HB0687 FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

[45superman]

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.

 

http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp...mp;SessionID=76

[Buzzard]

Another anti-gun bill by a Cook county democrat suckling at the teat of the Joyce Foundation.

 

Isn't this infringement having to pay for the right to own? This is different from driving which is not a right.

[Mac]

I get the same impression. They want to cause the gun owner to have to foot a high insurance premium just to keep the constitutional right to keep arms. It doesn't say anythink about those foid card holders that apply for a ltc they mean any foid card holder. This is not good no matter how you slice it.

 

 

Mac

[lockman]

AND, those not owning firearms must carry $5,000,000.00 in errors and ommissions insurance to cover not having a firearm when they needed one! License & insurance to exercise a constitutional right! WOW! :Angry!:

[PPK]

Apparently, this doesn't apply to the gang-banger that has a gun but doesn't qualify to hold a FOID card. If someone steals your firearm and uses it right away to commit a crime, you get victimized twice. This is one of the dumbest ideas they've come up with yet.

[Rem870]

guess ill just keep the FOID if it means i dont have to have more insurance...i dont want to even calculate up what i pay in insurance in a month as it is...it would scare me...

[45superman]

guess ill just keep the FOID if it means i dont have to have more insurance...i dont want to even calculate up what i pay in insurance in a month as it is...it would scare me...

 

A FOID would in no way convey immunity from the insurance requirement.

[GWBH]

We should demand politicians be covered by "Dumb Idea Insurance"

That way when they propose all this nonsense, we could file a claim with the insurance company and Illinois will have a budget surplus.

[45superman]

We should demand politicians be covered by "Dumb Idea Insurance"

That way when they propose all this nonsense, we could file a claim with the insurance company and Illinois will have a budget surplus.

 

I don't think any insurance company would be willing to take on that risk .

[illinisnare]

How 'bout First Ammendment Insurance? Or insurance for the media when they make errors and omissions in their reporting?

[ilphil]

We should demand politicians be covered by "Dumb Idea Insurance"

That way when they propose all this nonsense, we could file a claim with the insurance company and Illinois will have a budget surplus.

 

I don't think any insurance company would be willing to take on that risk :Drunk emoticon:.

 

The premiums would certainly be outrageous!!

[Mac]

What I am concerned with is the beneficiary of this insurance policy. Say you accidently on purpose shoot a crooked politician, lawyer, judge, wino, self employed businessman, or someone on welfare, To whom does the insurance money go.I have this vision that Illinois would have their hand out for the money since it is a state law that has been broken.I still can't figure out the insurance. It just doesn't make sense to me ato have insurance on a right granted by the Constitution.

 

 

Mac

[Drylok]

I'm calling my guys in the morning and I just put this Dunkin joker on speed dial. He will be getting an ear full in the morning as well.

 

[anonymous too]

I believe ABATE(IL motorcyle group) faced a similar issue a few years ago requiring special insurance for motorcyle riders. They beat it easily. ABATE's lobbyist is the NRA's lobbyist.

[asfried1]

I believe ABATE(IL motorcyle group) faced a similar issue a few years ago requiring special insurance for motorcyle riders. They beat it easily. ABATE's lobbyist is the NRA's lobbyist.

 

Just to put it in further perspective, the government does not require me purchase insurance for my medical or pilot's licenses! Furthermore, my medical malpractice limit (one I voluntarily undertake) is $1,000,000. If I didn't know better, I would think this proposed legislation was an actual joke.

[Lou]

Welcome aboard asfried1. I think you'll find some great information here and a LOT of dedicated folks.

 

Lou

[Air Commando]

We should demand politicians be covered by "Dumb Idea Insurance"

That way when they propose all this nonsense, we could file a claim with the insurance company and Illinois will have a budget surplus.

 

I don't think any insurance company would be willing to take on that risk .

 

Daley already has that covered I'm sure with a majority of the premiums going into his pocket.

[SirMatthew]

I believe ABATE(IL motorcyle group) faced a similar issue a few years ago requiring special insurance for motorcyle riders. They beat it easily. ABATE's lobbyist is the NRA's lobbyist.

 

Todd Vandermyde...I've been looking for his contact info but can't seem to find it. Anyone have an email address they can share or have him sign up here so we can PM him if needed?

[asfried1]

Welcome aboard asfried1. I think you'll find some great information here and a LOT of dedicated folks.

 

Lou

 

 

Thank you for the welcome!

 

While I grew up here on the North Shore, I spent a number of years of my earlier adulthood in Florida and Texas. When I came back to Chicagoland 14 years ago, I simply had other things on my mind other than 2A issues (medical school, residency, children). But Florida and Texas rubbed off and I think it is a good time to be as active in these sorts of issues as I can. I plan on going to IGOLD - maybe as a pediatrician armed with actual data I might make be able to plant a tiny seed of rationality in the minds of my extremely leftist legislators (Karen May and Susan Garrett).

[Ol'Coach]

Welcome aboard asfried1. I think you'll find some great information here and a LOT of dedicated folks.

 

Lou

 

 

Thank you for the welcome!

 

While I grew up here on the North Shore, I spent a number of years of my earlier adulthood in Florida and Texas. When I came back to Chicagoland 14 years ago, I simply had other things on my mind other than 2A issues (medical school, residency, children). But Florida and Texas rubbed off and I think it is a good time to be as active in these sorts of issues as I can. I plan on going to IGOLD - maybe as a pediatrician armed with actual data I might make be able to plant a tiny seed of rationality in the minds of my extremely leftist legislators (Karen May and Susan Garrett).

 

Glad you're here, sir! We need you!

[Buzzard]

I believe ABATE(IL motorcyle group) faced a similar issue a few years ago requiring special insurance for motorcyle riders. They beat it easily. ABATE's lobbyist is the NRA's lobbyist.

 

Todd Vandermyde...I've been looking for his contact info but can't seem to find it. Anyone have an email address they can share or have him sign up here so we can PM him if needed?

 

Here ya go, Matthew!

 

Send email to Todd Vandermyde at ISRA

 

I've known Todd for years through ABATE.

 

He's a good man to have on our side.

[SirMatthew]

What's crazy is that this idea doesn't sound all that bad on the surface. After all, we require motorists to have insurance.

I would bet most of the uninformed population would readily support this idea. However, almost all vehicle accidents are just that...accidents. Very few intentionally ram their car into something, but when they do they face criminal charges.

 

The use of firearms for self-defense is almost always an intentional act. Insurance companies are not known for insuring people who intentionally do things which could result in an injury claim. For example, it is almost impossible for some people to get (or afford) health or life insurance because they are employed in extremely high-risk occupations.

 

I can't see any insurance company willing to accept the risk of unintended consequences resulting from an intentional act, but even so I would hate to see the insurance companies get involved in all this. They would come up with all kinds of conditions which would have to be met in order to qualify for the insurance. They might even calculate premium rates which figure in your firearm accuracy rate, among other things. You know their rates would be sky-high given the high cost of medical care these days. To bring the premiums down they would come up with cost-saving ideas, just like they did when introducing PPO and HMO medical plans. I could just see it now: The claim would not be paid if more than three people were in your field of view, if you were in an area listed on their map as being a "high crime risk" location, if the incident happened during the commission of a crime (duh...that's why I had to defend myself in the first place!), if you did not call them in advance of your travel plans to receive the latest advisory warnings for that location, etc.

 

Without insurance: Accidentally killing an innocent bystander could result in charges of involuntary manslaughter. Further, if I use my firearm to defend myself and happen to accidently hit an innocent by-stander, I would be sued by the victim and may have to pay the medical bills, perhaps even bankrupting me. These consequences are things I'd like to avoid and give me incentive to fire my weapon only when I am confident I will hit my intended target. Isn't this one of the basic rules of firearm safety?

 

With insurance: A person could still face charges of involuntary manslaughter, but now they have less reason to be careful. Their insurance company would bear the financial consequences of their actions, so they might not hesitate to empty the entire magazine haphazardly without regard if they accidentally hit an innocent bystander. This doesn't sound like it would make things safer, does it?

[Buzzard]

What's crazy is that this idea doesn't sound all that bad on the surface. After all, we require motorists to have insurance.

I would bet most of the uninformed population would readily support this idea. However, almost all vehicle accidents are just that...accidents. Very few intentionally ram their car into something, but when they do they face criminal charges.

 

The use of firearms for self-defense is almost always an intentional act. Insurance companies are not known for insuring people who intentionally do things which could result in an injury claim. For example, it is almost impossible for some people to get (or afford) health or life insurance because they are employed in extremely high-risk occupations.

 

I can't see any insurance company willing to accept the risk of unintended consequences resulting from an intentional act, but even so I would hate to see the insurance companies get involved in all this. They would come up with all kinds of conditions which would have to be met in order to qualify for the insurance. They might even calculate premium rates which figure in your firearm accuracy rate, among other things. You know their rates would be sky-high given the high cost of medical care these days. To bring the premiums down they would come up with cost-saving ideas, just like they did when introducing PPO and HMO medical plans. I could just see it now: The claim would not be paid if more than three people were in your field of view, if you were in an area listed on their map as being a "high crime risk" location, if the incident happened during the commission of a crime (duh...that's why I had to defend myself in the first place!), if you did not call them in advance of your travel plans to receive the latest advisory warnings for that location, etc.

 

Without insurance: Accidentally killing an innocent bystander could result in charges of involuntary manslaughter. Further, if I use my firearm to defend myself and happen to accidently hit an innocent by-stander, I would be sued by the victim and may have to pay the medical bills, perhaps even bankrupting me. These consequences are things I'd like to avoid and give me incentive to fire my weapon only when I am confident I will hit my intended target. Isn't this one of the basic rules of firearm safety?

 

With insurance: A person could still face charges of involuntary manslaughter, but now they have less reason to be careful. Their insurance company would bear the financial consequences of their actions, so they might not hesitate to empty the entire magazine haphazardly without regard if they accidentally hit an innocent bystander. This doesn't sound like it would make things safer, does it?

 

From the above statements it seems that you "would hate to see the insurance companies get involved."

 

Which is why I'm at a loss why you would post this in the Tribune comments:

 

"But whether you believe conceal-carry laws make us safer or not, I think both sides CAN agree that anyone who carries a concealed weapon SHOULD be required to carry proof of liability insurance as well. Since Illinois' law would allow them to miss their target in target practice as much as 45% of the time, we OUGHT to protect the people behind the people they're shooting at. If we require vehicle drivers to carry liability insurance, why not gun owners?"

 

Posted by: Sirmatthew | Feb 6, 2009 9:52:33 AM

Is this your post, Matthew?

[SirMatthew]

What's crazy is that this idea doesn't sound all that bad on the surface. After all, we require motorists to have insurance.

I would bet most of the uninformed population would readily support this idea. However, almost all vehicle accidents are just that...accidents. Very few intentionally ram their car into something, but when they do they face criminal charges.

 

The use of firearms for self-defense is almost always an intentional act. Insurance companies are not known for insuring people who intentionally do things which could result in an injury claim. For example, it is almost impossible for some people to get (or afford) health or life insurance because they are employed in extremely high-risk occupations.

 

I can't see any insurance company willing to accept the risk of unintended consequences resulting from an intentional act, but even so I would hate to see the insurance companies get involved in all this. They would come up with all kinds of conditions which would have to be met in order to qualify for the insurance. They might even calculate premium rates which figure in your firearm accuracy rate, among other things. You know their rates would be sky-high given the high cost of medical care these days. To bring the premiums down they would come up with cost-saving ideas, just like they did when introducing PPO and HMO medical plans. I could just see it now: The claim would not be paid if more than three people were in your field of view, if you were in an area listed on their map as being a "high crime risk" location, if the incident happened during the commission of a crime (duh...that's why I had to defend myself in the first place!), if you did not call them in advance of your travel plans to receive the latest advisory warnings for that location, etc.

 

Without insurance: Accidentally killing an innocent bystander could result in charges of involuntary manslaughter. Further, if I use my firearm to defend myself and happen to accidently hit an innocent by-stander, I would be sued by the victim and may have to pay the medical bills, perhaps even bankrupting me. These consequences are things I'd like to avoid and give me incentive to fire my weapon only when I am confident I will hit my intended target. Isn't this one of the basic rules of firearm safety?

 

With insurance: A person could still face charges of involuntary manslaughter, but now they have less reason to be careful. Their insurance company would bear the financial consequences of their actions, so they might not hesitate to empty the entire magazine haphazardly without regard if they accidentally hit an innocent bystander. This doesn't sound like it would make things safer, does it?

 

From the above statements it seems that you "would hate to see the insurance companies get involved."

 

Which is why I'm at a loss why you would post this in the Tribune comments:

 

"But whether you believe conceal-carry laws make us safer or not, I think both sides CAN agree that anyone who carries a concealed weapon SHOULD be required to carry proof of liability insurance as well. Since Illinois' law would allow them to miss their target in target practice as much as 45% of the time, we OUGHT to protect the people behind the people they're shooting at. If we require vehicle drivers to carry liability insurance, why not gun owners?"

 

Posted by: Sirmatthew | Feb 6, 2009 9:52:33 AM

Is this your post, Matthew?

 

 

No, no, no...I was replying to someone who said that and included his quote in my reply.

 

Here is the actual post for that comment.

 

But whether you believe conceal-carry laws make us safer or not, I think both sides CAN agree that anyone who carries a concealed weapon SHOULD be required to carry proof of liability insurance as well. Since Illinois' law would allow them to miss their target in target practice as much as 45% of the time, we OUGHT to protect the people behind the people they're shooting at.

 

If we require vehicle drivers to carry liability insurance, why not gun owners?

 

Posted by: Yellow Dog Democrat | Feb 5, 2009 5:14:09 PM

 

 

 

 

And here is my reply which includes his quote:

 

"But whether you believe conceal-carry laws make us safer or not, I think both sides CAN agree that anyone who carries a concealed weapon SHOULD be required to carry proof of liability insurance as well. Since Illinois' law would allow them to miss their target in target practice as much as 45% of the time, we OUGHT to protect the people behind the people they're shooting at. If we require vehicle drivers to carry liability insurance, why not gun owners?"

 

And this issue may very well become common practice, but that is not the issue now. Forty-eight states, that is 96% of all U.S. states, now have concealed-carry without requirements for insurance. Illinois needs to raise herself to match the standard of the rest of the nation.

 

 

Posted by: Sirmatthew | Feb 6, 2009 9:52:33 AM

 

 

I personally don't think insurance will ever fly, although it is possible our state may one day require it. I attempted to shut down the issue and focus on the fact we need LTC without an insurance requirement, just like 48 other states now have.

 

Sorry if it was confusing including the quotes of others in my posts.

[Buzzard]

AH. I see clearly the quotation marks that I missed, included above, while you we quoting the rabidly liberal "Yellow Dog".

 

My mistake, without question!

[SirMatthew]

AH. I see clearly the quotation marks that I missed, while you we quoting the rabidly liberal "Yellow Dog".

 

My mistake, without question!

 

You made me realize I need to start being more clear in my postings just to prevent confusion. Thanks for the heads up.

[Buzzard]

Did you see the above link to email Todd Vandermyde, Matthew?

[SirMatthew]

Did you see the above link to email Todd Vandermyde, Matthew?

 

Almost missed it, thanks!!

[Jay]

Either I'm over-thinking this, or misreading this, but this is my take on the insurance req. If they require insurance to own a gun, but no insurance agency would provide coverage, then would that make owning a firearm illegal, basically a ban by proxy?

[Buzzard]

Either I'm over-thinking this, or misreading this, but this is my take on the insurance req. If they require insurance to own a gun, but no insurance agency would provide coverage, then would that make owning a firearm illegal, basically a ban by proxy?

Let's say this became law, and gun owner had to buy liability insurance. There would have to be providers available, similar to high risk auto policies for DUI offenders.

 

The truth of the matter is they see us as a risk; a danger to others.