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 $5,000 or up to a year in jail.
Linsky said he purposely left vague the details about what level of insurance would be required or whether existing homeowner's insurance policies that cover guns in the home would suffice.
The proposal is catching the attention of gun control activists, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, co-chairman of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
"It's a very creative idea," Menino said. "(He's) trying to put some teeth into what we are doing."
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, also called the proposal creative.
"It's time that we think about alternative ways that we can effectively deal with gun violence," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "We need better research. We need better understanding. We need to try different approaches to protect our children."
___
Associated Press writer Jay Lindsay contributed to this report.
KOMO!!! Where in the #$%^& is the story on the 2000+ people that showed up on the front steps of the capital building in Olympia a few hours ago. The polite gathering doesn't seem to get any attention around these parts....hmmm. I suppose that because nothing negative happened there it is not considered worthy of your front page. Thats pretty sad and pathetic. I wonder if the story of the 200 people demonstrating against the 2nd amendment last week made to the front page....
So once again, we punish the law abiding citizens instead of the criminals. More feel good legislation. Does the Federal Government have to buy insurance in case they give a whole bunch of guns to South America illegally and a border guard gets shot with one? Nooooo.   Do the stores that sell guns have to be insured in case someone breaks in and steals 40 some handguns and use them in crimes, (AKA Sportco)?  Noooo. Do the criminals have to have insurance? Noooo. Will this encourage more people to buy guns under the table so that they're not registered? Yessss.  So what is wrong with this picture?Â
Idiots are coming out of the woodwork!
 @Willow Exactly.  We need to impose a "Stupid Insurance" on anyone with an IQ below 80.  "Ignorance Insurance" would be a good idea as well.  How about a "Dumb A**" policy?  I've seen some people that need a "Ugly policy".  Go to WalMart late at night and you'll understand the "Ugly Policy" idea.  I live alone so I keep my gun on the coffee table and put it away when I have WELCOME visitors.  It's always there for the UNWELCOME visitors.  That's my "insurance".
Once again I guess I have to remind the liberal idiots in this world. When you commit a crime---you are a criminal!!
What is a criminal??? Someone who opts to IGNOR the law!!
Thus all the drug heads that are going around killing people, probably will avoid the insurance law, just as 60 Percent of the people in the state of Washington don't have liability insurance since it became mandatory.
The primary reason cops stop you for license plate lights out is because there is a good chance they will find you have no insurance, thus the legal system makes lots of money on your ticket.
ALL law inforcement is about MONEY. Cops don't chase people with guns because they might get killed. But speeders or light out cars are pretty save.Â
Requiring insurance is merely a facade for gun registration...
We need stupid politician insurance- if they injure our Constitutionally-protected RIGHTS in any way, shape or form, we the people get to collect $$$$$$$$$.$$!
 @Crashbox As has been proven in many other instances, no matter what the politicians do, the insurance industry will have the final say.  When it comes down to it, it's all about minimizing loss.  And the bean counters in the insurance industry cannot possibly look kindly on damage caused by irresponsible gun usage.  Now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  I'm sure you are a totally responsible gun owner and user, as are the vast majority of gun owners.  But the inability of the gun industry to control the actions of the highly irresponsible minority of gun owners will be the downfall of gun freedom.  Now is the time, like no other, for the gun industry to stop being dogmatic and reactionary, stop being shrill and "civil war" shrieking, and show some leadership.  This is your chance.  don't blow it.  You know, I support gun ownership and gun rights.  But you are losing the battle of public opinion in a landslide...
Man, I really hope those criminals insure themselves when they decide to shoot a victim during a robbery
@Bubba Gunners ...No No NO! They insure themselves then shoot themselves and try to collect
So lets see, what other constitutional rights can we sell insurance for the free exercise there of. There's freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Hey how about voters insurance, now there is an idea.
Would this insurance also be required by police, the military, and other gun-toting agencies?
Owners of guns (dogs,lawnmowers, fishing polesetc.) should be responsible for the damage they do to others. If these hazards can be insured yes why not. Government has gotten in the habit of taking on responsibilities and then charging those who do damage with a crime - doesn't make sense.
@contraryjim... I agree, people should be responsible with guns, dogs, mowers, etc. Those that are not should be punished (and I freakin mean "harshly"). Those that ARE responsible should be left alone until they demonstrate otherwise.
 @schramalot We don't leave automobile drivers alone until they have an accident, why should guns be any different? It's an object that, used incorrectly. has the potential to cause great harm and destruction.
@justmyopinion ...Part of my insurance goes for replacement. Also in WA my insurance goes to fix my car in an accident, liability comes into it when I am liable for damage or injury (to another) and that person's insurance or attorney wants me to pay ..If I am liable for damage or injury to another using a firearm(barring self defense)...I am going to jail and the injured party can recoup whatever damages they can get without the insurance. I just do not see what this insurance would give to the policy holder.
they can kiss my glock!!!!!!!!!
"You don't have to own a gun," Linsky said. "You don't have to drive a car."
Â
And no one 'has' to have insurance. What's yer point Linsky? Punish the greater folks for the cash flow?
That's yer answer to everything isn't it?
Â
Insureance is for victims. It helps in recovering what idiots like you take away from us.
Too bad there isn't insurance to protect us from bureaucrats, politicians, hypocrits, bigots, and liberal idiots.
Â
I'd pay for that.
Â
 @bobalouie "no one 'has' to have insurance..." NO, but EVERYONE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS AND ABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION.
Thanks for making my point. We make it so no one has to be accountable for their actions, and put the burden on those that have nothing to do with it.
Â
Why should 80 MILLION firearm owners be punished for the actions of one psycopath that's not accountable for his own actions?
@justmyopinion...idiots who drop their gun in a WalMart in Silverdale or in a theater in Portland should not have guns. They have demonstrated a level of carelessness that crossed the border into stupidity. Why should they be allowed to have their gun back? They are the ones that should have a rider on their homeowners policy because they are more likely to injure someone due to carelessness. Remember, their are millions of firearm owners who do not make the news everyday.
 @bobalouie Because it's not "just one psycopath", there are thousands of irresponsible and careless gun owners. We read about them every single day in the news. If we didn't, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.
@contraryjim ...No one is arguing that point, my man.
Awesome idea. It's not like there isn't enough ambulance chasing lawyers running around BS law suits.
That's what we need. More ways for insurance companies to get money from the public.
@Alikelystorey Yea, and then just like car insurance, if an accident does happen, insurance companies do everything they can to avoid payment.
A law requiring gun owner's on how to store your gun. Whats the point of me having a firearm for home defense if they go to an extreme measure. If it's stored in a gun vault or had a gun lock on it, that just decreases reaction time in case you have an intruder.
Oh yes, control your constitutional rights thru your pocketbook. Â Our government is out of control.
I just sold ALL of my guns. I still like them, just decided to sell them all. I have no guns in my home, vehicle or property. They're all gone. Nothing to see here. No ammo. No magazines. No eyes and ears. No need to impose insurance, round limits or anything else because I have no guns. None. They belong to somebody else...yep...gone.
 @CenterFire I keep seeing those starbucks stickers that say guns and coffee. Has starbucks come out pro-gun?
A non-criminal gun owner need insurance. A "good shooting" - where you shoot or kill the right guy e.g. - someone breaking in to rape your kitten, it will costs $30,000. If it's not a good shooting, you go to jail. No end to your expense then.
Â
You'll get sued by someone, perhaps the family of the criminal person you shot, since it would most probably be a young person. "Bad guys" who get shot breaking and entering are usually entry-level criminals who do not expect someone to be waiting with a gun. Duh. The family may not think you imposing the death-penalty to protect your stuff was not an OK thing.
Â
What's worse, there's a 95%+ chance your gun will hurt you or your family. There very little likehood your gun will protect from a bad man. Can use insurance for that.
Â
If you're in fear for your property, a gun is a poor substitute for property insurance. The way to protect your stuff without fear or hurting anyone is to put up a camera security system. Cost around $3000 for a 16 camera setup. I'll get one of those before I shoot the kid whose been tagging my fence. Will cost way less than firing that gun at a person.
@Bob Owen - Guess what Bob? I'm not really in the mood these days to "hope" that a security system or time-challenged local law enforcement will stop a meth-raging freak from breaking into my house and doing God knows what, especially considering my husband works nights. Nope, if they are not scared off by the dog barking, I'll have already called 911, but will be waiting with my handgun. I refuse to be a victim - period. It's not the stuff I'm worried about - why don't I have the right to defend my personal being?
@mccwife Who said you don't have the right to defend yourself? Of course you do, the second amendment guarantees that you do. That doesn't mean you can't be required to have insurance to protect the rest of us from accidental or careless damage done by you with your gun. You've got homeowners insurance, don't you? You'd sure be collecting on that if someone broke in and stole your gun.
@mccwife ....."Ammo is expensive and neither my husband nor I are about to waste it..." HAHAHA That is a fact +1 for the reality ck.
@justmyopinion - "doesn't mean you can't be required to have insurance to protect the rest of us from accidental or careless damage done by you with your gun." One flaw to your argument...I won't use or even display a gun around people who aren't about to do me any harm, so why should I have to pay additional insurance? You refer to "the rest of us" - I don't recall inviting you to my home, nor do you even know me. You throw around the words "careless damage" - again, you don't even know me. Ammo is expensive and neither my husband nor I are about to waste it. Save it for the firing range or for an intruder. I wouldn't even waste it on someone "tagging a fence".  As for when people are visiting my home, the guns are locked in a gun safe - always, without exception, because that's what RESPONSIBLE firearms owners do. Bottom line - the government needs to stop punishing those of us who are responsible and look more towards doing something about those who are NOT responsible and have no business even getting their hands on a weapon. All this proposed legislation is just hurry-up, get-it-done-while-emotions-after-Sandy Hook-are-still-raw in nature. It's like putting bandaids on a hemhorraging wound - temporary and not effective. Mass shootings and other gun crimes are largely committed by the untreated, unmanaged mentally ill; druggies, gangbangers and other fringe elements.  These people don't follow the rules - so let's look at ways to keep their hands off guns and follow through on harsh penalties if they break the rules. Requiring insurance will do nothing - most of those folks don't carry auto insurance either.
@justmyopinion ...Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo, introduced House Bill 1012 (since been pulled) It would have not allowed you to defend yourself.
 @Bob Owen How about camera system to go along with guns for those that are able to defend themselves?  A gun is not a about property insurance during a home invasion, it's a self-defense tool for those that are psychologically capable of defending themselves if need be.
Â
Remember, you don't have to shoot someone to defend yourself with a weapon. Â Also, you clearly don't pay attention to the news with the home invasion shootings that are justified.
Â
I guess someone's gotta be a lamb for the wolves to slaughter...
 @Bob Owen having written such a factually inaccurate and intellectually challenged response, you clearly need first amendment insurance...
 @Bob Owen So the lesson here is: Keep all your assets in a trust. You own nothing, so there is nothing to sue for.
Having to pay for basic right of having a robust means of self-defense? How about having to pay "insurance" every word you utter, in case it causes injury?Â
Â
Both ideas are clear unconstitutional infringements of the the most basic articles of the Bill of Rights.
 @mike Troll here!
Â
Liberals - don't respond. This guy's an idiot or a troll. Not worth our time.
 @Bob Owen Liberals CAN'T respond in an intelligent manner. It's not in their nature.
@justmyopinion...I will say this, If you are a liberal (and I really do not care) Your post are some very logical, intelligent, and thought thru arguements.
 @CenterFire I know you have been reading and responding to these posts for a few days, and you actually have the nerve to say "liberals" can't respond in an intelligent manner. You really do have a sense of humor, don't you?
 @Bob Owen  @mike Seems like an honest question to me, one that liberals such as yourself continue to fail to come up with an honest answer to. I expect nothing but hyperbole and calls of "troll", "baby killer", "gun nut", "crazy", etc, etc, as there is no logical refutation to such an analogy. It simply is a direct comparison of violations of different civil rights; succinct and on point.
Yeah right,, Â this is another ploy to punish those who cooperate. Can you imagine all the crips and bloods lining up to get insurance for their guns??? Remember,, Â GUNS ARE ILLEGAL IN MEXICO. This nonsense will never pass. It's only aim is to make money for the insurance companies. Guns were made illegal in Australia also and they are suffering increases in crime. Please research it. I do certainly hope all this blows over soon. Doesn't anyone take notice of the now empty shelves in the gun shops,,, Â those are votes of the majority. Some States are enacting laws to NOT cooperate with the feds and rural Sheriffs are vowing not to cooperate either. Peace.
Nope, this is greasy politicians sliding money to their insurance lobbyist buddies.
Just another way to try to push the cost gun ownership up so that only the wealthy can afford to excercise a constitutionally protected right.
Â
It's another form of taxation and firearm registration and it should be repugnant to anyone who's familiar with this country's history of Jim Crow laws.
 @nwgunslinger Gun insurance for your safety. Like car insurance in case a accident happens you be covered in case of injury.
@Seattle @nwgunslinger Gun insurance for a responsible gun owner's safety? Wasn't the article and issue about gun control, not gun safety? How will mandating that a responsible gun owner pay insurance increase safety? How does pating car insurance premiums increase your safety? I certainly didn't sit down after pating my last auto insurance premium and say "WHEW! I'm paid up! No accidents for me this month!!"
 @nwgunslinger Jim Crow? Really? History fail.
 @Sutekh  @nwgunslinger Not really. Gun control has always had its roots in racism.
Â
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2012/12/07/gun-controls-racist-origins/
Â
Would have thought a history major such as yourself would be aware of that.......
 @Sutekh  @nwgunslinger The story above has links and references; ie, proof, that early gun control was pioneered to prevent blacks from standing up for themselves back in the days of Jim Crow laws and Martin Luther King. Your statement has none of these required facts to back up your assertions, and is ridiculously false. The 2nd Amendment was ratified to prevent the populace from ever being disarmed by a tyrannical government; whether that was another country's government or our own....there is ridiculous amounts of evidence to this fact. I doubt you even read the article you so ignorantly commented on.
 @dg54321  @nwgunslinger "Gun control has always had its roots in racism."
Â
The problem with making statements like this is that they are inherently ridiculous. Words like "always" have actual meanings in English.
Â
More to the point, the 2nd Amendment was ratified largely to prevent "slave patrols" (which were armed posses that hunted down escaped and/or rebellious slaves) from being disbanded or commandeered by the newly created federal government. Now what were you saying about gun control and racism?