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.
I can discredit this whole proposal right here: the ex-convict with an arsenal of assault rifles and a record of domestic abuse is not allowed to own, or even touch, a firearm under existing law.
His arsenal of assault rifles would get him thrown in jail for 5-10 years each when he applied for insurance on them. So, of course, he could not be required to apply, because it would be self-incrimination prohibited by the 5th Amendment.
Every legal gun owner has no felony criminal record, no history of involuntary commitment for mental illness, and no history of domestic violence. And every illegal gun owner would laugh at the idea that one more law would stop them.
This entry was published Wed Mar 27 09:44:05 CDT 2013 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2013-03-27 09:44:05.0.