Next big thing in gun control? 7 questions about mandatory gun insurance

As President Obama prepares to travel the country to drum up support for federal gun control laws ahead of a Senate vote in April, one idea is gaining steam at the state level: mandatory gun insurance.The legislation, which is being considered in a handful of states, would require gun owners to insure firearms as a market-based approach to incentivize safe firearm ownership and usage. But questions remain regarding the efficacy of such a measure, and it faces tough opposition from pro-gun groups.

As President Obama prepares to travel the country to drum up support for federal gun control laws ahead of a Senate vote in April, one idea is gaining steam at the state level: mandatory gun insurance.
The legislation, which is being considered in a handful of states, would require gun owners to insure firearms as a market-based approach to incentivize safe firearm ownership and usage. But questions remain regarding the efficacy of such a measure, and it faces tough opposition from pro-gun groups.

1. What is gun liability insurance and how would it work?
Just as car owners must carry auto insurance, gun liability insurance would require gun owners to purchase insurance for firearms to cover damages to “individuals whose person or property was in some way injured or damaged as a result of the use of a firearm,” says Robert Hartwig, president and economist at the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group that educates Americans on insurance issues.

The theory behind such proposals is that mandatory gun insurance provides a market-based tool to reward safe, responsible gun ownership. Hypothetically, insurance companies would consider a gun owner’s risk characteristics to determine insurance rates. For example, gun owners who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, take safety courses, own fewer weapons, and store them securely would have lower rates than, say, an ex-convict with an arsenal of assault rifles and a record of domestic abuse.

2. Is it currently law anywhere?
No. No such law currently exists at either the state or federal level. However, liability insurance bills have been introduced in California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland as part of larger gun control packages.
Congress, notably, has not said it would consider mandatory gun insurance. Though President Obama has advocated for “common sense gun safety measures,” he also has not proposed such legislation.
At the state level, Massachusetts state Rep. David Linsky (D) is an outspoken champion of mandatory gun insurance laws and is pushing the legislation in his state. Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) of Connecticut has asked state officials to study the efficacy of such a measure.
3. How effective might mandatory gun insurance be in reducing accidents or gun violence?

It’s clear mandatory gun insurance isn’t a panacea. For one thing, many people would still acquire guns illegally and operate them without insurance – much as about a quarter of the driving public is uninsured, according to some estimates.
And many questions remain, including how to deal with lost, stolen, or transferred firearms, as well as whether and what types of damages insurers would cover.
“It makes a lot of sense in theory. But I’m skeptical that it would work in the real world, both in a practical sense or to reduce violence,” says Morgan Housel, an economic analyst with Motley Fool. “It’s not clear that [insurance companies] could handle the risk of an immediate flood of mandatory insurance among hundreds of millions of firearms.”

“There is also evidence that a large portion of firearms used in violent crimes have been stolen or transferred between one owner to the next. It is unclear how insurance would avoid this reality,” he says. “Just as background checks still cause guns to end up in the wrong hands, liability insurance may deter less bad behavior than we might think.”

Still, proponents like Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., say mandatory gun insurance is a market-based approach that would incentivize more responsible behavior and reduce accidental shootings.
“As a lone measure, requiring insurance would not be enough to screen out the people we’re most worried about,” says Professor Frank. “But in combination with numerous other measures that have been proposed, it would be a step in the right direction.”

4. Where does the gun lobby stand on this proposal?
Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association is opposed to liability insurance, calling it an “economically discriminatory” measure that would tax a constitutional right.

“You don’t have to carry insurance to exercise any other constitutional right,” NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford told Reuters.
Other pro-gun groups are similarly opposed, saying it unfairly taxes law-abiding Americans and may make it prohibitively expensive to own a gun, thereby infringing on Second Amendment rights.

5. And the insurance industry?
The insurance industry also appears to be wary of such measures as currently proposed in some states. That’s because insurance generally covers accidents, not intentional or illegal acts, says Mr. Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute. For example, insurance covers homeowners if their house burns down in an electrical fire, but not if homeowners deliberately set fire to their homes.
As proposed, legislation currently under consideration in state legislatures makes “no distinction between acts that were accidental or unintentional versus those that are intentional and illegal,” he says. “That is a major distinction in the world of insurance. Insurers do not insure illegal acts. We cannot insure acts of murder, acts of intentional violence.”

And if legislation was rewritten to cover only accidents or unintentional injuries or deaths, the efficacy of the bill would be questionable, he suggests.
That’s because only 1.9 percent of deaths by firearm in 2010 were deemed accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rest are homicides or suicides.

6. Does anything like gun insurance currently exist?
Yes. The NRA offers voluntary “excess personal liability” insurance up to $250,000 primarily for hunters and shooters at private ranges. Notably, this insurance covers accidents, not intentional acts of violence. Along with the NRA, the United States Concealed Carry Association also offers gun owners self-defense insurance. If a gun owner is sued using a firearm in self-defense, self-defense insurance pays for legal expenses if the gun owner is found innocent or if charges are dismissed.
“God forbid you ever have to use your firearm in self-defense but if you do, you’re going to need help. Good, solid, legal help … you’re protected by the Self-Defense Shield,” trumpets a Concealed Carry insurance promotion, which covers up to $300,000 in civil liabilities.

7. How likely is such a law to pass?
Not very. Many such bills have been rejected over the years – nearly two dozen since 2003, in fact, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. Illinois failed to pass a bill in 2009 requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance and the state House recently rejected a measure that would have required concealed weapons carriers to carry liability insurance.
Were such a bill to pass, it would likely face legal challenges over the constitutionality of forcing people to buy insurance to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

What’s more, Hartwig says it is unlikely insurers would offer such coverage.
“There is no guarantee that such a product would emerge were legislation passed as written,” he says. “You can mandate coverage but you cannot mandate insurers to offer such coverage.”

http://news.yahoo.com/next-big-thing-gun…13780.html