Here are the detailed written comments submitted for the record by Tom Harvey, this blogger, after the hearing on the DC gun insurance bill. The bill is supported by this blog as a start in getting gun insurance enacted.
Comments as PDF
On Thursday May 16, 2013 the District of Columbia held a hearing on the B20-170, Firearm Insurance Amendment Act of 2013 their Gun Insurance Bill. The first panel consisted of Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign; Erin Collins from NAMIC; Tom Harvey, Gun Insurance Blog and Kris Hammond, Resident of DC.
The hearing was taped and the video is available here. Written testimony from Dan Gross, Kris Hammond and Chester A. McPherson is here. News coverage generally ignored the supporters of the bill. For example see the Washington Post Story.
After preliminary remarks by Committee Chair Vincent Orange and Councilmember Mary M.Cheh (the bill sponsor) the first to present was Dan Gross who gave a good presentation in support of the bill outlining the seriousness of gun violence in the US. He gave an example illustrating that current insurance does not apply even to many accidents, if it is available at all. He stated that “it is absolutely unfair to saddle innocent victims with all the costs.
Erin Collins gave a presentation of the industries opposition to mandating insurance for guns. It stated that this insurance was unnecessary and impractical and repeated that it couldn’t cover intentional acts.
Tom Harvey for this blog gave an oral version of the written statement below but added examples to counter the statement by MS Collins that insurance couldn’t cover intentional acts. Continue reading
This blogger has been researching statistics for presentation to the District of Columbia City Council in relation to their bill B20-170 to require insurance for guns. Some of the figures are striking. Firearm homicide for DC over the 10 year period 2001-2010 is over 5 times the national average but firearm suicide is one third of its national average. This means there are over 15 times as many suicides per homicide nationally than in DC. Part of this difference is no doubt demographic. Suicide rates vary dramatically by race, age and gender. But the non-firearm suicide rate per 100,000 persons in DC is 75% of the national average and the firearm suicide rate is only 32% of the national average. That difference is probably due to the scarcity of guns in DC even with the large illegal gun problem. If this difference had not existed then there would have been an additional 142 firearm suicides in DC during the 10 year period.
It’s fair to conclude that DC’s strict firearm laws are saving about 14 lives a year from suicide, but would an insurance requirement have a substantial part of this effect in places where firearms are common. Suicide researchers generally think that most suicides are impulsive and that substitution of means is uncommon. This is an area where removal of the restrictions on firearm data gathering and research is very much needed. Insurers requirements for safe storage can make a large difference. Many informed public health experts believe that even things as small as separate storage of ammunition and keeping guns unloaded will make a substantial difference. A person who keeps his gun at a range or shooting club rather than at home in order to get a lower insurance rate is far less likely to take an impulsive but irreversible and tragic action with it.
The figures in the table all concern deaths by firearm unless otherwise labeled. They are totals for the period 2001-2010 and are taken from the CDC’s WISQARS system. Rates are per 100,000 population and are not age-adjusted.
| Intent | DC | US | DC Rate | US Rate |
| All Intents | 1,453 | 306,946 | 25.18 | 10.21 |
| Accidents | 16 | 6,739 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Suicide | 109 | 175,221 | 1.89 | 5.79 |
| Homicide | 1,311 | 119,246 | 22.72 | 4.01 |
| Legal Intervention | 13 | 3,325 | 0.32 | 0.11 |
| Accidents/Homicides | 0.012 | 0.057 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Suicides/Homicides | 0.083 | 1.469 | 0.083 | 1.444 |
| All Suicide Firearm or Not | 352 | 338,043 | 6.1 | 11.38 |
| Non Firearm Suicide | 243 | 162,822 | 4.21 | 5.59 |
The insurance industry through its trade group spokespersons has been very negative on the possibilities of dealing with the gun violence problem by means of requiring insurance. The legislative proposals made so far have all been very narrow calls for conventional liability insurance sometimes with high limits. The trade groups have been quick to jump on the limitations of that approach and on projected difficulties with implementation. The quotes in various new articles have been very hostile to gun (and actually all) insurance.
In a statement made to the Connecticut State Legislature on March 19, 2013 the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) made a more carefully worded opposition to such insurance. This allows an analysis of the reasons for the reservations of the insurance industry on this matter.
PCI opposes this legislation because it will be ineffective in curbing gun violence and will create significant burdens for law abiding gun owners and insurers. As a general rule, PCI opposes mandating the purchase of liability insurance. We have found that mandatory insurance requirements are often ineffective and serve only to add enforcement and administrative costs for both government entities and insurers.
The comparison with motor vehicle insurance is relevant here in showing that this is a ridiculous statement. While it varies greatly from state to state, in many states motor vehicle insurance is mandatory, enforced and highly effective in compensating injured persons. In states where it is not effective, it is because insufficient insurance is mandated or enforced.
The bill in the District of Columbia Council, B20-170, requiring insurance for guns will have a hearing at 10AM on May 16, 2013. The text of the bill requires liability insurance of $250,000 for gun owners. It provides for willful acts.
(b) The insurance policy required under subsection (a) of this section shall specifically cover any damages resulting from negligent acts, or willful acts that are not undertaken in self-defense, involving the use of the insured firearm while it is owned by the policy holder.
The announcement of the hearing provides for written statements until May 30, 2013.
In a opinion article on Property Casualty 360 titled “Major Misfire” Paul Tetrault, state and policy affairs counsel for NAMIC, denounced the move in seven states and Congress to require insurance on guns. He repeated the statements that insurance cannot cover intentional acts. This blog has several times published numerous examples of current insurance that does cover intentional and even criminal acts to the benefit of parties other than the person who does the acts. This was pointed out to NAMIC but their spokesperson emailed that the organization stands behind the article.
A new post by Julia Hartman on the PreventingNewtown blog titled “A Case for Gun Liability Insurance” gives a thoughtful and interesting discussion of the benefits of requiring insurance to protect victims of gun violence.
The post gives a moving presentation of the damage done daily by guns and calls for insurance as a way to deal with the problem. It makes the comparison to motor vehicles and points out the fact that gun deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths in 10 states currently. Suicides are handled on a par with homicides and accidents, an position which is often opposed by those supporting the status quo for gun policy.
A paper “Mandatory Liability Insurance for Firearm Owners: Design Choices and Second Amendment Limits” has been published by Nelson Lund of the George Mason U. School of Law and by Stephen G. Gilles of the Quinnipiac University School of law. While there have been simple calls for requiring gun insurance and comparisons of guns and cars at various times, Nelson Lund’s paper of 25 years ago “The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and the Right to Self-Preservation” in the Alabama Law Review is the only serious and significant source known to this blog to address the issue prior to the Sandy Hook incident. The title of the new paper fairly describes its focus. Many issues of interest to those who want to think about the possibilities of using insurance to protect the public and compensate shooting victims are raised.
The authors of the paper are among those who believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals wide gun rights and that the narrow findings of the Heller decision only start to describe the limits of governmental regulation in this area. Others believe that Heller was the product of a momentary and ideological combination of justices which will not be expanded and will eventually fade in importance or even be overturned. The paper takes the view that, even under the broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, mandated insurance may have a role in containing gun violence. It does, however, see that role as being much more limited than does the author of this blog.
While this blog does not consider the Second Amendment as a major barrier to implementing effective gun insurance, many others do. This new academic analysis by widely respected conservative philosophers and thinkers is very valuable in laying out the nature of that objection. The paper should be read and considered carefully by anyone who is serious about understanding the possible role of insurance in dealing with America’s gun violence problem.
A bill HB976 has been introduced in the North Carolina Legislature. It has several gun control provisions including $100,000 in mandatory gun liability insurance. This insurance goes farther than in most other states by applying to willful acts and to unreported stolen guns. The bill introduced by Rep’s Luebke, Insko, Harrison and Adams has 7 sponsors so far. It was introduced on 4/17/13, showing that momentum to deal with gun violence is continuing and that insurance is seen as a part of the solution. There have now been bills introduced in 9 states and the US House.
Representative Carolyn Maloney along with 8 cosponsors has introduced a bill, H.R. 1369 – Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013, to require that gun buyers and sellers have “qualified” liability insurance when they make a transaction or continue to own the gun. They would be fined up to $10,000 if they do not have and maintain the insurance. The text of the bill does not define “qualified” and gives no further details. I spoke on the phone with Rep. Maloney’s press contact and was told that the bill will be filled out with more detail in the future. In this diary, I will lay out the principles and elements that should be considered when the bill language is developed.
Gun insurance should serve to protect victims and promote safe storage and use of firearms, without being an excessive burden on gun owners (for a description of possible insurance see here). Unfortunately, conventional liability insurance as sold, for example by the NRA, is designed only to protect the gun owner not third party victims. Gun insurance, like any insurance that is mandated by government or required as a condition of doing business, should be designed to protect those injured by an incident. Moreover, it needs to protect the public by encouraging safe practices. Currently, gun insurance only protects the gun owner from theft and lawsuits. Continue reading