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

[Ziggurat]

Yes, people have a right to be protected from other kinds of violence. That's why we have car insurance and other kinds of liability insurance.

Yeah, because car insurance is just great at preventing rape.

Exactly! Only legal gun owners would need to purchasse the insurance. And then if what legal gun owners say is true about they being responsible and not responsible for the gun violence then the premium would be very inexpensive.

I thought your argument was that this law was supposed to protect people. Now you're conceding that it won't affect criminals. So how does it protect anyone if it won't change the behavior of criminals? Arguing that the requirement will be cheap doesn't exactly advance your position.

It's the perfect remedy in every way for the rightie, the leftie, the bagger, and the crazed libertarian. It is totally a tax on the perp and leaves the innocent who don't own guns legally alone.

Except that it's not a tax on the perps, as you just admitted. They won't be affected. They're criminals. They simply won't buy insurance. Why would they?

The criminals who own guns illegally would have to be dealt with some other way.

In other words, the actual threat won't be addressed by this legislation.

How could any responsible gun owner be against this??

It's a puzzler, all right.

 

[Polaris]

If the government wants to make purchasing something mandatory, then that thing mist be important enough to socialize and fund via taxes. I don't like somebody making a profit off something I'm forced to buy.

Especially when the profit is enough to buy TV spots on every network for what, one out of four commercials?

 

[Sabretooth]

Also, those who have guns willed to them would also have to purchase insurance, just so they could keep a family heirloom.

 

[WildCat]

Well, guns aren't free are they?

Quite often they are... I have had 3 guns given to me.

One by a coworker who had had it given to him by a friend. Right before the friend went to prison for burglarizing currency exchanges.

 

[BenBurch]

No, they could drill the receiver and make it a non weapon

 

[Dr. Keith]

Except that it's not a tax on the perps, as you just admitted. They won't be affected. They're criminals. They simply won't buy insurance. Why would they?

Yes, but how will the perps get guns?

If they buy them from someone with insurance then the sale will be noted along with the failure to buy insurance and the police can just go pick them up.

If they buy them from someone who doesn't report the sale that person's insurance would be impacted when the gun is found on the perp.

So it should make it harder for a perp to get one.

Not as hard a full registration database and licenses to own, but that was different proposal, I'm sure.

 

[Ranb]

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.

I was not asked. But when I asked if gun theft was covered, it was only for a fraction of what they were worth. I would be covered in full if they were destroyed in a fire though.

Ranb

 

[Upchurch]

Also, those who have guns willed to them would also have to purchase insurance, just so they could keep a family heirloom.

Or you could do what I did and make them inoperable.

(Although one is a 150+ year old black powder rifle. I often joke that if anyone even attempted to get it to fire, it'd more likely to explode in their face. It's more dangerous as a club.)

 

[Polaris]

Or you could do what I did and make them inoperable.

(Although one is a 150+ year old black powder rifle. I often joke that if anyone even attempted to get it to fire, it'd more likely to explode in their face. It's more dangerous as a club.)

More than a handful of those always have been.

 

[Ranb]

How many people here actually read the bill? http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A3908-2013

4. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY PEACE OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM.

Why exempt the police? They are not exempting only duty firearms; but any firearms owned by a police officer who is authorized to carry firearms. We all know the police force in NY is not as pure as the driven snow and commit a portion of the gun crime in that state.

This is just another way to stop law abiding people from owning a gun.

Ranb

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, but how will the perps get guns?

The same way a lot of them get guns now: illegally.

So it should make it harder for a perp to get one.

Not as hard a full registration database and licenses to own, but that was different proposal, I'm sure.

If it serves as a registration database, and the benefit it offers is the same as a registration database (which, btw, need not entail licensing), then why not simply set up a registration database only? Why bother with this additional insurance requirement on top of the registration database that this scheme already requires?

 

[Sabretooth]

No, they could drill the receiver and make it a non weapon

The law does not specify. It says "any firearm".

Either way, why should I have to destroy the value of the firearm to keep it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I was not asked. But when I asked if gun theft was covered, it was only for a fraction of what they were worth. I would be covered in full if they were destroyed in a fire though.

Ranb

When I was a kid we had enough guns to have a separate rider. We had their value estimated every few years by a third party. I remember it happening twice while I lived at home, so it wasn't often. I remember because there was one shotgun of my father's that I only saw out of our safe those two times. It was gorgeous, far too pretty to be tossed to be in the same safe as my 870, but there it was.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry, are you saying that every dumpster in Chicago is paying $5,900 a year in insurance and nobody else has offered such policies?

If so I may need to open a new business in Chicago . . .

Just so long as you meet the requirements of the city ordinance, which was tailor-made so only a select few qualify.

"What are the minimum insurance requirements in the City of Chicago?

Furnish an insurance certificate of Comprehensive General Liability and Auto Liability for a minimum of $1 million dollars and an endorsement that reads, "City of Chicago is an additional insured, as their interests may appear". All policies must be written by Best "A" rated companies licensed to do business in the state of Illinois. An original and one copy of each certificate in question should be sent to the City of Chicago.".

So all you have to do is license an insurance company in Illinois and then get a rating of "A" by A.M. Best.

Not exactly a low entrance barrier industry, but if you have hundreds of millions in assets to get that required rating go for it!

 

[Dr. Keith]

The same way a lot of them get guns now: illegally.

Yeah, but currently it is easier for a 20 year old felon to buy a gun than it for him to buy a keg of beer. The current laws ain't working.

If it serves as a registration database, and the benefit it offers is the same as a registration database (which, btw, need not entail licensing), then why not simply set up a registration database only? Why bother with this additional insurance requirement on top of the registration database that this scheme already requires?

I agree. I actually recommended this sort of insurance in another thread a few weeks ago, but since I have come to the realization that merely registering all guns and prosecuting for fraudulent registration would be more cost effective.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Just so long as you meet the requirements of the city ordinance, which was tailor-made so only a select few qualify.

"What are the minimum insurance requirements in the City of Chicago?

Furnish an insurance certificate of Comprehensive General Liability and Auto Liability for a minimum of $1 million dollars and an endorsement that reads, "City of Chicago is an additional insured, as their interests may appear". All policies must be written by Best "A" rated companies licensed to do business in the state of Illinois. An original and one copy of each certificate in question should be sent to the City of Chicago.".

So all you have to do is license an insurance company in Illinois and then get a rating of "A" by A.M. Best.

Not exactly a low entrance barrier industry, but if you have hundreds of millions in assets to get that required rating go for it!

Sounds like it could be a rider on any decent business insurance. "A" rating is not high.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, but currently it is easier for a 20 year old felon to buy a gun than it for him to buy a keg of beer. The current laws ain't working.

If existing laws are violated with impunity, why would simply adding more laws change that? What would prevent the new laws from being violated with equal impunity?

 

[Ladewig]

Insurance contracts are usually void if the claim is upon a criminal or intentional act of the policyholder.
.

Yes, but in my scenario, the policyholder neither committed the criminal act, was aware that the criminal act was being committed, intended that the criminal act be committed, profited from the theft or the subsequent murder, nor will profit from the payout.

 

[WildCat]

You are cherry-picking a single word and ignoring the rest.

Your right to own a type of thing does not give you the right to own something at the expense of another person's property rights, for example. You do not have the right to purchase a $100 gun for $50, if the current owner does not wish to sell it to you for $50 (and if they did, it would be a $50 gun). Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have a right to own a gun you cannot afford.

The point is, the Second Amendment does not define an absolute right. There are real world and pragmatic restrictions on any right. Now maybe this insurance thing is meant solely as way to restrict gun ownership by the general public, maybe it is meant to offset some of the financial burden of firearm violence. However, the argument by the OP that it violates the Second Amendment because it costs too much is not really a valid argument.

And the poll tax was justified as being necessary to fund elections. Didn't matter, because a government cannot impose a financial burden in order to exercise a right.

Do you think the government could require newspapers and their reporters to carry $1 million in liability insurance in case they libel someone?

And do you think "freedom of the press" requires the government pay for everyone to have a printing press?

 

[triforcharity]

Now NY wants all gun owners to carry liability insurance valued at...one MILLION dollars!

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



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.

Move to Florida Sabre. We're not pulling that **** down here.