Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Poll - should gun owners get liability insurance?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by tiggers97, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. tiggers97

    tiggers97 United States Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    790
    Cease fire, Cease Fire!!!!!!

    Currently 75% against, 21% for. My ninja senses tell me we may have gone past the point where they might wonder "why do none of my friends think the way I do, maybe I'm wrong" and getting into the "someone is messing with our polls" zone.

    Good job team.

    History note: original message below.

    First post, but I'm going to get around :)

    NEW POLL: Should liability insurance be mandatory for all gun owners? « Preventing Newtown

    Tell your friends!
     
  2. FreedomNW

    FreedomNW Portland, OR Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    29
    This poll is garbage!

    Sponsored by an anti-gun group with links to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign, change.org, etc.

    But to the issue - Firearm liability insurance is nonsense in that it makes one private citizen liable for the actions of another. Example- if someone steals your firearm and uses it for a crime, you the original owner are liable, not the actual criminal (see Oregon SB758 as an example).

    This isn't true of vehicles. If someone steals your car, gets drunk, and drives into a playground, you are not liable merely for being the original owner. Anything else likely violates the 8th Amendment among other legal traditions.
     
    watchman and (deleted member) like this.
  3. wilsoncj

    wilsoncj Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    5
    This is some of the most nonsensical bullbubblegum I've ever seen. I guess we should have car owners be liable for when their car is stolen and someone gets killed with it too. Morons.
     
  4. 1stklass

    1stklass salem oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    335
    What do you mean you are "going to get around"? Are ya over 18? female? hot? wanna go shooting? :bluelaugh: Seriously guys, the only thing you can do is make friends with a few "antigunners" take them shooting ONE TIME, and they are converted.... Everyone likes power once they realize they can control it and its nothing to be scared of. I have never taken an antigunner shooting and not gotten them hooked in less than an hour. :thumbup:
     
  5. quneur

    quneur Mukilteo, Wa Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    27
    Driving is a privilege; gun ownership is a right. Big difference between the two. The state may mandate restrictions, liability, etc. on the first and not on the second.
     
  6. garguren

    garguren Southern Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    3
    I like the idea I've seen recently of having the Option of buying some type of coverage towards firearms. I'll say it again, it should be an Option. The main argument I saw the other day concerning this was if you did use your gun in a lawful self-defense type situation. How many of you have the money readily available to fight the legal battles that will without a doubt ensue? George Zimmerman is a prime example, (going with the assumption that he was completely justified. I don't want this to be a debate regarding whether he was or was not) he's going broke trying to prove he didn't do anything unlawful. I know I for one do not have the money to keep my *** out of jail, I like to think i'm smart enough to never be in such a situation that it could be questionable but who knows.

    With that being said one of the comments that was actually pretty good in the article was who would enforce such a thing? Aside from all of the obvious legal/constitutional/personal/financial questions that would be raised from such a law, who will enforce it? How long until it turns into the same crap health insurance has with the completely ridiculous premiums. If the government ran it they just got their gun registration because all know there going to want to know the firearms you're insuring. If a private company ran it, odds are they'll sellout and want the same information. If they did go through with it and require insurance, the only one I can think of atm who would be a decent host would be someone like the NRA. Someone who actually wants our firearms to stay where they are and supports the idea that its no one else damn business what I have. I would trust them to keep my information private more then the Government or some private company lining up to get rich.

    Trying to hold someone liable if their gun is stolen and used to commit a crime is asinine. Though I will say it does deserve a brief looking into as to how the weapon was stolen in the first place. If its obvious that you were extremely neglectful towards the safekeeping of your weapon then some form of recourse I think is appropriate. That being said, it would be virtually unenforceable because no one would say "Yea I left it in the car on the front seat. No I didn't lock the doors." Furthermore trying to hold the manufactures liable is so beyond reasonable its silly. They compare it to tobacco companies being held responsible. These are nowhere near the same thing. Tobacco by its very nature is harmful to those around it (i.e. smoking) the guns I have in my closet / pocket are not harmful to anyone. They don't pose any danger to you by standing next to me. Someone smoking next to me does.

    Anyways that's my up all night rant for the day.
     
  7. mancat

    mancat Kitsap County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    334
    comments moderated.. I doubt mine will make it up there.

    I just cannot understand the mentality of people that support this. They say that "gun owners need to be held responsible." Well they are if they use that gun to commit a crime. Until that time, they are no different than anyone else, and deserve no responsibility to cover the costs incurred by criminals. This is not a situation comparable to automotive or health insurance pools.

    The fact that people are willing to allow the precedent to be set of requiring a fee or insurance to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right is sickening to me. It's been going on for too long in too many states, with firearm owner's ID cards and such things.
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  8. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    753
    Do you think insurance co. will sell the Firearm liability insurance to every one???I don't think so.
     
  9. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    753
     
  10. Hawaiian

    Hawaiian Tigard Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    1,632
    Tell Occupy Portland that only the 1% will be able to afford the insurance and only they will have firearms. The 99% must be rendered defenseless. The will throw a protest rally. LOL
     
    tiggers97 and (deleted member) like this.
  11. Norm0931

    Norm0931 Hillsboro, OR Sgt. Sheep Silver Vendor 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    What I love is how they all keep saying, "Well, gun owners need to be held accountable!" and "Why should I be paying for gun violence when i don't own a gun!?!" I own several guns, or at least I used to (before the fishing accident where they all sank in the Pacific Ocean) and I've not committed any crimes with them, why should I have to pay for people that commit crimes?
     
  12. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    4,957
    lets see 80 million+ firearms owners in the USA. How many cases of a traceable firearm being used in the commission of a crime that involves bodily injury (I assume the law wouldn't hold the firearms owner responsible for the cash stolen from a liquor store)

    SO lets see the chain of events.

    Own a Gun
    Buy insurance Would some sort of registration be involved to have a clue who owns what firearm when?
    someone has to steal your firearm
    someone has to use your firearm to commit a crime that involved someone getting shot
    then the police would have to be able to determine what firearm was used in the commission of this crime. (not so easy if the firearm is not recovered and balistically linked to the crime)
    they would then go to the registration data base and start tracking down the owner of the weapon at the time the weapon was stolen.
    Once the weapon was tired directly to the crime and to a legal owner then the victim or victims of the crime could file a claim against the insurance company.
    The insurance company would then fight the claim to the limits of their ability before they would pay (HOW MUCH)

    Yea I see this as being a real game changer.

    How few of the 80,000,000 firearms owners have a firearm stolen in a given time period.
    How few of those stolen firearms are ever tied to a crime involving bodily injury
    How hard would it be to track the firearm back to its legal owner at the time of the theft

    WHAT A CLUSTER F*** this would be.
     
  13. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    BS Poll, but Voted anyway!! :thumbup:
     
  14. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
     
  15. tacticalgunner

    tacticalgunner Wilsonville The Man, The Myth, The Legend Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    247
    Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor - Reno Conservative | Examiner.com
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  16. Botte Hork

    Botte Hork Camas WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    267
    Hehehe, just sent that link to a lib friend. Should spark some heated "debate". :)
     
  17. theminutemenrideagain

    theminutemenrideagain Tigard Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    20
    No because we have obama care
     
  18. FreedomNW

    FreedomNW Portland, OR Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    29
    By the way-

    Currently, anyone can get a personal liability policy that covers accidental acts or lawsuits against an individual for real or trivial issues. For example, if you are cleaning your firearm (carelessly) and a round goes off that puts a hole in your neighbors home, your liability policy will cover it. This is why attorneys are always trying to prove a citizen fired "accidentally" in a self-defense shooting - so that the victim (aka criminal) can make a claim against the homeowners insurance policy. (This is why I recommend using a stock pistol (no mods, competition triggers, etc.) and factory ammunition for self-defense purposes - less for the thug's attorney to go after)

    However, what they are mandating in SB758 is that insurance carriers cover willful acts. This is entirely a different thing that no insurance carrier will write a policy for. An accidental discharge is entirely different than making a willful decision to shoot your neighbor because he is sleeping with your wife. You can't, and will not be able to regardless of what the bill claims, purchase a policy to cover willful acts. Read the fine print of any current policy such as your life insurance policy, and you will see a list of exclusions including, self-inflicted acts and such.

    Make no mistake - this is ONLY about restricting firearms ownership by making them prohibitively expensive to own. It does nothing for the 'victims' and anyone that says otherwise is either painfully naive, or intentionally deceptive.

    "tiggers97 " should go back to the my.barackobama.com activist school to relearn the "infiltration" skills. The next one is tomorrow in Hillsboro: https://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/actionplanningsession/gskwdj
     
  19. Tug

    Tug Seattle Member

    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    25
    I keep going to it to vote no
     
  20. tiggers97

    tiggers97 United States Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    790
    That's part of the strategy. If you cannot get insurance, then you cannot have a gun. If you can get it, can you afford it? Counter-argument might be (besides that it is like a poll-tax), is that only the rich and powerful would eventually be able to have protection.