Jump to content
Cemeterys Gun Blob

NJ A6003 - Require Insurance for Firearms ownership

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Engineers, doctors, architects require insurance when working publicly in that field. They don’t need insurance just because they have the degree. 

for cars:  doesn’t matter how many take advantage of that use-case. It exists. 

for aircraft:  I can’t speak to that. From what I can tell it varies by state and covers commercial use and isn’t always required for private ownership. 

@voyager9

Your argument stated above, makes no sense in this case.....  The corollary to your argument is that you can buy a car but if you don't drive it then you do not need to buy and maintain liability insurance for it.  Not that many people buy cars and do not drive them.  Those who have multiple cars, including old cars, may not drive them, but if they want to legally drive them on public roads then they must also be currently registered, which means that they are also required to have liability insurance, even if they drop the collision coverage to save money.

Regarding the professions, once one obtains the necessary academic degree, along with meeting the minimum time requirement working in their respective profession of medicine, law, architecture or engineering, they are then eligible to take their respective State's licensing exam.  They must successfully pass that exam in its entirety, which tests for minimum competency in various parts of their field, before they will be granted that license/registration to legally practice their profession in that state.  While some people go to college/university and earn a degree in medicine, architecture or engineering and end up not practicing, they are in the minority and not part of the greater point that these professionals need to obtain and maintain professional liability insurance in order to practice their trade/profession, privately or publicly, where it involves and/or may impact the life safety and health of other people.  

Yes, an exemption for farm vehicles may be appropriate, but it is a fraction of 1% of all vehicles in the state of NJ and hence a non-factor.

Regarding general aviation (GA) liability insurance for private plane ownership, it does vary from state to state with approx. ten (10) states requiring it.  Annual premiums for GA liability insurance vary depending on the type of aircraft insured and a pilot’s experience. In NJ, an annual premium for aircraft owners and operators for a common 4-seat Cessna 172 aircraft can range from $300 to $600 for a policy that provides $1 million in coverage per accident, with a limit of $100,000 for each accident victim

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@voyager9

Your argument stated above, makes no sense in this case.....  The corollary to your argument is that you can buy a car but if you don't drive it then you do not need to buy and maintain liability insurance for it. 

That’s exactly how it works. You don’t need insurance for your car unless you want to drive it on public roads. Farm/private land or just sitting in storage, no insurance needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

That’s exactly how it works. You don’t need insurance for your car unless you want to drive it on public roads. Farm/private land or just sitting in storage, no insurance needed. 

The requirement to maintain liability insurance on your auto is mandated on a state-by-state basis.  Not all states require you to have liability coverage on your vehicles.  Where is it required, the necessary limits vary by state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

I recognize and understand that no law is going to eliminate a criminal or a deranged individual who is really intent on obtaining some type of gun and committing crimes, murders or mass-murders.  But I do not believe that we as a civilized society, should do nothing and just accept that the steadily increasing gun-related violence and crime, is the "price" for our freedom.  We should not let the mounting number of deaths that are gun-related continue without attempting to address it, that truly is in ALL of the public's best interest. 

The first sentence of that paragraph sums things up... and sort of undermines your following argument, IMO. Targeted community-based crime-fighting solutions, better funding of police gang units, and any number of other ideas that actually target those who commit crime (better still, that prevent them from taking that path in the first place) make far more sense than punishing legal gun owners. And if you put your "woke" cap on (and recognized your own "white male privilege" for just a sec, dammit!), you'll see that measures like this would just heap on more fees and thus disproportionately impact lower-income folks (many of whom also live in dangerous neighborhoods with high crime rates). Does that sound fair to you? 

But, the 2nd and 3rd sentences (sections in boldface) totally obliterates your argument.. because violent crime, gun crime and firearm deaths have NOT been steadily increasing! And you've been on these forums long enough to know it's quite the opposite. We have been on fairly steady downward trajectory since the 90's - and are at near 30 year lows in violent crime. Facts are important. 

This article outlines some credible sources. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-gun-crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke/  It was published in 2015... but there have been no dramatic swings in the trends since then. So, why do you (and so many others!) still believe and vocalize that we're in the midst of a "gun violence epidemic"? Well, look no further than the "coverage" by the media and well-organized activists funded by zealots like Bloomberg.

I truly believe that if the MSM started to cover ANY topic - fatal lightning strikes, for example - with the same regularity and fervent hysteria as they cover gun homicides, I'm sure most of the public would see all of those news stories  and actually think: Wow! Lightning strikes must be on the increase. Why is this happening? What can we do? The ability of media to "shape" anecdotal evidence and present it as "reality" is pretty staggering. Don't fall for it.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 9:39 PM, Kevin125 said:

it will amount to a registry.

Federal form 4473 is a registry.

NJ permit to purchase, is a registry.

It's 2019, almost 2020, in NJ, best get with the times as a gun owner in this state, cause you are well behind the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

I recognize and understand that no law is going to eliminate a criminal or a deranged individual who is really intent on obtaining some type of gun and committing crimes, murders or mass-murders.  But I do not believe that we as a civilized society, should do nothing and just accept that the steadily increasing gun-related violence and crime, is the "price" for our freedom.  We should not let the mounting number of deaths that are gun-related continue without attempting to address it, that truly is in ALL of the public's best interest. 

AVB-AMG

Never would I have thought I would see the day that a fellow gun owner would support a law, that once again, does NOTHING to prevent gun related crimes.  Yet here we are.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it is certainly prudent to want to protect one's property and possessions, there seems to me to be one glaring omission that makes the entire argument moot. Owning/driving an automobile or having a job is a privilege. Owning a firearm is an inalienable right, or at least started off that way a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cemeterys Gun Blob said:

Never would I have thought I would see the day that a fellow gun owner would support a law, that once again, does NOTHING to prevent gun related crimes.  Yet here we are.

Picture a man with the twisted mind of a Democratic socialist, picture the mind of AVB-AMG.......Welcome to the Twilight Zone!

images.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AVB-AMG your legal opinions and reasoning in your multiple posts are flawed on so many levels that I would need to write a book to respond. Suffice it to say, I disagree with you for some of the reasons already expressed by others.

11 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sniper said:

A criminal, by definition, doesn't follow CURRENT laws. Yet, you want to penalize law abiding citizens, and FORCE them to buy insurance. :facepalm:  :negative:

 

9 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

The first sentence of that paragraph sums things up... and sort of undermines your following argument, IMO. Targeted community-based crime-fighting solutions, better funding of police gang units, and any number of other ideas that actually target those who commit crime (better still, that prevent them from taking that path in the first place) make far more sense than punishing legal gun owners. And if you put your "woke" cap on (and recognized your own "white male privilege" for just a sec, dammit!), you'll see that measures like this would just heap on more fees and thus disproportionately impact lower-income folks (many of whom also live in dangerous neighborhoods with high crime rates). Does that sound fair to you? 

But, the 2nd and 3rd sentences (sections in boldface) totally obliterates your argument.. because violent crime, gun crime and firearm deaths have NOT been steadily increasing! And you've been on these forums long enough to know it's quite the opposite. We have been on fairly steady downward trajectory since the 90's - and are at near 30 year lows in violent crime. Facts are important. 

@Mrs. Peel & @Cemeterys Gun Blob:

Apparently, you both are missing the bigger picture of what liability insurance is for.  I never said, nor do I believe that requiring gun owners to have liability insurance would either prevent or reduce gun violence, let alone gun-related crimes.  What it would do is provide the “price to pay” to gun violence victims and/or their family as a form of restitution or a form of compensation for their injury or loss.  Of course, if the injury or death occurs as a result of the person committing a crime then the courts would relieve the insurance company from paying anything.  This proposed insurance basically accepts that our society is not really going to succeed in eliminating gun violence, but is a vehicle to attempt to address the results in a compassionate and meaningful manner.

Mrs. Peel:
You make a good point in my semantics, that my choice of words was flawed.  I should have omitted “steadily increasing”, as well as the word “mounting”.  By removing those, my point is clearer and valid.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sniper said:

A criminal, by definition, doesn't follow CURRENT laws. Yet, you want to penalize law abiding citizens, and FORCE them to buy insurance. :facepalm:  :negative:

 

8 hours ago, silverado427 said:

What are the insurance requirements for criminals.

@Sniper & @silverado427:

Criminals do not respect laws and this proposal is not geared towards them.  It is aimed at all of us legal gun owners to address the aftermath of unfortunate accidents involving our firearms.

If you use your firearm for self-defense, presumably inside your home in NJ, it could result in a very complicated and expensive legal ramifications, that liability insurance coverage may address, depending on how the law is written.

I am a law-abiding citizen and I buy and maintain insurance for my home, automobiles and personal property, in addition to general liability and professional E&O liability, not to mention my health/medical insurance.  So yes, I do not see a problem with requiring gun owners to have a minimum level of liability insurance.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 8:57 PM, bennj said:

Although it is certainly prudent to want to protect one's property and possessions, there seems to me to be one glaring omission that makes the entire argument moot. Owning/driving an automobile or having a job is a privilege. Owning a firearm is an inalienable right, or at least started off that way a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

@bennj:

I don’t know what planet you are on or from, but on Earth, in our country, owning/driving an automobile, let alone having a job, to work for a living, for the vast majority of us is not a privilege, but a real necessity…. 

- People, other than those who were born into a very wealthy family, need a job to earn an income to provide the necessities for themselves and their family.
- People, other than those who live close enough to their workplace where they can either walk, ride a bicycle or take public transportation, need a car for their essential transportation to their workplace, as well as for running errands, etc.. 

BTW, while our Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention "unalienable" rights.

FYI - More people own cars than guns, which I postulate is due to their choice based on necessity.  As you will see, less than one half of all American adults over the age of 18 who own an automobile, own a firearm.  I believe that in their minds, they have decided that they need cars more than they need guns, which is their choice.

This is how I arrived at those approximate numbers:

In the 1st Qtr. of 2019, there were approximately 276 million vehicle operating on public roads in the U.S. (see the following link)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/859950/vehicles-in-operation-by-quarter-united-states/

As of 2018, there are approximately 327 million people in the United States, of which approximately 78% are over the age of 18, or approx. 255 million people.

According to a 2014 Pew Research study, 88% of Americans own a car, or approximately 224 million people.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-and-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777/

According to a Gallup survey, at the end of the 3rd Qtr. of 2019, approximately 40% of Americans, own a gun, stored in their home or on their property. 
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

So, doing the math: 40% of 255 million American adults over the age of 18, is just over 102 million American adults who own guns, which is less than half the number of people who own cars.  Even taking into account individuals who may own 2 or more cars, the comparison is significant in that your so-called privilege vs. right argument does not matter to a vast majority of Americans who have decided that they need an automobile more than they need a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zeke said:

@AVB-AMG should those who can’t afford insurance be denied the right to defend themselves? 

@Zeke:

Seriously, if someone can afford to buy a gun and ammunition, then they can also in all likelihood also afford the annual cost of liability insurance....
If someone cannot afford the cost of liability insurance for a firearm then they would have the choice to use other tools to defend themselves, such as knives, bows/arrows, or other creative methods….   
Don't tell me that you are going all Bernie Sanders here and possibly advocating that we taxpayers should pay to provide every American citizen over the age of 18, a FREE firearm......?    ;)

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

Criminals do not respect laws and this proposal is not geared towards them.  It is aimed at all of us legal gun owners to address the aftermath of unfortunate accidents involving our firearms.

OK, I admit... I'm thoroughly confused!! Umm, AVB, do you realize that there's roughly 500 people a year in the U.S. who die of accidental shootings? And that experts estimate a few thousand more (at most) are injured in gun accidents? And yet, you're actually proposing that ALL 100 MILLION gun owners in this country should be forced to buy liability insurance (to possibly provide payment to perhaps a few thousand families)? It's not that I lack compassion for those families, of course, but legislation IMO should be restrained, reasonable and it should provide a solution proportionate to the problem. Your suggestion is NONE of that.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with gun owners choosing to buy liability insurance. But, based on the numbers, the real beneficiary of a mandatory program like the one you're suggesting would be: the insurance industry itself! (And possibly some local/state governments who would, no doubt, find a way to build their own additional fees onto the process, leeches that they are.) I'm sorry to say, AVB... you haven't thought this one through. Your intentions might be good... but remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@voyager9:

To answer your question above, most states require by law that all aircraft owner's purchase and maintain aviation liability insurance.
While not an "item", all of us professionals, including Doctors, Architects, Engineers, may be required by some states where we are licensed to purchase and maintain professional liability/indemnification insurance.  As an Architect, my specific insurance is referred to as "Errors and Omissions" (E&O) insurance.

Of course there would be an exception such as the use of dedicated farm vehicles used exclusively on private land, such as a farm, that stay on the farm property or even only use a public road temporarily for access to their farm properties.  But that is a very small number of vehicles which would be exempted in any reasonable law.

AVB-AMG

Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, none of these jobs are protected rights under the US Constitution. I have to maintain business insurance, it is not a constitutional right for me to own a business. Your argument is a false equivalence, and therefore invalid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Zeke:

Seriously, if someone can afford to buy a gun and ammunition, then they can also in all likelihood also afford the annual cost of liability insurance....
If someone cannot afford the cost of liability insurance for a firearm then they would have the choice to use other tools to defend themselves, such as knives, bows/arrows, or other creative methods

If you can’t afford to pay the poll tax you’ll have to find more creative ways to be represented. 
 

Thankfully our rights are not based on likelihoods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Zeke:

Seriously, if someone can afford to buy a gun and ammunition, then they can also in all likelihood also afford the annual cost of liability insurance....
If someone cannot afford the cost of liability insurance for a firearm then they would have the choice to use other tools to defend themselves, such as knives, bows/arrows, or other creative methods….   
Don't tell me that you are going all Bernie Sanders here and possibly advocating that we taxpayers should pay to provide every American citizen over the age of 18, a FREE firearm......?    ;)

AVB-AMG

Actually that’s a perfect use of these” buy back programs! Free people have the choice to exercise rights. Those that choose not to can help those in need that want to. The 2nd Goodwill store! I love it!

 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/aggravated-assault.xls
 

firearms account for only 26% as the tool used in 2018 for aggravated assault. I chose aggravated assault as it accounts as 66% of all violent crimes as of 2018.

so why are you for segregating a minority? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

Don't tell me that you are going all Bernie Sanders here and possibly advocating that we taxpayers should pay to provide every American citizen over the age of 18, a FREE firearm......?    ;)

Given all the other "free" crap the blue politicians hand out ... this idea is not all that crazy, especially since this is a constitutionally protected right.  Equally protected and cherished as free speech and the right to vote.  The constitution says nothing about health care, higher education, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

OK, I admit... I'm thoroughly confused!! Umm, AVB, do you realize that there's roughly 500 people a year in the U.S. who die of accidental shootings? And that experts estimate a few thousand more (at most) are injured in gun accidents? And yet, you're actually proposing that ALL 100 MILLION gun owners in this country should be forced to buy liability insurance (to possibly provide payment to perhaps a few thousand families)? It's not that I lack compassion for those families, of course, but legislation IMO should be restrained, reasonable and it should provide a solution proportionate to the problem. Your suggestion is NONE of that.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with gun owners choosing to buy liability insurance. But, based on the numbers, the real beneficiary of a mandatory program like the one you're suggesting would be: the insurance industry itself! (And possibly some local/state governments who would, no doubt, find a way to build their own additional fees onto the process, leeches that they are.) I'm sorry to say, AVB... you haven't thought this one through. Your intentions might be good... but remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

@Mrs. Peel:

Nuts... you found me out...   I was contemplating forming a liability insurance company for gun owners to make handsome profits...
Oh well....    Yes, good intentions, regardless of the number of people affected.  Time for me to hit the road for my next trip.....

AVB-AMG

road-to-hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, voyager9 said:

If you can’t afford to pay the poll tax you’ll have to find more creative ways to be represented. 

Thankfully our rights are not based on likelihoods. 

@voyager9:

....Such as moving out of state that has used a voter suppression strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging and/or preventing specific groups of people, (i.e. poor elderly blacks), from voting.  This has been and is still being done in many States through the use of gerrymandered voting districts, making it difficult for people to vote by reduced the number of polling stations and their hours of operation, as well as voter ID laws that have been struck down in the courts.

Your poll tax analogy is an "apples vs. oranges" argument since a poll tax is a blatant attempt at voter suppression, whereas the proposed gun owners liability insurance requirement proposal at least will benefit gun violence victims and/or their families, therefore, your analogy is not applicable to this proposal.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, father-of-three said:

I further question this State's mandation of lability insurance after they fined the company that has liability insurance for the NRA.  They want insurance, but only on their terms, which tells me it is not about safety.

@father-of-three:

It would be most appreciated if you could please cite when this occurred and the specifics of it, via a link to a news story. 
Thank you.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@father-of-three:

It would be most appreciated if you could please cite when this occurred and the specifics of it, via a link to a news story. 
Thank you.

AVB-AMG

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nj.com/news/2019/09/nj-fines-company-1m-for-backing-nra-insurance-program.html%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwicteSix7rmAhXQUt8KHVaMAmAQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0_LUKgDfugHX2annXx7R7d&ampcf=1

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@voyager9

Yes, the required liability insurance coverage would be for covering accidents involving firearms, similar to what standard liability insurance covers.

What is the point of owning an automobile if you cannot legally drive it on public roads.....???
As far as CCW is concerned, if it is ever passed nationally, then the liability insurance issue will be front and center.  Why not get the ball rolling now with this coverage for all gun owners?

AVB-AMG

What other "RIGHTS" should people need insurance for?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • 9.1 PERSONAL FINANCIAL LITERACY https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2014/career/91.pdf I do wonder how many schools properly teach this.
    • It very often is not taught in schools.  I moved in middle school and moved into a school district that had a pretty robust civics class that spent a quarter going over the basics of personal finance, budgeting, investment and stuff like that.  Later one year of health class was personal finance and retirement planning.  Outside of getting into more advanced math they were pretty solid. When I went to college I met back up with some of my friends prior to moving. They did not get the same kind of coverage of such subjects.   
    • There is absolutely nothing wrong with properly managed debt...  A majority of people cant buy a house or car with out it. Or receive a good education with out it. Provided all of these debts end with valuable assets which allow you to earn more in the long run, and the interest paid doesn't out-weight other factors. If you are saving to buy a house, and paying rent.. does the rent cost more than the interest if buying one? If so, you stand to lose money buy avoiding debt. In 30 years, the people who rented and outright bought their home can very possible have less net wealth.  I can pay off a car and house, at extremely low interest rates, while compounding interest in investments as the economy grows..  earn dividends.. utilize my own free crash to work for me.. instead of not having any being due to it tied up in liquid assets So debt CAN BE GOOD, and can actually increase your net worth over time. Especially if that debt leads to valuable assets.  That requires working both side of the market.. and investing your surplus not spending it. And doing it smart. Why would I put all my money into a house to save 3% a year when I can use it to earn potentially 10%? The house eventually gets paid off, and I have a fat retirement account with a major asset like a home. Regulations can go either way... deregulating mortgages led to the housing crisis.. Clinton's dream that every American would own a home.. Any regulation that makes it harder to borrow money is IMO good, but when we need a way out of a recession.... we print money and loan it out. We make it easier to borrow and start the cycle all over again.       
    • The article doesnt dispute a single thing I have said, and doesn't support a single thing you have said. You just read it all, but being selective in what YOU want to hear. "families get into high-interest credit card debt as the economy grows" What are you even arguing?  I said good economies produce high debt...  I showed you the graphs, and even a very well written article explaining that from someone who managed Credit debt. You said people paid down debt in good economies, but you havent shown a single piece of evidence that suggests that.    Do you want to arguing if this debt is good or bad for an economy? then start doing that because you haven't.  Credit agencies just updated how they calculate scores due to people taking out personal loans to pay off credit cards, and then rack up the credit cards again... is that bad? Yes. Will unmanaged credit lead to economic down turn? Yes... but does that mean the economy today is weak? No. In fact, it's a good regulation that will better help lenders know who should not be given more credit.   I have shown in a number of different ways how debt is used to grow economies.. at this point you're just ignoring those fact. Whether it's a company looking to expand, a company looking for a start ( as corporate debt also follows the same trend), a family looking to purchase products, a state or local government looking to invest in infrastructure with bonds. All with the specific intent to create cash flow.  Unmanaged debt will crash the economy, eventually. They have been calling for this recession since the day Trump took office. As discussed in the article, when people are force to pay down their debt and cant obtain more due to a tightening economy, the economy peaks, less cash flow, and we head into a recession.     
×
×
  • Create New...