Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY: Buy $1 mil in insurance or lose your gun

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NY: Buy $1 mil in insurance or lose your gun

    The anti-gun bills continue to roll in. The latest bill, introduced in the New York State Assembly by Democrat Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, seeks to force all gun owners to purchase at least $1 million in liability insurance to cover any damages caused by firearms. It would be a mandatory requirement for anyone who owns a gun, as those who refuse to comply within 30 days would have their firearms confiscated.

    “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 bill, AO3908, states.

    “Failure to maintain such insurance shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm,” the bill adds.

    Further, even if a New Yorker’s gun is stolen, they are still responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police. The bill has been reportedly been passed along to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee, according to the Washington Times.

    The Examiner estimates that simple liability insurance for $1 million would cost gun owners about $1,600-2,000 annually.
    Lawmakers in California, Maryland and Massachusetts have introduced similar bills aimed at forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

    The bill comes after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the toughest gun laws in the nation, enacting a ban on semi-automatic rifles and limiting magazine capacity to seven. It appears that New York lawmakers still aren’t satisfied.

    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    The wonderful example obamacare has set.

    This stuff is getting too extreme

    Comment


    • #3
      They won't need to ban guns if they make them too expensive to keep or kill the ammo supply.

      One day, they are going to pay with their blood for what they are doing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Since when was gun ownership a privilege?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DallasSleeper View Post
          Since when was gun ownership a privilege?
          ^^^this^^^

          "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

          I would say this proposal infringes on that right for 99% of Americans

          I've come to the conclusion that 98% of our current population, and by extension their representatives either:

          A. Have no idea how to interpret\comprehend the Constitution and Bill of Rights
          B. Don't care to the point that the documents may just as well be sitting on a toilet paper roll

          I weep for our children...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DallasSleeper View Post
            Since when was gun ownership a privilege?
            It's just for people who can't read the 2nd, or can't spell Constitution.
            sigpic18 F150 Supercrew - daily
            17 F150 Supercrew - totaled Dec 12, 2018
            13 DIB Premium GT, M6, Track Pack, Glass Roof, Nav, Recaros - Sold
            86 SVO - Sold
            '03 F150 Supercrew - Sold
            01 TJ - new toy - Sold
            65 F100 (460 + C6) - Sold

            Comment


            • #7
              Let's calmly discuss this and come to a reasonable solution. Surely this makes sense. I mean, you have to have car insurance right?
              I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

              Comment


              • #8
                Any Intelligent insurance company wouldn't charge near what's being claimed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ruffdaddy View Post
                  Any Intelligent insurance company wouldn't charge near what's being claimed.
                  You have an actuarial analysis to back that up? I know they don't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Slowhand View Post
                    You have an actuarial analysis to back that up? I know they don't.
                    No, but the probability of incident is waaaaayyyyy lower and possible consequences just as severe.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Slowhand View Post
                      You have an actuarial analysis to back that up? I know they don't.
                      When has it stopped them from submitting half-assed, idiotic legislation before?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        lawmakers need to be tested for drugs and alcohol

                        Originally posted by Gargamel View Post
                        ^^^this^^^
                        I've come to the conclusion that 98% of our current population, and by extension their representatives either:

                        A. Have no idea how to interpret\comprehend the Constitution and Bill of Rights
                        B. Don't care to the point that the documents may just as well be sitting on a toilet paper roll
                        I think a lot can't read or are too wasted to comprehend what their voting on.

                        Someone needs to push for random drug tests for all office holders.
                        Don't worry about what you can't change.
                        Do the best you can with what you have.
                        Be honest, even if it hurts.

                        "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" ... Winston Churchill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          if they can, they will

                          Originally posted by Ruffdaddy View Post
                          Any Intelligent insurance company wouldn't charge near what's being claimed.
                          just like saying gas companies won't charge 4.00 a gallon for gasoline.
                          Don't worry about what you can't change.
                          Do the best you can with what you have.
                          Be honest, even if it hurts.

                          "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" ... Winston Churchill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jyro View Post
                            just like saying gas companies won't charge 4.00 a gallon for gasoline.
                            Lol no...nothing like that. Gas is in much higher demand.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ruffdaddy View Post
                              No, but the probability of incident is waaaaayyyyy lower and possible consequences just as severe.
                              I don't disagree, but throwing numbers around at this point is a little wild.

                              Originally posted by Ruffdaddy View Post
                              Lol no...nothing like that. Gas is in much higher demand.
                              On the other hand, regulatory requirements from NY could limit the number of companies willing or able to provide the insurance, and with need for the product being compulsory, who knows what the prices could look like.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X