# Illinois wants Gun ID with $1 M of Insurance **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012 "2009-02-23T04:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/21 "2009-02-24T00:11:54Z")
Many law enforcement agencies have commented on the need for more accurate reporting of stolen guns. There are lots of reasons for this. For one, a stolen gun isn’t going to be tracked down if it isn’t reported. But if it is, like all stolen property, there’s a chance the police investigation will lead them to the robber (and the gun). Also, if a gun can be traced back to a home robbery, that’s potentially another crime with which to charge the people arrested with illegal guns. Finally, an incentive to immediately report theft is also an incentive to prevent theft, since it means keeping close eye on one’s guns, and keeping them in a safe place. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/22 "2009-02-24T00:30:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This law would seem to provide significant incentives to secure guns, and to report them if stolen. So that would be another source of justification. Bollocks. The ‘stolen gun’ phenomenon is meant to disguise improper sales or transfers from an undiscovered bad guy to a bad guy we know about. Fortunately, or at least hopefully, the legislative lightweight that wrote this drivel didn’t do a complete job. My sense is that this amendment will die in rules where all bad bills go to die. I’m not opposed to the idea of adding “gun insurance” riders to existing policies, but very rarely has one stolen gun done a million dollars worth of damage. Further, it will be costly to enforce when the cost of enforcement is already high and it won’t stop the people who are already violating the law. Nor does it address with any sort of vigor the traveling person who’s home was broken into and gun stolen and a crime committed without his knowledge. This is a lottery ticket for victims of gun violence to reclaim money for their losses that all insurance customers will end up paying for. A bad idea with a weak execution from a guy who’s last legislative action was to draft a resolution that [QUOTE=Kenneth Dunkin] “Honors Nickolas Ashford and Valerie Simpson for their many years of success as the musical duo Ashford & Simpson.” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/23 "2009-02-24T00:39:11Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > The ‘stolen gun’ phenomenon is meant to disguise improper sales or transfers from an undiscovered bad guy to a bad guy we know about. Uh, what? I don’t understand your point here. > [@buttonjockey308](#): > > …but very rarely has one stolen gun done a million dollars worth of damage. This is false. As noted above, most gun crimes involve stolen guns, including homicide. Wrongful death suits exceed one million dollars on average. Therefore it is not particularly rare for stolen gun to cause a million dollars worth of damage. > [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Further, it will be costly to enforce when the cost of enforcement is already high and it won’t stop the people who are already violating the law. It incentivizes people to protect their guns, and report them when stolen (in addition to actually insuring against the frequent occurrence of accidental deaths). ---
**Author:** ![Bag\_of\_Mostly\_Water](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bag_of_mostly_water/32/1029_2.png) [@Bag\_of\_Mostly\_Water](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bag_of_Mostly_Water)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/24 "2009-02-24T00:46:33Z")
By way of comparison, a $1M liability umbrella rider on home owners insurance is typically a few hundred dollars per year. I am not an insurance adjuster, but I could see the cost of a $1M firearm policy being $500 to $1,000 per year. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/25 "2009-02-24T01:31:48Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I’m not opposed to the idea of adding “gun insurance” riders to existing policies, but very rarely has one stolen gun done a million dollars worth of damage. What I see in this is a fat lot of $1,000,000 insurance targets for LAWYERS to go gunning after if a stolen gun is ultimately used to injure or kill someone. “Hey, we can sue the guy they stole the gun from. He’s got a fat insurance policy!” Bad Idea. Bad bad bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/26 "2009-02-24T01:43:46Z")
> [@Ex\_Chemist](#): > > By way of comparison, a $1M liability umbrella rider on home owners insurance is typically a few hundred dollars per year. I am not an insurance adjuster, but I could see the cost of a $1M firearm policy being $500 to $1,000 per year. If you have five guns… that’s a lot of money. Why, it doesn’t cost that much to vote! ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/27 "2009-02-24T01:45:59Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No, the mechanism here is to create incentives. Assuming a properly-functioning insurance market, owners who present less risk of failing to report stolen guns will have to pay less for insurance (i.e. secure their guns better, report them when stolen, etc.). > > In order to avoid liability, the owner simply needs to secure and keep track of his guns and report stolen guns missing. That doesn’t strike me as a very large burden considering the social impact of stolen guns. Seconded. I’m not at all troubled by the concept of a state choosing to create incentives that favor careful gun ownership, or that gun owners ought to be required to carry a reasonable amount of liability insurance. That being said, a million sounds like much too much–it’s almost certainly more than the state requires on a car for third-party liability (anyone from IL have the number?)–and that seems backwards to me. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/28 "2009-02-24T02:32:58Z")
Be interesting to know if it would pass constitutional muster to place an undue financial burden on the poor who wish to arm themselves with firearms. I’m not so sure it would. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/29 "2009-02-24T02:40:01Z")
I wouldn’t object to required gun insurance if the premiums were reasonable. But when you’re talking about anywhere from 10% to 100% of the value of each gun per year as a perpetual tribute for the privilege of owning a gun, then it becomes a sophistry intended to eliminate legal gun ownership. (Like the $200 NFA tax, which back in the 30’s was something like 1000% of the value of a sawed-off shotgun, even though the government swore blue in the face that it was merely a revenue-generating device. :dubious: ) I was curious how many “stolen” guns really were stolen, and how many illicitly hidden or transferred? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/30 "2009-02-24T07:13:44Z")
> [@Ex\_Chemist](#): > > By way of comparison, a $1M liability umbrella rider on home owners insurance is typically a few hundred dollars per year. I am not an insurance adjuster, but I could see the cost of a $1M firearm policy being $500 to $1,000 per year. For an ordinary law-abiding citizen, sure. I suspect the insurance companies will set higher premiums for violent ex-cons. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/31 "2009-02-24T12:05:04Z")
Try 700% of the value of the gun. Again, my Mossberg cost $60. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/32 "2009-02-24T12:09:36Z")
Which means that one side effect of such a law is that people would start buying more expensive guns. After all, if they’re going to shell out $750 a year for insurance, what’s another $300 for a decent weapon? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/33 "2009-02-24T14:08:03Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Does IL have a problem with legal gun owners doing one million dollars worth of damage in their communities? > > My guess is that they don’t, and as such, I can see no possible reason for this law other than to do discourage gun ownership by people who can least afford it.. Hospitalization and lifelong care for an injury caused by a gun could easily reach $1M. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/34 "2009-02-24T14:37:30Z")
The difference between requiring insurance for automobiles and firearms is that there is no Constitutionally protected right to bear cars. That could be a sticking point. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/35 "2009-02-24T14:56:49Z")
Here’s a novel idea: How about we punish criminals instead of law-abiding citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/36 "2009-02-24T15:00:30Z")
I dunno. Is it criminal negligence to misplace a weapon? Or not report one that’s been stolen? As for the car insurance/gun insurance issue and mentions in the constitution… All debates making these sorts of comparisons run into that fact sooner or later. Cars simply aren’t mentioned in the constitution and guns are. Or at least ‘arms’ are. Be cautious, also, in this discussion of throwing around the $500-$1000 number. I see it mentioned several times upthread but near as I can tell that officially counts as a ‘pulled out of our collective ass’ number. As I said earlier, I’d be interested to see what price a team of professional actuaries would place on this form of insurance. 1. I discount the idea that $1MM is too high. Hospital costs alone could chew that up pretty quickly. Plus if there’s a death involved you get into crazy stuff like ‘lost future earnings’ and that sort of thing. 2. I disagree with having a separate policy for each gun. An owner should be able to get a set policy for themselves based on their statistical profile and past behavior. ‘Lose’ a gun or have one ‘stolen’ and watch the damn thing quintuple, for all of me. NOT losing them is part of responsible ownership, in my opinion. 3. I can see this getting through constitutional muster providing the courts didn’t think it placed an undue burden on gun ownership. But that would still be the most likely challenge in the courts. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/37 "2009-02-24T15:05:57Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I dunno. Is it criminal negligence to misplace a weapon? Or not report one that’s been stolen? I don’t think so. But isn’t that the point of requiring an insurance policy that pays out to the victim in the event that someone is shot using your unreported gun? (I don’t actually know the answer. Can insurance be set up in that way?) > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > I can see this getting through constitutional muster providing the courts didn’t think it placed an undue burden on gun ownership. But that would still be the most likely challenge in the courts. Why do you think the test would be undue burden? I don’t necessarily disagree, but that seems like one possibility out of several. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/38 "2009-02-24T15:07:51Z")
In my opinion, and IANACS, the insurance process admits of potential for undue burder through excessive cost. It would be easy to attack it on some sort of reasonable cost vs excessive cost basis. There could be other attacks, sure, but I think that’s the most likely one to get play. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/39 "2009-02-24T15:16:49Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I was curious how many “stolen” guns really were stolen, and how many illicitly hidden or transferred? What constitutes an illicit transfer to you? Keep in mind that while I own several guns, records only exist that show that I purchased two in my lifetime. All of this is perfectly legal, or at least it was at the time of the transfers. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012/40 "2009-02-24T15:25:31Z")
What I’m saying is that there are a number of distinct constitutional tests that could be applied to the Second Amendment. _Heller_ doesn’t make clear which one applies. To consider a few of the possibilities: Strict Scrutiny–would probably be fatal to such a law unless IL could show both that there is a compelling need for this insurance and that the amount is carefully calibrated. But there’s reason to think that the test isn’t strict scrutiny because of the various laws that Scalia said would survive whatever the test is, and because lower courts have mostly interpreted Heller as applyng something less than strict scrutiny. Intermediate Scrutiny–I think the law might survive this one. IL can almost certainly identify some important governmental need, and the insurance scheme likely substantially relates to that need. Under this test, the insurance need not be as minimally burdensome as possible. This test gets used mostly in the sex discrimination context, but it has also been applied to some free speech cases. It seems like an unlikely candidate unless the Court gets serious about having a real standard and not just making it up as they go. Undue Burden–may or may not be fatal to the law depending on how much this law will cost the average careful gun owner. This one seems sorta likely because it has been used in a number of places where the court doesn’t really know what to do (abortion, affirmative action, etc.). So that suggests that guns might fall into that category. It is sort of a meaningless standard though, that is just a way to hide the fact that the court is performing a bit of ad hoc balancing. Ad Hoc Balancing–A court could pretty much uphold or strike down any law it wants using ad hoc balancing. This would allow the judges to balance whatever factors they want. As you suggested, perhaps excessive cost vs. necessity of gun ownership, or value of the right vs. impact of the burden, or benefit to safety vs. cost to safety (because of lack of guns for self-defense). Enumerated Balancing–The court could craft a set balancing test with certain factors to consider (e.g. (1) burden on self-defense aspect of right; (2) public safety interest in law). How the IL law would fair would depend on the specific factors enumerated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-wants-gun-id-with-1-m-of-insurance/487012.md?page=3)