Election issues for adjusters: Part 4
Another issue likely to arise this election season will involve the Second Amendment and the rights it affords gun owners.
Editor’s Note: This is the final installment in a four-part series.
Undoubtedly, debates will rage between the candidates on many subjects, especially the handling of the coronavirus, but few may be as hot — or as useless — as that of “gun control.” It should be clear by now that if the NRA says that the grass is purple and the sky chartreuse, Congressional and Presidential candidates will fall all over themselves agreeing.
Thank goodness for the Second Amendment, and all who adhere to it, even if they must debate it by exercising the First Amendment right of free speech. All the Second Amendment says is, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
For history buffs like your Iconoclast, some background: Ohio was a place where militias were necessary in the event of raids by the British. At that time, many of the Native American tribes were allied with the British, including Tecumseh and the Shawnee. Ohio was first settled along the Ohio River, and the small communities depended on their voluntary militias for protection.
In Cleveland, an 1837 militia called The Cleveland Grays had their own armory and officers; they protected the city from invasion from Canada. Although later merged into the Ohio National Guard, they still exist as a separate, mostly social, organization. Is this not what the Amendment was intended to preserve and protect?
It is one thing to own guns ― handguns, shotguns or rifles ― and another to tote around something intended to kill humans in war. When some states passed gun laws permitting owners to carry guns anywhere, including churches, one questions why. Is it a psychological thing, the need to “carry protection” in case one encounters a terrorist?
Guns and the adjuster
No one should question the right of a sane and non-criminally-inclined person to own a gun of some sort for hunting, personal protection or collecting. Many guns are valuable works of art or history, such as George Patton’s pearl-handled handguns. However, these are not AR-15s or semi-automatic weapons of mass slaughter any more than the M-14 issued to me for duty when I was in the First Infantry Division in the mid-1960s.
There are too many gun killings in the 21st century to try to pass off guns as “a hobby for hunters” or some other NRA propaganda. In the inner cities, kids are killing each other daily with guns. Crazies called “survivalists” are known to launch “shooting wars” against the government.
Suppose a kid takes his parent’s gun to school and shoots a bunch of other kids. What happens? Lawsuits. Insurance claims. Do we think this is covered by a homeowners policy? What about the “intentional acts” exclusion? Isn’t the kid “an insured” person? Check that exclusion and how it is worded, and wonder how you will respond when 15 or 20 lawsuits are served on your insured.
Nobody should attempt to take away a legal gun owner’s gun; but if the person does not have a legal right — or mental stability — to own that gun, then politicians should be encouraged to use common sense. Most of the proposed restrictions are common sense, so why is the NRA paying political candidates to fight proper legislation?
Ken Brownlee, CPCU, ARM, (brownleeken029@gmail.com) is a former adjuster and risk manager based in Atlanta, Ga. He now authors and edits claims adjusting textbooks. Opinions expressed are the author’s own.
Related: