DC Government mandates insurance for legal gun owners
ROS sends us a link to our favorite pro-gun journalist, Emily Miller, of the Washington Times who reports that the City Council is considering mandating liability insurance for legal gun owners in the District. In her series of articles, Ms. Miller illustrates the financial burden the District already places on legal owners just getting through the process to own a gun, now, Mary M. Cheh is planning on introducing the measure today.
The insurance has to “specifically cover any damages resulting from negligent acts, or willful acts that are not undertaken in self-defense, involving the use of the insured firearm while it is owned by the policyholder.”
“A lot of it really revolved around Howard Brooks, as far as I was concerned,” said D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh. “He’s like a mystery man.” She looked into allegations of wrongdoing in the Vincent C. Gray campaign as part of her oversight duties.
Mrs. Cheh does not seem to care that this kind of insurance doesn’t even exist.
Willem O. Rijksen, The vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association told me that, “We oppose proposals that would mandate gun liability insurance as property-casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional criminal behavior.”
Accidents are already covered under homeowners’ insurance policies.
Not only doesn’t the insurance exist, they can’t even make District residents buy car insurance for longer than it takes them to register their car. Yes, people who regularly obey the law, will buy the insurance, if such a thing exists, but the City Counsel is trying to make the residents safer, but all they’ll end up doing is making more criminals.
Cheh is just like the legacy governor of New York State in that she doesn’t even understand insurance, but she’s trying to invent something that doesn’t exist – like Cuomo tried to invent seven round magazines by simply arriving at a compromise. Insurance doesn’t prevent auto accidents and insurance won’t stop gun violence. Stupid hippies.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
The Government can force us to buy health insurance so you better believe this is going to fly….I wonder if we can get a government subsidy to buy the insurance if we’re poor gang bangers…..
Well, while I want to laugh at Ms Cheh for her very public Tardgasm, I have to think it’s actually the plan.
If you can say, “Hey…you can only have a gun if you can have this mythical insurance”, then you’ve just rather effectively done what they want to do and outlaw legal gun ownership.
does one have to buy insurance to protect against defamation and slander suits before writing?
If having to pay for ID (or pay a poll tax) is an unconstitutional prior restraint against a civil right, how is mandating insurance not also an improper constitutional burden?
@1 At least health insurance exists, but insurance to cover criminal acts not yet performed by criminals using property stolen from your home?
Would that be like liability insurance for your SUV when it’s stolen and used to mow down pedestrians? The pedestrians could sue you for a criminals use of your stolen SUV?
Gee, now who do you think will have access to THOSE data-bases?
And who’s going to be able to afford that kind of laibility insurance?
I’d love to see an actuary come up with a rate table for this.
Actually, VOV, I think exactly the situation you describe may occur from time to time. I could be wrong. Maybe one of our lawyers here can advise.
Interesting. “. . . or willful acts that are not undertaken in self-defense, involving the use of the insured firearm while it is owned by the policyholder.” Sounds like they’re requiring insurance for damages caused by willful criminal acts to me – including potential willful criminal acts on the part of the owner.
Yeah, every insurance company is gonna balk at that. And I’m not even sure you legally can buy (or that companies can legally issue) insurance to cover damages caused by your own willful criminal acts.
Tardgasm…..Way to go, Nik. I like it! hehehe…..A new word I can use with the nitwits. lmao!
Cash cow for the insurance industry. The incidence of firearms being used in a non-self-defense capacity is pretty low when compared to total gun ownership.
Set some pretty high rates, low-ball the payout scheme and take in the money.
Geez Hondo, it’s Friday you’re not supposed to tell me depressing sh1t like that…now I have to get a safe large enough to hold my Jeep?
Nik: unfortunately, the insurance companies won’t be able to low-ball the payout schemes. Juries often determine the payouts.
All it will take is a few sympathetic juries handing out multimillion dollar wrongful death awards, and, well . . . .
Ok, so if I have liability insurance on my car and I intentionally run someone over, is that covered even though it is an intentionally criminal act?
VOV: as I said – not sure if I’m correct or not. Had a cousin who retired from the insurance industry, but that was one subject he and I never specifically discussed.
I know that if you loan your car to someone and they get into an accident, your insurance pays. Not sure if that holds true if your car is stolen. I think it might; insurance companies are often seen by juries as “deep pockets cash cows” and you see some pretty weird stuff at times.
But I’m just not sure. Perhaps 2/17 Air Cav or one of our other lawyers here can clarify.
Nik: it’s my understanding that either many policies or the law itself exclude payouts due to criminal acts. It’s the reason life insurance payouts to people who murder their spouses don’t happen, for example.
However, that’s the individual profiting directly from a illegal act resulting in an insurance payout. Not sure if willful criminal acts have the same effect on insurance payouts to 3rd parties.
Auto insurance follows the car, not the owner or driver. If someone steals your car (and you’ve reported it) and it’s used in a crime or an accident, you’re covered.
I can see the same kind of comprehensive policy coverage for gun owners, but the risk pool statistics will determine the liability limits as well as the premium, and in a high risk zone like D.C., you can bet your lunch the premiums will by sky-high for this kind of coverage.
So will it turn into a cash cow for insurance carriers? Not necessarily. They can deny coverage based on discovery of misues of firearms or risky behavior in the past. You might be required by the carrier to carry a special firearms owner’s bond, also, and I doubt that this kind of liability will be covered by any standard homeowner’s policy.
Yah, the Son of Sam law.
If I use my car to murder or injure someone and the insurance doesn’t pay out, isn’t it reasonable to assume liability insurance on a gun would work the same way?
Ok, ok, I know. Reason and law sometimes don’t work together very well, but it might be a basis for understanding.
Might work the same way for stolen weapon/stolen vehicle as well.
So if it works like a car then the insurance follows the gun, stolen or not.
Which greatly increases the likelihood the insurance companies are going to pay out.
Which makes them very likely not to issue this kind of insurance.
Which effectively nullifies the right to own a firearm.
“I’m Justice John Roberts and I approve this insurance mandate.” (Paid for by Knuckleheads for Stupid Supreme Court Decisions, Shitfor Brains, Treasurer)
!17 – Nik, I think that denial of coverage, or coverage with an excessively high premium, is most likely, but this is proposed for the District of Columbia, not the entire US.
I’m required by Illinois state law to carry auto insurance for a minimum amount, because there have been too many accidents caused by drivers with no coverage of any kind at all. My coverage includes both underisured and uninsured drivers, as well as collision damage if my car is parked. If I don’t have this coverage, my license gets suspended.
It does not, however, stop people from driving with suspended licenses or no licenses at all, and I have known people who had no coverage and no license and got away with it until they were caught.
In this state, while there’s no requirement for it, you almost have to buy a temporary rider to your homeowner’s policy that will cover you for liability, up to $2.5 million per occurrence, just to have kids over for your child’s birthday party. That is truly a cash cow for insurance companies, because the risk pool is low.
The comparison is that vehicle coverage covers an activity that is far less risk-loaded than gun ownership. Gun ownership is a higher risk than a car or a birthday party.
There’s another thing: if you go hunting and accidentally shoot one of your hunting companions (which I call ‘pulling a Cheney’), your homeowners liability coverage may or may not cover you for it, depending on where you’re hunting and whose equipment you’re using.
You see how stinky this business is?
@19
Nik, I think that denial of coverage, or coverage with an excessively high premium, is most likely, but this is proposed for the District of Columbia, not the entire US.
Very true.
My concern is, if they get it to pass in DC, how many states are going to follow suit?
You see how stinky this business is?
I am not a fan of insurance in any form. I think it’s existence is a cause of many of our society’s problems.
I’m reminded of a Roman citizen, his name escapes me at the moment. This enterprising fellow had control of the Fire Brigade. When someone’s house started burning, he would offer to put out the fire…for a fee. I don’t know what point it was, but apparently he figured out he didn’t have to wait for the fires to start of their own accord.
To my mind, the industry of insurance has a very shady, sickening history.
Hondo, #14
That doesn’t seem right to me. If I am murdered by, say,a terrorist, my spouse won’t get a payout from my life insurance? If I’m killed by a drunk driver? Both are criminal acts…
@20 – The insurance business actually started as a betting pool at Lloyd’s Coffee House in London, in the 17th century.
@22
That makes so much more sense now.
This could be a good thing for taxpayers if police are also required to get coverage, and the insurance pays for their misdeeds instead of the city.
Old Tanker: in those cases, insurance might or might not pay – but for a different reason.
Life insurance typically pays in the event death is due to murder – unless the beneficiary is also involved in the murderer (did the deed, conspirator, hired the murderer, etc . . . ). Sorry, I didn’t explain things clearly enough above.
If someone else murders you, insurance typically pays. However, if your spouse (or another person who’s the beneficiary of the policy) commits the crime, it won’t. The theory is that receiving an insurance payout should not provide an incentive for the beneficiary to commit a crime. Same is true if you torch your own house or car (or intentionally push/roll it off a cliff) and get caught.
However, in the first case you describe (killed by a terrorist) there’s a chance there might not be a payout – but for a different reason. If the terrorist act where you get killed is deemed legally to be a murder, insurance should pay. However, if it’s deemed to be an “act of war”, it might not. Many civilian insurance policies have a “war clause” that excludes payout in the event the death/injury/loss is due to an act of war. SGLI doesn’t.
That’s something everyone in the military needs to check if they’re considering buying civilian life insurance. If the policy has a “war clause”, you probably don’t want it unless it’s REALLY cheap – ’cause if you get killed by the enemy, it won’t pay.
Once the item(car or firearm or antique lamp) is taken/stolen from the owner, it’s no longer “owned” by the owner.
@#15, that depends, if the owner’s “contributory negligence”, like keys left in the car, or the car left running, results in the car being stolen and injury to another party, the insurance company will not pay.
I spent three years working stolen cars, and, I got calls every week from owners who wanted us to do something because the insurance wouldn’t pay out for damage/injury because of that.