In the last few days, there’s been a new proposal popping up all over the internet: force gun owners to buy insurance for their guns, to prove they are responsibe, and this would be liability insurance. It has been picking up endorsements from New York University economist Nouriel Roubini, The Economist, and Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding at Reuters Breaking Views, among others.
The crazy far left idea is that insurance would make gun ownership more expensive and a hassle, which would discourage some people from buying weapons, or at least from acquiring huge arsenals. But it would make gun ownership particularly expensive for those who are most likely to get caught up in some sort of violence. This would mean that hunters with spotless criminal history would get a great rate — the Economist notes that National Rifle Association members can already buy $100,000 worth of gun liability coverage for as low as $165.
A jobless 19-year-old male with a disorderly conduct arrest on their record, on the other hand, would have to pay a whole lot more than they could afford. Hmm, that is discrimination there.
But it gets even better as Forbes contributor John Wasik argues that the idea should be taken a step further, by making gun owners liable for any accidents or violent crimes committed with a weapon they own, even if they weren’t directly involved.
The liberal whackos never give up, do they?
What this means is that if you don’t keep your gun under lock and key, and somebody gets a hold of it and commits a crime, you’d be on the hook. So dummy up liberals, this won’t cure anything…..how are you going to force a criminal, who most often obtains a gun illegally to pay for gun insurance?
But at the very least, it might help rectify a serious market failure, which is that the costs of firearms ownership are born by society more than actual gun owners. This is a banner year for guns and ammo sales, which is expected to profit over $11 billion. And this you can blame on the crazy ideas of Democrats and Obama, and their plan to disarm, (yes disarm) the American people, and break the Second Amendment.
Forcing gun owners to cover some of that price via insurance — or at least making them compensate victims — would help restore balance to the market, according to liberal thinking. How about making stiffer penalties instead, for criminals?
And the biggest question of all is if this is Constitutional….but we know Obama and his cronies care nothing for that great document, which gives us our rights, as he is slowly taking them away.
The Supreme Court could easily conclude that making it prohibitively expensive to own a gun amounts to infringing on the second amendment. The question, then, is where you draw the line. Is requiring any insurance an excessive burden? Or can the government attach a certain, reasonable price to exercising a constitutional right? And if so, how much is too much?
Cyran and Holding suggest that “tying the price of coverage to the cost of gun incidents” might help an insurance requirement pass constitutional muster, by proving that the government had a legally relevant “compelling interest” in the issue.