Latest Headlines
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
- Now That Matt Gaetz Has Resigned After Being Picked For Trump’s AG, Who Will Seek His Seat?
- Here’s The Latest On CSX Closures In Escambia County
- Update: Northwest Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz Resigns From Congress After AG Nomination
- New ‘Wind Phone’ In Cantonment ‘Connects’ Grieving Families With Deceased Loved Ones
- Jay Couple Wins State Agriculture Competition, $45,000 Prize
- Century Paying $500 COVID-19 Stipend To Some Employees
- Escambia County Sheriff’s Office Creating Law Enforcement Memorial Plaza
- New Details Emerge In Fatal DUI Crash That Killed 14-Year-Old Cantonment Boy; Driver Released On Bond
- Cantonment Rotary Donates To Hurricane Relief
Bill Would Bar Insurers From Considering Gun Ownership
November 6, 2013
State Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, filed a bill this week that would prevent property and auto insurers from refusing to issue or renew policies based on customers’ legal use, possession or ownership of firearms.
The proposal also would bar insurers from charging a “discriminatory” rate because of guns. The proposal, which will be considered during the spring legislative session, would take effect July 1, 2014, if passed.
Comments
9 Responses to “Bill Would Bar Insurers From Considering Gun Ownership”
Nope.
Preemption law does not apply because insurance companies are not law making entities.
Second amendment does not apply because the wording of the second amendment says so.
Please read it.
They should base your car insurance rate only on your driving record, not your credit score or anything else. Right now car insurance rates in Florida are based on your credit score.
To determine insurance rates by gun ownership would violate the states preemption laws for firearms. Also a violation of federal laws. It would be an infringement on the Second Amendment rights of all Floridians. Do insurance companies determine policy costs by what a person may or may not say in public? Do politicians pay higher rates because they anger their constituents by what they say or do? Do certain religious groups pay more for insurance because they teach unpopular beliefs? Do specific ethnic groups pay more because of the nature of crime rates within those groups? If you can not violate one Amendment, you can not violate any of them.
Second amendment protects right to keep and bear arms from government interference (or is supposed to) but it does not force individuals to do so. In the interest of freedom, do not force people to have insurance with any particular insurer and let them not spend money if don’t like their charges or policies.
Less government, not more government.
I don’t believe that insurance companies should be allowed to deny citizens the coverage that they need to be responsible home and automobile owners, simply because they own firearms. That is a potential violation of their 2nd amendment rights, and I am glad that Mr. Gaetz is standing up to this type of action. There are so many “what if’s” in the insurance business – it’s got to stop somewhere, and I think it needs to stop at infringing on my right to own a weapon if I chose to do so. Health insurance already charges more for those who are responsible and actually HAVE insurance and need to see specialists. I could make a case that this is discrimination on the basis of my medical needs……. This is rapidly becoming a country where just about everybody else knows what’s best for us. And, I don’t care for it one bit.
Did anyone think insurance companies were in business to go broke?
It is foolish to tell them they are not allowed to do actuarial considerations when setting rates. If you do, you force them to assume the worst and raise rates accordingly
It’d be fairly easy to knit together a conspiracy theory about the insurance companies and the government agencies and president who want strong gun control.
My reason for having insurance is to make sure that in the event of fire, storm, other destruction or damage to my home or an accident in a vehicle that I am covered for the costs and made whole again.
The insurance companies should not have a say in whether or not we own and keep guns in our dwellings or transportation.
I bet that if you added an expensive “rider” to your policy the insurance barons would be only too happy to take even more of our money.
Thank you Rep. Gaetz for standing up against this request.
Now, if you can do something about us being able to easily find ammunition, especially the old .22 long rifle for squirrel season, that would be appreciated.
Someday people will understand that insurance co. are in business to “take” your money and pay out as little as possible.
It’s crazy that insurers assess discriminatory rates for gun owners. If anything, gun owners should receive a discount on insurance rates. A car is less likely to be carjacked if the driver has a gun available in the center console or glove compartment. Likewise, a household with a gun is more likely to scare a burglar after illegal entry than a household trying to wave a kitchen spatula. So when the theives run away because they see a gun then that means less property damage resulting in fewer claims to be paid out by the insurer.