Didn't see this one coming!

[Pinsnscrews]

There are two types of coverages in a homeowners policy: personal property and liability (negligence). Neither are dependent on each other.

Not to be offensive.....but based upon your 'what if' scenario; I don't think you have a full understanding of the coverages and exclusion contained in a homeowners policy. Without having to go into a lengthy dissertation, your 'what if' conclusion is inaccurate.  Some illegal acts may be covered under liability; some intentional acts may also be covered under liability. You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows.

I have seen where the Criminal outcome caused by a Liability situation has given the Insurance Company the green light to deny coverage for First Party Property Damages under the "Illegal Acts" clause of the policy. I never stated the insurance did not cover the Liability damages as the Original Post was only concerned with HIS property, but it was the Liability exposure that gave the Insurance Company the ground work to make the exclusion stick with regards to the Property Coverage of the Home Owner.

[DM1906]

The problem with such ordinances is, they will be lost in obscurity and ambiguity. This one specifically, is not enforceable, criminally, and marginal, civilly. A competent attorney will ask one question and provide one visual: "Which is more dangerous, according to this ordinance, 11,000 .22LR cartridges, or 9,000 .50BMG cartridges?"

[Mr. AR50]

I started this post about an ordinance that I thought was not yet on the books, and it turns out that it's been in effect for some time now. As for insurance issues, I can tell you that after going through a house fire myself, your insurance will be the least of your worries, especially if firearms/ammunition are present. In my case, even though not one round of ammo, nor any of my reloading components, detonated or ignited during the fire, the entire block was cordoned off, and any residence within 500' of my house was evacuated. Worst of all, my guns were seized by the APD, for 'safety reasons', and it took me 3 months to get them back, during which time I was contacted by several officers wanting to know if any of the 100+ guns that were taken from my house were for sale.

[DM1906]

......I was contacted by several officers wanting to know if any of the 100+ guns that were taken from my house were for sale.

Cops are (normal) people, too. Can't blame them.

[Mr. AR50]

I don't blame them at all, and I apologize if that's how I came across. All of the officers were actually very curious, and very pro gun, as far as the amount and type of guns in my possession. The gun most asked about was a pre-Model 29 Smith and Wesson that my dad had bought in 1956. The reason for my guns being kept from me for so long was never disclosed, but one of the officers did tell me that neither the Mayor nor the chief of the APD were known to be supporters of 'civilian' gun ownership.

[Mike_Fontenot]

Worst of all, my guns were seized by the APD, for 'safety reasons', and it took me 3 months to get them back, [...]

That's far too common.  It's time for some specific legislation against those types of abuses.

[redbaron007]

There are two types of coverages in a homeowners policy: personal property and liability (negligence). Neither are dependent on each other.

Not to be offensive.....but based upon your 'what if' scenario; I don't think you have a full understanding of the coverages and exclusion contained in a homeowners policy. Without having to go into a lengthy dissertation, your 'what if' conclusion is inaccurate.  Some illegal acts may be covered under liability; some intentional acts may also be covered under liability. You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows.

I have seen where the Criminal outcome caused by a Liability situation has given the Insurance Company the green light to deny coverage for First Party Property Damages under the "Illegal Acts" clause of the policy. I never stated the insurance did not cover the Liability damages as the Original Post was only concerned with HIS property, but it was the Liability exposure that gave the Insurance Company the ground work to make the exclusion stick with regards to the Property Coverage of the Home Owner.

I've seen many H/O policies....never have seen the exclusion for illegal acts. You may have heard Intentional Acts; they are not the same nor interchangeable.  A H/O policy does not provide a defense for a criminal activity, such as a murder charge; but may pay for a civil suit for wrongfull death.

There are many 'internet tales' of coverages or lack thereof; unless one reads their policy, they don't know what they have.