Will Mandatory Liability Insurance In New Jersey and San Jose, California Help Reduce Violence?

The concept of mandatory liability insurance for gun owners as a means to reduce violence has been a topic of debate for years, CBS News reported.

Mandatory Liability Insurance In New Jersey and San Jose, California (PHOTO: San Jose Spotlight)

Will Mandatory Liability Insurance Help Reduce Violence?

Proponents argue that requiring gun owners to purchase insurance would incentivize safe practices, thereby reducing incidents of gun violence. However, implementing such measures has proven challenging, as evidenced by recent developments in New Jersey and San Jose, California.

In New Jersey, a gun control law that included a provision for mandatory liability insurance was set to take effect on July 1. However, U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb blocked the law, citing a Supreme Court decision on gun carry permits.

The judge ruled that parts of the law went beyond constitutional authority and infringed on the right to bear arms. This setback dealt a blow to the implementation of the insurance requirement, which would have been the first statewide mandate of its kind.

Similarly, San Jose passed an ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay a fee. However, the city has faced legal challenges from gun rights groups, delaying the implementation of the mandate. The opponents argue that mandatory insurance coverage interferes with Second Amendment rights.

Supporters of mandatory liability insurance believe that it can influence gun owners’ behavior by leveraging market forces. They argue that insurance companies can analyze data and classify risks, setting premiums based on gun owners’ records, similar to how car insurance premiums are determined. By utilizing risk-based pricing, insurance can encourage safer gun practices.

READ ALSO: California’s Over-Regulation Threatens Vital Insurance Industry, Hurting Working Families

Mandatory Liability Insurance

However, there are challenges to implementing specialized firearm policies. Insurance companies may be reluctant to underwrite such policies due to legal and reputational risks. Furthermore, insurance coverage would not extend to illegal or criminal acts, such as mass shootings. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies has expressed skepticism about the industry’s role in underwriting gun policies.

Opponents, including the NRA, argue that taxing lawful ownership and requiring insurance will not effectively reduce gun violence, as many incidents are committed by repeat criminals who are unlikely to comply with such measures.

Despite the legal and practical challenges, supporters of mandatory liability insurance believe that it can be an important tool in addressing America’s ongoing gun violence problem. They argue that insurers and insurance should be seen as allies in combating this issue.

However, further discussions and considerations are needed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing such measures on a broader scale.

READ ALSO: Surprising Numbers Of Americans Will Lose Insurance As Medicaid Purge Begins