A California city has voted to require gun owners to carry liability insurance in what's believed to be the first measure of its kind in the United States
abcnews.go.com
Basically, gun owners in San Jose will now need to buy liability insurance for handguns, which will cover losses or damages from any accidental use of a firearm, including injury or death. In addition, should a gun be stolen or lost, the owner will be legally liable for that handgun until reported to the police. Finally, there will be a $25 fee for the insurance, which will be collected by a non-profit to be distributed to community centers for use in suicide prevention, firearms training and safety education, domestic violence, and mental health services.
I'm not sure this will hold up to lawsuits, because we just can't be bothered to do anything that could possibly reduce the number of firearm injuries/deaths other than thoughts and prayers, but this is a bit of a different way. People talk about how you need a license to drive a car...so why not require insurance to own a gun?
Well, car ownership isn't an enumerated right in the second amendment to the US Constitution, for one thing. In a circumstance in which all things are held equal, this won't pass constitutional muster as it isn't the least-restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest -- since we're discussing an enumerated right, strict scrutiny automatically applies.
The problem is, all things are not held equal. Let me explain what's really going on here.
Somebody's looking for a state or federal legislature bid, and they're after campaign funding from the insurance industry. Ordinance like this is judicially DOA, and anybody who's worked a campaign, worked on a legislator's staff, worked for a party, or worked in government in a non-partisan position can tell you this without really putting much thought into it. And because it's judicially DOA, it's an absolute waste of time when it comes to substantive policy, and the people who wrote and passed this
know it.
In other words, it's not intended to be substantive policy. It's performance; it's intended to be passed, and summarily overruled by the courts. Thereby, generating press and giving involved legislators opportunity for stump speeches and campaign ad fodder. Where "insurance" comes in, is of course, because the insurance industry
loves giving money to legislators and election candidates to ensure its profit margins keep growing.
This is where the comparison to car insurance rears its ugly head. Insurance is mandatory to drive, and that's well and good...except for one thing. How many "high risk" and "liability only" insurance companies exist, for the sole purpose of providing cheap proof-of-insurance, but their policies don't actually cover much or are so disclaimer- and exception-riddled they rarely if ever pay out? What guarantee would there be, for that to
not be the case for gun insurance?
It's a quick buck for established insurance companies, and a foot-in-the-door for scam insurers. Hence, why the insurance industry would want to pour money into the coffers of candidates who try to pass dumbass shit like this. The performance signals to insurance lobbyists they're open for business, pushing industry-friendly legislation.
Last...you think insurance fraud is
already bad? Wait until the kind of moron it takes to treat firearms irresponsibly in the first place, realizes "unfortunate hunting accident = payday".
