been struck down as incompatible with your laws?

No apparently that is OK to do. Also make a profit, it is fine to make enormous profits out of a right. It is only insurance that is incompatible with rights.

 

[WildCat]

No apparently that is OK to do. Also make a profit, it is fine to make enormous profits out of a right. It is only insurance that is incompatible with rights.

Because the insurance requirement is specifically designed to prevent people from excercising a right, like a poll tax.

 

[Nessie]

Because the insurance requirement is specifically designed to prevent people from excercising a right, like a poll tax.

Please evidence that claim.

 

[GeeMack]

So make those with nothing to do with the problem also pay because it is a right? It is truly a wonderful thing seeing gun owners use the Second Amendment to pick and choose what they want and don't want to apply to them. I see that selfishness has a major role in what applies to the right and what does not.

In the USA, only the people who actually vote are billed to cover the expense involved. And only minorities foot the bill for enforcement of the Civil Rights Act. And only people who actually take advantage of the right to free speech pay the costs associated with that. And the people who attend non-Christian churches or no church at all are the only ones who pay for... Oh, wait, I see. That argument was just more special pleading again. Interesting how it always fails as an argument, yet seems to be a standard method employed in opposition to gun ownership and/or support for increasing restrictions on law abiding gun owners.

Because the insurance requirement is specifically designed to prevent people from excercising a right, like a poll tax.

In the USA, all the people share the responsibility for their rights, whether they take advantage of the rights or not. Those who would rescind a particular right aren't off the hook for their share until they've successfully revoked the right. As of now it looks like the removal of the Second Amendment is a long way off, and will likely remain quite distant as long as the arguments opposing gun ownership or favoring increased restrictions continue to be built on hyperbole, hand wringing, emotional flailing, and logical fallacies.

 

[Nessie]

In the USA, only the people who actually vote are billed to cover the expense involved. And only minorities foot the bill for enforcement of the Civil Rights Act. And only people who actually take advantage of the right to free speech pay the costs associated with that. And the people who attend non-Christian churches or no church at all are the only ones who pay for... Oh, wait, I see. That argument was just more special pleading again. Interesting how it always fails as an argument, yet seems to be a standard method employed in opposition to gun ownership and/or support for increasing restrictions on law abiding gun owners.

That sounds like special pleading for gun owners not to pay for the damage they can do. The other rights do not cause damage and death like guns do.

In the USA, all the people share the responsibility for their rights, whether they take advantage of the rights or not. Those who would rescind a particular right aren't off the hook for their share until they've successfully revoked the right. As of now it looks like the removal of the Second Amendment is a long way off, and will likely remain quite distant as long as the arguments opposing gun ownership or favoring increased restrictions continue to be built on hyperbole, hand wringing, emotional flailing, and logical fallacies.

Everyone shares responsibility to be careful on the roads, but only the drivers need to be insured. I disagree with the argument that because a gun is a right and a car is not, you therefore cannot allow insuring guns to happen. I cannot see a logical link between right and insurance but I can between risk of death and injury and insurance.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

That sounds like special pleading for gun owners not to pay for the damage they can do. The other rights do not cause damage and death like guns do.

Your post is a paradigm for special pleading.
All other rights are OK and should be exempt, but the 2nd Amendment is a "special" right because guns are dangerous.
Gun owners (by that I mean law abiding gun owners, who will be the only ones subjected to this law) cause very little damage and death. The majority of damage and death involving firearms is at the hands of a very small portion of the population who would not normally be considered as "law abiding", namely gang members and career criminals.

Everyone shares responsibility to be careful on the roads, but only the drivers need to be insured. I disagree with the argument that because a gun is a right and a car is not, you therefore cannot allow insuring guns to happen. I cannot see a logical link between right and insurance but I can between risk of death and injury and insurance.

But the owners of automobiles are only mandated to purchase insurance if they drive the vehicle (or allow it to be driven). you can own a dozen cars, but as long as you just keep them on your property, or do not put them on a public road, then no insurance is necessary.
Slightly off the subject, but since you mentioned rights, just what is your definition of a right and what is your definition of a permission?

 

[Nessie]

Your post is a paradigm for special pleading.
All other rights are OK and should be exempt, but the 2nd Amendment is a "special" right because guns are dangerous.
Gun owners (by that I mean law abiding gun owners, who will be the only ones subjected to this law) cause very little damage and death. The majority of damage and death involving firearms is at the hands of a very small portion of the population who would not normally be considered as "law abiding", namely gang members and career criminals.

I think law abiding gun owners do enough damage to justify them having to have insurance.

That criminals will not bother with insurance should just be another crime liabelled against them if caught with a gun. You did unlawfully possess a gun and did possess a gun without insurance and off to prison for a long time they should go.

But the owners of automobiles are only mandated to purchase insurance if they drive the vehicle (or allow it to be driven). you can own a dozen cars, but as long as you just keep them on your property, or do not put them on a public road, then no insurance is necessary.

In the UK you do need insurance to use a vehicle on private property. That came about because of accidents in places like hotel carparks where those not at fault were left out of pocket because the insurance refused to pay out.

For me the important part of insurance is to pay for adamge caused and since most damage is caused by guns on private property as the most likely place to be shot is at home then the insurance should cover guns anywhere.

Slightly off the subject, but since you mentioned rights, just what is your definition of a right and what is your definition of a permission?

Right as defined under the likes of the various Human Rights Procamations and Acts and US Amendments. Evereything else is by permission.

But a right or permission which carries a particular high risk for others needs to be treated differently from such which poses a lower or no risk at all. In other words with rights and permissions come duties.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I think law abiding gun owners do enough damage to justify them having to have insurance.

How so? The accident rate for firearms is statistically insignificant and even part of that is composed of accidents in the hands of people who are not legally entitled to own a firearm in the first place.
In 2010 only 606 people died as a result of accidents with a firearm, and 14,171 were injured. This is out of a population of 308,000,000, with some 300,000,000 firearms in circulation and at least one firearm in one out of three households.
That works out to .0047 per 100,000, both fatal and non-fatal. If you subtract the number of very minor incidents (2519) which required no hospitalization, but were treated and released immediately, the number drops even further.

That criminals will not bother with insurance should just be another crime liabelled against them if caught with a gun. You did unlawfully possess a gun and did possess a gun without insurance and off to prison for a long time they should go.

I fail to see the relevance here. A prohibited person found in possession of a firearm here in the US already faces a 10 year prison sentence (15 for career criminals), plus any state violations that may add another 5-10 years to the sentence. Plus, of course, any additional penalties for other violations, such as actually using the firearm or possessing it while in the course of an illegal operation.
http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html
Adding a misdemeanor charge of no insurance is not likely to provide much additional incentive.

Once again, the problem isn't with the lack of existing laws, but the lack of the government's willingness to utilize them. Something I believe the UK has a problem with as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the mandatory sentence in the UK is only five years and exceptions are regularly made that bring the actual average sentence down to about 4 years, with 24 months being the average actual time served, and only about 1 out of 4 actually convicted in the first place.
I understand that this debate isn't about UK gun laws, but it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that the UK citizens on this thread seem adamant about wanting us to implement more anti-gun laws while at the same time overlooking how lax the UK government is in enforcing their own.

In the UK you do need insurance to use a vehicle on private property. That came about because of accidents in places like hotel carparks where those not at fault were left out of pocket because the insurance refused to pay out.

Our laws are different. Here, businesses generaly have liability insurance to cover such contingencies, and maybe held liable by the injured party if they do not.

For me the important part of insurance is to pay for adamge caused and since most damage is caused by guns on private property as the most likely place to be shot is at home then the insurance should cover guns anywhere.

Again, how so? Home owners already have insurance that covers everything but intentional criminal acts by the insured party. The majority of violent crimes occur in low income urban environments by gang members and career criminals. Requiring law abiding citizens to pay for insurance will do nothing to stop this, or to mitigate the suffering of the victims as the incidents occur in their homes, often at the hands of others.

If you truly wanted to mitigate their suffering then a government fund would be more efficient and fair. Such funds already exist in many jurisdictions and all pay through taxes, again as is fair.
A better way to reduce the damage would be to target the perpetrators, something that has been proven to work.
Of course it does nothing to further the agenda of the left who disparage the very idea of actually enforcing the law or targeting the criminals, and always come back to the subject of gun confiscation schemes, both direct and incremental, as has invariably been the case here.

Right as defined under the likes of the various Human Rights Procamations and Acts and US Amendments. Evereything else is by permission.

But a right or permission which carries a particular high risk for others needs to be treated differently from such which poses a lower or no risk at all. In other words with rights and permissions come duties.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. You conflate "rights" with "permissions", and while I suppose it's not your fault, your statement leads me to believe you have no true understanding our concept of government.
Here "rights" are held to be inherent, that is, not stemming from the government but already existing (and by this I am referring to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment).

Our Bill of Rights is not a list of permissions granted to the people, it is a list of prohibitions preventing the government from interfering with those rights.
And to interfere in any way with those inherent rights, the government must show both a compelling reason and that said interference is the only way to resolve the compelling reason.
The NY statute does not clear the bar.

 

[Nessie]

How so? The accident rate for firearms is statistically insignificant and even part of that is composed of accidents in the hands of people who are not legally entitled to own a firearm in the first place.
In 2010 only 606 people died as a result of accidents with a firearm, and 14,171 were injured. This is out of a population of 308,000,000, with some 300,000,000 firearms in circulation and at least one firearm in one out of three households.
That works out to .0047 per 100,000, both fatal and non-fatal. If you subtract the number of very minor incidents (2519) which required no hospitalization, but were treated and released immediately, the number drops even further.

You are trying to minimise the damage done by gun owners by only including accidents. I would include insurance for instances where a gun owner goes rogue and commits a crime, where they leave their gun lying around, not properly secured and another takes it and shoots someone.

Overall the number is still going to be low, but that is not the point. This is about tackling all people with guns and reducing deaths.

I fail to see the relevance here. A prohibited person found in possession of a firearm here in the US already faces a 10 year prison sentence (15 for career criminals), plus any state violations that may add another 5-10 years to the sentence. Plus, of course, any additional penalties for other violations, such as actually using the firearm or possessing it while in the course of an illegal operation.
http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html
Adding a misdemeanor charge of no insurance is not likely to provide much additional incentive.

I am sure it is the same with criminals stealing cars, that they are not insured means nothing to them. But it is an additional charge and it has the bonus of if they do try and insure in the future, their premium is much bigger shifting the burden of the cost they cause onto them.

I see insurance as making law abiding gun owners more responsible, as opposed to tackling criminals.

Once again, the problem isn't with the lack of existing laws, but the lack of the government's willingness to utilize them. Something I believe the UK has a problem with as well.

The Firearms Acts and any crime commited with a gun is a priority case for the courts and goes to a higher court that otherwise. The UK does not have that problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the mandatory sentence in the UK is only five years and exceptions are regularly made that bring the actual average sentence down to about 4 years, with 24 months being the average actual time served, and only about 1 out of 4 actually convicted in the first place.

Where did you get those stats from? They may be true, but in the UK where we do not use jail anything like the USA does (indeed does anyone) those are considered long sentences.

I understand that this debate isn't about UK gun laws, but it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that the UK citizens on this thread seem adamant about wanting us to implement more anti-gun laws while at the same time overlooking how lax the UK government is in enforcing their own.

But we are not lax, I have no idea how you think they are lax. Out priority in investigating and prosecuting gun crime and relative length of sentences is a reason why gun crime here is so low.

Our laws are different. Here, businesses generaly have liability insurance to cover such contingencies, and maybe held liable by the injured party if they do not.

That is the same as in the UK.

Again, how so? Home owners already have insurance that covers everything but intentional criminal acts by the insured party. The majority of violent crimes occur in low income urban environments by gang members and career criminals. Requiring law abiding citizens to pay for insurance will do nothing to stop this, or to mitigate the suffering of the victims as the incidents occur in their homes, often at the hands of others.

This measure is about when law abiding owners shoot, not tackling criminals.

If you truly wanted to mitigate their suffering then a government fund would be more efficient and fair. Such funds already exist in many jurisdictions and all pay through taxes, again as is fair.
A better way to reduce the damage would be to target the perpetrators, something that has been proven to work.
Of course it does nothing to further the agenda of the left who disparage the very idea of actually enforcing the law or targeting the criminals, and always come back to the subject of gun confiscation schemes, both direct and incremental, as has invariably been the case here.

It is fair to make those who have no gun pay? If you want a tax scheme then I say gun owners should pay a higher rtae of tax than non gun owners, or indeed all of the tax.

Again insurance is about gun owners not criminals. There are plenty of discussions about criminals elsewhere.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. You conflate "rights" with "permissions", and while I suppose it's not your fault, your statement leads me to believe you have no true understanding our concept of government.
Here "rights" are held to be inherent, that is, not stemming from the government but already existing (and by this I am referring to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment).

Our Bill of Rights is not a list of permissions granted to the people, it is a list of prohibitions preventing the government from interfering with those rights.
And to interfere in any way with those inherent rights, the government must show both a compelling reason and that said interference is the only way to resolve the compelling reason.
The NY statute does not clear the bar.

I have not conflated rights and permissions. I have recognised the difference.

I have then gone on to do something some US gun owners/dealers/makers appear very reluctant to do, which is to recognise they have certain duties when it comes to guns, such as to keep all others safe and not let their gun get into the wrong hands. I have also recognised that since guns do kill, there needs to certain restrictions that do not apply to other things.

I do not think that having a gun as a right means any exemption from being responsible and safe.

 

[Giz]

I see insurance as making law abiding gun owners more responsible, as opposed to tackling criminals.

That is a far different (and bolder) claim than just saying that this would price irresponsible (i.e. poor) lawful owners out of the market thereby reducing gun deaths.

Are you now claiming that people act more carefully when they know they are insured, leading to lower accidental discharges (as opposed to becoming susceptible to "moral hazard" as they know their actions are covered by insurance)? Or are we thinking that would-be spree killers will be put off by the idea that their premiums would go up...? (either one sounds implausible to me).

 

[Nessie]

That is a far different (and bolder) claim than just saying that this would price irresponsible (i.e. poor) lawful owners out of the market thereby reducing gun deaths.

Are you now claiming that people act more carefully when they know they are insured, leading to lower accidental discharges (as opposed to becoming susceptible to "moral hazard" as they know their actions are covered by insurance)? Or are we thinking that would-be spree killers will be put off by the idea that their premiums would go up...? (either one sounds implausible to me).

One of the incentives for me to not do something stupid with my car or motorbike is the cost of the insurance renewal premium. I see gun insurance doing the same thing.

I am not making any claims that insurance would deal with criminals or nuts.

 

[WildCat]

You are trying to minimise the damage done by gun owners by only including accidents. I would include insurance for instances where a gun owner goes rogue and commits a crime, where they leave their gun lying around, not properly secured and another takes it and shoots someone.

I already pointed out the impossibility of that. Guns can be in operating condition for well over 100 years, and you can't compel someone to maintain insurance on something they no longer possess.