On-Topic Guns and Insurance

[rareboy]

You cannot tax the right to bear arms, since it is a right. You cannot tax the right to vote, or free speech or religion. If you think that is ok how about if we tax the alleged right to abortion?
All these schemes miss the point that good people will pay the taxes, criminals will not. We should not facilitate crime and penalize self defense.

And what some people are apparently too thick to understand is that 'good people' already get taxed and taxed heavily to support the entire industry associated with crime, the criminal justice system and incarceration. The 'good people' already are being taxed to provide all the clean-up related to spree killings.

....and of course, yes...we do tax religion and we do tax abortion.

So your argument is jejune.

But I am talking about insurance. If states can mandate car insurance then the states can mandate gun insurance.

 

[CowboyBob]

Federal law does not mandate that individual citizens procure automobile and/or personal liability insurance.

State law does. If you have a car you have to buy insurance for it. In my state if you're pulled over they ask for your license and proof of insurance. If you don't have your insurance card with you you're fined.

Since gun violence costs billions of dollars, it's not a bad idea to make those who contribute to the carnage to pay for it.

 

[Stardreamer]

State law does. If you have a car you have to buy insurance for it. In my state if you're pulled over they ask for your license and proof of insurance. If you don't have your insurance card with you you're fined.

Since gun violence costs billions of dollars, it's not a bad idea to make those who contribute to the carnage to pay for it.

You have to have insurance as a condition of obtaining a driver's license in order to drive on a public roadway. The state owns the roads so you have to obtain a license to use them. Obtaining insurance is a condition for obtaining the license. If you own a car and you never drive on a public road but just private property the state CANNOT force you to buy insurance. Owning a car is also NOT an enumerated right which puts greater limits on what can be done that might hinder its exercise.

The state does not force you to have insurance for owning a car, it forces you have insurance to have a driver's license.

 

[Stardreamer]

Another thought on using an ACA type tax to apply this requirement, I don't think you could limit it to just gun owners, you would have to apply it to everybody or it would be subject to court challenge.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Well, law abiding citizens are ultimately responsible for many of the guns criminals own, so your argument is invalid.

The same could be said of vehicles, and his argument is certainly valid.

 

[Rolyo85]

The same could be said of vehicles, and his argument is certainly valid.

Um, most criminals who have cars didn't steal them (car thieves resell), so no, the same can't be said for vehicles...

 

[xbuzzerx]

And what some people are apparently too thick to understand is that 'good people' already get taxed and taxed heavily to support the entire industry associated with crime, the criminal justice system and incarceration. The 'good people' already are being taxed to provide all the clean-up related to spree killings.

....and of course, yes...we do tax religion and we do tax abortion.

So your argument is jejune.

But I am talking about insurance. If states can mandate car insurance then the states can mandate gun insurance.

That's really the core of it. It's the same thing with health insurance.

You are already taxed for it. Whether you know it or not.

You can kick, scream, take a tantrum and dig your heels in all you like, but ultimately, these costs go somewhere, and if private or built-in costs or taxes or insurance are not covering any of them because people like Benvolio ensured that they aren't, they fall on the taxpayer.

 

[opinterph]

"Designed", or "intended"?

It seems reasonable to assume that the design of an item is a manifestation of the intention for which it is produced.

 

[Benvolio]

That's really the core of it. It's the same thing with health insurance.

You are already taxed for it. Whether you know it or not.

You can kick, scream, take a tantrum and dig your heels in all you like, but ultimately, these costs go somewhere, and if private or built-in costs or taxes or insurance are not covering any of them because people like Benvolio ensured that they aren't, they fall on the taxpayer.

Irrelevant. It remains true that a Federal tax on the ownership or bearing of firearms is a "prohibited infringment". And, yes, the Constitution prohibits a tax in the "free" exercise of religion, or the right to vote, or free speech.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Irrelevant. It remains true that a Federal tax on the ownership or bearing of firearms is a "prohibited infringment". And, yes, the Constitution prohibits a tax in the "free" exercise of religion, or the right to vote, or free speech.

It's not irrelevant because you're saying you can't tax something you're already taxed for.

 

[opinterph]

You cannot tax the right to bear arms, since it is a right.

Since 1919, the federal government has imposed an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers. (26 USC § 4181)

 

[opinterph]

I'm not talking about a tax...I'm talking about making the people who want to own and operate firearms directly financially responsible for the impact of firearms.

One of principles of insurance law is that you must have an insurable interest in the subject matter or property for which you seek protection. Though it is perhaps possible to create a “logical” system of reasoning to substantiate the use of private premiums as a means to reimburse public costs associated with an item of personal property that is similar to the property of someone else – which was used in such a way as to bring about a claim; the concept seems convoluted at a minimum.

Taken with the recent outcome of NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., it seems unlikely that a federal mandate to purchase liability insurance to cover losses that are only indirectly related to the ownership of a specific type of personal property would withstand the scrutiny of the principles of civil or constitutional law.

 

[Stardreamer]

One of principles of insurance law is that you must have an insurable interest in the subject matter or property for which you seek protection. Though it is perhaps possible to create a “logical” system of reasoning to substantiate the use of private premiums as a means to reimburse public costs associated with an item of personal property that is similar to the property of someone else – which was used in such a way as to bring about a claim; the concept seems convoluted at a minimum.

Taken with the recent outcome of NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., it seems unlikely that a federal mandate to purchase liability insurance to cover losses that are only indirectly related to the ownership of a specific type of personal property would withstand the scrutiny of the principles of civil or constitutional law.

A more technical phasing of what I was trying to say. A tax approach like what is being done with the ACA is really the only way to levee something like this AND I pretty sure you would have to apply it to everybody not just gun owners. You could essentially tax all Americans to provide for the supposed liability costs of having the second amendment right in a sense. I think that is really the only way you could put it together that would stand up in the courts and even then it would have to go through challenges to determine it limits. Now you could probably do an indirect tax through a sales tax on guns and ammunition I suppose.

 

[Benvolio]

It's not irrelevant because you're saying you can't tax something you're already taxed for.

I did not say that at all.

 

[CowboyBob]

Y
The state does not force you to have insurance for owning a car, it forces you have insurance to have a driver's license.

Wrong. You can possess a driver's license and not have insurance. If you plan on driving a car you have to obtain insurance before using it.

 

[JB3]

Wrong. You can possess a driver's license and not have insurance. If you plan on driving a car you have to obtain insurance before using it.

Not true. As he said earlier, if the car never leaves your driveway, you don't have to have insurance. Of course, you wouldn't be able to drive it anywhere since you couldn't renew your plates, but if its a collector's car and you don't need plates you wouldn't need insurance. The ownership of a vehicle alone does not necessitate having insurance.

 

[CowboyBob]

Not true. As he said earlier, if the car never leaves your driveway, you don't have to have insurance. Of course, you wouldn't be able to drive it anywhere since you couldn't renew your plates, but if its a collector's car and you don't need plates you wouldn't need insurance. The ownership of a vehicle alone does not necessitate having insurance.

Yes true. If you want to have your car licensed and drive it.... and who wouldn't want a car to drive unless it's a museum piece and then again you would want that insured if it's sitting in a museum... you need insurance.

If you want a car for a paperweight or if you have a cannibalized car sitting in the weeds in your front yard along with your other junk, then it's not a car. It's a piece of junk.



Why don't we get real wrapped up in this trying to prove each other wrong?

 

[bankside]

I don't think criminals will buy the insurance. All the Democrats schemes are designed to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, while leaving guns in the hands of criminals, and, of course doing nothing to prevent the continuing influx over the border.

What policy do you have to take guns from the hands of criminal citizens?

 

[Kulindahr]

^ It's not a tax that goes into general spending. It's an insurance policy that covers liability to the many thousands of deaths that happen every year as a result of gun accidents and murders. It's a daunting challenge, but it makes absolute sense. People should be held civilly liable to injuries or wrongful death to the guns they use. We do this for car accidents, why not guns?

Insurance is paid for by the people who want its benefits. This is not insurance. If you want it to be insurance, you'd have to require that every American pay it,

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you can legitimately call a program that takes money from one group to provide coverage to another insurance in the traditional sense it is used. Mandatory auto insurance policies only apply to the auto owner and/or injuries caused specifically by his vehicle.

Right -- it's accurately called "extortion".

 

[Kulindahr]

But I assume that state law does.

And that they all fall into line.

And, in fact, the idea behind automobile insurance...all the way to pooled insurance reserves...is that auto insurance is intended to cover all the liabilities and damages arising from accidents, even those caused by drunk drivers.

So no. I'm not talking about a tax...I'm talking about making the people who want to own and operate firearms directly financially responsible for the impact of firearms.

And I guarantee Kuli, that my dad's old twin barrel hunting rifle is a far, far cry from the semi-automatic weapons with 100 round cartridges that I and the vast majority of people consider to be military grade assault weapons.

Anyone who considers those to be military grade is merely ignorant, or prejudiced, or both.