The controversy in the state continues as Rep. Linsky says that it would help to boost firearm safety.
Two groups that have taken on the responsibility of representing the majority of Massachusetts insurers have announced that they oppose a new proposal in the legislature that would require firearm owners to buy a special gun insurance.
This liability coverage would be required for owners in the state if the proposal is approved.
The reason that they gave for their opposition to the gun insurance is that they do not support any form of mandatory coverage, as it is generally a stepping stone toward strict government regulation of the business, including of the required product offerings as well as control over the price that is charged for it.
The insurers pointed out that if gun insurance is mandated for owners then it will also be required for providers.
The two groups that have expressed this opinion about the gun insurance proposal are the Massachusetts Insurance Federation and the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America. According to the vice president of the Property Casualty Insurance Association, Frank O’Brien “If people are required or mandated by statute to have this coverage, then we would be mandated to provide it.”
The insurers are hesitant when it comes to new laws that could add ways in which the government would regulate them. It is precisely this case with gun insurance, as the companies are concerned that the government will be using them as a type of firearms regulation. The Massachusetts Insurance Federation president, James Harrington, said “Why should insurance companies be the deterrent for ownership of guns?” He also added that “If government wants to do something to deter ownership of guns, let government do it.”
The author of the new gun insurance provision, which would require owners to obtain a certain minimum of liability coverage, is Rep. David Linsky of Natick. The proposal for coverage is one element of a much larger firearms control bill. The purpose of the effort is to try to treat the ownership of the weapons in the same way that auto ownership is treated.
