Latest Headlines
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Centery YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Walnut Hill Man, Three Others Charged After Alleged Overdose On Embalming Fluid, GHB
- Escambia Man, 77, Charged With Shooting Multiple Rounds At Santa Rosa County SWAT
- Escambia (AL) Volunteer Fire Departments Receive State Grant, Present Service Awards
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Escambia County Corrections’ Wilson, Hankins Graduate From State Leadership Programs
- Escambia Commission Cancels This Week’s Meeting
- Suspect, 19, Indicted For Fatal Drive-By Shooting Of 70-Year-Old
Florida Lawmakers Take Aim At Insurers Over Guns
April 23, 2014
With supporters pointing to Second Amendment rights, the Florida House on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that seeks to prevent insurers from denying coverage or increasing rates based on customers owning guns or ammunition.
But critics questioned the need for the bill, saying there is little evidence insurers take into account gun ownership.
“I don’t see any kind of quote-unquote discrimination going on in the marketplace,” said Rep. Kevin Rader, a Delray Beach Democrat who also described the bill as a “waste of time.”
But bill sponsor Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, said Floridians have a constitutional right to bear arms, and even one case of insurers taking action because of gun ownership is “too much.”
“How much discrimination based on the exercise of a constitutional right is tolerable?” Gaetz asked.
House members voted 74-44, along party lines, to approve the bill (SB 424). The Senate also passed the National Rifle Association-backed bill last month, meaning the measure is ready to go to Gov. Rick Scott.
The bill would apply to property and automobile insurers and add language to part of state law that deals with “unfair discrimination” As an example, the bill would seek to block insurers from refusing to issue policies because of customers’ lawful ownership or possession of firearms. Similarly, it would bar them from charging “unfairly discriminatory” rates based on gun ownership or possession.
But much of the debate Tuesday focused on whether problems exist with insurers considering customers’ gun ownership. Rader and Rep. Richard Stark, D-Weston, said they are longtime insurance agents and have not seen insurers asking about firearms.
But Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, questioned why they were arguing so heavily against the bill if that is the case.
“This is just a good, sound statement for freedom that we’re going to stand behind your constitutional rights,” Baxley said
by Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida
Comments
7 Responses to “Florida Lawmakers Take Aim At Insurers Over Guns”
REGARDING:
” Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, said Floridians have a constitutional right to bear arms, and even one case of insurers taking action because of gun ownership is “too much.”
” “How much discrimination based on the exercise of a constitutional right is tolerable?” Gaetz asked. ”
This is well-intended but stupid.
People’s right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean others don’t have the right to react to its exercise. It doesn’t matter if homes are safer or more dangerous with weapons on hand; businesses should be free to sell or not sell insurance however they wish just as long as it is spelled out ahead of time. If some try to punish your choices, buy from some other. If you think all insurance companies are out to get you, you may be losing contact with reality or it may be time to form your own insurance company so you can get all the business the others are rejecting or overcharging about.
We SHOULD insist government stay out of our business as much as possible, but every time some group figures they can use the power of government to push their agenda, they decide government interference is reasonable in this case rather than recognizing every time we justify the majority telling the minority what to do, we risk becoming a minority at the wrong end of the process sometime in the future with the majority saying, “You figured it was okay last time, suck it up and take it this time.”
David for a free people
given that insurance companies are designed to eliminate the risk to their corporate managed hedge funds payed for by your insurance premiums, they will consider gun ownership a threat due to the immense possibility of a wrongful death lawsuit which would result if a gun were ever used in the home and it resulted in a death.
this is essentially a bill designed to stop a back door attempt to control gun ownership by using insurance companies to blackmail homeowners into giving up guns in order to save money.
our right to own guns would exist whether or not the 2nd amendment existed. this to me means the insurance companies get zero say in the matter. pass the bill.
Paranoid right wingers solving problems that don’t exist. How about putting some of that time into extending Medicaid?
The Democrat/Progressive/Socialist Party is constantly trying to uncover who and who does not owns firearms.
For what is worth…
Any law protecting our constitutional rights is good these days when so many laws are made to lower our rights given us by the Constitution. Look at the right of Eminate Domain being used to allow the government to take someone’s home/property to build condominiums, etc. That law was not designed for that purpose!
If anything, insurance rates should be LOWER for those who own guns and choose to keep them and the ammunition responsibly in their homes. They can chase off the bad guys and defend themselves.
If the democrats see no problem now, then pass the bill now and avoid any problems later. A couple of minutes and it’s done. Why do they insist on fighting everything. Here and Washington. Makes no sense.