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

[Noztradamus]

And if no company will write the insurance, or if the price is out of reach for non-homeowners...

This law isn't going to fly in any case, excited minds aside.

Let's not be so quick to rule it out. I'm sure some medicos can produce research to show that people who rent are more likely to shoot people and be shot by them than homeowners. So be limiting the people who can obtain affordable required gun insurance to homeowners will reduce the guns and gun violence.


(If it works out, stage two: Only property owners can vote)

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Holding gun owners responsible for what happens with their gun will bring down the rate of shooting dramaticallly and rapidly. And having to buy insurance if it's high priced would quickly bring down the number of guns in circulation, especiallly if the insurance was considerably more costly for handguns.

Nice to see you admit that the whole "insurance requirement" scheme is nothing more than a ploy to deny citizens the ability to own a firearm. Thanks, monty.

Of course this is only dealing with legal guns but that's a big part of the probelm isn't it. Practically alll the school shootings were done by people with legaal guns.

I'm a bit confused here. Just exactly what does it take to make a gun "illegal"?
To your way of thinking, acquiring a firearm by murder, theft, or felony perjury doesn't seem to qualify, so what does, keestering it out of the store while throwing molotov cocktails over your shoulder?

But no, the whole thing will most likely fail because this is getting much too close to doing something meaningful and rooting the rats out of their holes.

We have only your word that it will do anything meaningful (aside from promoting the Glorious Peoples Progressive agenda), and in view of the fact that in this same post you are bragging about being deceptive regarding the intent of the proposed legislation, I don't think your word carries much weight.

 

[uk_dave]

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

If it's a family heirloom couldn't it be made 'to not work'?

Or better yet, take it up with the private insurance companies. They'll do the risk assessment: If you keep it locked away and without ammunition but it is still capable of firing, then maybe a nominal premium of $50.00 / year would be appropriate. Maybe there is a precedent with auto insurance on vintage cars.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If it's a family heirloom couldn't it be made 'to not work'?

Or better yet, take it up with the private insurance companies. They'll do the risk assessment: If you keep it locked away and without ammunition but it is still capable of firing, then maybe a nominal premium of $50.00 / year would be appropriate. Maybe there is a precedent with auto insurance on vintage cars.

Exactly.

I don't buy the argument that requiring liability insurance is intended to price middle class families out of the ability to own guns. The risk of a claim from responsible gun owners is fairly small, right? I think the insurers would be motivated to find out who are the responsible gun owners and offer them coverage with low premiums. Show the insurance agent your gun safe, and you'll probably get quite a deal.

Keep a loaded handgun in a dresser drawer in a house with children or even troubled adults where there is a history of police calls for domestic disturbances. . .no discounted premiums.

If the claim is that people who are high risk gun owners (people with criminal records, records of mental illness, etc.) are going to be priced out of gun ownership, then I would say that's probably a good thing.

 

[WildCat]

I don't buy the argument that requiring liability insurance is intended to price middle class families out of the ability to own guns.

Seriously?

If the claim is that people who are high risk gun owners (people with criminal records, records of mental illness, etc.) are going to be priced out of gun ownership, then I would say that's probably a good thing.

And you think illegal gun owners will buy insurance?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And you think illegal gun owners will buy insurance?

You think legislation can do anything about illegally owned guns? They're already against the law, you know?

Do you have any idea where illegally owned guns come from? Do people make them in their garages or bathtubs? Or are they not usually legally owned guns that have been stolen?

And doesn't this vector have a lot to do with responsible gun ownership?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seriously?

Yes. See my earlier post. I'm a pauper, yet I can afford my $5 million public liability premium for juggling and fire performances (it's about $250 per year).

How high would the premium have to be for it to make gun ownership cost prohibitive for a middle class family? And how great would the risk have to be for insurers to be unable to charge affordable premiums?

If you keep your guns unloaded and locked up, the risk of a claim is pretty darn low, isn't it?

 

[WildCat]

You think legislation can do anything about illegally owned guns? They're already against the law, you know?

Do you have any idea where illegally owned guns come from? Do people make them in their garages or bathtubs? Or are they not usually legally owned guns that have been stolen?

And doesn't this vector have a lot to do with responsible gun ownership?

You're the one who speculated that this would price illegal gun owners out of the market. I don't think so, because they won't be buying insurance.

Yes. See my earlier post. I'm a pauper, yet I can afford my $5 million public liability premium for juggling and fire performances (it's about $250 per year).

How high would the premium have to be for it to make gun ownership cost prohibitive for a middle class family? And how great would the risk have to be for insurers to be unable to charge affordable premiums?

If you keep your guns unloaded and locked up, the risk of a claim is pretty darn low, isn't it?

Does your insurance cover you if you intentionally or criminally harm someone during your act?

 

[Sabretooth]

It's a good gun law that takes care of half the problem in one move. And of course the gungoons are against it because they are against anything that will help.

But this one should catch them flatfooted because if the insurance is based on experience (cost per gun owner based on how many claims for damages there are) the gun owners who brag about being safe and responsible with their guns would cost very little. And it it cost them a thou or two a year then that would prove something else. It would prove that they are incapable of safely handling dangerous weapons.

Go N.Y!

Us "gungoons" don't like it because it's against our Constitution. My rights should not have a "For Sale" sticker next to them.

Not to mention this will have absolutely no effect on the real cause of the problem...that is, the criminals and lunatics.

You like it, because it theoretically lowers gun ownership...but that's legal gun ownership. It does nothing to curb the amount of illegal guns on the streets.

Just come out and say you hate every American with a gun and be done with it.

 

[uk_dave]

You're the one who speculated that this would price illegal gun owners out of the market. I don't think so, because they won't be buying insurance.


Does your insurance cover you if you intentionally or criminally harm someone during your act?

I suspect it will price 'irresponsible' gun owners out of the market because they will be deemed by the private insurance companies, via the mechanism of the free market, to be a high risk.

Why should a high risk gun owner pay the same as a responsible gun owner?

If you own a ferrari your insurance is going to be higher than a prius.

If you're a ferrari owner with a string of claims then you will pay more.
If you're a ferrari owner with a drink drive conviction..... good luck.

If you're a ferrari owner with no insurance......... you should say "bye bye" to your drivers licence and be locked up if you are subsequently found to be driving without a licence again. And if you get the licence back, good luck finding insurance.

Oh it's a harsh world out there when you have responsibilities.

 

[uk_dave]

Us "gungoons" don't like it because it's against our Constitution. My rights should not have a "For Sale" sticker next to them.

Just out of curiosity, does the US Constitution allow for licencing of firearms?
Does it stipulate a minimum age for a firearm purchase?
Does it stipulate background checks on those purchasing a firearm?
Does the Constitution specify the firing rate of a firearm?
Does the Constitution give you the right to possess high explosives?
Does it give you the right to possess a viable Nuclear device?
Does if give you the right to possess Biological and/or Nerve agents?

 

[Sabretooth]

Yes. See my earlier post. I'm a pauper, yet I can afford my $5 million public liability premium for juggling and fire performances (it's about $250 per year).

But the risk is low, yes?

Meaning, how many times has a juggler set a venue on fire?

I don't understand insurance, but I do understand risks v. rates.

Also, it was mentioned that this gun insurance would have to cover criminal acts (or something like that). This risk to insurance companies is a bit different, yes?

A quick Google search of "NY Firearm Insurance" has several news articles discussing this topic...and most of them estimate the cost of this insurance to be between $1600 and $2000.

$133/month to use my guns a few times a year? I can't justify the cost, and if this law goes through, I either have to get a better paying job quick or I'll have to turn in my guns.

I hope you don't ever have to give up something you've loved to do since you were a kid because some jackass politico decided to price it out of your budget.

 

[Sabretooth]

Just out of curiosity, does the US Constitution allow for licencing of firearms?

Does the license cost $1600 a year?

Does it stipulate a minimum age for a firearm purchase?

How much does being 18 cost?

Does it stipulate background checks on those purchasing a firearm?

At a cost of? Oh, yeah, nothing.

Does the Constitution specify the firing rate of a firearm?

Not sure what Amendment that is.

Does the Constitution give you the right to possess high explosives?
Does it give you the right to possess a viable Nuclear device?
Does if give you the right to possess Biological and/or Nerve agents?

The 2A specifically says "right to bear arms", which means "firearms". So these are non sequiturs.

 

[Sabretooth]

I suspect it will price 'irresponsible' gun owners out of the market because they will be deemed by the private insurance companies, via the mechanism of the free market, to be a high risk.

How, exactly, do you see insurance agents identifying "high risk/irresponsible" gun owners?

How often do you see someone who was found to be negligent with a gun to legally be able to own one in NY?

 

[uk_dave]

Does the license cost $1600 a year?

I dunno. How much does a licence cost?
More importantly, did the men who wrote the 2A intend to control the ownership of 'arms' by licencing?

How much does being 18 cost?

In emotional damage? More than most of us can afford.

More importantly, did the men who wrote the 2A intend to control the ownership of 'arms' by placing an age restriction upon it?

At a cost of? Oh, yeah, nothing.

Background checks are mentioned in the 2A?

Not sure what Amendment that is.

Likewise

The 2A specifically says "right to bear arms", which means "firearms". So these are non sequiturs.

So "right to bear arms" automatically means weapons which use gunpowder to fire a projectile over a distance?
Not swords?
I assume mortars are included. How about a nice big Howitzer? Is that covered by the 2A?

 

[uk_dave]

How, exactly, do you see insurance agents identifying "high risk/irresponsible" gun owners?

How often do you see someone who was found to be negligent with a gun to legally be able to own one in NY?

I suspect that the insurance company would require a signed statement from the owner agreeing to all the things responsible gun owners already do.....

(Not leaving the gun in an insecure location such as a car unless it's in secure parking; not leaving the gun in an insecure place within the home; making sure children cannot get the gun unsupervised....etc etc, you know the drill by now)

.... and possibly a quick inspection of the house by an insurance agent, especially if the insured wants to keep the premiums down to a minimum.

Then, so long as nothing untoward happens and no claims are made against the insured, perhaps a 'no claims discount' could be introduced to encourage the owner to carry on with their responsible behaviour.

Of course, if anything untoward happens and it is found that the owner wasn't abiding by the terms of the insurance then I suspect no insurance company would then be prepared to insure the owner and the owner would no longer be allowed to have a gun.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The 2A specifically says "right to bear arms", which means "firearms". So these are non sequiturs.

It means more than that, really. Heller defines it as weapons in common usage. So during the 18th century it would have included swords. Today it could be argued that it also includes things like pepper spray and tasers.

 

[WildCat]

I dunno. How much does a licence cost?

In Illinois an FOID card costs $10 and is valid for 10 years.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm ashamed that several posters are supportive of this end-around anti-gun trick. Would you be supportive if abortion clinics were forced to purchase a billion dollar insurance in case they were bombed? How about libel insurance before being permitted to speak in public? Even better, what if 'subversive groups who have caused trouble in the past', let's say...JREF, had to carry billion dollar insurance in case any of the dangerous ideas and techniques discussed here be used to cause damage?

This is even without the clear historic example of the poll tax.

Really, this is simply an anti-gun measure. It's not a public safety or personal responsibility measure.

 

[Sabretooth]

I dunno. How much does a licence cost?
More importantly, did the men who wrote the 2A intend to control the ownership of 'arms' by licencing?

In my state? A handgun license is a one time fee of $105. There are no licenses required for long guns.

In emotional damage? More than most of us can afford.

More importantly, did the men who wrote the 2A intend to control the ownership of 'arms' by placing an age restriction upon it?

Seeing that there's an age limit to voting, I have no moral or legal issues with requiring the same for guns.

Background checks are mentioned in the 2A?

But there is no cost to do so. Besides, a felon cannot legally buy/own a firearm...I have no problem proving I'm not a felon, free of charge.

So "right to bear arms" automatically means weapons which use gunpowder to fire a projectile over a distance?
Not swords?
I assume mortars are included. How about a nice big Howitzer? Is that covered by the 2A?

You could argue the legality of owning such weapons, but it doesn't follow what was decided by SCOTUS. They have made it perfectly clear that the 2A allows citizens to own firearms. I don't recall them putting a monthly/yearly price tag on that right.