Advocates push idea of requiring gun insurance

BOSTON (AP) - As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.
A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.
The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.
"Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace," said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill's sponsor.
And insurers have more leeway than law enforcement in some cases, he said.
Massachusetts already has gun storage laws, but police cannot come into a person's home without a warrant, Linsky pointed out. An insurance company, however, would be able to verify that there is proper gun storage before writing a policy.
Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures say to their knowledge no state has adopted a gun insurance requirement.
The idea is already meeting with resistance for gun rights advocates, who say it amounts to more regulation aimed at law-abiding gun-owners.
"Now we're going to have insurance companies telling us how we are supposed to be trained and where we are going to store our guns?" said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts.
Craig Baenziger, who works at a gun- and ammunition-seller in North Attleboro, Mass., called Northeast Trading Co., said requiring liability insurance for guns makes little sense because it targets people who buy the weapons legally instead of going after criminals who illegally possess them.
"Insurance on your gun isn't really going to decrease crime or accidents. Nobody shoots their friend on purpose. It's not going to do anything," Baenziger said. "It's just a way to increase revenue for the state."
But supporters say requiring liability insurance could cut down on accidents, because gun owners who store their weapons safely would pay less for their insurance. It could also curb the flow of illegal guns because insurance policies would reward owners who secure weapons against theft.
Other recent gun control proposals being pushed in the wake of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have focused more directly on banning the sale or possession of certain weapons.
President Barack Obama is pushing a series of steps including requiring background checks on all gun sales, reinstating the ban on guns classified as assault weapons and renewing a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has also proposed a series of tougher gun control measures, including limiting gun owners to purchasing no more than one gun a month and tightening access to certain types of ammunition.
Obama, Patrick and others have also said more attention needs to be paid to the role mental illness plays in gun violence.
Supporters of gun insurance say their proposal would simply require gun owner be insured and then let the market work out the details. They compare their idea to the requirement in some states that a car-owner buy insurance before being allowed to register a vehicle.
"You don't have to own a gun," Linsky said. "You don't have to drive a car."
Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.
Linsky said he purposely left vague the details about what level of insurance would be required or whether existing homeowner's insurance policies that cover guns in the home would suffice.
The proposal is catching the attention of gun control activists, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, co-chairman of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
"It's a very creative idea," Menino said. "(He's) trying to put some teeth into what we are doing."
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, also called the proposal creative.
"It's time that we think about alternative ways that we can effectively deal with gun violence," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "We need better research. We need better understanding. We need to try different approaches to protect our children."
___
Associated Press writer Jay Lindsay contributed to this report.
A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.
The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.
"Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace," said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill's sponsor.
And insurers have more leeway than law enforcement in some cases, he said.
Massachusetts already has gun storage laws, but police cannot come into a person's home without a warrant, Linsky pointed out. An insurance company, however, would be able to verify that there is proper gun storage before writing a policy.
Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures say to their knowledge no state has adopted a gun insurance requirement.
The idea is already meeting with resistance for gun rights advocates, who say it amounts to more regulation aimed at law-abiding gun-owners.
"Now we're going to have insurance companies telling us how we are supposed to be trained and where we are going to store our guns?" said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts.
Craig Baenziger, who works at a gun- and ammunition-seller in North Attleboro, Mass., called Northeast Trading Co., said requiring liability insurance for guns makes little sense because it targets people who buy the weapons legally instead of going after criminals who illegally possess them.
"Insurance on your gun isn't really going to decrease crime or accidents. Nobody shoots their friend on purpose. It's not going to do anything," Baenziger said. "It's just a way to increase revenue for the state."
But supporters say requiring liability insurance could cut down on accidents, because gun owners who store their weapons safely would pay less for their insurance. It could also curb the flow of illegal guns because insurance policies would reward owners who secure weapons against theft.
Other recent gun control proposals being pushed in the wake of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have focused more directly on banning the sale or possession of certain weapons.
President Barack Obama is pushing a series of steps including requiring background checks on all gun sales, reinstating the ban on guns classified as assault weapons and renewing a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has also proposed a series of tougher gun control measures, including limiting gun owners to purchasing no more than one gun a month and tightening access to certain types of ammunition.
Obama, Patrick and others have also said more attention needs to be paid to the role mental illness plays in gun violence.
Supporters of gun insurance say their proposal would simply require gun owner be insured and then let the market work out the details. They compare their idea to the requirement in some states that a car-owner buy insurance before being allowed to register a vehicle.
"You don't have to own a gun," Linsky said. "You don't have to drive a car."
Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.
Linsky said he purposely left vague the details about what level of insurance would be required or whether existing homeowner's insurance policies that cover guns in the home would suffice.
The proposal is catching the attention of gun control activists, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, co-chairman of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
"It's a very creative idea," Menino said. "(He's) trying to put some teeth into what we are doing."
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, also called the proposal creative.
"It's time that we think about alternative ways that we can effectively deal with gun violence," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "We need better research. We need better understanding. We need to try different approaches to protect our children."
___
Associated Press writer Jay Lindsay contributed to this report.
It's back-door gun registry.
 @Len Karpinski Hitler was all for getting people registered. The US is going down the same road.
Yeah, criminals will get gun insurance... Sure thing.
Â
Another suggested law that would only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals.
All firearms manufacturers that are located in New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, might want to look at Texas for a new location for manufacturing. Â
sounds like some back door way to rid people of their guns......
Â
require insurance and it will be expensive, can't pay the insurance...... have to sell the guns
 @kramr Seems ludicrous. The 2nd Amendment is a right.  Something doesn't line up with their argument. Sure insurance is required if you drive, but driving is not a right. Â
Â
I don't agree with a requirement to have insurance for an unalienable right.  Â
Â
I agree another backdoor method to get people to dump their guns.
Seems like a stupid idea to me.......
Â
I can see it now....... some jackhole  breaks into someones home and the homeowner shoots and kills the man in self defense. Obviously no charges are filed by the police but some family member of the deceased will sue because of the insurance, and then some looney jury in San Fran will side with the family and presidence will be set.
 @kramr Already happens, if you care to read.  In those states where you cannot shoot first and ask questions later, if you shoot an unarmed person, even breaking into your home, there can be a lawsuit.  It has happened numerous times in numerous states.  BUT if there is gun insurance it could have a Cap on that suit...right now the homeowner's insurance would be used if the suit is won.  I am not sure how many times such a suit has been won, but I know at times it Has been.  Its one reason I prefer oleotear gas.  Someone breaks into MY home and they will Hurt, but no one is killed.  I sleep better knowing that. Also, I taught my kids about it, and had it in different rooms just in case someone DID break in.  Fired out a door, it will discourage the majority of would-be home robbers...
So... now, requiring INSURANCE would have stopped Clebold and Harris (who used 13 10-round magazine instead of 10 13-round magazines).  Kip Kinkel, why... if his parents had INSURED the weapon they gave him after he was caught torturing animals and throwing rocks off an overpass... well, that would make all of those parents in Springfield feel SO much better.Jesus. Just...
 @Playanekes This is being presented as a recourse from victims. I can see it as medical bills and what not, but also as incentive to train and store the gun properly for reduced rates.
Â
Total scam....if the insurance companies didn't see huge $ then they wouldn't try to bribe..I mean, present it to a politician. NEVER trust an insurance sales guy.
Â
Â
Oh, OK... and all the criminals and gangs are going to run right out and buy insurance... Â Riiiiight..! Â ...and the world will once again be sunny and bright, full of flowers and unicorns...and nothing bad will ever happen to anybody ever again...Â
Once again, they're aiming for the law-abiding gun owners, who play by the rules, and aren't going to go out and shoot up a mall or a school or whatever anyway... The criminals will still keep right on doing just what they're doing right now... Â
Please understand: Â I STRONGLY support firearms training and proper safe storage of firearms... but I think this latest idea is just another "feel-good" band-aid that will do nothing other than further enrich the insurance companies. Â Â
 @margay1 "the world will once again be sunny and bright, full of flowers and unicorns"
Â
Kind of like everybody thought it was before Obama was elected...
I would also add that shootings such as CTC and Newtown were CRIMINAL acts... and as I recall, NO insurer is going to indemnify for criminal acts... Â Â
Liberals in power is like letting your child sit on your lap and steer the car on the beach. Everything is fun and games till they reach the gas pedal, then the situation gets dangerous very quickly.Â
 @last boyscout I'm shocked. I really am. King Cuomo needs to be made into the #1 example of reactionary knee-jerk hasty gun-grabbing. Of course, as soon as they retire they have to turn them over because there's no former-LEO clause either. They have to pay for their own weapons, and if they're wounded on the job and no longer able to serve, they can't own them anymore.
Â
They'll amend it, of course, to preserve rights for themselves, but the fact that it happened shows what they're capable of thinking they can get away with.
Â
If I was Glock I would refuse to sell magazines to the government of New York until Cuomo declared the Louisville Slugger the official weapon of the NYPD.
 @Playanekes  @last boyscout What shocks me is that Cuomo keeps getting re-elected....can't say they didn't ask for it.
Gun rights are non-negotiable.
You have the right to own a gun.
You dont have the right to own a car. Nor do you have a right to drive that car.
Â
This is a terrible analogy and only meant to increase the expense to gun owners as much as possible.
There are many way to ban things. One of those ways is to increase the cost of ownership. Just like the huge increase in the cost of smoking and reduced smoking. The same goal here is what they hope for reduced gun ownership. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.
Â
Sounds lke 2nd ammendment infringement to me.
 @disgustedman They're just trying to keep the guns out of the hands of the poor Mexicans and other minorities.
So, the state wants insurance companies to write policies to cover illegal/criminal acts?Â
Â
A lot of accidents could be classified as reckless endangerment with a no coverage clause. Â
Â
How about if it and your gun safe is stolen out of your house while on vacation, or on a businesses trip and the thief commits a murder with your weapon while you are gone?
And what does the insurance industry think of this? Or are they cleefully rubbing their hands together with dollar signs in their eyes.Â
Stupid is as stupid does........
Ok, so even if the insurance industry is behind this or supports this idea....I just don't see it actually happening for a LONG time. Â So many factors to consider when determining how to insure a new risk. Â It's not like the premium would be the same for everyone...the actuaries will surely love this! :)
Gun insurance. Smart idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car. Insurance should be required for gun ownership. At the time of purchase a person would have to choose their insurance plan and it would be factored into the price of the gun. YES!Â
 @KKStJohn Driving is not a right. Having a firearm is a right. Requiring insurance would be an infringement.
 @KKStJohn And that would solve EVERYTHING.
Unless you ride a bicycle!
@KKStJohn How would you make the premium a part of the purchase price? One premium for a policy for the entire period of ownership?
What a stupid idea! Right now I pay -0- premium for "gun insurance". Guess where my guns are? Locked in a gun safe, that's where. So they would want me to pay for something I already do. Brilliant...NOT. Fing libtards!
Well New Dork  is already requiring you to register every 5 years and this would be the first step in having to register your gun every 5 years. The government is gonna try every trick in the book to come in the back door to get your guns and thats what this is.With this plan the insurance company does the governments job of finding out all about your gun  as  serial numbers,where its store and all other info about it without having to ask you.When it comes to what guns are good or bad  or what to own for your safety,look no further then your local police as they use the weapons needed to stop the  evil people who's committing crimes and YEA they have assault weapons too cause they need that type of firepower to save there life's ...... just a  fact.
I think it's a good idea to have plenty of liability insurance if you are going to pack... but insurance laws like this aren't going to curb gun violence, or make anyone safer.Â
These folk know that every person (except one) in the last, I dunno, 38 years who crafted and executed a mass death by firearm also planned to die right?
Â
That most of the people who would be effected by this have NEVER had an issue, and that people who would LEAST be effected would be the people who would need to buy this the most.
Â
Oh and it STILL does not address illegal guns the number one reason for gun violence.
Â
Â
By advocates assume they mean the insurance company CEOs who want another way to have a new revenue stream forced upon the people.
 @FreedomRocks I don't think so....do you realize how much money the insurance company would pay out in claims???????  It's not a good risk to invest in and they won't
@Homegrowngal Now might be a proper time to use the "Car" analogy, but only in terms of insurance. Insuring automobiles is risky, but if you have enough people paying in, and don't have to make many big payouts then it works. Most of the firearms that would be insured would not be used to cause injury, leaving a lot of premiums to more than cover the risk of the few insured firearms that are used to cause injury. Profit.
@Homegrowngal That firearm wasn't properly secured, therefore voiding the insurance coverage. It then would have to go to court, and in that time the insurance company would have more than made up whatever the settlement would be in premiums. It's how insurance works. Even when they make big payouts for auto accidents, or life insurance... they will still be ahead of the curve financially. Otherwise, they'd go under and none of us would have insurance. So it's good that they make money, and they'd enter this knowing how much to charge to stay ahead.
 @JTesla  @Homegrowngal I would be digging into the guys campaign donation jar....you can usually find the answers there.
 @JTesla  @Homegrowngal You are absolutely correct however, I am wondering....if insurance was in effect before the school shooting back East how big do you think the claim would be?  $22 million plus?  Not many insurance companies could withstand that and it wouldn't take more than one of those types of claims to sink 'em.  On another note, after the big hurricane in Florida a few years ago, there are a few insurance companies that will no longer insure homes there...they took too big a hit.  Just food for thought.
Â
Guns (up to a certain limit) are covered under the personal property portion of the homeowner policy for theft. Â You can also schedule a higher value to cover your collection. Â So a thief breaks in, steals a gun and uses it to harm someone.....under this crazy idea to provide "recourse" to the victim, that would mean the the insurance company would be in the business of insuring criminals....it's an insane idea. Â And even IF something like this would come to be, could you imagine the premium???????????
 @Homegrowngal It is insurance companies wanting to have a new guaranteed revenue stream or its anti-gun politicians who want to make it virtually impossible to hone and use a firearm even though they haven't technically violated the Second Amendment.
 @FreedomRocks oops, didn't see this post before I did the other.  The "average" claim in a wrongful death is $1,000,000.  How long do you think an insurance company would stay in business?
 @Homegrowngal The same way they do now with medical malpractice lawsuits. incredibly high rates, long drawn out court battles, extremely reduced settlements.
This article brought to mind a situation from the last election. Some cities/states wanted to require picture ID for voters. The ACLU and left strenuously opposed this as a violation of rights - poor people could not afford to get the IDs. So, wouldn't the expense of buying gun insurance also violate rights of those poor people? If one fee is invalid because it could restrict a Constitutional right, isn't another fee that could restrict a person's 2nd Amendment right be just as invalid?
 @NobodyÂ
Â
It wasn't just cost but time. Most of the laws you cite are now valid for the next election.
Â
The whole purpose of the law was to curb "unwanted" from voting. But with more than a year to address any ID issues, those folks will be able to vote (with their ID as required) this upcoming election.
Â
But JUST LIKE this law, the ID law did not address the largest issue facing the public. In the case of voter fraud it is absentee voting (ID does not solve that) and gun violence is cause mostly by illegal guns, and this proposal does not solve that.
Â
Paper towels to fix car engines.
Â
Â
 @Nobody You will never see the ACLU back up this they only fight the fights that match their politics....
People insure lots of possessions against theft, why would this be any different? If I had a cool antique or very expensive weapon why wouldn't I insure it just like I insure my wifes engagement ring?
Â
I can see this but it should be entirely voluntary
Â
MA is fairly strict already, I'd be nervous.
Â
I posted this on another story but a guy in Lowell MA had 40 guns in a homemade gun safe. While the house was vacant for a weekend thieves broke in and stoles all 40 guns. They think it took the thieves more than a day to get in and now they're trying very hard to figure out how to prosecute the HOME OWNER.
Â
While I really don't have any issues with Obamas recommendations it's places like NY and MA that do make me nervous.
@deejm2112 What good is inurance money which might be able to replace your firearm, unless the make and style was now outlawed. Then what? Take the money to the casino and lose it?
 @jpk  @deejm2112 Sure...at least you'd get something for the loss.
@deejm2112  Um, this is not insurance to cover theft of the guns. It is insurance so that if someone is injured/killed with a stolen gun, then the victim can sue the gun owner for damages. It is WRONG! Will the anti-gun nuts ever understand that their proposals will never affect the criminals? Of course not.
 @wondering And to add to my response, I am willing to bet this is the brain child of insurance companies...think of all that cash from mandatory gun insurance, they must be drooling, all they had to do was approach the right liberal who would easily buy the spiel....
 @wondering I understand that and agree with you.
 @deejm2112Â
Â
My father in law has two mid 19 century guns. One a pistol, the other a rifle. He has them insured (also finger printed, registered).
Â
Those were BOTH stolen from him during a break-in. Because he insured them (and it would have cost the company dearly) the insurance company sent out a private eye to find them.
Â
Because of that, they were found, the thief was arrested (convicted and sent to jail) and he got his weapons back.
Â
He now has a better safe.
Â
Â
 @Repoman  @deejm2112 Amazing how crimes can be solved when there's enough money involved...
 @deejm2112 Yep rather then punish the criminals if they can punish the owners to keep them from becoming owners the accomplish their goal.