Mandatory Gun Insurance Is Common Sense

I applaud the Oakland County (Michigan) prosecutor’s decision to indict for involuntary manslaughter the parents of the boy who killed four fellow students last week.

If ever a case demanded such a charge, this is it. The parents bragged on social media that the dangerous weapon was the boy’s birthday present; when a worried teacher caught the boy ordering ammunition online, the boy’s mother texted him, “LOL. I’m not mad at you. You just have to learn not to get caught.” Next day, after the boy’s conduct worried school authorities, the parents “flatly refused” to take him out of school for the rest of the day. Then, . . . bang!

In New Mexico, “involuntary manslaughter” means the defendant should have known his/her conduct was dangerous, but “acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others,” causing someone’s death. That would cover the Michigan case. Still, our Legislature should review our law and consider changes clarifying the laws’ applicability to gun cases, without violating gun owners’ constitutional rights.

I suggest mandatory gun insurance, similar to mandatory automobile insurance; a safe-storage law; and including a notice with firearm licenses or permits that “the licensee acknowledges that s/he understands that firearms are dangerous and that permitting felons, children, and persons who are emotionally or mentally unstable to possess firearms endangers them and unknown third parties.” It may sound silly to have gun owners acknowledge that guns are dangerous, particularly in kids’ hands; but no shyster could get someone like the Crumbleys off by arguing that they didn’t figure the safety of others was implicated when they let their troubled teenager have easy access to a machine gun.

One benefit of mandatory gun insurance is that possessing an uninsured firearm would constitute an unlawful act. That would facilitate prosecution where someone acted with willful disregard for others’ safety.

Although the wrongly-decided 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller v D.C. vastly expanded individual gun rights, it conceded limitations. The Second Amendment couches the right as helpful to “a well-regulated militia.” Insurance and licensure constitute appropriate regulation, even if stronger gun laws that sharply restrict who can get those licenses would not be upheld. (A few states have considered mandatory insurance, and I think San Jose, CA passed such an ordinance this year, but I couldn’t find a Supreme Court decision one way or the other.) Rep. Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY) introduced in 2018 the Firearm Risk Protection Act, requiring proof of liability insurance before gun purchase, but it didn’t pass. Supporters noted that car fatalities had declined by 25 percent in a decade, but gun fatalities kept rising.

Insurance would rely on the market. Insurers specialize in weighing risks and calculating odds and charge appropriately. As car insurance premiums are based on car and driver, so that a 19-year-old man with a Porsche and two DWI’s pays more than the proverbial little old lady, a hunter who’s never had an incident with his shotgun would pay less than the first-timer buying a semi-automatic. People would be financially discouraged from buying the most dangerous guns, and encouraged to attend gun-safety classes and adopt safe practices.

Safe storage rules could save lives, by educating and encouraging well-intentioned gun owners to do right. More gun-owners would know the rules, and follow them; and ignoring them would help clarify responsibility for a shooting.

We need to do more. These steps are common sense.

                                    - 30 -

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 12 December 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site. Interestingly, fellow columnist Algernon D’Ammassa touched on gun-violence today too, in "Santa, Please Bring the Ammo!"]

[First, I’m not happy to see anyone in distress, or in a cage; and, yeah, listening to Mrs. Crumbley’s tearful repetitions of “Not Guilty” from jail made me sympathize, and recall my own blissfully dumb moves. I suspect most of us can recall many of those, if we’re honest, and were lucky more of them didn’t have the tragic consequences they could have had. She didn’t intend to kill four schoolkids. But her carelessness, when she had plenty of warning, did kill four schoolkids. And aside from whether she deserves to be punished (as the law says she does), I’m convinced that other parents or siblings who own guns and have offspring or siblings who aren’t too responsible watched her pathetic performance, on Internet or TV, and some of them might see themselves there, and improve their gun-safety protocols at home.]

[Second, I can’t predict with certainty how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule on mandatory gun insurance and/or on reasonable gun-storage safety rules that weren’t too onerous on someone who might need that gun for self-defense. The Heller ruling was a complete departure from nearly 200 years of cases that tied the Second Amendment right somewhat to the stated reason for it, “a well-regulated militia,” and denied that it gave individuals the unbridled right to point a cannon at city hall, but Heller changed all that. (Was the fact that a key justice’s wife essentially worked for the NRA coincidental?) The current supreme court could be the worst we’ve seen in 100 or 120 years, and might do anything; but why shouldn’t we try. And if I’m right that no Supreme Court decision has rejected the idea, why shouldn’t NEW MEXICO enact a sensible law requiring mandatory insurance?]

[Anyway, thanks for reading this; and take care out there!]

[btw, experienced local defense attorney Deborah Thuman, correctly pointed out that sheister, which we write as shyster, is the appropriate spelling, and that the German refers to a man taking a shit, and not necessarily to attorney.

She also provided a link to the transaction record required by federal law [ https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions ], which already provides that folks with mental illnesses can't buy guns, and observed, "In my 27 years aas a criminal defense attorney, I can't think of a single instance where my client bought a gun from anyone required to keep records.  As long as there is a secondary market for guns, there is no gun control."  She recommends outlawing assault rifles.  I think we should do that, if the political climate allows, but also impose mandatory gun insurance.  While habitual criminals get a gun through the secondary market, I'm not sure that's as consistently true of families buying an assault rifle for the fun of it but not treating it as, gee whiz!, something that could kill another human being.

She added, as to holding parents accountable, that in Children's Court the judges are extremely reluctant to lock up a parent instead of the kid, even where it appears that the parent was really more at fault than the kid.]