I feel like I'm one of the few on the right who is open to some legislative improvements regarding guns. I don't have an issue with the licensure or registration requirements. I think you could classify ARs and similar guns the same as silencers and require a tax stamp, extended diligence and waiting periods. Plenty of room for improvement without really infringing on law-abiding gun owners.
That said, here is a real world example from me literally in the last week that would trip your laws and doesn't make practical sense.
I traveled to NC last week to go quail hunting. The plantation required O/U shotguns, 20 ga and under. I don't own one, so I borrowed one. That means:
- I was in possession of a firearm not registered to me
- My friend had his firearm in possession of someone who it was not registered to
- My 2 friends and I all transported firearms across state lines (from SC to NC)
Another example. I have two boys.
- I have shotguns/rifles registered to me.
- My sons go hunting with their grandfather using my guns.
- They are in violation of your laws.
These clearly make no sense, so while your heart is in the right place, a lens of practicality must be applied to new laws.
I also think the insurance thing is pretty pointless. This is very different from auto insurance where claims are super common. Firearm injuries outside of criminal acts are very very rare. Also, you are personally liable for negligence, so if I screw up and injure someone with my gun, they can already sue me. I have a $5M umbrella policy in place that will take care of that. I don't need gun insurance.