eh...owning a gun is a "right". You don't have to pay insurance to speak your mind or cast a vote. I may not be in full agreement but understand it. If a poor got grandpappy's hand me down rifle but can't afford insurance, then he loses a right while those that can afford it keep it. It would set precedent on needing to pay a fee to vote (voter ID), or speak your mind (insurance vs "dangerous" speech). These idiots forgot all about Purdue and are back guzzling Fox's jizz on how the scaravans are causing the "opioid epidemic" w/their "rainbow fentanyl".
I understand the right and walking a fine line where insurance could become a barrier to your right but it costs money to purchase a gun and secure it and use it. The poverty arguments does not work as well as voting which is free to do and so is spekaing your mind. But I think insurance can be a hiddne tax. The other thing that probably shoots down my argument more so is that insureres dont want to cover guns because if you accidentally shoot someone you could be liable for millions and no insurer wants to say they will cover that. So a law requiring insurance does not require an insurance company carry this insurance. If I ran an insurance company I would not be issuing policies of gun insurance because one accident could cost millions. I just find it so odd how we treat guns so differently than other things that can cause damage and death....having a license to operate a gun is really simple but not universally applied. Cars ar eregistered and when transferred you have to go to DMV to record change of ownership, guns can be moved freely with no tracking. I cannot let my child go use my car but I can let my son shoot my gun in my backyard? A kid can drink at 21 but it is illegal for them to have any drinks until then, but a kid can play with guns even before they are old enough to use them and have their right be established? It is just amazing that we value politics over common sense in having uniform policies and rules.
Partisan hacks only feel bad thing happen when the other party sits in a white building in D.C. Because drugs disappearred from 2016 - 2020 apparently and suddenly magically appeared.
States can set up risk pools where insurance fails to provide a market. Standard stuff in a lot of areas like high risk health insurance, home owners, even some drivers that can’t acquire coverage etc. Not a big deal at all. However, it is more expensive.
%% THEY do, the police; US constitution prohibits ''infringement''. Insurance co may love that infringement , we dont need it
Constitution does not prohibit all infringements as the SC has decided for a couple hundred years... insurance is a tricky issue though since a gun owner is deemed to be responsible but as we have learned there are a number who are not and bad things happen.
%% Better to require auto insurance or financial responibility\ but most already do that. The risk to human life is so much more with auto traffic.....................................
Indeed. I remember being in the "assigned risk pool" of car insurance when I was 18 getting auto insurance for the first time in New York State. State Farm insurance. Code 999 on the insurance card. Cost of minimal liability insurance on an old 4 door american clunker? Like 3K per year. Good grief.
Heller v DC made it clear (for now) that the right to own and bear operable firearms i not an unfettered right. There can be reasonable regulation. But a regulation such as requiring that a gun kept in the home must be kept in an inoperable state was a step too far. If all firearm ownership requires insurance, would an insurance requirement imposed on someone who truly can not afford insurance and therefore is prevented from legally owning and bearing an operable firearm of any kind be a step too far according to Heller? Possibly, I would think. But requiring insurance on some firearms (semiautomatic, for example) but not on others might be permissible under Heller. [A dissenting opinion, it may have been Breyer's, in Heller took issue with Scalia's jettisoning of the Second Amendment's introductory clause, which if kept would seem to render the Amendment obsolete. It is apparently not easy to dispense with words so plain and of such clear and unambiguous meaning, because ridding the Amendment of this pesky clause occupied the greater portion of a very lengthy majority opinion. This was such a daunting task that it caused Scalia to trample on his self-imposed label as an "Originalist", and invoke historic English law. Proving that there is no personal conviction nor adherence to principle so lofty it can not be delicately, or otherwise, violated whenever the occasion requires it.]