Nope.
By collecting on a bet made by an insurance company, using the services of an actuary, that it wouldn’t happen.
As I said, I’m not coming down in favor of the scheme. But one inaccurate and loaded characterization of the outcome is as good as another.
So I have to pay premiums on an insurance policy that pays out to someone else based on what yet another person does to them? Where do I come in to this, and why am I being charged?
I am not opposed to gun control, and frankly, I view the second amendment as an obsolete artifact of a bygone age. The concept of an armed, at-ready militia as a counter to a standing federal army has not been relevant in many generations.
However, the 2nd is still part of that pesky piece of paper called the Bill of Rights, and whether I like it or not doesn’t really matter.
So I think this is a chickensh*t, calculated political effort to make an end-run around the anticipated fallout from DC v. Heller, which IMO was a Constitutionally sound decision. And since the insurance industry serves as the primary beneficiary of such legislation, I’m eve more opposed.
Yes but those who don’t own a gun probably have drain cleaner, 5 gallon buckets, hair dryers near the bath tubs, big knives, little knives, box cutters, you name it. Why the distinction? I mean in 2001 alone the humble box cutter was responsible for at least 3000+ deaths.
I’m still waiting for a reply to my question. If someone steals my car and kills a nun with it, before I report it to the police as stolen, am I liable?
(A note: There certainly can be minor damage done by a gun. Say, shooting up a car. Vandalism.)
I don’t think there’s any question about the matter. It’s certainly an effort to make an end-run around Heller.
No, you wouldn’t generally be liable. But what does that show, exactly? At best, you could show legislative hypocrisy if stolen cars caused as much havoc as stolen guns, but they don’t.
I actually think JXJohn’s argument is a much better test of hypocrisy, since accidental poisonings are actually a problem comparable to that of firearm accidents.
That’s just false. I suggest you read Heller. It is very clear in saying that many gun regulations will continue to be constitutional and is very clear in not deciding whether it applies to state gun regulations.
Don’t ask me. Let’s review:
Let me emphasize that “not”:
There, that oughta do it.
Is it possible to keep the debate on the level of “good public policy idea v. bad public policy idea”, rather than “patriots v. tyrants”?
All right. I’m not asking you.
The question still stands, though, for anyone who supports this bill. Do you support charging law-abiding citizens money to pay for crimes committed by other people against other people?
If Illinois is so strapped for cash they need more money to keep the justice system running, they have my support to raise taxes to do so. If the victims of a crime can’t get restitution from the criminal, because he has no money, the victim has my sympathy.
But I will not pay a monthly premium to support the victims of a gun crime I had no part in, simply because I own a tool that scares people. If gun crime victims are so hard up, they should be the ones buying insurance.
Ahem. Cite that stolen cars cause less havoc than stolen guns? I will accept comparative death rates per 1000 stolen, say, and then the absolute number stolen should show it for us. I suspect stolen cars result in much more death than stolen guns.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/02/01/2009-02-01_drunken_joy_ride_in_queens_in_stolen_car.html
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x426334095/Body-of-missing-man-found-in-crashed-car-in-Ledyard
C’mon, this is this month alone, and local to me, without looking hard.
Bulldada, Richard. I know that Chicago has a strict gun control policy that is likely to be ruled illegal. It is not sure, but it is likely. Do you know anything about gun laws in Chicago? It is my opinion that this is one potential way to try to create a backup law in case the existing law is struck down.
And if I’m not liable, then why does my insurance need to cover a gun that was stolen?
Let’s make this a simple single post. Does anyone know of any law or rule that states someone is liable if a stolen object is used in the commission of a crime? And I’m talking a honestly stolen object, not a ‘Oh, someone musta stole it… wink wink’ false flag purchase.
If not, why is this insurance of any use to anyone?
Of course there is a difference in degree, but the concept of basic responsibility doesn’t change. How can I possibly control the actions of someone after they have illegally taken my property?
Serious question: If someone steals my car and then crashes drunk into a crowded shopping mall, does my insurance pay/is my insurance responsible for the damage? Could I even buy a policy that covered this if I wanted?
*I understand that the policy will pay for the damage to my car, I’m talking about the damage to the people/shopping mall.
So, under this law, we are deciding that ONLY for guns, to the exclusion of all other property, that the owner will be responsible for securing an insurance policy that isn’t even offered, and will be responsible for the use of his STOLEN guns even if no negligence is shown on his part? We will single out guns, but this isn’t to be viewed as anti-gun?
No such statistic exists, as far as I can tell. My statement was that the majority of stolen cars are used for joyriding, not to commit other crimes. I don’t recall where I read that, so feel free to be skeptical.
Unresponsive. You said “I don’t think there’s any question about the matter. It’s certainly an effort to make an end-run around Heller.” (emphasis mine). Even converting this to “likely,” it is still false.
It is a fact that Heller states neither the standard of review for gun laws nor whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Note my post on standards at the bottom of the first page to demonstrate why there is such great uncertainty when we don’t even know the standard. Your statement of likelihood is misinformed.
No, that isn’t what is required. The owner is only responsible for unreported stolen guns.
As someone with experience with stolen cars, I can tell you that a surprising amount of the joyrides wind up with a death. At the very least, said car is lit on fire so the cops can’t get fingerprints. Welcome to life in the big city.
(Used to get two wrecks a week on average outside the facility I work for. Got to love working on Martin Luther King. Chris Rock is right about it.)
It’s an effort to make an end run around a likely outcome of Heller, if and when the lawsuits against the City of Chicago hit a judge.
(Random google link to point out the existing lawsuits and situation.)
Is the owner responsible for unreported stolen guns, Richard? Is he? I’d like a cite that he is. I’m not aware of any situation in which a legitimately stolen object leads to legal lability.
I’d like to give you some perspective on the matter, in regards to cars.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DC133CF935A25752C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Got any stories suggesting it is common for stolen guns to cause deaths in numbers greater than, say, double digits?
Yes, that would be one point of the bill, to require the owner to buy insurance to cover people injured by his unreported stolen guns.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2008/07/31/first-month-update/#more-152
The specific case I’m thinking about. There’s also a NRA case, if I’m not mistaken.
Richard, the insurance would be required, yes, but is the owner liable? I’d like to see evidence that he is. That law does not make him liable, it just makes him buy insurance.
I’m not sure what you intend to be proving with the citations about lawsuits being filed. My point is that this is all being decided now, and that your statements about the likely ultimate outcomes are misinformed.
As to liability, I don’t know the law in Chicago. I would guess that an owner is not now legally liable for harm caused by an unreported stolen gun. But I don’t actually know that. Is there some reason that prevents one from having an insurance policy which will pay out to such victims? In a car accident, do you have to prove legal liability before the auto insurance company pays out?
I can’t find any legal basis for assigning responsibility to the owner of a stolen object used in a crime, provided he was not criminally negligent. One is not responsible for stolen credit cards or stolen cars used in a crime.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the law. I am possibly in error, but I don’t think I am.
Yes, actually, Richard, if you’re not responsible, why do you need insurance? The insurance only pays out if you’re responsible, that’s what insurance does. It’s there to protect the holder of the insurance from liability. And yes, Richard, that’s why there’s ‘fault’ in insurance. Now, there are no-fault sorts of insurance where it pays out no matter who’s at fault, but the holder was involved in the accident. That’s how insurance works. In this case, the holder could be 10 states away, 100 years back in time, and have no connection whatsoever.
My point, Richard, is that this bit of legislation is apparently being proposed in case the Heller-spawned cases win, as a new and different sort of gun control that might or might not be affected by Heller. Eg, as a reaction to Heller.