General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)although it has made it more difficult for poor people to own a car.
You can buy gun owner liability insurance now. It's much cheaper than automobile insurance.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Why?
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)if a separate policy was required for each gun, with added costs for high volume magazines, the costs would quickly soar as claims were made.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The insurance industry won't insure intentional criminal acts. It's like covering a policy holder burning his own house down intentionally. At best it could apply to the accidental shootings.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Required insurance, the costs, and the research have impacted auto design, homeowners (pets and pools), boating regulations, etc. That's one part of gun ownership that would be useful.
People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)I happen to own a twin engine boat that can cruise about 55mph (very fast on water!)
Perfectly legal to operate without a license, because no pleasure boat license exist. I can even drink a beer while driving as long as stay under the legal blood alcohol limit. Additionally, no insurance is required, nor am I required to carry identification.
You do have to maintain and carry certain safety equipment. And if the boat is valuable, insurance is prudent.
Off topic. But I thought I would mention it.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)You need education if you were born on or after Jan. 1, 1988, and will be operating a motorized boat of 10 hp or more in Florida.
https://www.boat-ed.com/florida/?campaignid=229386259&adgroupid=22442624059&keyword=florida%20boat%20license&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn_zhg_Pf1gIVhEOGCh2dHg7dEAAYASAAEgJ-C_D_BwE
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Basically take an online class is usually sufficient.
It's not something that can be revoked or taken away.
(I boat in Florida quite a bit)
Sancho
(9,070 posts)call it a license or permit or whatever you want...if you don't have it and you were born after 1988 you get a ticket and might see your boat towed off. Eventually everyone in Fl will be included, and the requirements to possess the boat operator's "card" could change at will (just like a driver's license).
Also, many marinas, clubs, etc. require insurance. To get the insurance, you sometimes have to produce your "card", especially if you were born after 1988. Some places also require borrowed-boat insurance, and if you are from out of state you have to get the card. I own 4 boats in Florida, and two of the locations (one a slip, and one dry sailed). Both require insurance, an operators license (or proof of equivalent education like a six-pack, Boat US course, etc.), and an annual inspection. That's at a public city marina. My other boat at a private club requires insurance and a performance test (on the water) administered by the club staff. Both require registration in Florida.
If you are older and keep a boat at your personal dock and aren't insured, then you weren't affected as the new law was phased in...but in effect, you have to have a license to operate a boat with more than 10 hp in Florida if you were born after 1988.
Public schools, colleges, marinas, etc. are well-aware that their staff of summer teenage hires and coaches have to have the card as a minimum. No card, no job.
You also cannot rent dive equipment or refill tanks most places without a "license" that you have passed a course. The shortest scuba class requires at least several days of instruction and demonstrated skills, so it's educational and private, but in effect it's a license. I mention that because I think you should have a "gun license" to go to a shooting range or gun club.
You can't fish or hunt without a license, but essentially all you have to do is buy one. Like a lot of places, it's a hodgepodge of rules and regulations.
In fact, Florida has bunch of overlapping permits, certificates, and licenses. As my original post started...I don't care what you call the various licenses or whether it's enforced by a state officer or by vendors or by insurance companies.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Quite aware of all those things. But hopefully it educates someone else with an interest in the matter.
Insurance is a private sector contractual issue.
Licensing is a government issue to control access to a privilege such as driving, hunting, etc. The fact that boating doesn't require a license is just a nitpick, but it is something that surprises most people not into boating.
As for me, I'm not a young pup, so I'm immune from pretty much every states boating education requirement.
Trueblue Texan
(2,430 posts)We are buying a new house and shopping for insurance. I've been asked if I own dogs, guns or a swimming pool. I think gun ownership must affect rates if they're asking about them.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Like if your house burned down.
Just owning a gun doesn't change anything in your policy, at least through State Farm.
doc03
(35,346 posts)rid of open carry in California because the Black Panthers were exercising their 2 nd Amendment rights.
madokie
(51,076 posts)laws will be changed overnight.
doc03
(35,346 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)We live in a fucked society. If I was younger I'd be all for immigrating to some place else.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Funnily enough, nobody was shot.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)And in more recent times:
"The Black Panthers took to streets of Oakland with loaded guns, conservatives like Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, began promoting gun control. Black radicals with guns, coupled with the devastating race riots that wiped out whole neighborhoods in Newark and Detroit in 1967, helped persuade Congress to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968. That law barred felons from purchasing firearms, expanded the licensing of gun dealers, and barred imports of Saturday Night Specialscheap, often poorly made guns that were frequently used for crime by urban youth. As one gun control supporter at the time frankly admitted, a close look at that law revealed that it wasnt really about controlling guns; it was about controlling blacks. And the NRA, in its signature publication, American Rifleman, took credit for the law and extolled its virtues."
https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist
doc03
(35,346 posts)poc would drug and rape our women folk.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Just like car insurance won't cover someone driving through a crowd on purpose, or homeowners insurance won't cover you building a bomb in your house and taking out all the other houses on your block.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Could ban sales of all firearms except flintlocks and muskets. Original understanding of the Constitution and all of that.
I assume that would only ban the sale, though, and not the possession. Like, you couldnt buy one in California but you could get it in Arizona and take it home. Interstate commerce and all.
Less pie in the sky would be a ballot initiative to require all firearms to be registered, with fee and serial number and insurance, and a felony conviction with a mandatory minimum of at least a year for the first violation.
A state could also theoretically require anyone transporting firearms through the state to register them when they enter and when they leave. They can do it with fruit in passenger cars and lots of trucking regulations/fees from state to state.
We could, without a ballot initiative and at least in SOME state legislatures, raise the in loco parentis age to 18. If a child got her hands on an unsecured firearm, gun owners would be held to the same criminal punishment as the person holding the gun. If you dont want to keep your guns in a gun safe because you taught Little Bobby all about gun safety since he was two years old, and Little Bobby gets depressed and kills himself? Fuck you. Your carelessness led to Little Bobbys murder, and now you and your spouse are doing 25 to life for second degree murder and your other kids are in an orphanage where theyre obviously better off because youre too irresponsible to keep the guns in a safe. Once that happens a few times, people will either buy and use gun safes or get rid of their guns.
A liberal legislature really could do what that Twitter meme suggested: get a psychiatrists examination for each and every gun purchase and make people spend eight hours looking at pictures of people who thought it was unloaded or who lost their loved one at a country music concert while on the vacation of a (too short) lifetime.
Im still pretty pissed.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)"in common use for lawful purposes" is the phrase to search for.
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)We repealed the 18th with the 24th.
samir.g
(835 posts)It needs to happen.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Rights aren't granted by the bill of rights, so repealing amendments doesn't make them go away.
No, if you repealed the second amendment, the right would become an unenumerated right protected by the ninth amendment, as well as protected explicitly by various state constitutions.
The bill of rights is not a 'the people can' document, it's a 'the government can't' document. (see the preamble.)
Nitram
(22,813 posts)A test required, a license required, and liability insurance required. Insurance would be very expensive for those who did not keep guns in a safe or disabled with a lock of some kind. Inspections of guns on a yearly basis. If it is not an undue burden on drivers, why should it be on gun owners? By the way, I'm a gun owner with a gun safe.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Nitram
(22,813 posts)to collect huge arsenals of weapons. A lot of gun owners in rural areas don't have much extra cash.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Your stated purpose is to add expenses to make it a hassle to exercise a right.
That would be slapped down by the courts in a hurry.
Just like a poll tax. Or he'll, look at voter ID laws. We have had them slapped down by he courts if it costs money to get the ID. The same principles would apply to your idea given your stated purpose.
Nitram
(22,813 posts)Don't worry, I'll only share my true motivation in private.
MichMan
(11,936 posts)Can you show me where that is?
Nitram
(22,813 posts)The fact that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of a member of a well-regulated militia to bear arms has nothing to do with laws passed for public safety and the common good. That was commonly accepted until the 70s, when the NRA started to market a new interpretation of the amendment. Guns were always banned in bars, for example, and everybody, the courts included, accepted that as obvious common sense.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I usually consider Ron Insana a right wing, Wall Street shill, but here is a quote from an article he wrote yesterday.
The time for polite debate on gun control is over --
"Gun-makers, as tobacco companies have been, should be held accountable, and legally liable, for the mass casualties that their products are responsible for, with severe penalties, class action lawsuits and other disincentives awaiting them at every turn."
"The NRA, touting Second Amendment rights, not only through TV ads but also through enormous contributions to congressional and presidential campaigns alike, has prevented even the most sensible reforms from passing as laws, as the New York Times has outlined."
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/the-time-for-polite-debate-on-gun-control-is-over.html
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)I could provide a link if you want to see how inexpensive it is. It would be much cheaper if it was mandatory as many more people would be paying into the pool.
It should come as no surprise that the policies do not cover criminal acts. Also, again unsurprisingly, a discount is offered to members of a certain national association about rifles.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Oh, I know why. Because it's simple sounding and they don't have a clue about the reality behind hit.
Fact- gun owners liability insurance already exists and it's amazingly cheap. If you mandate it and suddenly 100x more people are buying it the price will just go down. It's cheap because it's actually very rare, statistically, that they have to pay off compared to a product like auto insurance.
Fact- the largest seller of firearms insurance is the NRA. And NRA members get it cheaper.so if you force people to buy insurance and only half the gun owners in America get it trough the NRA you just swelled their paying memebership from around 4 million (if you believe their numbers) to 50 million who also buy insurance to. Want to talk about making them way stronger, that would be their wet dream.
So what would you actually accomplish?
Criminals won't buy the insurance anyway, so nothing they do will be covered.
People who do buy it and commit criminal acts still worn be covered, insurance does pay for criminal behavior.
So you would only see if pu off in cases of actual accidents. That is about 1% of firearms injuries.
So you piss off 1/3 of the country by forcing a new expense on them, make the NRA 10x as large and rich as it is now, don't do a single thing to reduce misuse of firearms or criminal use of firearms, and all that for something that will "pay out" for less than 1% of firearms injuries.
LexVegas
(6,067 posts)Nitram
(22,813 posts)a test before a license is granted, annual safety inspections (with a charge of course), and a registration requirement. If it is reasonable for car ownership, it is reasonable for gun ownership. Car ownership is actually a necessity for many. Gun ownership is not.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)responsible gun owners. You and the other stonewallers are not part of that group.
There are a lot in law enforcement opposed to lax gun laws. What happened to you?
RainCaster
(10,884 posts)1. They must be illegal without a special permit that requires a background check and annual renewal. Canceled for life and weapons forfeit with any domestic violence conviction, even a misdemeanor.
2. Without the permit it's a mandatory 15 years hard time to possess. Felony. Lose all gun ownership rights for life.
3. Automatic redefined to take out all the bullshit weasel clauses that the NRA loves so much.
4. Manufacturers liability not shielded for any weapon converted to automatic by any means.
5. This must be federal law, not some half assed patchwork of state laws that the NRA enjoys currently.