Jazz Shaw has a post up at Hot Air about the latest trial balloon from the gun grabbers, firearm insurance. As others have pointed out, this is simply an attempt to make legal gun ownership more expensive. And as has been noted by others, the fact that the Progressives are having to float this kind of idea is a sign that they understand that they have lost the main argument for gun control with the public at large.
OK, if we’re winning, it’s time to push back. We probably can’t get a repeal of some of the more obnoxious portions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, but we can propose some “common sense” solutions.
For example, it’s clear that Gun Free Zones are essentially attractive nuisances not unlike swimming pools. We require owners to fence off their pools or face, in some instances, strict liability for the danger to someone (such as a child) who falls in and drowns. Why not require that the owners of Gun Free Zones either provide adequate protection for invitees who enter their property or be held strictly liable for the invitees’ safety? That’s a common sense approach that lets a hoplophobic property owner choose how he wishes to exercise his right to have a Gun Free Zone. Of course, this might have an effect on his liability insurance rates.
Just an idea.