The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 18, 2013, 05:13 PM   #1
Qtiphky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 558
NY Introduces Insurance Bill

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-la.../#comment-9563
Qtiphky is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 05:29 PM   #2
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,666
According to the NY Senate website, S2353-2013 is a bill to protect professional journalists and newscasters from contempt charges resulting from content posted on a blog. It has nothing to do with firearms.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation...ill/S2353-2013

Can you provide another source?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 08:53 AM   #3
Qtiphky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 558
http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-s...-gun-ownership

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I have heard of this before and found this interesting. Maybe it's not true, but I had heard on the news networks that this was being considered so I thought it might be true.
Qtiphky is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 09:22 AM   #4
alex0535
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 781
Has anyone been able to even find the actual text of this document.

Bill S2353 mentions nothing about firearms.
alex0535 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 09:55 AM   #5
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Maybe this? http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A4390-2013
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 10:59 AM   #6
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,666
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?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 11:08 AM   #7
alex0535
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 781
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.
alex0535 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 01:34 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
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."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 02:18 PM   #9
Qtiphky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 558
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.
Qtiphky is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 02:23 PM   #10
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
There are two bills, 4390 linked above, that requires insurance before you get a license to purchase, and 3908 that requires 1M in insurance.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 02:26 PM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 02:31 PM   #12
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Bill AO3908 is the one that requires $1million of insurance.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 02:36 PM   #13
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Edit Somehow Double Posted...

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

Quote:
S 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1.
Edit: it Adds "Section 2353"
Quote:
The insurance law is amended by adding a new section 2353 to read as follows:

Last edited by JimDandy; February 19, 2013 at 02:41 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 04:20 PM   #14
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
another back door approach to infringe on our rights
rebs is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 05:56 PM   #15
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,666
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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 08:05 PM   #16
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
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
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 09:02 PM   #17
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
They're attempting similar things in Massachusetts, ugh.
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 01:09 AM   #18
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 2,010
They want it to cost so much money to even own a gun, you give it up voluntarily.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 07:58 AM   #19
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 179
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
TDL is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 01:53 AM   #20
rc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 609
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....
rc is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 07:42 AM   #21
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 179
Quote:
Of course this only works with registration so they can enforce these provisions
Exactly and that is the conundrum, the catch 22.

I would not per se oppose universal checks and licensing if the anti gun movement did not exist. But knowing those anti second amendment lobbies exist and are selling the big lie so well, and knowing these checks and licensing can be used for future strategies of greatly increasing costs as well as facilitating confiscation, both of which are stated strategies and goals of the anti second amendment lobby, they need to be opposed.

It is no different than the issue of studies of gun violence. I doubt any of us are per se against this. Legit studies could be used to help gun owners and the general public be safer in their habits and uses. I'd like to know best practices for minimizing danger. but thee studies have time and time again be shown to be false. they were used for trigger locks, which are known to do nothing positive. their sole purpose is to limit rights.

The problem with the universal schemes is that they are a stated step in confiscation. Even DOJ documents note that this is needed to effectively achieve confiscation should that be legislated.

Last edited by TDL; February 23, 2013 at 10:39 AM.
TDL is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 03:13 PM   #22
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,843
yet another point to consider...

As a motorist, I am required not only to have insurance to cover myself and my vehicle, but I am also required to have insurance to cover the un- or under insured motorist. AND I have had to use it, twice, once for a driver with a license and no insurance, and once to cover damages from a driver with no license or insurance.

If they are going to require gun owners to carry insurance, then they darn well better require the NON GUN OWNERS to carry insurance as well.

Requiring insurance, especially 1 million dollars worth is the sneaky back door way to get people to give up guns. We lost a gun show at the county fairgrounds a couple years back, due to the asst. DA (and I have no idea where his authority comes from) requiring ALL vendors at the show to carry $1million liability for the duration of the show (3 days).

ALL vendors. Not just the gun sellers, but the hot dog guy, the t-shirt guy, and the little old ladies selling doillies. At the time, the cost was around $80 for the three days, but that amount was equal or greater than the proift of many vendors. No vendors, no show. That simple.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 24, 2013, 05:05 PM   #23
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
One of the commonly overlooked issues in the car-gun-insurance comparison is this: The driver of a car is required to have insurance if he operates the car on the public streets or roads. Not that I have done in-depth research, but I do not know of states requiring insurance simply to own a car. By contrast, all of the gun insurance legislation that I've seen requires insurance simply to own a gun, even if you never fire a shot, much less fire a shot on a public range.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 06:52 PM   #24
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
One of the commonly overlooked issues in the car-gun-insurance comparison is this: The driver of a car is required to have insurance if he operates the car on the public streets or roads. Not that I have done in-depth research, but I do not know of states requiring insurance simply to own a car.
Along the same lines, most (all?) states don't even require registration, if the car is not going to be driven on public roads (such as racecars, cars that you buy as "donor cars" solely for the parts, etcetera). Some race-only cars don't even have titles, are sold with only a bill of sale, and *can't* be registered for road use.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 06:55 PM   #25
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Exactly, ScottRiqui. Whenever I hear the "let's-register-all-firearms-like-we-do-cars," I want to point out that if we treated firearms like we treat cars, then:
1) there would be no minimum age to purchase;
2) there would be no background check;
3) there would be no registration, unless used on public grounds;
4) getting a license to operate one would be good in every State and city in the Union.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12810 seconds with 7 queries