Rob Sullivan@lawyerologist Gun owner liability insurance would be mandatory under proposed laws #lawyerology http://ow.ly/hXK6m
Details
Eligio Del Awiizotl@EligioAwiizotl@lawyerologist @DemandAPlan @USSupremeCourt #UN #UNICEF #UNAM_MX ◄ Time ago, I suggested the same thing... http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/04/xxviii-conferencia-internacional-contra.html … (Spanish)
Eligio Del Awiizotl
10:14 p.m. - Feb 22, 2013 · Details
---
Gabrielle Giffords@GabbyGiffords On our way to the State of the Union #GetItDone pic.twitter.com/tH8KjXKQ
Eligio Del Awiizotl9:26 a.m. - Feb 23, 2013 · Details
12:33 p.m. - Feb 23, 2013 · Details
12:42 p.m. - Feb 23, 2013 · Details
Gun owner liability insurance would be mandatory under proposed laws
Posted Feb 22, 2013 6:33 AM CST
Proposed laws in at least six states would require gun owners to buy liability insurance for their weapons.
Backers of the legislation hope insurance would encourage responsible behavior, the New York Times reports. Advocates say accidental shootings could be reduced if insurers set lower premiums for weapons deemed less dangerous or for measures such as safety locks.
One bill in New York goes further, proposing a coverage requirement for willful acts as well as negligence, the story says. No state currently has a mandatory gun insurance law on the books.
Homeowner policies often cover negligence, but intentional shootings are excluded, including use of a gun in self-defense, experts told the Times. Some umbrella policies, however, will pay for self-defense coverage. And some courts have required coverage for intentional shootings even when policies did not cover illegal acts.
One gun group, the United States Concealed Carry Association, is offering expanded coverage as a member benefit. Its policy is called the Self-Defense Shield. The policy will reimburse legal defense expenses following an acquittal when the policy holder justifiably uses a gun in self-defense.
“Use your gun in self-defense, and you’ll need a wheelbarrow full of cash to pay a competent lawyer,” the group’s website says.
"Related Topics
Evan McGlinn for The New York Times
David P. Linsky is a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance, to ensure more responsible behavior.
Published: February 21, 2013 1303 Comments
Both sides in a nation sharply divided over guns seem to agree on at least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry in a heavily armed society. But just what that role should be, and whether insurers will choose to accept it, are much in dispute.
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Narayan Mahon for The New York Times
Christopher J. Monge, an insurance agent and gun owner, opposes proposals to make liability insurance mandatory.
Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy auto insurance. Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.
“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he added.
Groups representing gun owners oppose efforts to make insurance mandatory, arguing that law-abiding people should not be forced to buy insurance to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. But some groups, including the National Rifle Association, endorse voluntary liability policies for their members. And as several states pass laws making it easier for people to carry concealed weapons and use them for self-defense, some gun groups are now selling policies to cover some of the legal costs stemming from self-defense shootings.
The United States Concealed Carry Association recently began selling what it calls Self-Defense Shield. “If you’re forced to justifiably use your gun in self-defense,” its Web site says, “Self-Defense Shield will help pay for your expert pro-2nd Amendment lawyer by reimbursing your legal-defense expenses following your acquittal — an ingenious system critical to the arsenal of any responsibly armed citizen.”
Premiums for such insurance range from around $200 to $300 per year; in general, the coverage is narrowly written and excludes cases where a gun is used to commit a crime.
Some specialized underwriters are reviewing what their policies cover when it comes to shootings, and weighing whether they should offer new types of coverage for gun owners. And as more states pass laws allowing people to bring guns to public venues — including restaurants, bars, churches and the parking lots of their workplaces — some business groups have expressed concerns that they could be held liable for shootings on their properties, which could drive up their insurance costs.
On Thursday, when Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut outlined his proposals to reduce gun violence — which included universal background checks, a ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines and a stronger assault weapons ban — he called for officials to study “whether owners of firearms should be required to carry additional insurance.”
The insurance industry is wary of some of the proposals to require gun owners to buy liability coverage — and particularly of bills, like one that was filed in New York that would require coverage for damages resulting not only from negligence but also from “willful acts.”
Robert P. Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, said that insurance generally covered accidents and unintentional acts — not intentional or illegal ones. “Insurance will cover you if your home burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson,” he said.
Some claims stemming from shootings have been covered by homeowners’ insurance — even by policies that said they did not cover illegal acts.
The families of the two students responsible for the 1999 killings at Columbine High School in Colorado were able to use money from their homeowners’ policies to settle a lawsuit brought by families of most of the victims. In 2001, a California court ordered an insurance company to defend a policyholder whose 16-year-old son shot and killed a friend with a Beretta handgun that he had found in his mother’s coat. But the year before, a North Carolina court ruled that an insurance company did not have to cover the expenses of a policyholder who had shot and wounded a prowler on his property.
Christopher J. Monge, an insurance agent and gun owner in Verona, Wis., recently wrote a book, “The Gun Owner’s Guide to Insurance for Concealed Carry and Self-Defense,” which he sells at gun shows. Mr. Monge said that the problem with most liability insurance is that it promises coverage only in cases of a gun owner’s negligence, or an accidental shooting — and not if the gun owner shoots someone intentionally in self-defense. “A negligent act is covered by your liability policy, but if you intentionally shoot somebody, it could be excluded,” he said.
So as more states pass self-defense laws, Mr. Monge said that he found several insurance companies that would specifically offer liability coverage in cases of self-defense, usually in the form of an “umbrella” policy that added a higher level of coverage than the routine coverage for negligence in a homeowners’ policy. An umbrella policy adds coverage for unusual, but potentially expensive, incidents.
But he opposes proposals to make liability insurance mandatory. “They’re barking up the wrong tree, if you ask me,” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of gun owners are going to be safe and not go crazy.”
States have been considering mandatory gun insurance bills for years, but no state has passed one yet, said Jon Griffin, a policy associate at the National Conference of State Legislatures. When Illinois considered a bill in 2009, the National Rifle Association wrote that it would “put firearms ownership out of reach for many law-abiding Illinoisans.” The N.R.A. endorses a policy that offers excess liability coverage — “because accidents do happen no matter how careful you are” — and another that offers “self-defense insurance.”
The recent trend of allowing guns in more public places has alarmed some business groups. When Ohio enacted a law allowing guns in bars in 2011, the Ohio Restaurant Association opposed it, writing officials that restaurant owners “expect that this law would be perceived by insurance companies as increasing the risk of injury in establishments that sell alcohol, which of course would result in increased liability insurance costs.” Owners have not reported higher premiums because of the new law, said a spokesman for the association, Jarrod A. Clabaugh, but some worry that a shooting could drive up their insurance costs.
The current debate over mandatory liability laws is being watched with interest by Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law. Professor Lund proposed the idea of mandatory insurance in a 1987 article in the Alabama Law Review, seeing it as a form of gun control that could be consistent with the constitutional right to bear arms. But he said that he had not studied any of the current proposals, and noted that it made a great deal of difference how they are written.
“If this were done, the private insurance market would quickly and efficiently make it prohibitively expensive for people with a record of irresponsible ownership of guns to possess them legally,” he wrote in the 1987 article, “but would not impose unreasonable burdens on those who have the self-discipline to exercise their liberty in a responsible fashion.”
---
Milenio.com@Milenio Reconoce Steven Tyler haber gastado unos seis mdd en drogas http://mile.io/YP7iUI
Eligio Del Awiizotl---
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
XXVIII CONFERENCIA
INTERNACIONAL CONTRA LAS DROGAS, SENDA CORTINA DE HUMO AL PUJANTE NEGOCIO DE LOS
ARMEROS…
Cuento de hadas-Fisgón
---
XXVIII CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL CONTRA LAS DROGAS, SENDA
CORTINA DE HUMO AL PUJANTE NEGOCIO DE LOS
ARMEROS…
Galopante corrupción e impunidad como telón de fondo engalana la pasarela de quienes se
jactan ser los protagonistas en dicho combate, bajo el halago de
resplandecientes reflectores y derroche en gastos que se traducen en
infructuosos si no se ataca el epicentro de dichas actividades ilegales e
ilícitas, como desde hace más de veinte años lo he reiterado: el Sistema
Financiero y la Administración Pública
en sus tres esferas de gobierno: Federal, Local o Estatal y Municipal...
El
uso abusivo de la desmaterialización de los títulos de crédito, de los
títulos-valor y de las diversas operaciones electrónicas en el ámbito comercial,
sólo es una de las vertientes en dicho
campo.
Mientras en los Estados Unidos (USA) y en otras latitudes no se exija
la suscripción de un Contrato de Seguro con cobertura amplia por quien compra un
arma de fuego, cualesquiera sea su calibre y alcance, la lucha contra el
fenómeno del narcotráfico seguirá observando alza en cuanto a los ‘Muertos
Incómodos’ al seno de la sociedad civil inocente, como acontece en México desde
que el usurpador Felipe Calderón Hinojosa optara ingenuamente por tratar de
legitimarse “en el Poder”, declarando la "guerra al narcotráfico", acto seguido al MEGAFRAUDE
ELECTORAL II (2006), en agravio directo de la ciudadanía votante e
indirectamente de AMLO, quien fuera el real vencedor en
urnas...
La
celebración de un Contrato de Seguro para hacer frente a los posibles daños que
se causan por el uso indiscriminado de armas de fuego, si no abatiría
absolutamente el crimen, si reduciría sensiblemente el trasiego de las mismas al
través de varias fronteras, específicamente la que divide a México con sus
llamados ‘Vecinos Distantes’, teniendo las autoridades al menos un punto de
referencia más en sus líneas de investigación.
Desde
hace mas de 20 años, este ocioso tecleador ha insistido en los obstáculos que
representan en dicha lucha contra el crimen los llamados Secretos: Bancario,
Bursátil y Fiduciario, entre otras actividades inherentes a títulos de crédito,
títulos-valor, contratos, convenios y demás operaciones comerciales, al través
de instituciones financieras-bancarias e instituciones financieras-no bancarias.
Otro rubro que facilita la comisión de actos ilegales e ilícitos es a través de
la no transparencia e incertidumbre jurídica que observan diversos Registros
Públicos, sean de la Propiedad y de Comercio en cada uno de las entidades
federativas, el Registro Agrario, el Registro Público Marítimo, entre otras
dependencias.
Inconcuso es que la DEA absorbe mucho dinero del
pago de impuestos de los ciudadanos norteamericanos, frente a sus pobres
resultados años ha...
Mientras dichas sugerencias, entre muchas más, no se lleven al cabo,
la lucha en contra de la llamada Delincuencia Organizada –como si dichos
ilícitos no requirieran el concierto previo para su comisión, o su comisión por
omisión--, solo permitirá el paulatino y sistemático enriquecimiento de los
armeros, frente al creciente luto al seno de las sagradas familias, no sólo de
mis queridos (as) paisanos (as)
Lo expuesto, atentos el vigente
contenido y alcances de los diversos cuerpos normativos que atañen a la llamada
Delincuencia Organizada y el narcotráfico.
---
"EU: combate al narco y equívocos preocupantes
Durante su participación en la Conferencia Internacional para el
Control de Drogas, que se realiza en Cancún, Quintana Roo, la titular de la
agencia antidrogas estadunidense (DEA, por sus siglas en inglés), Michele
Leonhart, afirmó que aunque parezca lo contrario, el grado de violencia en
México es un señal del éxito de las autoridades nacionales en su combate a los
cárteles del narcotráfico, a los que definió de animales enjaulados que
arremeten unos contra otros. A su vez, en el contexto de una comparecencia ante
el comité para las fuerzas armadas del Senado de Estados Unidos, el jefe del
Comando Norte de ese país, James A. Winnefeld, sostuvo que las fuerzas de
seguridad (mexicanas) trabajan con creciente efectividad contra los grupos
criminales, aunque aún queda por ver si podrán derrotarlos en forma
definitiva.
Esta reiteración por altos funcionarios del gobierno estadunidense de
lo que vienen diciendo voces oficiales en México desde hace más de cuatro años,
tiene como contexto la creciente evidencia documental de que Washington
desempeña una función de primera mano, si no es que de control, en la planeación
y coordinación de las directrices de seguridad pública que se aplican
actualmente en nuestro territorio.
Dicha participación, de suyo inaceptable y lesiva de la soberanía
nacional, es además alarmante, si se toma en cuenta la manifiesta desorientación
de las autoridades estadunidenses, a cuyos designios se han ceñido las mexicanas
en la guerra contra los cárteles de la droga: el alegato de que la
desbordada violencia en México es señal de éxito es desmentida por las cifras
sobre el número de asesinatos –más de 35 mil– registrados en los pasados cuatro
años; por las muestras fehacientes de un incremento en el poder de fuego; el
grado de organización y el control territorial de los grupos criminales, y por
el hecho de que crecientes sectores de la ciudadanía viven hoy con terror ante
las confrontaciones armadas, las agresiones y extorsiones cometidas por toda
suerte de organizaciones delictivas, y las violaciones a los derechos humanos
perpetradas por efectivos policiales y militares encargados de restablecer el
estado de derecho.
Por otra parte, resulta difícil conciliar con la realidad la
afirmación de la titular de la DEA en el sentido de que “no hay cárteles
específicos en Estados Unidos” y de que el comercio de drogas en ese país es
controlado por los grupos mexicanos de narcotraficantes: si la situación
descrita fuera real, tendría que traducirse en un control territorial de esos
esos grupos en el vecino país; en el desarrollo, en suelo estadunidense, de una
confrontación entre autoridades y cárteles por lo menos tan violenta como
la que tiene lugar en el lado mexicano, o, en su defecto, en el reconocimiento,
por Washington de que en el país vecino no se persigue a esas organizaciones
delictivas.
Fuera de eso, lo dicho por la funcionaria parece más bien un nuevo
intento de las autoridades estadunidenses por eludir las responsabilidades que
les corresponden en materia de combate al narcotráfico –fenómeno que, por lo
demás, se sigue desarrollando con normalidad en los estados y ciudades de ese
país–, por trasladar al sur del río Bravo las tareas relacionadas con ese
combate –junto con la violencia exasperante y el deterioro de la seguridad
pública y del estado de derecho que conllevan–, y por profundizar, por esa vía,
su injerencia en territorio mexicano."
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/04/06/index.php
"Inminente, acuerdo sobre control de armas en EU: The Washington Post
"Inminente, acuerdo sobre control de armas en EU: The Washington Post
Un acuerdo sería un gran primer paso hacia la consideración
de una legislación para limitar la violencia."
http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/04/xxviii-conferencia-internacional-contra.html
http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2013/01/international-community-stop.html
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=FIDEIIUS+Sandy+Hook&oq=FIDEIIUS+Sandy+Hook&gs_l=hp.3...1728.7219.0.7808.19.17.0.1.1.0.256.2395.5j9j3.17.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.qU6he_YFUdQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.b2I&fp=30c2577a25774e12&biw=1024&bih=640
---------------------------------
http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2013/01/international-community-stop.html
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=FIDEIIUS+Sandy+Hook&oq=FIDEIIUS+Sandy+Hook&gs_l=hp.3...1728.7219.0.7808.19.17.0.1.1.0.256.2395.5j9j3.17.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.qU6he_YFUdQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.b2I&fp=30c2577a25774e12&biw=1024&bih=640
---------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment