Gun Dog Forum

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... 6920130206

These are the type of things I fear. They may not outlaw gun ownership, shooting sports or hunting, but they can make it too expensive for many of us to participate.

It's possible to achieve some form of gun control via taxes, fees, lead shot restrictions, insurance and increased regulation.

Most home insurance policies cover liability resulting from negligence, at least in Canada they do, probably very similar in the states. I would assume that would cover someone getting shot due to your negligence in operating or storing a firearm. You couldn't really buy a policy that is going to cover your liability if you deliberately try to harm someone, or use unreasonable force in some situation.

Winchey wrote:Most home insurance policies cover liability resulting from negligence, at least in Canada they do, probably very similar in the states. I would assume that would cover someone getting shot due to your negligence in operating or storing a firearm. You couldn't really buy a policy that is going to cover your liability if you deliberately try to harm someone, or use unreasonable force in some situation.

Home owners insurance might cover an incident in the home. But not every gun owner is a home owner and some policies may not cover gun accidents.

I have no idea if any insurance covers you if you accidentally shoot someone in the field. And when insurance becomes mandatory, it become expensive too.

Most people have a home/tenants policy or are dependants and are covered under their parents. Liability portions extend anywhere in the world in your personal pursuits. Most people who don't have their own home insurance should, if you own a gun I am assuming you live somewhere. You could get 1 million liability tenant policy for under 100 bucks a year.

I don't believe that any current policy covers what the new laws are pushing for. I could be wrong but it would need to be a policy that specidically covers intentional shootings as well as accidents. Currently, you need to get an insurance policy that covers you personally for accidents involving firearms. Most won't even cover theft without specific clauses and fees. I don't see insurance companies backing claims involving intentional shootings just like life insurance won't cover suicides.

Brazosvalleyvizslas wrote:I don't believe that any current policy covers what the new laws are pushing for. I could be wrong but it would need to be a policy that specidically covers intentional shootings as well as accidents. Currently, you need to get an insurance policy that covers you personally for accidents involving firearms. Most won't even cover theft without specific clauses and fees. I don't see insurance companies backing claims involving intentional shootings just like life insurance won't cover suicides.

That's roughly my understanding too. If you own a gun, you'd need a special policy. I suppose you could argue that it would also be a form of registration.

I have no idea what kind of additional restrictions requiring a gun policy would produce. Could they make you show proof of insurance to purchase ammo or reloading supplies?

Once again, the new proposals are aimed squarely at the law abiding gun owner. I guess we're just an easy target and our fearless leaders can pass some sort of "feel good" measure and be on record as being tough on gun control.

You can't buy insurance to cover you from comitting a criminal act. Your car insurance is not going to cover you if you chase down and deliberately run over a pedestrian.

Like I said, most home policies will cover gun accidents you are legally liable for anywhere in the world. Read your policy wordings.

If the government is proposing everyone to require a policy to cover them for a criminal act involving a firearm, then essentially they are requiring all gun owners to share in the legal cost criminals are liable for when they shoot someone.

A member at my gun club was shot at the range by another member(accidental, no criminal aspects). His home owners policy actually covered his injuries. I don't know what carrier or coverage he had. All I know he is lucky that it was only a .410.

From the linked article:

A Maryland proposal would mandate that anyone possessing a firearm have liability insurance of at least $250,000. It requires anyone selling, renting out or transferring a gun to verify that the person getting it has liability insurance...

...Some homeowners' policies cover accidental gun discharges, but those cases are a small fraction of the millions of claims filed each year, he said.

Get a policy then, some don't have insurance and should, some don't know they have it and don't file a claim, some are criminal offences.

The media are also not lawyers or insurance specialists.

Winchey wrote:Get a policy then, some don't have insurance and should, some don't know they have it and don't file a claim, some are criminal offences.

The media are also not lawyers or insurance specialists.

Have to agree. What insurance company is going to cover you when you go in and ask for a policy to cover you because you are planning to shoot your wife or neighbor? Chicago has been trying to go the route of making guns and ammunition so expensive you couldn't buy it. Think it has been tried in DC too. We all better pay attemtion or they will slip something like that thru on some other bill.

Ezzy

Home owners policies are complex. Most will not cover accidental shootings or theft without specific clauses and riders. As a firearms instructuctor I've learned this the hard way. No insurance company is going to insure someone for a possible future intentional shooting and that's how I read what's presented. It's backdoor gun control. Nothing more or less.

What guns???? I sold them all years ago

Where will you get to enjoy them and what happens if you had to use one to defend yourself?

This is the stupidest thing.

What was the quote: Maybe this won't prevent purposeful damage, but maybe this will prevent accidents.

How does cash in one's pocket after-the-fact prevent an accident? I carry liability insurance as a car driver. It has no power to stop an accident. It just pays for it when I have one. The anti's realize that they cannot disallow guns without an amendment that won't pass muster. So they are trying to tax and regulate it away.

While I am not necessarily in favor of background checks, these at least could actually hope to prevent something. Insurance is impotent.

RickB

Wait until you have to show it to buy a hunting license. Small time dog breeders have been putting up with the same type of increasingly prohibitive regulations for years, all aimed at eliminating breeding on any level.

Cajun Casey wrote:Wait until you have to show it to buy a hunting license. Small time dog breeders have been putting up with the same type of increasingly prohibitive regulations for years, all aimed at eliminating breeding on any level.

Not even in the same universe. Small breeding has been the same for about fifty years and I probably should say 80. What prohibitive regulations are there that keep a male ans female apart.

Ezzy

MD is a freaking joke! I live here an not prowd of it anymore. They are trying to treat blank pistols the same as handguns. Pushing for a registration for all handguns and blank pistols. Dont to mention alsult looking firearms.You get cault transporting with out it i think its 1yr in prison $1,000 fine even if you only have ammo for these so called weapons. It hasnt passed yet but its close. And they say this O'mally guy is being preped for the president. If it wasnt that i'm 3 generation living on are family farm in atv driving distance of my hole family i would be out of here. This state is going to heck!!

Hattrick wrote:MD is a freaking joke! I live here an not prowd of it anymore. They are trying to treat blank pistols the same as handguns. Pushing for a registration for all handguns and blank pistols. Dont to mention alsult looking firearms.You get cault transporting with out it i think its 1yr in prison $1,000 fine even if you only have ammo for these so called weapons. It hasnt passed yet but its close. And they say this O'mally guy is being preped for the president. If it wasnt that i'm 3 generation living on are family farm in atv driving distance of my hole family i would be out of here. This state is going to heck!!

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Ezzy

This is what is going on in MD with gun controll. Hope this clears up what i was trying to say. Being so feed up with MD laws attacking the law abinding citzens. I would move from the state in a hart beat if it wasnt for the family farm. I guess if this dont pass he will try insurance thing.


Dear Mason-Dixon GSPC, friends, and sports community,

I have just returned from the 2nd Amendment Rally in Annapolis in opposition of Gov. O’Malley’s attempt to force draconian and freedom killing restrictions on Maryland citizen’s God-given right for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Before I loose some of you, answer these questions. If you can honestly answer NO to all these questions you may stop caring or reading.

Do you train dogs for fieldwork in Maryland?

Do you train with blank or starter pistols in Maryland?

Do you participate in AKC-sponsored hunt tests or field trials in Maryland?

Do you transit Maryland to participate in training, hunt tests, or field trials in another state?

Do you support the Constitution of the United States as written by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights?

If you answered YES even once this will concern you. Under MD Senate Bill 281 (look up the entire .PDF document yourself), possessing, transporting, or dare using a starter pistol without a Maryland Handgun Qualification License could earn you jail time or hefty fine. Under this bill, signal, starter, and blank pistols are deemed handguns. Handguns are deemed “regulated firearms”.

§5-101. Public Safety –

(n)(2) “Handgun” includes signal, starter, and blank pistols.

(O) “HANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE” MEANS A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY THAT AUTHORIZES A PERSON TO PURCHASE, RENT, OR RECEIVE A HANDGUN.

(p)] (R) (1) “Regulated firearm” means: a handgun; or …

Furthermore, the Maryland Handgun Qualification License will only be granted to state residents over the age of 21, after attending a state-approved eight hour Firearms Safety Training Course and a firearms qualification component (shooting test on the range). Then there are the fees, fingerprints, applications, state and federal background checks.

Really!? All of this to possess, transport, or use a training device incapable of doing harm (except to one’s own hearing). Do I think this will see the light of day as law? It’s Annapolis, MD, anything can happen. I firmly believe it's the govenor's belief that if he reaches for the sun, he will get the moon. O’Malley and liberal Maryland Democrats want to take more away than starter pistols but I will limit my discussion to that which effect Mason-Dixon GSPC and AKC-sanctioned tests and trials. One more thing, any person possessing ammunition of a regulated firearm (starter pistol) will be subjected to one year imprisonment and/or $1000 fine. Those .22 cal crimps could cost you more than an ear ache.

§5-133.1

(B) A PERSON MAY NOT POSSESS AMMUNITION IF THE PERSON IS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING A REGULATED FIREARM UNDER § 5–133 OF THIS SUBTITLE.

I for one will fight for my constitutional rights. I will fight for yours. I will NOT register my “regulated firearm / starter pistol”. I will not seek the Maryland Handgun Qualification License in order to possess, transport or use a starter pistol.

I W I L L N O T!

I had no trouble understanding what you were saying. The article was about a bill someone is trying to introduce in Maryland and you listed a bunch of other ridiculous things they do there.

Sorry I'm not slick on a computer like some my bad i guess. He introduced a $400 tax for ownership of firearms not long ago but it got kick out called a poll tax. This guy is a A$$ along with the rest of his groupies. They also keep changing voting districts to insure the democrats run the state. They are being taking to court over this right now and i hope they get it stuck hard. Yes i need spell check on this computer. Its time for people to stick together instead of fighting and bickering are rights are on the chopping block as we type.

Hattrick wrote:Its time for people to stick together instead of fighting and bickering are rights are on the chopping block as we type.

Ignore your rights and they'll go away.

If a liablily insurance law is written and passes it will open up the doors for law suits coming from the criminals that stayed alive or the families of those criminals that died when you shot them to protect your life of the life of your family member or a stranger that you saved.

The court may not find in favor of the criminal but many of the judges are libs and will find for the criminal or their family member that does not have the deceased's income, companionship etc. Most insurance will settle out of courts giveing money to the criminals families or to the criminal.

The insurance cost will increase taxes will increase fines etc. all aimed at the law abiding citizen. It seems that the libs are in bed with the criminals and want them to be able to steal or inlict harm on the hard working law abiding citizen.