I asked those questions (which you unsurprisingly again chose to not answer), because the answers are very important.

You should do some research on the pros, cons and impossibilities related to CCW insurance.

For instance, insurance companies do not cover intentional acts which cause damage or injury/death.  Therefore, if you use a gun to defend yourself, insurance will not pay the medical bills of the person you shot, the bystander that was accidentally hit by a shattered window, the hole in the door in the store front behind the person you were shooting at, nor the pain, suffering or loss of income of the family of the person you shot.

Once again, who and what do you think the insurance should cover?

I doubt that I could ever successfully answer your questions so I've stopped bothering. Probably the only way I could possibly satisfy your questions is over a couple beers in a bar somewhere.

As with most insurance, it depends on the coverage and how much you're willing to pay. It's debatable about what the State should require. To repeat myself, I'm not supporting the insurance bill but I would be "okay" with CCW insurance only if that was ever possible in this State.

Per the NRA website:
ALL NRA CARRY GUARD MEMBERS GET THESE GREAT BENEFITS:

• 24/7/365 access to the members-only hotline for incident reporting and emergency assistance.

• Immediate access as needed to supplementary payments for bail, bonds, legal retainer fees, lawful replacement of legally possessed firearm, compensation while in court, psychological support and cleanup costs.

• Full coverage for your spouse inside and outside of the home automatically at no extra charge.

• Civil defense legal fees in addition to the insurance limit for each membership level.

• Access to legal assistance and ability to select your own counsel.

There are three levels of insurance so I imagine the Bronze level would be a good start. This is typical with most insurance. Comprehensive car insurance is required but not collision. The difference can depend on how on an object hits your car. If you're following a Christmas tree truck and one falls off and lands on your car, that's a missile and comprehensive. If the tree lands on the road and you run into it, that's collision. It's all in the fine details. Another example is that hurricane coverage for my property insurance would double the premium and I live 4 miles from the beach so I opted out. I work in the insurance industry but I'm not one of those maximum coverage kinda guys.

I doubt that I could ever successfully answer your questions so I've stopped bothering. Probably the only way I could possibly satisfy your questions is over a couple beers in a bar somewhere.

As with most insurance, it depends on the coverage and how much you're willing to pay. It's debatable about what the State should require. To repeat myself, I'm not supporting the insurance bill but I would be "okay" with CCW insurance only if that was ever possible in this State.

Per the NRA website:
ALL NRA CARRY GUARD MEMBERS GET THESE GREAT BENEFITS:

• 24/7/365 access to the members-only hotline for incident reporting and emergency assistance.

• Immediate access as needed to supplementary payments for bail, bonds, legal retainer fees, lawful replacement of legally possessed firearm, compensation while in court, psychological support and cleanup costs.

• Full coverage for your spouse inside and outside of the home automatically at no extra charge.

• Civil defense legal fees in addition to the insurance limit for each membership level.

• Access to legal assistance and ability to select your own counsel.

There are three levels of insurance so I imagine the Bronze level would be a good start. This is typical with most insurance. Comprehensive car insurance is required but not collision. The difference can depend on how on an object hits your car. If you're following a Christmas tree truck and one falls off and lands on your car, that's a missile and comprehensive. If the tree lands on the road and you run into it, that's collision. It's all in the fine details. Another example is that hurricane coverage for my property insurance would double the premium and I live 4 miles from the beach so I opted out. I work in the insurance industry but I'm not one of those maximum coverage kinda guys.

That's a good example of why I wanted you to do some research.

The NRA insurance covers whom?  The person you shoot?  The innocent bystander you injured?  The person who owns the store where you shot out a 40' x 40' window?

No, it covers YOU, the customer.  They do have up to $1M in liability insurance, but that only kicks in if you are sued in civil court and lose.  In most cases, if your use of that carry weapon was justified, you're not going to be held liable for incidental injuries or damages.  The person committing the crime would be liable if anyone.

Mandatory insurance is for the purpose of protecting the policy holder in case of a situation in which you can be held responsible for some action.  The state wants to force drivers to be financially capable of taking care of other people's expenses if you cause any damages or injuries.  The state does not require that you carry collision or comprehensive coverage to fix your own car if you crash it.  BTW, comprehensive coverage is for loss to your car by something other than collision:  fire, theft, vandalism, etc.  It's not required by the state, but if you have a car loan, the bank 99.9% of the time will require you to have it.

So, the apples to oranges comparison should be clear.  Car insurance is required to financially protect OTHER PEOPLE from you driving.  CCW insurance, if mandatory, should also be for protecting other people from you having to use your firearm in public.    THAT'S BACKWARDS.  The only policy you can find for CCW covers YOU, not other people.

The ONLY thing forcing people carrying to have insurance does is create a HUGE, DEEP pocket of money (liability insurance) so lawyers can get rich suing anyone who has to defend themselves.  If the insurer decides it's cheaper to settle, that's what they'll do. 

Lawmakers helping lawyers make great money off gun owners exercising a right.  That's all CCW insurance will be. 

That's on the civil side.  As for the legal side of discharging a firearm in self defense, the NRA coverage is a good idea.  It'll protect the policy holder from the financial burden of defending their justified use of a gun. 

To buy insurance should be  a personal decision.  Forcing someone to buy a policy to protect themselves from the state or to create another pool of cash for frivolous lawsuits is just wrong.

The last item:  if you do something illegal with your firearm while legally carrying, like shoot someone over road rage or accidentally shoot another movie goer in a theater while fondling your pistol in the dark, the insurance is 100% useless.

Unless there is an actual, verified, and immediate threat to the vet from a specific person or persons, the chief will send a denial letter saying they should take other precautions and call 911 if they feel they have an emergency.

The running joke is from the new chief before he became chief saying people should get a big dog.  No word on how many of these big dogs the police have shot because of barking.

Dialing 911 is just alerting the PD to a crime. If at home calling 911 may simply reporting a case of self defense and you needing a cop and meat wagon. If away from the barn ones ability to defend is drastically reduced AND the ability to call 911 for help is as useless as tits on a boar. For an unimpaired adult is one thing but the situation I mentioned above is an issue.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

All these things thrown in front of gun owners or potential gun owners are simply speed bumps. Each new one is higher than the last. As they grow higher and higher our lawmakers become giddy thinking they are accomplishing something.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

All these things thrown in front of gun owners or potential gun owners are simply speed bumps. Each new one is higher than the last. As they grow higher and higher our lawmakers become giddy thinking they are accomplishing something.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I've given up trying to find any common sense in the gun laws of this state.  There isn't any.  The powers that be are on record saying they don't think anyone in Hawaii needs to concealed carry firearms, except for themselves and of course.

This video from 2015 shows a debate between pro-gun and anti-gun representatives.  The anti-gunners are Hawaii officials.

Hawaii Gun Control: Too Much Regulation, or Too Little?
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365400618/

There is no such thing as ZANADU!!! Not here, California or the other anti 2A state.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

That's a good example of why I wanted you to do some research.

The NRA insurance covers whom?  The person you shoot?  The innocent bystander you injured?  The person who owns the store where you shot out a 40' x 40' window?

No, it covers YOU, the customer.  They do have up to $1M in liability insurance, but that only kicks in if you are sued in civil court and lose.  In most cases, if your use of that carry weapon was justified, you're not going to be held liable for incidental injuries or damages.  The person committing the crime would be liable if anyone.

Mandatory insurance is for the purpose of protecting the policy holder in case of a situation in which you can be held responsible for some action.  The state wants to force drivers to be financially capable of taking care of other people's expenses if you cause any damages or injuries.  The state does not require that you carry collision or comprehensive coverage to fix your own car if you crash it.  BTW, comprehensive coverage is for loss to your car by something other than collision:  fire, theft, vandalism, etc.  It's not required by the state, but if you have a car loan, the bank 99.9% of the time will require you to have it.

So, the apples to oranges comparison should be clear.  Car insurance is required to financially protect OTHER PEOPLE from you driving.  CCW insurance, if mandatory, should also be for protecting other people from you having to use your firearm in public.    THAT'S BACKWARDS.  The only policy you can find for CCW covers YOU, not other people.

The ONLY thing forcing people carrying to have insurance does is create a HUGE, DEEP pocket of money (liability insurance) so lawyers can get rich suing anyone who has to defend themselves.  If the insurer decides it's cheaper to settle, that's what they'll do. 

Lawmakers helping lawyers make great money off gun owners exercising a right.  That's all CCW insurance will be. 

That's on the civil side.  As for the legal side of discharging a firearm in self defense, the NRA coverage is a good idea.  It'll protect the policy holder from the financial burden of defending their justified use of a gun. 

To buy insurance should be  a personal decision.  Forcing someone to buy a policy to protect themselves from the state or to create another pool of cash for frivolous lawsuits is just wrong.

The last item:  if you do something illegal with your firearm while legally carrying, like shoot someone over road rage or accidentally shoot another movie goer in a theater while fondling your pistol in the dark, the insurance is 100% useless.

I agree.

I've given up trying to find any common sense in the gun laws of this state.  There isn't any.  The powers that be are on record saying they don't think anyone in Hawaii needs to concealed carry firearms, except for themselves and of course.

This video from 2015 shows a debate between pro-gun and anti-gun representatives.  The anti-gunners are Hawaii officials.

Hawaii Gun Control: Too Much Regulation, or Too Little?
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365400618/

I watched that hour long video and some of the comments by Peter C and David L are just plain stupid.  David said we don't want to see people carrying AK47s on Waikiki  Beach or guns stuffed in their swim trunks.  Who the hell would pick an AK47 for their CCW?  Who would even take a handgun to the beach if they are going into the water?  What are they going to do?  Get salt water in their gun or leave it on the beach and hope nobody steals it?  This is just like pepper spray decades ago.  HPD and the politicians banned it in Hawaii because they thought people would use it to commit crimes etc.  when they finally legalized it, NOTHING OF THE SORT HAPPENED!  It would be the same with passing a right to carry law.  NO WILD WEST BLOOD ON THE STREETS will happen because only carefully screened mentally stable people will be allowed to carry.

It seems the common thread running through the anti 2A groups are an irrational fear of something they appear to know nothing about or even knowing the folks that are 2A pro.

Criminals don't give a crap about gun laws. Criminals will carry long after the anti gun far left liberals have taken them away from the honest law abiding citizens.

There have been a number of stabbings when can we expect the requirement to serialize and register them. I know that sounds stupid so no need to comment.

IMO the fear and dislike of guns by lawmakers is what drives them to impose their will on everyone.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I watched that hour long video and some of the comments by Peter C and David L are just plain stupid.  David said we don't want to see people carrying AK47s on Waikiki  Beach or guns stuffed in their swim trunks.  Who the hell would pick an AK47 for their CCW?  Who would even take a handgun to the beach if they are going into the water?  What are they going to do?  Get salt water in their gun or leave it on the beach and hope nobody steals it?  This is just like pepper spray decades ago.  HPD and the politicians banned it in Hawaii because they thought people would use it to commit crimes etc.  when they finally legalized it, NOTHING OF THE SORT HAPPENED!  It would be the same with passing a right to carry law.  NO WILD WEST BLOOD ON THE STREETS will happen because only carefully screened mentally stable people will be allowed to carry.

Anyone who is rational and has the slightest interest in creating evidence-based laws (in addition to actually fulfilling their sworn oath of office to uphold the constitutions) already knows that there are well over 13 million people in the United States who have been licensed to carry (including the 30 years experience of the state with well over 1 million licensees, Florida), and maybe several million more who carry in "permitless" (aka "constitutional carrry") states, and that not only have the problems been infinitesimal with these people, but they are arrested FAR LESS FREQUENTLY THAN COPS for all categories of crime. So there would be a greater "public safety" benefit as a consequence of banning the possession of guns/carrying by off-duty cops than by banning possession/carrying by "ordinary civilians". Where's the call for THAT legislation?

I believe some people who argue against public bearing of arms are simply ignorant. They are sheep who just mimic what they are told without engaging in any real research or critical thinking. However, I believe the people at the top echelons of all the organizations ARE rational, and DESPITE the evidence that they know proves them wrong they deliberately distort the facts, lie by omission, and just plain outright lie. They know exactly what they are doing, and their goal is total civilian disarmament. What they hope and plan for after that...

You be the judge. Here is a quote from Nelson "Pete" Shields, the head/founder of Handgun Control, Inc., which underwent a much more politically-correct name change to "The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence":

“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”