If you can insure your pick-up truck, you can insure your gun.
Shall not be infringed. That justifies no fiscal test for owning a firearm (or other arm).
As I said earlier, Paddock was a man of means, owning multiple homes and aircraft. He was a recognized "high roller" on the gambling circuit.
A few tens of thousands in insurance fees would not have stopped him, either.
Few enough people can afford to purchase as many arms as he did, and he bought some of the pricier ones out there. That doesn't begin to add in the add-ons like bump stocks, bipods, extra magazines, good optics, etc. Money was not an impediment for him.
But for the average guy, having to insure every gun is like for someone who owns five cars having to insure every one of them. You only use one at a time. I have six vehicles on the pavement, but I only drive one at a time. If that vehicle sits unused for a month, I still have to pay for the insurance even though the probability of it being involved in an accident and causing injury to someone is zero. Yet you would impose a similar model on someone who owns firearms? Even NIB arms purchased for an investment? Grandpa's old scattergun, and the wallhanger percussion rifle from the 1800s passed down through the family? Will parts count as firearms, like with "machine guns"? That way the slug barrel or the set of chokes for that shotgun can be counted as several firearms instead of just one?
Not only no, but Hell no. I see a lot of iron bottomed lakes out there as those guns are rapidly lost in boating accidents, and jokes like those told about the Latvians while the Soviets dominated there (Why do Latvians pour oil on their flowerbeds? To keep the rifles from rusting...)
This is a big country. How are you even going to find them all? That won't happen, but people who sold a firearm private sale to someone who has died or moved would end up having to carry insurance on something they don't have or face prison for not producing something they no longer own? Will the ex-wife-to-be assert the ex-husband-to-be has unregistered and uninsured firearms as the new opening gambit of a nasty divorce instead of just alleging abuse? Because there would have to be a registry in order to track insurance compliance.
I take issue with the methodology used with liability insurance for vehicles, anyway. I think the Driver should be insured for liability rather than the vehicle (unless you want full coverage for collision and comprehensive, which banks want to secure the value of a collateral asset, and some folks want for expensive vehicles which might suffer damage without a clear way to recover costs of replacement or repair). But, at some point, your solution has a result: I see dead people.
Nope. Let's not go there. Let's not make criminals out of people who are not a problem. Let's not create a situation which will lead to very hard feelings, and very likely, bloodshed,where there would have been none.
Leave this infringement the hell off of my RKBA. It will cost more lives than it saves.
