• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

Sabretooth

No Ordinary Rabbit
Sabretooth
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
6,757
Location
Wyoming, NY
Now NY wants all gun owners to carry liability insurance valued at...one MILLION dollars!

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A3908-2013

A3908-2013 said:
S 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1. 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. 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.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to wonder if NY legislators have ever read the Constitution. I don't recall the word "privilege" being a part of the 2A or any other Amendment...

I'm so sick of the utter bull **** that this state is pulling. :mad:
 
aw, poor babies. Their tools of death are getting expensive.

Here's an idea, find a way to boost your self esteem that doesn't include tools used to kill innocent people.
 
DavidJames said:
aw, poor babies. Their tools of death are getting expensive.

Here's an idea, find a way to boost your self esteem that doesn't include tools used to kill innocent people.
Click to expand...

Let me know when your comments have something constructive to add to the conversation.
 
Sabretooth said:
I don't recall the word "privilege" being a part of the 2A or any other Amendment...
Click to expand...
And, yet, gun ownership and possession is a privilege that can be revoked from and denied to citizens under certain conditions.

There are no absolute rights.
 
Mooseman said:
How much would such a policy cost?
Click to expand...

Based on various estimates I see online, anywhere from $100 to $1,000 per month. It depends on how dangerous the item is that you are insuring against.

ETA: I'm guessing the 2A is only a "right" if you can afford it.
 
Last edited:
Can homeowners insurance charge more for customers who own guns? They can and do if you own certain dog breeds, because the statistics show greater risk.
 
Upchurch said:
And, yet, gun ownership and possession is a privilege that can be revoked from and denied to citizens under certain conditions.

There are no absolute rights.
Click to expand...

You cannot exercise your 2A right if you are a danger to yourself and others? Yes.

Because you can't afford it? No.
 
Sabretooth said:
Based on various estimates I see online, anywhere from $100 to $1,000 per month. It depends on how dangerous the item is that you are insuring against.

ETA: I'm guessing the 2A is only a "right" if you can afford it.
Click to expand...

I wonder how those same proponents feel about the occasionally-proposed 4-5 figure marijuana tax stamp.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Can homeowners insurance charge more for customers who own guns? They can and do if you own certain dog breeds, because the statistics show greater risk.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I can tell you that it was never a question asked of me when I got my home owners insurance about two years ago.
 
Sabretooth said:
I have no idea. I can tell you that it was never a question asked of me when I got my home owners insurance about two years ago.
Click to expand...

I'd think they'd jump at the chance to charge more if they could. Not just because they're greedy, but because most people'd liability insurance is through their homeowners policy.

Or else specifically exclude gun use or misuse from coverage. That would probably be the wiser route.
 
Sabretooth said:
You cannot exercise your 2A right if you are a danger to yourself and others? Yes.

Because you can't afford it? No.
Click to expand...

No? You have a right to own gun and ammunition even if you cannot afford the gun and the ammunition?

eta: To put it a little more clearly, can you exercise your 2A right if you cannot afford either the gun or the ammunition? If not than, yes, you cannot exercise your 2A right because you can't afford it. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right. No rights are, really.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
aw, poor babies. Their tools of death are getting expensive.

Here's an idea, find a way to boost your self esteem that doesn't include tools used to kill innocent people.
Click to expand...
I'm training for a marathon and a tough mudder this spring and I'm working on a PhD in engineering. I have self-esteem pretty much boosted even without my guns. Do you want us to have liability for every tool that has been used to kill innocent people? I have a lot of rope, knives and screwdrivers too. Heck, I've got hammers and prybars and bricks and plastic bags and axes and chainsaws and ...
 
Upchurch said:
And, yet, gun ownership and possession is a privilege that can be revoked from and denied to citizens under certain conditions.

There are no absolute rights.
Click to expand...
Yes, those conditions generally involve being convicted of a crime. You can't, for example, require newspapers to carry insurance in case they libel someone.
 
I seriously doubt the cost of the liability insurance sabertooth quoted in #6. I know it's much cheaper here so some evidence would be good.

Besides that, a fine proposal, but one destined to be challenged to hell and back if passed.
 
WildCat said:
Yes, those conditions generally involve being convicted of a crime. You can't, for example, require newspapers to carry insurance in case they libel someone.
Click to expand...
But you can require car owners to carry insurance regardless of whether or not they've ever harmed someone with their car.
 
Upchurch said:
But you can require car owners to carry insurance regardless of whether or not they've ever harmed someone with their car.
Click to expand...
So in which part of the Constitution is the right to operate a vehicle on public roads?
 
Upchurch said:
And, yet, gun ownership and possession is a privilege that can be revoked from and denied to citizens under certain conditions.
Click to expand...

There's a name for those conditions: due process.

The same doesn't apply to what are actually considered legal privileges and not rights, such as driving a car on public roads. A key difference is the default state. The default state is that you can own a gun, unless you have had that right taken away from you through due process. The default state is that you cannot drive on public roads, unless the government permits you to. The government cannot make prohibition the default state of a right, even if it can prohibit it under certain conditions. The government can make prohibition the default state of a privilege.

There are no absolute rights.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom