The General Assembly’s Insurance and Real Estate Committee will hold a public hearing today on a bill that would mandate liability insurance for people who have guns. No state has enacted such a law, but the idea has been tossed around for years. The hearing is today at 1 at the Legislative Office Building:
AN ACT CONCERNING LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR FIREARM POSSESSORS OR OWNERS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2013) (a) Any person who possesses or owns a firearm, as defined in section 53a-3 of the general statutes, shall procure and maintain (1) excess personal liability insurance that provides coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by the use of a firearm, and (2) self defense insurance that provides coverage for civil and criminal defense costs and provides for reimbursement of criminal defense costs if such person uses a firearm in self defense. Any person subject to this subsection who does not procure and maintain such insurance shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a person who possesses a firearm on a temporary basis while on the premises of a rifle or gun club.
(b) The Insurance Commissioner shall adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of the general statutes, to implement the provisions of this section, including, but not limited to, minimum coverage amounts of such insurance policies, form and filing requirements for such policies and any permissible exclusions under such policies.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
56 Responses to Is Insurance The Best Gun Control?
About Capitol Watch
The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
This is exactly what is needed since we all know what will happen to laws on gun restrictions. The Supreme Court cannot claim 2nd amendment rights over an insurance rider.
This is a major solution.
Solution to what? What problems will be solved here other than a legislated handout to insurers?
Are you taking your meds Bill?
Will the Crips and Bloods and Tre and Latin Kings get a bulk discount from their insurers? This is getting mosre ridiculous every day.
Seems you have an issue with minorities. Do you hate them or are you just pretending?
Who said anything about minorities??? Somebody is a little sensitive.
Watch out Kim. I heard that the President has B-52′s flying over your head thie week. At least you may see that coming. The missile from a drone you will never see or hear.
This is unconstitutional and would never be upheld as it is a clear infringement on 2nd amendment rights. It is akin to the poll tax that was used to deter blacks from voting in the South. Nice attempt at suppressing the ability to exercise our rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution.
Bill, do all Jewish people only care about money?
More punitive laws from the legislative hypocrites who are right crafting and lobbying for laws that will let convicted hardcore juvenile killer gangbangers out of their life sentences early so they can kill again.
Greg, You are right — requiring insurance would be a solution to the problem, which I’m guessing you are defining as people in the U.S., other than the military or law enforcement, having guns of any type. Have I got this right? I’d think most regular gun owners could not afford a few thousand a year for insurance so they would have to give up their guns.
I believe you wanted to address Bill Katz on this point…
Brilliant, I’m sure the criminals will run right out and get their insurance rider. Good thing someone thought up this “major solution”.
Or you could always give up your guns and save money.
“but we are not taking guns away from law abiding citizens”….give me a break
Or you could always give up you guns and spend the money on your kids.
Or you could always give up your kids and save even more money.
Brilliant plan. My homeowners already covers me for negligent storage of firearms that result in accidental discharge causing death or injury. No insurance policy written will cover intentional use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. All insurance policies will deny coverage for intentional acts. Besides the foolish requirement of having a policy that won’t cover what the state wants, what insurance copmany would write such a policy that can only result in extreme verdicts? They won’t, insurance companies don’t take foolish risks when designing policies. People who believe this is a solution should try to understand how an insurance policy works.
That is the whole point. Create a mandate that cannot be met, and then confiscate the firearms from those who do not meet the requirements.
Just means all insurance costs will go up to offset the costs. So insurance will go up for everybody even non gunowners. This is a great idea.
This is a great idea. Rates would be based on the way the way gun(s) are stored, possibly denied if the insurer deems the owner unreliable and safe storage insufficient as well as the type of gun. Again the insurer could deny coverage based on the type of gun.
How is it a great idea when no company will write this type of policy? What you are talking about is insuring intentional acts (e.g. intentionally firing to protect oneself or the intentional use of a firearm in a criminal act). Intentional acts are NEVER COVERED UNDER AN INSURANCE POLICY! Regular homeowner policies already cover unintentional discharge or negligent storage of firearms resulting in injury or death. How is writing a policy that will never pay out something that is a good idea? In bizzarro world your rate structure makes sense for someone who clearly doesn’t understand how insurance policies work.
Writing liability policies for guns won’t happen through insurance companies. Why do you think it is so difficult/expensive for police departments to get liability insurance? Most municipalities have to be self insured and can only obtain excess coverage since no insurance company will write that coverage on a primary basis.
I know this because I have been in the insurance business for over 30 years being a risk manager for a major US manufacturing corporation and in claims management for one of the biggest names in insurance in the world. It all sounds good, but in practice it will never happen unless the state itself chooses to back the primary layer.
I could see how people would think this is a solution. I however see a few problems with this. Number one is it will effect the middle class very hard. Some people already find it hard enough to make ends meet. Number two is gun ownership is a right not a privilege in this country. Therefore maybe we should have the government foot the bill for “gun insurance” if they pass this law. Number 3 is how is this supposed to keep me safer? Will this deter criminals from commiting crimes with guns? Or will it just be another charge added to a list of crimes committed by an offender so they can rot in jail longer instead of getting real help or rehabilitation.
I doubt forcing people to purchase gun insurance is constitutional and certainly not moral. People have the right to protect themselves and gun insurance is an intrusion on that right. Gawd the left will go to any extreme to screw us…….
It is in fact, the Obamacare mandate all over again, only this time they cannot call the penalty for non-compliance a tax. Loophole gone, the bill gets overturned.
I think it’s about time that a bill be passed requiring background and mental health checks on anyone running for office in the state of Connecticut.
I agree, absolutely!
Bill Katz do you troll these boards 24 hr a day ? Scary. The next Lanza maybe? This bill is just another attempt by legislators to enact punitive unconstitutional legislation to hurt law abdiding gun owners that had nothing to do with Sandy Hook. The culprits are dead. Being vultures out for a pound of flesh is truly nauseating.
If I have to get this, I will get it through the NRA. I am not currently a member, but will sign up, and give my monthly premium to them. If this bogus law goes into effect, only responsible (low risk) gun owners will abide, and the NRA will take in millions more.
Here, here!
Where, where?
The free insurance provided with an NRA membership does not cover liability. It covers only you if you get killed. Provides a whopping $10,000 maximum to your survivors. There is also $2,500 theft insurance that covers your gun loss.
The NRA does provide links to approved insurance providers where you can BUY a separate liability policy.
If this did pass, I would expect the NRA to step forward, and partner up with a company to get affordable insurance for members.
FYI, concealed carry association provides members with $300k of insurance coverage, for use in defense of the lawful use of a firearm in self defense.
The whole idea of gun control is to tax and levy the be-jesus out of all lawful gun owners so that it is not only affordable,but becomes more of a hassle so that the gun owner just says screw it and throws in the towel. THIS is how secular regressives believe in ridding all things they don’t believe,to include capitalism,socialized medicine,etc. Don’t take the bait!
Absolute nonsense. This would be tied up in lawsuits for years and ultimately denied by the courts. It is in very direct violation of the Constitution.
this will not stop criminals. it will however add one more hoop for law abiding citizens to jump through in order to stay law abiding. one issue voter from here on out.
Accountability–people think twice, saloons
and parties alike–about letting people leave
drunk now that it may well come back on them.
Accountability is the way to manage risk.
CT invented firearms, our infant industry,
but CT went a long way toward inventing
insurance, too. Would that the mother of
the Newtown shooter, sweet jesus, had paid
just a little more attention to accountability.
I think that we can all agree on the need for accountability, and more importantly responsibility amongst firearms owners. Unfortunately, this bill is designed not to instill accountability, but to be punitive in nature against those who exercise their rights. Insurance companies will not be likely to offer this insurance, at least not affordably. So many people will be denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right through no fault of their own.
Government cannot legislate responsibility and accountability. People still drive cars without licenses or insurance & occasionally get caught.
Perhaps the General Assembly should look up the history of poll taxes. As they were some southern State’s, “solution” to Constitutionally guaranteed poor people’s (AKA African American) voting rights back during Jim Crow days. Don’t pay the poll tax, and no Constitutionally guaranteed voting rights.
Forcing gun owners to buy insurance could become known as the nation’s first, Dannel Crow law.
Of course, pious hypocrites would likely denounce any limitation of voting rights, including having to show major identification at the polls, but would at the same time be all for any law that might keep legal guns out of the hands of law abiding poor people.
And please, don’t tell me voting doesn’t lead to the deaths of innocent children. Ask any number of Iraqi and Afghan parents. Or American indian parents, or German parents, or Japanese parents, or Korean parents…
CT keeps getting worse by the day.
You can say that again.
I am so pleased to hear that the State of Connecticut is so concerned about the financial well being of gun owners, as to require that they carry ‘self defense’ insurance to pay their defense fees in the event that they are required to use their firearm to defend themselves. I would note however, that establishing Castle doctrine in the State would serve that purpose much more efficiently, and serve as an actual deterrent to home invasions. Castle Doctrine is the legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.
I’m sure all the THUGS will get insurance. What a joke. This is a disgrace. These aholes are no better than the Nazis. That’s what the democratic party in this country has become. We need the DEATH PENALTY for criminals. And oh by the way what happens if another Lanza gets a gun ILLEGALLY and kills dozens and then kills himself. Who you gonna sue.
Why don’t you propose a nice tax break to anyone who registers themselves as a certified non-owner of firearms. Bet that will never happen.
More bu11sh1t from the pack of thieves and liars. Go pound sand. This will never stand up to a Constitutional test.
Near as I can tell the only person to speak in favor of this was Sen. Bye from West Hartford.
As far a ole Dannel and the CT state legislature are concerned they should try reading what the CT Constitution says about defending yourself.
Doesnt homeowners insurance and a liability umbrella policy cover this already?
The insurers that came to testify said it was ludicrous.. and no one spoke in favor of this bill but Comrade Beth Bye. Based on what I have heard from some key people, I doubt it’s going anywhere.
Sen. Bye is what’s with America.
May I assume you intended to insert the word ‘wrong’ in there, because that’s the only one that makes any sense to me.
You are correct.
What happens when the criminals(you remember them…) don’t have an insurance policy…will I have to subsidize them when I purchase a policy…Amendment 2 is pretty clear on this point…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think that means insurance as well….
Maybe the NRA should make all their members, Militia members! People are getting very angry about restrictions in a free state. Are we still considered a free State?
They don’t have to. Federal law defines the militia as two classes: the organized militia (National Guard, Navy Reserves) & the unorganized militia which is made up of the body of the people as a whole.
We are all part of the unorganized militia.
Beth Bye is a Freak! https://www.facebook.com/beth.bye?fref=ts