| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:17 pm Post subject: Hawaii Mulling Gun Owners Insurance |
|
|
| Quote: | The Aloha state could the first that mandates its gun own residents to obtain insurance and requiring them to re-register their firearms with the state every five years.
| Quote: | | They have to pay insurance so that if they're in a collision and they hurt someone else who's an innocent bystander, it's covered. Just like with guns, if a gun falls into the wrong hands or if there's an accident, just an accident, it makes a lot of sense to me that we have that extra level of responsibility," |
|
Point & Shoot Insurance
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallout
Star Player
Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 7626
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Hawaii Mulling Gun Owners Insurance |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | Quote: | The Aloha state could the first that mandates its gun own residents to obtain insurance and requiring them to re-register their firearms with the state every five years.
| Quote: | | They have to pay insurance so that if they're in a collision and they hurt someone else who's an innocent bystander, it's covered. Just like with guns, if a gun falls into the wrong hands or if there's an accident, just an accident, it makes a lot of sense to me that we have that extra level of responsibility," |
|
Point & Shoot Insurance |
Anything that prevents the easy access of weapons for anyone will be crushed by the NRA.
_________________
The journey to 17 begins... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
We can argue the constitutional legalities involved in requiring someone to ensure themselves while exercising their rights to own a weapon. I'm no constitutional expert by a long shot. But there's nothing that I see in the second amendment that says that ownership of a gun can't come with additional fees or expectation of responsibility.
I mean seriously, I get that some people out there have this bizarre need to tie guns to their identity and get freaked out when that awkward relationship may involve the goal of keeping other people safe. But let's get to the heart of the matter. What puzzles me is why any sane person would argue against the idea of applying the same approach to weapons that are designed to kill as we do a utilitarian device like a car which has no lethal intent. Sorry, but that makes no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
We can argue the constitutional legalities involved in requiring someone to ensure themselves while exercising their rights to own a weapon. I'm no constitutional expert by a long shot. But there's nothing that I see in the second amendment that says that ownership of a gun can't come with additional fees or expectation of responsibility.
I mean seriously, I get that some people out there have this bizarre need to tie guns to their identity and get freaked out when that awkward relationship may involve the goal of keeping other people safe. But let's get to the heart of the matter. What puzzles me is why any sane person would argue against the idea of applying the same approach to weapons that are designed to kill as we do a utilitarian device like a car which has no lethal intent. Sorry, but that makes no sense. |
There is no protected right to an automobile. I think it will make an interesting test case. I personally wouldn't mind in the abstract, but it brings up the question of whether poor people have less of a right to bear arms? Perhaps a means tested program? Still thinking on it at the moment, but it is an interesting subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
We can argue the constitutional legalities involved in requiring someone to ensure themselves while exercising their rights to own a weapon. I'm no constitutional expert by a long shot. But there's nothing that I see in the second amendment that says that ownership of a gun can't come with additional fees or expectation of responsibility.
I mean seriously, I get that some people out there have this bizarre need to tie guns to their identity and get freaked out when that awkward relationship may involve the goal of keeping other people safe. But let's get to the heart of the matter. What puzzles me is why any sane person would argue against the idea of applying the same approach to weapons that are designed to kill as we do a utilitarian device like a car which has no lethal intent. Sorry, but that makes no sense. |
There is no protected right to an automobile. I think it will make an interesting test case. I personally wouldn't mind in the abstract, but it brings up the question of whether poor people have less of a right to bear arms? Perhaps a means tested program? Still thinking on it at the moment, but it is an interesting subject. |
And yet the gun folk love to use the "automobiles kill people too" argument when it suits them in regards to the discussion of gun regulation.
Again, the second amendment allows for the collective people (hence "militia") in a given era (one that existed two centuries ago where guns=muskets) to own weapons as a means to group together against an oppressive government. There's nothing in the second amendment that proves anyone and everyone should own guns with no responsibility attached for how they are used. So I don't see how anyone could logically argue against gun insurance. The second amendment makes no mention of owing a gun and yet having no culpability for doing so. Insurance doesn't eliminate the right to own a gun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
We can argue the constitutional legalities involved in requiring someone to ensure themselves while exercising their rights to own a weapon. I'm no constitutional expert by a long shot. But there's nothing that I see in the second amendment that says that ownership of a gun can't come with additional fees or expectation of responsibility.
I mean seriously, I get that some people out there have this bizarre need to tie guns to their identity and get freaked out when that awkward relationship may involve the goal of keeping other people safe. But let's get to the heart of the matter. What puzzles me is why any sane person would argue against the idea of applying the same approach to weapons that are designed to kill as we do a utilitarian device like a car which has no lethal intent. Sorry, but that makes no sense. |
There is no protected right to an automobile. I think it will make an interesting test case. I personally wouldn't mind in the abstract, but it brings up the question of whether poor people have less of a right to bear arms? Perhaps a means tested program? Still thinking on it at the moment, but it is an interesting subject. |
And yet the gun folk love to use the "automobiles kill people too" argument when it suits them in regards to the discussion of gun regulation.
Again, the second amendment allows for the collective people (hence "militia") in a given era (one that existed two centuries ago where guns=muskets) to own weapons as a means to group together against an oppressive government. There's nothing in the second amendment that proves anyone and everyone should own guns with no responsibility attached for how they are used. So I don't see how anyone could logically argue against gun insurance. The second amendment makes no mention of owing a gun and yet having no culpability for doing so. Insurance doesn't eliminate the right to own a gun. |
It does if they can't afford the insurance. It's pretty much the same thing as a poll tax in my mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
We can argue the constitutional legalities involved in requiring someone to ensure themselves while exercising their rights to own a weapon. I'm no constitutional expert by a long shot. But there's nothing that I see in the second amendment that says that ownership of a gun can't come with additional fees or expectation of responsibility.
I mean seriously, I get that some people out there have this bizarre need to tie guns to their identity and get freaked out when that awkward relationship may involve the goal of keeping other people safe. But let's get to the heart of the matter. What puzzles me is why any sane person would argue against the idea of applying the same approach to weapons that are designed to kill as we do a utilitarian device like a car which has no lethal intent. Sorry, but that makes no sense. |
There is no protected right to an automobile. I think it will make an interesting test case. I personally wouldn't mind in the abstract, but it brings up the question of whether poor people have less of a right to bear arms? Perhaps a means tested program? Still thinking on it at the moment, but it is an interesting subject. |
And yet the gun folk love to use the "automobiles kill people too" argument when it suits them in regards to the discussion of gun regulation.
Again, the second amendment allows for the collective people (hence "militia") in a given era (one that existed two centuries ago where guns=muskets) to own weapons as a means to group together against an oppressive government. There's nothing in the second amendment that proves anyone and everyone should own guns with no responsibility attached for how they are used. So I don't see how anyone could logically argue against gun insurance. The second amendment makes no mention of owing a gun and yet having no culpability for doing so. Insurance doesn't eliminate the right to own a gun. |
It does if they can't afford the insurance. It's pretty much the same thing as a poll tax in my mind. |
So if someone can't afford the price of a gun purchase, are their rights being infringed upon since guns have a cost associated with them? 
Heck, what about those who can afford to pay a $125 insurance premium but can't afford to pay the $700 price for a 9mm? Is the gun manufacturers then standing in the way of his right to keep and bear arms?
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
We can argue the constitutional legalities involved in requiring someone to ensure themselves while exercising their rights to own a weapon. I'm no constitutional expert by a long shot. But there's nothing that I see in the second amendment that says that ownership of a gun can't come with additional fees or expectation of responsibility.
I mean seriously, I get that some people out there have this bizarre need to tie guns to their identity and get freaked out when that awkward relationship may involve the goal of keeping other people safe. But let's get to the heart of the matter. What puzzles me is why any sane person would argue against the idea of applying the same approach to weapons that are designed to kill as we do a utilitarian device like a car which has no lethal intent. Sorry, but that makes no sense. |
There is no protected right to an automobile. I think it will make an interesting test case. I personally wouldn't mind in the abstract, but it brings up the question of whether poor people have less of a right to bear arms? Perhaps a means tested program? Still thinking on it at the moment, but it is an interesting subject. |
And yet the gun folk love to use the "automobiles kill people too" argument when it suits them in regards to the discussion of gun regulation.
Again, the second amendment allows for the collective people (hence "militia") in a given era (one that existed two centuries ago where guns=muskets) to own weapons as a means to group together against an oppressive government. There's nothing in the second amendment that proves anyone and everyone should own guns with no responsibility attached for how they are used. So I don't see how anyone could logically argue against gun insurance. The second amendment makes no mention of owing a gun and yet having no culpability for doing so. Insurance doesn't eliminate the right to own a gun. |
It does if they can't afford the insurance. It's pretty much the same thing as a poll tax in my mind. |
Last I checked, guns were not free. In fact, some guns are quite pricey. So the ability to afford gun ownership has always been a factor in whether one can actually own one.
EDIT: Aussie beat me to it on this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: |
Last I checked, guns were not free. In fact, some guns are quite pricey. So the ability to afford gun ownership has always been a factor in whether one can actually own one.
EDIT: Aussie beat me to it on this point. |
Also, the Supreme Court decided that freedom of movement/travel cannot be restricted to free person on a free society. Some have interpreted this to mean that requiring a license to drive an automobile is indeed a restriction placed upon this right and ultimately infringes upon ones free speech rights due to restrictions of mobility. And revocation of a license due to the owing of monetary penalties also unconstitutionally restricts ones basic rights to travel,mobility, and gaining employment.
These restrictions upon freedom of movement were most recently visited with the advent of the TSA.
Point being, rights aren't as simple and absolute as many Gun advocates would like to make them out to be.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An automobile is not at all required to have freedom of movement. Cars and guns are simply not analogous.
I do not think that rights are simple, but a guaranteed right is also not so easy to put conditions on. It is always a balancing act, with some restrictions being okay and others not.
I do think this kind of action is going to end up tested at the highest level. It may pass muster. We have an unpredictable high court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
It's not like guns are given away, so you're already paying to exercise that right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | An automobile is not at all required to have freedom of movement. Cars and guns are simply not analogous.
I do not think that rights are simple, but a guaranteed right is also not so easy to put conditions on. It is always a balancing act, with some restrictions being okay and others not.
I do think this kind of action is going to end up tested at the highest level. It may pass muster. We have an unpredictable high court. |
And if that is agreed, why on earth would you argue against a measure that could help compensate the victims of gun violence/accidents? That just baffles me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action?
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Requiring people to pay for a right will make an interesting Supreme Court case. |
It's not like guns are given away, so you're already paying to exercise that right. |
Yes, you have to buy them. If you want to exercise your first amendment rights by writing something, you have to to buy the paper and ink, too. So that argument doesn't work.
The question is whether the government could impose a special burden on gun ownership. For what it's worth, my answer would be no as to mere ownership, but yes as to carry permits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
I don't think the idea is to make rules based on 100% compliance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | An automobile is not at all required to have freedom of movement. Cars and guns are simply not analogous.
I do not think that rights are simple, but a guaranteed right is also not so easy to put conditions on. It is always a balancing act, with some restrictions being okay and others not.
I do think this kind of action is going to end up tested at the highest level. It may pass muster. We have an unpredictable high court. |
And if that is agreed, why on earth would you argue against a measure that could help compensate the victims of gun violence/accidents? That just baffles me. |
I am not exactly arguing against as much as I am seeing issues that need addressing and I am not sure that it will pass judicial scrutiny. I also don't see how you are going to tell a poor person that you have to surrender your weapon because you cannot afford to pay the insurance fee. Perhaps we only require insurance on new weapons? If that is the case, most victims will see no benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
I don't think the idea is to make rules based on 100% compliance. |
It would be a rule to punish good citizens and that makes little sense to me. Why not just punish the bad guys and leave the good guys alone? But I realize that doesn't put more money into the coffers of the insurance companies, some of which ends up in politician's pockets.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | An automobile is not at all required to have freedom of movement. Cars and guns are simply not analogous.
I do not think that rights are simple, but a guaranteed right is also not so easy to put conditions on. It is always a balancing act, with some restrictions being okay and others not.
I do think this kind of action is going to end up tested at the highest level. It may pass muster. We have an unpredictable high court. |
And if that is agreed, why on earth would you argue against a measure that could help compensate the victims of gun violence/accidents? That just baffles me. |
I am not exactly arguing against as much as I am seeing issues that need addressing and I am not sure that it will pass judicial scrutiny. I also don't see how you are going to tell a poor person that you have to surrender your weapon because you cannot afford to pay the insurance fee. Perhaps we only require insurance on new weapons? If that is the case, most victims will see no benefits. |
What if you let your insurance lapse, are they going to come to your house and demand your gun? Likely they would do nothing, since this, like most gun laws passed after a mass shooting are just done to make the public think that the government is doing something when that is typically symbolic.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | I am not exactly arguing against as much as I am seeing issues that need addressing and I am not sure that it will pass judicial scrutiny. I also don't see how you are going to tell a poor person that you have to surrender your weapon because you cannot afford to pay the insurance fee. Perhaps we only require insurance on new weapons? If that is the case, most victims will see no benefits. |
Right. We don't require people to carry general liability insurance in case they do something that causes harm to someone else. There are lots of things that could cause injury or death to third parties -- dogs, swimming pools, power tools, bonfires, etc. Singling out firearms would be legally dubious, given that there is a constitutional right involved. What next? Requiring mosques to buy insurance in case one of the members commits an act of terrorism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
Right. We don't require people to carry general liability insurance in case they do something that causes harm to someone else. There are lots of things that could cause injury or death to third parties -- dogs, swimming pools, power tools, bonfires, etc. Singling out firearms would be legally dubious, given that there is a constitutional right involved. What next? Requiring mosques to buy insurance in case one of the members commits an act of terrorism? |
Actually, there are lots of things that increase one's home owners insurance rates, swimming pools being one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
The majority of gun deaths are actually suicides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
The majority of gun deaths are actually suicides. |
Correct, and usually committed by a legal gun owner and as such, the majority of killings with a gun in this country are committed by legal gun owners. States with the least restrictive access to guns unsurprisingly have the highest suicide rates. Conversely, states with the most restrictive gun access have the lowest suicide rates.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Actually, there are lots of things that increase one's home owners insurance rates, swimming pools being one of them. |
Homeowners insurance is not mandatory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
