I agree. Certainly while in public (e.g. public roads).
That said, I want to say that got proposed in the 90s and somehow the NRA not only defeated it at the federal level, but got congress to ban states from doing it. I could have just imagined that tho.
I’m not a gun person, but I wonder if some pool of funds from insurance premiums could be made available for victims who wish to apply for restitution( or something).
This incident definitely will cost this woman money she would presumably only recover through a suit.
Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent.
The main reason it wouldn’t help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can’t insure against intentional acts, only accidents.
If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all.
I agree. Certainly while in public (e.g. public roads).
That said, I want to say that got proposed in the 90s and somehow the NRA not only defeated it at the federal level, but got congress to ban states from doing it. I could have just imagined that tho.EDIT: https://sclawreview.org/article/gun-insurance-mandates-and-the-second-amendment/ (summary: there’s a couple of laws [one state; one local], that will probably get SCOTUS review eventually, but are on the books for now; it’s questionable whether insurance will cut down gun violence.)
I’d expect guns to be at least as regulated as vehicles, but I guess vehicles don’t have their own amendment.
I’m not a gun person, but I wonder if some pool of funds from insurance premiums could be made available for victims who wish to apply for restitution( or something).
This incident definitely will cost this woman money she would presumably only recover through a suit.
Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent.
The main reason it wouldn’t help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can’t insure against intentional acts, only accidents.
If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all.
IANAL; TINLA.
Car insurance still covers your victims if you’re intentionally speeding or drunk driving so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9.
Yeah you’re definitely not a lawyer if that’s your takeaway here.