N.Y. bill would force gun owners to buy at least $1M in insurance

[green73]

A bill introduced in the New York State Assembly by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat, would require the state’s residents to acquire liability insurance as a condition for gun ownership.

“Any person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person,” the measure, dubbed S2353, reads.

Any person who has not purchased insurance in compliance with the law within 30 days of its passing would be in violation of the law.

Such an occurrence “shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.”

The bill also states that if a gun is stolen, the legal owner of that gun is responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police department.

Liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners is estimated to cost between $1,600 and $2,000 annually, the Examiner reports.

The bill has been referred to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee.

Mr. Ortiz represents a district in the New York borough of Brooklyn.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/19/ny-bill-would-force-gun-owners-buy-least-1m-insura/

[Anti Federalist]

Tick Tock Tick Tock...what's it gonna be boy, yes or no.

[Acala]

Insuring firearms negligence would be easy and cheap. Insuring against "willful acts" is not possible. It is like passing a law requiring that in order to own a gun you must also own a unicorn.

Indeed, in California (and I suspect many other states) State Law prohibits an insurer from being liable for the intentional act of the insured.

[cjm]

Insuring firearms negligence would be easy and cheap. Insuring against "willful acts" is not possible. It is like passing a law requiring that in order to own a gun you must also own a unicorn.

Indeed, in California (and I suspect many other states) State Law prohibits an insurer from being liable for the intentional act of the insured.

With the one exception being that someone can be insured "against?" making an appointment with a physician.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

N.J. lawmakers will follow lockstep, like a good totalitarian.

[DamianTV]

Silly Mundanes still think that Gun Laws prevent people from using those guns to commit heinous acts, all criminals willingly register their guns, and will actually buy insurance for their unregistered guns once mandated. Hell they still think that criminals actually buy their guns at places like Walmarx, but no, criminals would never steal *a gun* from a law abiding citizen!

[bolil]

So, universal background checks (registration) and mandatory liability insurance. Guns are going the way of the car, to be rented and never owned. Any word on the consequences if one does not obtain insurance? Confiscation? They don't take your car if you don't insure it as long as you don't get caught driving it.

[AGRP]

How is this not considered infringement?

[Anti Federalist]

This is the way that guns will be banned.

The insurance companies will use politicized government issued Surgeon General reports to set prices stratospherically high, where nobody but rich hobbyists will be able to afford them.

Then, in certain states at first, they will just stop writing policies entirely.

Ban.

And the politicians and tyrants will grin their Cheshire Cat grin at you and say: "We didn't ban your guns, the marketplace did."

[pacodever]

Liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners is estimated to cost between $1,600 and $2,000 annually, the Examiner reports

Good, take the guns from the middle class and poor. Only the rich, elite should be able to protect themselves.

[Steve-in-NY]

Any person who has not purchased insurance in compliance with the law within 30 days of its passing would be in violation of the law.

Such an occurrence “shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.”

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the Right to Bear Arms became the Privilege to Bear Arms.

[DamianTV]

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the Right to Bear Arms became the Privilege to Bear Arms.

^ THIS ^

[Anti Federalist]

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the Right to Bear Arms became the Privilege to Bear Arms.

When we all started accepting that we needed permission slips, permits and "reasonable" restrictions.

[Origanalist]

Dollars to doughnuts blood spills before the year is out.

[Carson]

That wouldn't even cover the damages of the real weapons of mass destruction.

Will they be required to partake?

[presence]

They're forcing otherwise honest people into "illegal gun" ownership positions.

[Carson]

That cute little Gecko may want to whistle and slowly saunter away on this one.


While he's got the chance.

[pacelli]

The buggers are really trying to provoke a war.

A GUN IS A FORM OF INSURANCE.

[acptulsa]

Gee, I wonder how much the insurance lobby is paying someone up in Albany?

It isn't like they don't know their way around the hallowed halls of the legislature. How do you think auto liability insurance became mandatory. How do you think Obamacare came into being? The underwriters own our governments, and are out to own us.

I wonder what percentage of our premiums go to K Street? We are buying our own demise.

[Anti Federalist]

They're forcing otherwise honest people into "illegal gun" ownership positions.

And when you take an otherwise law abiding man, push him into the corner and turn him into a felon, what's the point of even trying to comply anymore?

Fuck it: rip, shit or bust at that point.

[leverguy]

Gun owners in the fascist blue states are pretty much the same as the Jews were in the fascist European states. Isn't it interesting how history rhymes? Its a good thing that its not taught in schools anymore or someone might just see it...

[Philhelm]

And all of the "liberal" Democrats claim that we are paranoid. Oh, we don't want to confiscate weapons, we just want reasonable restrictions. Yet it seems that unreasonable restrictions are springing up like wildfire across the land. Fuckers.

[Anti Federalist]

And all of the "liberal" Democrats claim that we are paranoid. Oh, we don't want to confiscate weapons, we just want reasonable restrictions. Yet it seems that unreasonable restrictions are springing up like wildfire across the land. Fuckers.

Scratch the surface of a liberal and you will find a Stalinist.

[Pericles]

Dollars to doughnuts blood spills before the year is out.

Looking that way. They are used to conducting violence against people who don't fight back. That won't be happening much longer.

[Humanae Libertas]

2013 so far seems to be a bad year for liberty. All the anti-gun states are becoming even more anti-gun. I urge all other free states not to even think about following the model of Kalifornia, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. Trust me, once the cancer sets in - it is impossible to stop it.

[DamianTV]

Dont worry, it will pale in comparison to 2014, which will also pale in comparison to 2015. Seeing a pattern here?

Its a shame that we are unable to teach people to try to punch holes in their theories of "how to fix the problem". If we were able to, we would not have so many ineffective stupidiotic bills being introduced.

I'll make my point again about each and every single one of these anti gun laws. Criminals dont obey the law, and they dont buy guns, they steal them from the few law abiding gun owners left. Trying to pass a law that puts any restrictions on gun ownership in any way shape or form is going to be wholly and completely ineffective because the criminals dont obey the laws to begin with. Thats why they are called Criminals.

The real threat here is that the law is being expanded to include a continuously growing number of people to be labeled as criminals. It is pretty much right here, right now, where, by the definition of the word Criminal by the laws that have been passed, that every single one of us is now by definition a Criminal.

And that is the real intent. Once you label someone a criminal, a felon, or a convict, the law is further misconstrued and abused to deprive ALL people of Rights inherit to them.

[presence]

And all of the "liberal" Democrats claim that we are paranoid. Oh, we don't want to confiscate weapons, we just want reasonable restrictions. Yet it seems that unreasonable restrictions are springing up like wildfire across the land. Fuckers.

Amitai Etzioni: We Need Domestic Disarmament (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405164-Amitai-Etzioni-We-Need-Domestic-Disarmament)

[osan]

Tick Tock Tick Tock...what's it gonna be boy, yes or no.

And we all know how that story ended, what with all the speak of tidal waves and swearing and all.

Praying for the end of time.

[presence]

And when you take an otherwise law abiding man, push him into the corner and turn him into a felon, what's the point of even trying to comply anymore?

Fuck it: rip, shit or bust at that point.


Didn't you have some quote the other day about the need to hold protecting the innocent above prosecuting the criminals? How'd that go?

[tod evans]

And when you take an otherwise law abiding man, push him into the corner and turn him into a felon, what's the point of even trying to comply anymore?

Fuck it: rip, shit or bust at that point.

Actually I'm glad to see "government" using the Just-Us" department to demonize another segment of society, drug users are just way to complacent and the vast majority of smokers and drinkers have bought into the propaganda that it's the governments business what they consume..

Maybe it'll be gun owners who actually "Just Say No" to big government....

[TonySutton]

Tick Tock Tick Tock...what's it gonna be boy, yes or no.

Meatloaf?

[osan]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/19/ny-bill-would-force-gun-owners-buy-least-1m-insura/

I think this is wonderful. I hope like the devil that it passes. I hope NJ does the same. I hope both states continue on the march toward total control of the lives of their subjects. I mean this seriously - no sarcasm.

One of two things will happen: the people will draw a line in the sand and defend it or they will lay down. In the first case, I will applaud those people for their belated yet nevertheless welcome return to sense and self-respect. In the latter case I will bask in the glow of my scorn for them as I watch them receive that which they so sorely deserve. In either case, I get to see something hanging from a pole - the politicians of such states or the freedoms that their resident held with such careless disregard. Regardless of outcome I shall be treated to a show of just rewards.

At this point in my life I have no sympathy for those who stand idly by as they watch their rights stripped away. It is like the passive observation of one's own children being raped and ravaged.

Let Them continue this march with ever bolder steps. Let the American people be trod upon with ever more roughshod rudeness. Let us finally settle the question once and for all. Either way is preferable to this sense of creeping and dreadful uncertainty.

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs that no longer may we remain in this state of living death.

Time is here.

[Bern]

I don't see any difference between this and a poll tax. It's a clear attempt at disenfranchisement.

[osan]

This is the way that guns will be banned.

The insurance companies will use politicized government issued Surgeon General reports to set prices stratospherically high, where nobody but rich hobbyists will be able to afford them.

Then, in certain states at first, they will just stop writing policies entirely.u

Ban.

And the politicians and tyrants will grin their Cheshire Cat grin at you and say: "We didn't ban your guns, the marketplace did."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

This is plausible, perhaps even likely, if this becomes a trend. But I will tell you this: if perchance this becomes the dominant trend here, those states not following suit will find themselves suddenly beset with substantial population growth.

Barring a universal adoption of such an approach stands to create a very materially real schism in this nation. Might not be a bad thing.


What states are stupid and shitty enough to adopt such positions? Let us start a list - starting with the most likely:

NY
NJ
CT
MA
RI
DE
MD


IL
MN
WI

CA
OR
WA
NM

HI

The "not likely" states:

ID
MT
WV
KY
TX
ND
IN
AZ
UT
AR
VT
AK
LA

Those of which I find myself uncertain

VA (only because of the strong liberal element in the DC area)
TN
OH
OK
NB
KS
MO
NV
CO
IA
NC
GA
FL
AL
ME
NH
SD
MI
PA
SC

[Steve-in-NY]

There's no such thing as "unlikely" any more.

[familydog]

Those of which I find myself uncertain

VA (only because of the strong liberal element in the DC area)
TN
OH
OK
NB
KS
MO
NV
CO
IA
NC
GA
FL
AL
ME
NH
SD
MI
PA
LA
SC

I would add Pennsylvania to the "not likely" list. This is probably the most gun friendly blue state.

[osan]

There's no such thing as "unlikely" any more.

I would not yet go quite that far, but your pessimism is well taken and understood.

[torchbearer]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

This is plausible, perhaps even likely, if this becomes a trend. But I will tell you this: if perchance this becomes the dominant trend here, those states not following suit will find themselves suddenly beset with substantial population growth.

Barring a universal adoption of such an approach stands to create a very materially real schism in this nation. Might not be a bad thing.


What states are stupid and shitty enough to adopt such positions? Let us start a list - starting with the most likely:

NY
NJ
CT
MA
RI
DE
MD


IL
MN
WI

CA
OR
WA
NM

HI

The "not likely" states:

ID
MT
WV
KY
TX
ND
IN
AZ
UT
AR
VT
AK

Those of which I find myself uncertain

VA (only because of the strong liberal element in the DC area)
TN
OH
OK
NB
KS
MO
NV
CO
IA
NC
GA
FL
AL
ME
NH
SD
MI
PA
LA
SC

Louisiana just passed a state constitutional amendment last year reinforcing the right to bear arms.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Louisiana_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_2_(2012)


The Louisiana Right to Bear Arms Amendment, also known as Constitutional Amendment 2, was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/index.php/Legislatively-referred_constitutional_amendment) on the November 6, 2012 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/index.php/Louisiana_2012_ballot_measures) statewide ballot in Louisiana (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/index.php/Louisiana), where it was approved.
This measure fortified existing gun rights in the state. The amendment added the rights to acquire, transport, carry, transfer, and use firearms in addition to the existing right to keep and bear them.[1] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-right-0)[2] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-1)

[osan]

Louisiana just passed a state constitutional amendment last year reinforcing the right to bear arms.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Louisiana_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_2_(2012)

Outstanding. Perhaps they need to go on the unlikely list.

Now, before anyone gets too picky about the words I use, terms such as "unlikely" are but approximations.

[Philhelm]

Louisiana just passed a state constitutional amendment last year reinforcing the right to bear arms.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Louisiana_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_2_(2012)

As did Kansas a couple years ago.

[Anti Federalist]

Meatloaf?

Let me sleep on it...

[Anti Federalist]

Didn't you have some quote the other day about the need to hold protecting the innocent above prosecuting the criminals? How'd that go?

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.” - John Adams

[Brian4Liberty]

Gee, I wonder how much the insurance lobby is paying someone up in Albany?

It isn't like they don't know their way around the hallowed halls of the legislature. How do you think auto liability insurance became mandatory. How do you think Obamacare came into being? The underwriters own our governments, and are out to own us.

I wonder what percentage of our premiums go to K Street? We are buying our own demise.

Isn't it an odd coincidence? In so many instances of big government mandates and encroachments upon liberty, you will find the insurance lobby in the smokey back room. Right next to the lawyers.

[osan]

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.” - John Adams


Rather that all guilty men be left unaccountable for their deeds than punish a single innocent. -Me

Two of the most destructive notions alive in this world today are those of prior restraint and presumptive evidence.

Refuse the tyrants. Comply not with not so much as a whit of their crapulous demands.