A Discussion of Firearm Insurance
On Thursday the fifteenth of February, 2018, I walked across the campus of the community college where I teach toward the only class I had for that day. As I find myself doing most every time I walk across the campus, I scanned the area, assessing each person for what I perceived as their potential threat level. My experience in the military, briefly as a police officer, and my own academic research in grad-school has taught me much about profiling and survival skills. Why I should have to employ these skills on a college campus still baffles me. Even with the Umpqua Community College shooting just down the highway from my school barely two years prior and the Clackamas Town Center shooting just two exits north of campus in 2012, my area is not far from feeling the direct effects of either incident. In fact, with many of my students directly knowing victims, each new incident provides a not-so-gentle reminder of just how plausible it is that it could happen on our campus.
In the wake of yet another mass shooting at a school in the United States there has been more debate about actually debating gun control than on the topic of gun control itself. My class for the day was a Persuasive Essay writing class. Sleeping little the night before, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if I would address the issue and if so, how. Earlier that Thursday morning, I saw a tweet from a champion of the Alt-Right movement that set me on edge. I will not list their name as I do not wish to provide them any more notoriety than they have already received. Suffice it to say that their message centered around allowing victims’ families to grieve before starting the debate. But that isn’t — hasn’t been — how the debate has occurred. In fact, so far, there has been little to know real debate at all.
In my class that day, we discussed the issue. We explored its details to the best of our ability and suggested next steps for our Congress. Not all of my students agreed on what the causes or solutions could be. All agreed, however, that something should be done; Congress must act. But there was one aspect of class that day that I think needs to be addressed outside of the classroom walls: the difference between debate and discussion.
The class and I came to the conclusions that debate is too much about finding flaws in your opposition’s claim and then using those flaws to prove them wrong. What is truly needed is discussion. The class determined that discussion involves more listening for the purpose of understanding and “meaning-making” than for destroying your opponent. Discussion, not debate, leads to solutions and actions. Congress must be open to the discussion.
Before the class ended, I asked them what happens after they leave the classroom. Do they forget about it and move on? Do they call or write their Congressmen? What’s next? All had curious looks but no solid answers for helping to improve the situation.
For a number of years now, I have been playing with an idea, a suggestion, a potential solution that many of my friends have suggested I make public. So here it is; my discussion and solution. (Note: the co ditions herein are specific to my home state and relative to the established laws elsewhere — amend accordingly for your state’s conditions.)
The debate centers on gun control laws that would restrict the availability of types of firearms for purchase as well as the type and amount of ammunition for them. Many on the left believe there needs to be more regulation and restriction of availability while many on the right — especially the NRA — feel that owning and bearing firearms of any size or mechanism is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Neither side seems willing to be flexible in their thinking. For me the first thing that must be identified is that the Second Amendment indicates the motive behind allowing citizens to keep and bear arms is in order to secure our liberties via a “well regulated militia”. Note that: a WELL REGULATED militia. Not a militia free to do what I pleases, how it pleases, when it pleases, and with what it pleases. Regulated does more than suggest or imply rules, it demands it. But I digress.
In many instances, the attention seems to be directed away from the gun control argument and more toward the idea of mass shootings being a mental health issue. This may be the case but denying those with a diagnosed mental health disorder the ability to purchase or own a firearm does not cover those who go either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Plus, HIPAA laws as they stand prevent the medical records from being accessed to determine whether or not someone has had a mental health diagnosis that should prevent them from having access to a firearm.
I agree with those that say that restricting entirely the availability and purchase of firearms of any capacity or size will do little to meet the desired goal. If someone intending to do harm to another person wants a gun, they can get a gun — legally or illegally. In fact, firearms are not the only weapons perpetrators have used. The shooters responsible for the San Bernardino incident also had pipe bombs in their arsenal; gun control laws wouldn’t cover those items. Likewise, even if they are unable to legally get a firearm as a means to achieve their ends, they can achieve their goal with any number of other tools. With the resources of the Internet and the technology available, making a weapon is as accessible as apple pie recipes.
In law enforcement, any item available for use in the spur of the moment is considered a “weapon of opportunity”. This could be anything from a metal pipe to a kitchen knife to a car. Several incidents over the last few years — including UC Merced in California — have featured stabbings rather than shootings. In October of 2015, a perpetrator drove his car into a crowd that had gathered to watch the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade killing 4 people. Gun control laws would have been irrelevant in those cases. In more than one instance, Senators and Representatives have used the NRA’s talking points about the dangers of a person using a car for the purposes of homicide. While this often equates to comparing apples to pork-chops, I’d like to take that example and run with it.
What if we regulated guns in the same way as we regulated motor vehicles?
Sale of Firearms:
There really are two ways a sale can take place: public (dealership) or private (person-to-person). I suggest that a dealer be bound by similar sale, taxing, and insurance laws and regulations to those of the motor vehicle industry. Likewise, as with a sale of a motor vehicle between two private parties, a firearm should be regulated in the same fashion. For those unaware of the process, let’s review:
A vehicle must be registered and titled with the state in which it is owned. A registration shows that the vehicle’s identification number, make, model, and mileage have been recorded with the state. This helps identify it later if/when necessary. The same could be done with a firearm, and in many states, this is the norm. This should be standard across all states and combined in a larger database similar to the National Crime Informational Center’s (NCIC) and regulated by the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
Each vehicle is required to have a title of ownership as well. This has much the same information as the registration but the title is issued to the owner (or lienholder) of the vehicle and grants them permission to sell the vehicle at will. The process goes like this (both private and public sales): the two parties agree on the price and/or terms. When the sale is paid in full the owner will sign the title of the vehicle over to the buyer. That title then gets sent to the state to register it in the buyer’s name. This then transfers the responsibility — as well as the ownership — of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer. While I think this is an excellent procedure, I think it should be changed just slightly. I believe that before the buyer can actually take possession of the firearm, the title should pass through the state’s hands in order to verify that the buyer is legal to purchase and keep a firearm.
Qualifying to Keep and Bear Arms:
As with most things regulated by the government, an appropriate age should be determined for firearm ownership. While it is understood that there is a strong culture of hunting and firearm sport in the US, in the same way that we have insurance on our vehicles that covers secondary drivers, owners could carry riders on their policies for children or family members too young to own a firearm to still operate them.
As the US has set the age of 18 as the age when a person becomes a legal adult whereby they can vote and enlist in military service, let us use 18 as the designated age for firearm ownership. There would need to be certain processes a person must go through in order to purchase a firearm.
First, the person must possess a firearm permit/license; this would be different than a license to carry (concealed or open). Just like a driver must attend driver’s education, anyone wishing to own/operate a firearm must attend a 40 hour firearm safety course and pass an operator’s exam.
Second, the person must have a clean criminal history. Felony convictions are an automatic denial or revocation of a firearm license/permit.
Third, the person must be free from any mental or physical health conditions that would limit their ability to operate a firearm safely. For examples, as with an vehicle operator’s license, a person cannot operate a vehicle if they are deemed to be legally blind or of a diminished mental capacity that would inhibit their reaction time or other driving ability.
Illegal or unlicensed possession of a firearm (registered or not) will result in felony charges and if/when found guilty, the person will have all firearm privileges suspended or revoked. Suspended privileges will require that all firearms be turned over to a state agency for the duration of the suspension. A revocation of license will require that all firearms be surrendered to the state agency for a period of 90 days in which time they may be sold to a third party by the owner or collected by an “heir”. Any firearms not collected after those 90 days will be remanded to the custody of the state agency for either melting down or resale at a state property and impound auction.
Insuring a Firearm:
I believe that in the same way we have motor vehicle insurance, we should be required to have insurance on each firearm we own. Consider why we have motor vehicle insurance: we are required to cover our vehicles in the event of personal, bodily, or property damage we cause with our vehicle to another person or their property OR if someone else injures or damages our vehicle. Why wouldn’t we do the same with firearms? We have to pay for fuel for our vehicles; we have to buy ammunition for our firearms. We have to pay for maintenance to our vehicles (whether we do it ourselves or not), we have to pay to clean and maintain our firearms (whether we do it ourselves or not). Insuring our firearms is the next logical step.
To that end, I propose firearm insurance be set up the same as motor vehicle insurance.
· Each firearm would need to be covered.
· A minimum amount of coverage would be required (liability).
· Insurance would cover loss, damage, theft, and accidental injury or death.
· Discounts could apply to policy-holders with multiple firearms.
· Coverage amounts would vary based on the make, model, and capacity of each firearm.
Consequences of not carrying firearm insurance would be similar to that of not having vehicular insurance: suspension of operator privileges, fines, revocation of permits, etc. When a firearm is used the commission of a crime, then the operator will be subject to prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. From manslaughter to first-degree homicide, these are all potential punishments for using a car to kill someone either purposely or by accident. The same should be true for firearms. Just as insurance companies are responsible for paying out the victims of death or injury by motor vehicle accident, the same would be required for those who use a firearm in the same manner.
However, this needs to go the full length. I recognize not all firearms are operated by their legal owners, just as some cars are used illegally. And in those instances, the owner of the gun should still hold a measure of responsibility and accountability. Additionally, we must consider the accountability placed on others who knew beforehand or may be culpable in the homicide. Let me explain.
If a bartender or server knowing serves alcohol to a person who is already intoxicated or suspected of being intoxicated, they can be held responsible for any injury or death that drunk driver may cause. There is potential for severe fines, loss of employment, jail time, and even the bar or restaurant may suffer fines or closure. The same should be applied to those who sell or provide firearms and ammunition. If a retailer sells a firearm to a person without running a background check or to someone they suspect may be intending arm to another, they too should be held liable.
Consider this, if we had a system in place for ensuring that more people looked out for the safety and well-being of our fellow citizens, if a mechanism existed that truly held people responsible for their actions — intended or by accident — then perhaps we could see mass shootings end and homicides be reduced. If you need any more convincing of the potential benefits of this idea then think on this: how many billions of dollars could be made from the insuring of firearms in the same way we insure motor vehicles?
The auto-insurance industry alone profited $22 billion dollars in 2015. What has it been since?
