The first local laws have been passed to require gun insurance. These are for liability insurance requiring fault by the gun owner or shooter and certainly don’t pay directly to victims or cover all guns. But this is a start on a path that as it evolves will give good protection and promote safety.
This has been posted on the Gun Insurance Blog YouTube site at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZrFX_aa0Xk
The script is below
The first gun insurance requirements have been passed into law in the United States. Let us celebrate the beginnings of a culture of responsibility around firearms. Two separate jurisdictions at opposite ends of the country have launched on this long awaited return to sanity.
This video looks at the new gun insurance laws in California and New Jersey. What they cover, where they came from and where they’re going.
————————————————————————-
The first local laws to require insurance for gun owners will go into effect in 2023. They have been passed and signed into law by the Mayor of San Jose, California and the Governor of New Jersey.
San Jose requires gun permits but exempts those who have concealed carry permits, New Jersey’s new law only applies to those with concealed-carry permits.
You can see from this that it is only a step toward the insurance we need. These laws take great care to avoid various kinds of potential interference with gun ownership. The exceptions limit the usefulness and protection of the insurance, BUT this care proves that the objections of gun proponents are misguided. As we learn from the new laws, we’ll find ways to make the insurance more effective.
Insurance can be tailored to the requirements of a specific risky activity. This is why it’s a powerful tool both to allow the activity and to mitigate the harm that results.
We need insurance that pays benefits to victims, applies without excessive delay and litigation, and which covers all guns. This current baby step is important but it will need to followed by more steps that lead to the goals.
The ordinance in San Jose takes effect in January. The Mayor, Sam Liccardo, thanked those who helped pass the ordinance and “the many others who work tirelessly to help craft a constitutionally compliant path to mitigate the unnecessary suffering from gun harm in our community.” The ordinance only covers accidents that involve firearms. The city plan envisions that homeowner’s insurance will handle most cases with minimal changes. That is, no-doubt, the reason excluding intentional shootings.
Most homeowner’s policies have this exclusion and it would be a major disruption for insurers to require it to change. Another factor is that there is no specific loss limit required, this would allow existing insurance to apply regardless of its limits.
San Jose’s requirement does not apply to peace officers. That is not unusual as police, even retired police, have been exempted from many gun laws. Also exempted are holders of concealed carry permits. Both exemptions are somewhat illogical as the law isn’t aimed at preventing anyone from having a gun and it applies only to accidents.
While the new ordinance in San Jose was passed in February 2022, its implementation was delayed by lawsuits from gun supporters. Most of these have been dismissed and the law is to take effect. Additional lawsuits are expected.
The new law in New Jersey on the other hand covers those who have concealed-carry permits. It was enacted in December 2022 and will take effect in July ‘23. When he signed the bill Governor Phil Murphy said:
“today’s law fully respects the Second Amendment while keeping guns out of the wrong hands and preventing them from proliferating in our communities.”
As expected, lawsuits were immediately filed by gun proponents.
New Jersey previously had a restrictive law allowing concealed-carry permits. That law was struck down by the US Supreme Court. Before in 2021 there were 870 concealed-carry applications, but the number is now expected to rise to about 11,000. The insurance requirement is part of a new package which governs concealed carry in accordance with this decision. Applicants for permits will have to demonstrate insurance compliance.
It calls for liability insurance and would only apply if the gun carrier is at fault. The required insurance limit is $300,000.00 The governor’s statements show that he contemplates that homeowner’s insurance can meet the requirements; but, given the many limitations in typical policies, this will be complex.
These two new laws will launch a process that will require a substantial time to complete. In addition to the inevitable court battles, there will be bills introduced and debated in other legislative bodies. This process has happened in other areas before.
For example, requirements for insurance for cars started in the early 1930’s and were not fully developed until the 1960’s. In that case, the first laws in many states were “financial responsibility laws” which only required insurance for people who had already been unable to pay for the consequences of car accidents. While the insurance industry has often claimed that a new requirement can’t be implemented, they have historically been able to adapt to whatever is needed. They will do that now.
Both of the laws assume that most cases will be handled by some extension of homeowners insurance. As gun insurance matures and adapts to the needs of supporting victims and providing gun safety, homeowners insurance may continue to play an important part. The terms will need to be specifically defined to give coverage of all the possibilities and to allow the insurer to be protected from particularly dangerous persons and weapons. In the less dangerous cases, it should not raise costs greatly. There will be many situations outside the willingness of home insurance carriers to absorb the risks, and in these cases special insurance will need to be developed and priced.
Requiring
insurance need not interfere with the safe use of an insured activity or thing. We continue to drive with an insurance
requirement, we work at jobs with workers compensation and we require insurance
for many commercial activities. In all
of these cases the protection provided by the insurance mitigates the risks and
reduces the need for tight regulation.
Insurance is both a means and a symbol of responsibility. We need responsibility around firearms if we
are to allow their existence and reduce their dangers.