NY Introduces Insurance Bill

Q

Qtiphky

New member
New York has recently introduced legislation that would require gun owners to carry $1M worth of liability insurance in order to have a gun. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Liberals have long since said that Republicans are only concerned about the rich, but here you have a bill being introduced by a Democrat which clearly favors only the rich having guns. I posted a response to this on the site and it was taken down because of that premise. Only rich people are allowed to own guns becuase they are the only ones who can afford the insurance? Talk about not fair. People need to wake up and get a handle on this or they are going to find all of their personal rights gone, and quickly at that. The second amendment says nothing about having insurance. These legislators are way out of hand IMO.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...lion-liability-insurance-policy/#comment-9563
 
Spats,

Perhaps that's the bill, but I see no reference to the $1M rate, nor any clear reference to a mechanism for setting the rate.

Anyone got any additional info?
 
Yep, this is definitely what this bill is about.

Although I see nothing about needing a million dollars worth of liability insurance.


I would abandon ship if I was in New York. Hopefully I am wrong, but I think that all of these gun control measures in New York are going to result in no one having guns except for gangs/other criminals and law enforcement. If you are not a criminal and you own guns in new york, get ready for them to find a reason to brand you a criminal.

So when they pass all of these gun control bills that criminals are going to ignore, and law abiding citizens can not obtain a gun to defend themselves expect gun crime to soar. They will pass more laws to further restrict firearms, which criminals will continue to ignore and there will be more gun crimes.

The sheer principal of prohibition is a self defeating philosophy, because like I said before, criminals do not care about obeying the law. The more guns that are banned, the more guns that illegal arms dealers will be able to sell to anyone that has the cash. It will lead to a river of guns flowing into the state of New York, with no questions asked to the people they go to, no forms, no licenses, and an illegal gun in the hand of any criminal that desires to have one.
 
So, the article that's the impetus for this thread is completely wrong. Even if the author did mean A4390, I'm not seeing some of the things he claims to. All we've got is a bill that would require permit holders to prove some form of "liability insurance."
 
Am I missing something? When I click on the link it takes me to a news article about the introduction of the bill. Within the article there is a link that takes me to the actual bill. It was introduced on January 29 of this year and states that all gun owners in NY must have 1mil of liability insurance.
 
There are two bills, 4390 linked above, that requires insurance before you get a license to purchase, and 3908 that requires 1M in insurance.
 
That was quick. They must have read my snarky comment. The article now contains a link to the correct bill.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled programming.
 
Edit Somehow Double Posted...

I think the Bill is AO3908 - but if you look it APPEARS to modify

S 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1.
Click to expand...

Edit: it Adds "Section 2353"
The insurance law is amended by adding a new section 2353 to read as follows:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Considering that possessing arms has been determined by the SCOTUS to be an individual right, I expect this bill to go nowhere, because as written, it would place NY residents totally at the mercy of insurance companies in order to possess a firearm. The bill makes it TOO easy to lose the lawful ability to own a firearm. To wit:
  • There is no provision in the bill to guarantee that people can even GET coverage. Family history of depression? You're high risk and nobody will write you a policy. Who needs due process? So sorry for your bad luck! No guns for you!
  • There is no mechanism for regulating how rates are set. For instance, it's easy to envision the people who need firearms the most- those who live in bad neighborhoods- being unable to afford coverage because simply residing in their neighborhood makes them high risk. Can't afford to live elsewhere, yet can't afford the firearms insurance premiums because of where you live? So sorry for your bad luck! No guns for you!
  • There is no protection from unreasonable rate increases. Imagine this... have an ND, and you're now high risk, and your premiums go up by a factor of 5! Can't afford the rate hike? So sorry for your bad luck! No guns for you!:
  • There is no protection for consumers who lose their insurance coverage because of minor problems with the insurance provider. What if your credit card is stolen, but you forget to update your auto-withdraw information with the company, and they cancel your policy? So sorry for your bad luck! No guns for you!
I could keep going, but I think my point is made. :mad:
 
State of confusion....

In the state where I reside(live), the elected officials & Gov put in state laws that a gun owner/armed citizen(lawful not felon or gang member) can NOT be sued or face civil actions if the use of force(deadly force) was ruled justified(no formal criminal charge). ;)
I'd push my state officials & Gov/AG to do that if I live in a place that didnt have it.

CF
 
One of the stated core strategies of the anti second amendment groups is to sharply increase the costs of ownership.

They already know that generally, that a big chunk of the gun ownership base is middle income working people

It is a great strategy. increase yearly costs per unit owned. mandate insurance. create licenses that expire with high fees, say every five years at $100, then every three years at $200, per unit. greatly increase the cost of transfer as well.

When gun owners squawk that five guns are costing them a couple a grand a year, they antis have a great response: "why do you need so many guns, are you a nut?" "the gun lovers complaining are the ones with arsenals"

the antis are most alarmed by one thing: long term existence of a large base of owners. the more owners the more voting supporters of the second amendment. the more owners the more non owners who know owners and don't fall for the caricatures of owners as nuts.

there will be lots of very long term strategies aimed at reducing the base and profile of sober legal owners. because long term that is the way to get rid of second amendment support. stigmatization is another
 
I agree, this is part of an organized attack across the country. We have seen this proposal in Caliofornia as well but I don't know if it's going anywhere. If they can force a tax or fee on each gun you own like each car it will force you to make due with fewer guns which in the end meets their goal of disarmament piecemeal. Of course this only works with registration so they can enforce these provisions..... no we didn' t make them give up their guns. It was voluntary because it was costing them too much and they couldn't justify the cost of ownership....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top