Firearms Insurance
BY Herschel Smith
7 months, 4 weeks ago
This is just another tax on firearms owners and an infringement upon God-given rights. Insurance won’t ever pay out for felonies committed or intentional acts, and they know it.
Ah yes, because the people who are too poor to afford the insurance surely have the time and money to ask the courts for an exemption https://t.co/egWcI8nTJu pic.twitter.com/w6RfAQ5xbA
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) April 25, 2024
On April 26, 2024 at 11:11 am, Paul B. said:
Hanson is a proud socialist spewing his hate upon those he sees as lower than him. We have lost our state!
Heading to Wyoming soon where my conservative values are the norm.
On April 26, 2024 at 5:43 pm, Steady Steve said:
A clear infringement on 2A rights. Just ignore it, there will be lawsuits soon enough.
On April 26, 2024 at 6:52 pm, Paul B said:
They keep coming up with new ways to pervert things. Damn all Karen’s.
On April 26, 2024 at 7:04 pm, keep one under the pillow said:
You mean like a holster and gun safe?
Ungovernable and apart from the turd herd, always
On April 27, 2024 at 7:03 am, Latigo Morgan said:
I looked into the popular carry insurance, long before it was exposed as a shady operation. All I did was read the terms and conditions and it wasn’t difficult for a layman like me to see how they could easily weasel out of a payout.
You know a “firearms insurance” would be the same way.
On April 28, 2024 at 2:24 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
The statists did the same thing with driving and owning automobiles, back in the old days when legislators passed laws mandating the possession of insurance if you owned an automobile. At first, it was just liability insurance, but then people buying cars on credit found that they needed to get full-coverage in case the vehicle was stolen before you finished paying it off. An insurance company might see their revenues cut into a bit, and we can’t have that, can we?
Without getting down into the weeds with the various legal, regulatory and financial reasons pro-and-con vis-a-vis insurance, I’d instead like to offer a couple of observations…
First, if a “right” requires that certain conditions be met – financial or regulatory, for example – in order to be exercised, then strictly speaking, it is no longer a right you are exercising, but a privilege. Privileges are conditional rights which can be granted or withdrawn depending on certain conditions being met or at the whims of those controlling them, for that matter.
Second, free men are supposed to possess certain inalienable rights, but there’s no profit to be taken if men simply can exercise their rights without outside interference and meddling. For it is in this meddling and tampering with these rights that the sweet spot lies for the accumulation of wealth and power, if you are a government regulatory body, for example, or even an ostensibly “free market” auto company.
Why would an auto company in the open marketplace welcome regulation? The answer is that as companies grow larger and command a larger and more-profitable share of the market in question, they tend to wish to pull up the proverbial ladder of success behind them, which is to say that they welcome regulation if it keeps competitors out of their business. They, the large multi-nationals, can afford lawyers, regulatory specialists and the like, but the start-up operation across town cannot – hence must close his doors.
We see the same signs of collusion between industry and government here in the nascent firearms insurance business. That insurance executive down the street may believe in the freedoms afforded by the Second Amendment during his off-hours away from work, but on the job, the hunch is that he smells profits and is A-OK with regulators passing rules (laws) which require gun owners and CCW people, for example, to possess insurance. Cha-ching!
Of course, the government at all levels is fine with this, too, since naturally the new insurance regulations will require some sort of government oversight to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up, and oh, by the way, so that they get paid, too! Cha-ching!
Same as it ever was, it is all about the money….. follow the money, just follow the money.
Sorry for being such a cynic, but I’ve seen this particular dog-and-pony show before!
Americans used to live in one of the most-free nations on earth way back when and once-upon-a-time, but not anymore. And this sort of shenanigans and plain old racketeering are one big reason why… allegedly, “racketeering” is a crime, but apparently not when big brother and his pals in big business do it….
On April 28, 2024 at 8:35 am, george 1 said:
@Georgiaboy: “First, if a “right” requires that certain conditions be met – financial or regulatory, for example – in order to be exercised, then strictly speaking, it is no longer a right you are exercising, but a privilege.”
A lot of things are like that now. For instance, if police can kill you because they SEE a gun then your right to keep and bear arms is not recognized.
On April 28, 2024 at 11:56 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@george 1
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” ~ Ronald Reagan
Or as the Founders would have said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty…
On April 29, 2024 at 8:27 am, BRVTVS said:
Any “gun rights” organization that hawks gun insurance has a conflict of interest. Likewise, many groups with ties to commercial ranges do nothing to fight restrictions for shooting on private property.
On April 29, 2024 at 8:38 am, Latigo Morgan said:
One of the intended consequences of requiring firearms insurance will be for insurance companies to dictate what firearms they will/will not insure.
Fully expect features the gun grabbers have been after for a while, from internal locks to voodoo tech, like bio-metric safeties to be forced to be implemented or the firearm will not be insured.
On April 30, 2024 at 12:47 pm, Frank Nobody said:
Recently had an acquaintance with USCCA “insurance” involved in an incident, presumably showing it (no shots fired), but USCCA wouldn’t cover the lawyer fees since he could have retreated, but did not. This is in Georgia… no legal duty to retreat. Anyway, if they would have covered it, should he be found guilty, he has to repay their costs.
I don’t know specifics; situation is ongoing. It would seem that I have overestimated the value of such insurance.