I’m a “gun type”. I am (I guess) pro-2nd Amendment. I believe people should generally be trusted until they sho they can not be trusted … freedom vs “future crime”.
HOWEVER!
I also believe in sensible and consistent regulation and background checks.
These checks should not be relegated to the states, they should be federal, so they are consistent, and the information won’t stop at the state line. Also we already have enough of a clusterfuck, with each state having different laws, and even individual cities sticking their noses in - some states and cities have almost no limitations, some cities damn near outlaw ownership (as much as they can get away with).
The information should answer some basic questions such as:
[ol]
[li]Does this guy have a documented (not gossip, but documented) history of violence[/li][li]Has he ever been convicted of a felony[/li][li]Is he just too damn crazy[/li][/ol]
That sort of inquiry.
Some people should never own anything more dangerous than a pacifier. Those people need to be identified and restricted. But, the freedoms and rights of all the other people must not be decided or limited because of the actions of the assholes out there.
I think you mean “employment at will” state. But that’s not what it means, in any event. It means an employer does not require reasonable cause or just cause to fire you.
But my point was that this thread is about Florida’s legislative policy on firearms, not about Oklahoma or employment at will. Of course, even in a state that requires cause for termination, not showing up for work is adequate grounds.
I noticed this in that article: “The law — the first of its kind in the country — also prohibits insurers from discriminating against gun owners, an element of the statute that was not challenged”
What does that mean? Insurers can’t charge more for homeowners insurance if there is a gun in the house?
So while you may not have any guns, you can rest soundly knowing that your neighbor with 400 of them (and all the ammo they use) also has homeowner’s insurance, and it cost about the same as yours.
Well, to be fair, the NPA (National Pool Association) doesn’t have near the clout that the NRA does. And I blame the Founding Fathers for not including Amendment 2A.3(b) which would have acknowledged every citizen’s right to swim.
This is as good a place as any, rather than giving it its own stupid thread…Florida gets an unreasonable amount of guff.
They voted Obama in 2012. They nearly voted blue in 2000, and 2016. Had Obama not normalized relations with Cuba, i posit they would have gone blue in 2016.
God knows there are other states with a much longer history of voting red and by a much greater pct than Florida.
Actually, homeowners’ insurers are more or less the only ones allowed to charge more if there is a gun in the house.
Chapter 627 governs all types of insurance written in Florida, from health insurance through personal auto and liability insurance to commercial reinsurance policies. It will primarily apply to commercial liability insurers since they are the only ones who ask about this sort of thing.
Oddly, this appears (along with the now-defunct prohibition on doctors asking about guns) in the statute chapter that covers crimes, even though the law doesn’t make anything a crime.
From reading that, it looks like they can charge more simply by using the value of the gun. Not the amount of danger having a gun having a gun in the house may increase.
Is that how the insurance increase for swimming pools work? Do they simply increase the insurance based on the value of the pool?
No, they charge more for homes with pools because of the increased liability exposure (though there is also a small but measurable increase in premium costs based on the additional assessed value). They can no longer do that in the case of gun-owning homes.
