As lawmakers in Connecticut and at least five other states consider legislation that would require gun owners to purchase insurance for their weapons, few insurance companies are jumping at the chance to offer additional policies.
Following the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, state Sen. Beth Bye and state Rep. Bob Godfrey introduced a bill in January that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Gun-rights supporters say making insurance mandatory would infringe on law-abiding citizens”™ Second Amendment rights. But as the bill moves forward, legislators are figuring out the details of how the law would work and preparing for upcoming hearings.
“This is new to Connecticut so I”™m on a learning curve, the same as my colleagues,” Godfrey said. “We”™re interested to see what the public hearing will bring out and additional examples of how it will be used.”
Godfrey said the idea behind gun liability insurance is similar to laws requiring car insurance, adding that the insurance could cover medical and legal expenses stemming from a shooting.
The question of whether insurance would cover costs due to an intentional shooting has yet to be determined, but such a requirement could protect shooting victims and encourage responsible gun ownership, Godfrey said.
Lawmakers in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania have also proposed similar measures this year. Godfrey said Connecticut”™s bill is largely based off of a similar measure proposed in Massachusetts.
Among the Connecticut insurers that have opted to create gun liability policies is Paradiso Insurance, with offices in Stafford Springs and North Windham.
“Paradiso Insurance doesn”™t take a political stance when it comes to gun laws or gun control, but the agency can help gun owners in Connecticut find an insurance policy with the right amount of coverage,” the company said in a March 7 statement.
Paradiso offers a range of individual and business insurance policies, including home, auto, renters, flood and vehicle insurance, and general liability, commercial property and employment practices liability insurance for businesses.
“The purpose of this law would be to ensure safe and responsible behavior when it comes to gun ownership,” the company said. “It is also believed that if insurance companies got involved in gun safety, this could help prevent gun tragedies.”
Paradiso representatives could not be reached for comment.
Only 50 percent of Connecticut voters support mandatory gun insurance, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, whereas 93 percent of respondents support universal background checks.
Among those surveyed by Quinnipiac who are gun owners, 71 percent said they were opposed mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.
In Connecticut, homeowner”™s insurance policies can provide liability coverage for gun accidents, but few insurance providers offer liability policies that exclusively apply to gun ownership.
In an infamous case, Florida resident George Zimmerman is facing a second-degree murder charge in the death of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, who was released on a $1 million bond and is currently awaiting trial, has said he used his gun in self defense, according to court documents.
Zimmerman”™s attorney has publicly encouraged gun owners to seek insurance coverage.
Like car insurance, premiums would likely be determined by calculations of risk and consumers with a poor record could be denied coverage, though they probably wouldn”™t be able to purchase a gun in the first place, Godfrey said.
Some companies, such as Paradiso, would also likely offer premium discounts on policies for gun locks, proper training and safes, which would encourage positive behavior.
Another proposal that not only will do absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime, but worse is an attack on the rights and safety of all citizens.
The vast majority of deaths involving firearms is from inner city gang violence. The 100 million legal gun owners in this country are not the problem. So how will forcing these law abiding citizens to have firearms insurance possibly reduce violent crime? Furthermore, it is imposing a financial penalty on innocent people for the actions of the lawless.
What the anti-Second Amendment groups never acknowledge is that study after study shows that where citizens are armed, there is less crime. More than 2 million times a year a citizen prevents a crime with a legally owned firearm. Because they are less able to defend themselves against attack, women and the elderly are preferred targets for criminals. It should not be made more difficult for them to own firearms for self-protection.
Forcing innocent people to buy firearms insurance to pay for actions of criminals is an outrage.
Asking gun owners to comprehend the enormous responsibility and serious potential consequences of gun ownership is not “anti-second amendment”. Insurance is a novel and powerful means to ensure that gun owners properly store / secure their firearms, that they obtain adequate training for the use of these weapons, and that they do not sell their AR-15s out of the trunk of their pick-up trucks (no offense to law-abiding pick-up truck owners who also need to purchase liability insurance as a mandatory obligation for the right to operate a motor vehicle).