A legitimate question has been posed to me on this rationale.

What action might be called for if a gun owner let his/her liability insurance lapse ? .. Would law enforcement come to a residence and confiscate an uninsured firearm ?

This should be part of a discussion. It is not an unsolvable problem.

I suspect that firearm confiscation would not happen. Inside the realm of one's home we are protected by constitutional rights under the 4th amendment.

There would be significant risks associated with allowing liability insurance to lapse. 1) If detained in public with a firearm that fails to meet legal gun ownership requirements, an arrest could be made with a presumption of criminal intent, bringing the potential for harsh penalties, 2) If law enforcement were called to a residence (domestic battery, etc) and during the contact discovered an uninsured, unregistered, and/or unlicensed firearm, then an arrest could be made under the presumption of criminal intent, and 3) Should a firearm be stolen, the liability for that weapon would rest with the now uninsured registered owner.

The risks of arrest and incarceration should outweigh any benefit the owner may see in choosing to disregard the social responsibilities of gun ownership. If, for any reason, a gun owner finds her/himself unable to meet the requirements of responsible gun ownership, the firearm could be properly sold, or surrendered to authorities.

Gun liability insurers may also carry some responsibility to provide information concerning those who had previously reported firearm ownership, but have not renewed the liability coverage on the weapon.

It's a discussion. One in which problems can be addressed in collaborative ways.