Washington: Home Insurance Requirement for Gun Owners Scheduled for Hearing on M

[JimmyHoffa]

SB 5963 could be utilized as a backdoor registration scheme.

That’s exactly what it is, and the left knows it. Plus to make criminals out of citizens who don’t get the coverage, and later defends themselves at home with a firearm making them a criminal.

Curious what the penalty for not getting said coverage will be?

Considering nearly everything insurance related passes through the AG's office at some point, I'm guessing a registry might be the intention.

[baldopepper]

I've had a firearms rider on my home owners insurance for years.  Just a bulk amount ($10,000) and it costs an additional $35.00 per year. Don't have to list specific firearms. Have riders for additional jewelry and musical instruments also as fine print on the basic policy caps them at very small amounts. 
 

[storyteller]

I am pretty sure that the riders on the homeowners insurance cover theft and loss, nothing to do with accidental discharge or the like, apples and oranges.

[baldopepper]

Haven't really researched, but suspect the liability clause of most home insurance would cover accidental discharge where someone was injured and your basic health insurance would cover you or a family member.  Learned the hard way what is and isn't covered when we had a major home fire some years ago.  Don't ever think for a minute that "it'll never happen to me". Fortunately we had a good agent go over our policy when we bought the home and had documented most valuable items and had riders on them. Would have been really screwed if we hadn't had.  Might surprise you what items really have a low cap amount on just basic insurance
(I'm not agent or in any way pushing insurance, just passing on what I learned thru experience)
 

[boneaddict]

I just went through this about 2 months ago with Allstate.  It was WAY more and they wanted  each firearm appraised.   You are paying less per year than what they wanted from me monthly.   It was heavier than 10k though.   

Yes, apples and oranges, but the point being is it costs quite a bit of  money and even if its our own choice for our own benefit, they have you by the nads and force you to have on file every firearm you own.     

[storyteller]

I am not understanding the same way .     The bill want to cover this,  so what are they accomplishing other than I  passed another gun control law against these  deadly weapons.

 "accidental or unintentional
discharge of the firearm including, but not limited to, death or
injury to persons who are not an insured person under the policy and"

Most riders on insurance are "
Homeowners insurance policies typically cover gun theft and accidental or unintentional damage caused by firearms. On a homeowners insurance policy, $5,000 is the average coverage limit for theft of firearms. You can also schedule your guns under itemized personal property coverage for additional protection.

[baldopepper]

Your basic liability clause in your home owners insurance covers anyone injured outside of yourself.  I argue that with basic insurance I meet what their requirement is.   I use the $10,000 rider on firearms because that amount didn't require me to specifically list the firearms.  If I had wanted more, or had one that was waymore valuable I would have had to list and pay more.  I hate dealing with insurance, but have learned to know what I have ( or havent) before I need to use it. Don't like them forcing it down my throat, but have what I need (hopefully) to protect myself.
 

[buckfvr]

They're trying to change a choice into a requirement for reasons not to be confused with good intentions.  Dont anyone try and reason it into being okay.  Its an attack.  See it for what it is.

[boneaddict]

Absolutely!

[MADMAX]

Received from state senator Wilson

“ Thank you for your email.  I am adamantly opposed to this – and all other legislation – which infringes/impairs on or violates our 2nd Amendment rights!  Please participate in the public hearing on this bill in whatever format you’re able!  It’s on Monday, January 29th at 10:30 AM.
 
I remain concerned about how emboldened my Democratic colleagues have become – to empower criminals and take away the ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves – all while simultaneously supporting policies which cripple our law enforcement officers’ ability to do their jobs.  Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are not the problem – Washington already has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation!  As you and I know, criminals don’t care about breaking the law.  Crimes of all types are skyrocketing across the state while Democratic lawmakers, Governor Jay Inslee, and Attorney General Bob Ferguson continue to push soft-on-crime policies and look the other way.  Make no mistake – Washington state has a public safety crisis!”

[cem3434]

Comments of opposition sent to my representatives. Thanks for posting.

[JimmyHoffa]

Wasn't there some requirement passed a couple years ago that said you had to own a safe?  And that would absolve liability from theft?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I didn't see this mentioned yet, but if they do pass this and then decide to start enforcing it somehow, who do you think they are going to come down on first?  How about anyone who has bought a hunting license.

[fowl smacker]

I didn't see this mentioned yet, but if they do pass this and then decide to start enforcing it somehow, who do you think they are going to come down on first?  How about anyone who has bought a hunting license.

What if you've only ever bought archery tags?

[buckfvr]

I didn't see this mentioned yet, but if they do pass this and then decide to start enforcing it somehow, who do you think they are going to come down on first?  How about anyone who has bought a hunting license.

That would be blatant discrimination, more likely have to go by registered gun owners.  Even if it passes, its unlikely to be enforced.