New York Senate Bill Would Require $1 Million Liability Insurance Policy for Gun Owners

With complete Democratic control in New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo and his henchmen are at it again to make life even more difficult for gun owners. State Senate Bill S2857A has been submitted and is now making its way through the committee process. What is S2857A?

It would mandate that gun owners secure a $1,000,000 liability policy. The insurance law is amended by adding a new section 2353 to read as follows:

§ 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.

Here’s the so-called justification for the proposed requirement:

Injury and death by gun has (sic) increasingly become a problem in U.S. and in New York State. In the wake of recent mass shooting incidents in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut; there has been a nationwide attention on gun control and public safety.

According to FBI Crime Report, there were 445 firearm murder in New York in 2011 and 517 firearm. murder in 2010. However, there is little attention on the economic impact these shootings have on the victims and their families.

This legislation establishes and requires gun-owners to obtain and maintain liability insurance policy prior to such ownership. By having this insurance, policy in place, innocent victims of gun-related accidents and violence will be compensated for the medical care for their injuries.

In such cases where the gun was stolen, the original owner is typically not liable unless the weapon was stolen through negligence on the part of the owner.

This insurance policy will also serve as an incentive for firearm owners to implement safety measures in order to conduct the activity as safely as possible and only when necessary.

Sadly, I predict this bill, which will present a barrier to gun ownership that will disproportionately impact New York’s lower income citizens, will reach Governor Soprano’s desk and be signed into law.

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Totally murder insurance.

    1. avatar kevin says:

      Hoodlums will be lining up at their insurance brokers, I’m sure. No wait, they can’t afford insurance- they should retitled this law “The Guns for Rich People Only Act.”

      BTW, do they know that you generally can’t insure intentional acts?

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        They will sell you the insurance to comply with the law and won’t have to pay because it is an intentional act. Win-win for insurance lobby!

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          The federal government will let the tax payers provide the low income and indigent get insured on our dimes .
          FGISP ( Federal Gun Insurance Subsidy Program ) , oh , and the IIFGSP , ……………. can any here guess what the I and the I stand for ?

    2. avatar David Starkey says:

      This bill needs to include language that says any place that has a sign that says you cannot carry a gun on the premise must carry insurance that pays 10 million dollars plus expenses to any person injured on their property plus $1000000 to all persons on their property when an incident occurs. This is needed to pay all the victims of the gun crimes. It should also have language that says if you have armed guards you are responsible for paying the insurance from them plus they must pay plus the 10 million for anybody they harm plus a million for everybody in the area. Insurance for the goose is just as needed as insurance for the ganders.

  2. avatar Dave says:

    I thought NYS banned this?

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Yeah – wait a minute here. The NRA was just deemed an evil organization by this ass-hat for offering just such a policy. Now they want to require the same thing that NRA was hawking?

      I guess the NRA ideas (Three Strikes, armed school guards, Project Exile, etc.) are only virtuous if the liberals steal them and claim they thought of them.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Not only that, Cuomo himself accused the NRA of selling “murder insurance” that would encourage gun owners to shoot other people.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          The case is in court. If Cuomo signs the bill, it’ll be used as evidence against him.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Actually Trumps new plans for doing away completely with 3 strikes is based on two things. One was it costs thousands to keep someone looked up and like all laws it got applied to too many of the wrong people. One of many such cases was a fellow that stole a $1.00 VCR tape and got 20 years in Prison and when he got out he had never seen or used a computer and learned to his shock that this is the way people get jobs these days.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          VLAD TEPES complete fakes news. Stealing a VCR is not a felony. 3 strike law is 3 felony convictions, not 2 felony convictions and a misdemeanor. You’re such a libtard.

    2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      That was my first thought

  3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    Little hope they’ll be honest enough to promote it with the slogan “DISARM THE POOR!”

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Yes. And I wonder if the cost of the insurance will be commensurate with the risk insurers assume (plus a reasonable profit). I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest it might be higher than that.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      This is essentially a poll tax type of bill. It’s going to have the greatest impact on the poor and minorities. It’s a racist bill

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Of course it’s racist. Black lives don’t matter (according to a lot of politicians and law enforcement). No black people, no black guns.

        How many black representatives are going to come out against such laws? I doubt even half would because they got it good while their people are still wondering when it will be their turn. It wasn’t their turn when they had a half black president. Real talk: as long as you play their game you will always lose.

  4. avatar rt66paul says:

    Doe this mean everyone with insurance gets to carry in NYC?

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Nah, just rich liberal’s bodyguards aka bloomberg’s security

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      This means anyone with so much as a shotgun for deer gets to buy a mandatory insurance policy.
      Imagine if newspapers were required to have a million dollar policy against liable

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Well… no.

        You see, New York is its own world. “Firearm” in the NY statutes means a very particular thing, and most shotguns are not included. Specifically:
        “(a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having
        one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle
        having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d)
        any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration,
        modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or
        otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e)
        an assault weapon…”

        Remember- everything in NY law is meant to confuse the average citizen and make sure they have no way to know when they’re doing something illegal.

        1. avatar Mark E Orzech says:

          You’re wrong! You are describing “handgun” per NYS law. Actually archery bows are considered “firearms” under NYS law. I hate people that spout off without knowing what they are talking about. But this law just another affront to the law abiding citizens of NYS.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Actually archery bows are considered “firearms” under NYS law.”

          In my remote burg, anything that can launch a projectile is a “firearm”.

          No one has yet to test if mashed potatoes are considered a “projectile”.

      2. avatar johnnyraygun says:

        Newspapers do have libel insurance.

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          But it’s not mandatory, and they’re allowed to publish without it.

    3. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      Another important question is does this law apply to current and retired law enforcement officers who have personal firearms? I saw nothing in the proposed law exempting them. If it does that would definitely give a challenge issue.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Insurance wont pay out for a deliberate and illegal act so one can only conclude this is a scheme to make insurance companies richer and gun owners poorer.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Even if they did pay out on those ‘willful acts’, 98% of them will be committed by people who don’t purchase the insurance anyway.

      1. Exactly!!!!! 517 in 2010 and 455 in 2011, what they don’t tell you is the stats say over 98% were caused by felons, drug dealers, gang bangers, that “can’t” legally own a firearm, so they obviously won’t get the insurance. This will just hurt all law abiding citizens, and Furor Cuomo knows this.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Can you imagine being the agent that nails down that lucrative MS13 account?!?

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          That’s just the dead ones. The real costs are associated with those who survive, which is at least 7 times those numbers (which I assume are for NYC only?).

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          If the risk is that low, the premiums should be that low.

          If the law doesn’t require the insurance to be New York-bssed, there are plenty of insurers that will want to pick up easy money.

    2. avatar Don says:

      Close. It’s a de facto gun ban. No insurance company in the world CAN or will insure against damage from intentional illegal acts by the insured. Never going to happen. If this passes you will either have zero legal gun ownership, the biggest exodus since the dust bowl, or civil war.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        Nope. What will happen is that the majority of gun owners already ignoring the SAFE act will ignore this too.

        1. avatar HP says:

          “Surrender my handguns? What handguns, Trooper? I moved them out of state. My long guns, too.”

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        Straight to Florida they go.

        1. avatar Chip in NW FL says:

          Not much better down here. We dodged a bullet with Gillum but the handwritting is on the wall….South FL is overwelling the conservatives and this State is fast becoming East CA or South NY (take your pick).

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          That’s the point.

          Those New Yorkers that allowed their downfall will continue to bring it to Florida.

        3. avatar HP says:

          @CZJay

          You win today’s award for TTAG’s most ignorant post. Well done! The people that would be leaving NY should this take effect are the exact kinds of people those of you in “free states” would like to import – conservatives. The “people that allowed their downfall to continue” are NYC liberals, who would all stay put, as none of them own guns anyway. You see, more than half of New York’s population is in NYC and it’s metro area. Remove that and New York becomes redder than Ohio and Indiana.

          It’s ok though, stereotyping saves time.

        4. avatar CZJay says:

          @HP

          Being a Republican and joining the NRA doesn’t win you your rights. You actually have to do something with your own hands. Relying on someone else to do the lifting for you allows defeat.

          Rick Scott signed anti 2nd Amendment laws because he wanted a secure 6 year job. He got it because Republicans in Florida gave it to him as a reward because they thought at least he calls himself a Republican.

        5. avatar HP says:

          You should consider re-reading my post, especially the part about over half the population living in that liberal sewer, NYC. You seem to be implying that the rest of us here are Fudds. Again, stereotyping saves time, right? And you needn’t tell me about working in favor of gun rights, chances are I’ve done a hell of a lot more than many of the gun owners from “free states” who think by being born on the other side of an imaginary line and not being burdened by a mammoth progressive dystopia that they are somehow “more gun” or laughably “doing more for gun rights”. Am I stereotyping as well? Not really, considering many of the commenters I see written here and elsewhere about guns.

        6. avatar Living in EastLA and SoNY says:

          @HP
          You are the most ignorant moron. Have you any idea what is happening in EastCA or SoNY?
          Spend some time educating yourself and, if you really care you might learn something!

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        It’s a make people felons act. And easily give police a way to seize any gun they come across quite easily. They tow cars for no insurance or registration already.

  6. avatar W says:

    1. Ambulance chasers dig it. Someone with deep pockets to sue!
    2. Insurance companies dig it, forced policy buys. Although it looks a little at odds with Carry Guard.
    3. Democrats’ agenda ought to be crystal clear to anyone paying a little attention.
    4. Looks like a poll tax to me. Wonder what SCOTUS would say.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      It’s a shame they can pass laws much faster than it takes for cases to work their way through the courts, isn’t it?

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Here’s hoping that the gun grabbers get smacked down…hard… eventually.

  7. avatar Ben says:

    “ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM”?

    Interesting.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      They’ve never heard of the Bill of Rights in NY. I’m not sure they’ve ever even heard of rights.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Oh, they know what rights are, it’s what NY politicians try to take away daily.

      2. avatar SoBe says:

        I am sure that no copy of the constitution nor any copy of its amendments (including the bill of rights) ever made its way anywhere near NY, cf., NJ.

    2. avatar Vicrattlehead says:

      “ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM”?

      Interesting.

      Says a LOT doesn’t it…

    3. avatar L says:

      I think it’s already accurate enough to drop the “New” since it’s about as bad a Great Britainistan now.

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        Yeah they were once the greatest empire in the world. They are now a bunch of sniveling mommy bloggers

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘…COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM…’

    Is it even legal in the state of New York to sell insurance covering the damages from the willful commission of a felony by the insured? Didn’t they fine the NRA for selling ‘murder insurance’?

    1. avatar Warlocc says:

      I was thinking the same thing. There’s no way this makes sense (which is normal for NYC), but didn’t they just ban firearms insurance? Wouldn’t that immediately get this law struck down in court?

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        They ran insurance offered by peple they don’t like, to people they don’t like, out of business on a pretense.

        Then, they stepped in to throw that same business to their friends, create more control for themselves, and get some headlines to feed their voting base who love inflicting laws about stuff they never do on people they never see.

        They are very, very good at what they do.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Yes they are. And they don’t even have a vestigial trace of shame.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          Why have honor when you can win!?

  9. avatar FedUp says:

    “The NRA is selling murder insurance! Shut them down and fine their underwriter $8 million!”

    “Every gun owner must either buy $1 million in murder insurance or give up his guns!” (meaning, of course, give up your guns now because we won’t let you buy murder insurance)

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      As long as it isn’t the NRA or us shield, uscca etc making the money, and instead companies willing to play ball with NY regulators, they are fine with it!

    2. avatar KW says:

      That’s a true Catch-22 right there.

  10. avatar dph says:

    Does firearm liability insurance even exist? Will you still be considered the owner if said weapon is stolen?

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Some umbrella policies will cover lawsuits from NGU incidents. But look for rules to come out limiting that. Insurance companies are very political and sway with the breeze/

  11. avatar dph says:

    Where has the delete/edit post button gone to?

  12. avatar Cliffg says:

    Over the last 30 years the murder rate in NYS has dropped from 10 per 100,000 to 2.2 per 100,000. You would think he would be pretty happy about that. So, yeah, this is about control not safety.

  13. avatar Kyle says:

    lol

    And even more people will soon be McCriminals at the hands of democrats in New York

  14. avatar RGP says:

    The hidden terms and conditions will stipulate that the insurance company will have to pay a fee to the state to be allowed to sell the policies. Government drones call this “revenue enhancement.”

  15. avatar MB says:

    Time to revamp the way laws are created and passed. I never understood why we needed so many laws when God gave us 10 to live by and petty much cover everything, 2 in particular “shall not steal”, “shall not murder”, stealing is stealing, if you use a gun to rob a bank or a pen to steal a business, and murder is murder, regardless of the instrument used. We have 22,000 laws in this country regarding the ownership and use of guns, will 23,000 or 140,000 laws make us any safer??? The simple answer is NO>

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Laws are supposed to stop bad people from getting power. Instead we put bad people into power so they can write their own laws to stop good people from having power.

      Most people do not like to admit they got played and that someone else owns them.

    2. avatar L says:

      Feel-good legislation is how these dems keep their ratings up, unfortunately. As soon as a new gun law gets passed, the average voter will forget about it within weeks, maybe hearing about it once more when that pol is running for reelection but then never again. So it’s an endless cycle because the average voter doesn’t know how ridiculously convoluted the laws already are (and how many duplicate laws there are).

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Oh, it’s just the N Y S economic model: find some eco omic activity that’s working; crush it, then subsidize what’s left.

    In N Y S, the activity that counts is regulated or subsidized out of Albany. Don’t do anything new, like CarryGuard. You’re just doing market research for the state economic ministry.

  17. avatar George Venable says:

    I doubt the state’s required amount of automobile insurance reaches that level.

    The only place this gets stopped is at the Supreme Court. Let’s hope Trump gets to nominate more Justices.

  18. avatar Kman says:

    Will there be a weekly exorbitant rate for thugs?

    You know…like super shitty drivers.

    Morons.

    (More sarcasm, just in case)

  19. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    How will they know who has guns to check if they have insurance, and vice versa? Thank goodness for those NY gun buying permit registries!

    And for those who don’t comply or have guns “off the books”, they will get some extra leverage to keep you penalized or locked up.

    Other states will be watching and once they decide they need some insurance as well, they will discover they need a registry of some sort to enforce it…

    1. If you a permit they have a record of all handguns

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        I don’t. Never have had, and never will. Thank God for MS.

  20. avatar dph says:

    Hammers, we need liability insurance for hammers. Please, just think of the children.

  21. avatar Treedodger says:

    No doubt they will institute a state run policy that not only controls who gets insurance thus dictating who can legally own firearms, but also allows NYS to collect the policy revenues. Brilliant in a tyrannical sort of way really.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I have been telling gun owners not to get into the mindset of “just file a claim and let the cops handle it” because it leads to this, amongst other things.

  22. avatar Sian says:

    Requiring insurance (that isn’t available for any reasonable price) to exercise a right is so far beyond constitutional muster.

    Remember when California tried to require microstamping and nobody would do microstamping? This is way worse.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      It’s a tax.

      You got health insurance requirements and car insurance requirements. What’s wrong with even more insurance requirements?

      People said micro-stamping wouldn’t pass. It did. People said micro-stamping wouldn’t survive. It did. It’s because the concept of liberty is dead in America and the Constitution is just a piece of paper with scribbles on it.

      Welcome to reality.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        It’s not a tax.

        It’s a ban.

        Nobody will offer a policy that will cover criminal activity.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The problem is that insurance against willful injuries is not available at any price. The carry policies that are out there do not. Since such restrictions are written into the statutes already, how is this proposal going to get around that limitation?

      I suggest a perhaps more sinister motive. If you can’t get a policy, no guns for you , and since no one can get a policy, it is a de facto state-wide gun ban.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I suggest a perhaps more sinister motive. If you can’t get a policy, no guns for you , and since no one can get a policy, it is a de facto state-wide gun ban.”

        The anti-gun crowd does not care how devious they need be. With the recent “blue wave”, states will be more emboldened to attach all sorts of burdens (which will be upheld by courts) on gun ownership, all based on public safety. As mentioned before, the central government loves themselves some retained powers when it serves the purpose of the central government. The States can pass a thousand laws in the time it takes to get one “pro-gun law” scheduled for hearings in the appropriate congressional committees.

        One might perceive the evidence of a new type revolution in all these recent state and local, federally approved, laws and regulations. SCOTUS (no defenders of 2A) will not hear a hundred, or a dozen “gun cases”.

  23. avatar Vicrattlehead says:

    LOTS of problems in the reasoning….
    Insurance will never pay for felony acts, which is EXACTLY what they state as the reason behind the bill in the first place.

    I suspect that WHEN this passes (what’s to stop it in NY?) the next step will be ‘uninsured gunman’ insurance to turn public opinion so sour on gun owners that they’re run out of town on a pole.

  24. avatar pg2 says:

    Can’t wait to see the Geico commercials for gun insurance.

  25. avatar CZJay says:

    I constantly hear from black people that they don’t have much money. Why is their government trying to price them out of self protection? Don’t they know a lot of minorities are not well off? What about the poor? Their lives matter! Or do they?

    1. avatar possum says:

      No, the poor people’s lives don’t matter, what a silly question. You must think you live in America or something.

    2. avatar Kman says:

      The affectionate overlords of the D party want their ignorant subjects to STFU and mind their place.
      BLM is a great chant…until they get uppity.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        “Ain’t no thing but a chicken wing.”

  26. avatar possum says:

    Yes, Ivrember a while back and NRA and TTGA pushing gun insurance, a bad idea , first it’s a trend, then it’s mandatory. That would be all fine and dandy except, “Shall not be infringed” and everyone has the right to be armed not just the very wealthy. It’s just another way to restrict firearms, and another bullshit law.that I refuse to obey. Also how are they going to enforce it, it’s not like I’ve got to register ( bite my tongue) my firearm every year to get my “You can Shoot” tag. .. But hey I think MUST HAVE GUN INSURANCE is a wonderful idea. pause Not

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      They really messed up. It shouldn’t be gun insurance, it should be bullet insurance. Every bullet needs to be insured.

      1. avatar possum says:

        Premium’s on premium bullets would be like full coverage, I’m just getting the white box and go with liability.

  27. avatar MarkPA says:

    This is sort of interesting. Until they are done drafting the bill it’s not clear what it is that the policy liability will cover.

    First, it’s not going to cover a deliberate unlawful shooting. So, the insurance company’s liability won’t need to account for this risk in the premium.

    Second, suppose a shooting is found to be legitimate self-defense and the policy holder is acquitted because the prosecutor failed to prove beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. (Take, for example, the case of Bernie Getz.) The policy holder might still be found civilly responsible by the lower standard of preponderance-of-the-evidence. So, in this scenario, the shooting was LAWFUL in a criminal sense but was a tort in a civil sense.

    This second scenario seems substantially identical to that of the ordinary millionaire who holds a CWP. The distinction is merely that the ordinary millionaire is “self-insured”. Under the proposed law, he will buy his way out of that contingent CIVIL liability by paying an annual premium. While the risk of a judgement against the shooter is high, the risk of a shooting for any given carrier is remote. This is a very insurable risk. Insurance companies should be willing to underwrite such a policy if there is sufficient demand.

    In a Won’t-Issue jurisdiction such as NYC, there won’t necessarily be sufficient demand for the insurance companies to offer a “program” for such a policy. Who will buy the policy? Donald Trump? To make this law viable there needs to be adequate demand for policies.

    The more policies the more premium income. The more policies, the more potential for the plaintiff bar to try to earn a contingency fee. To move this proposal forward, what we really need is Shall-Issue in NYC (as well as up-state counties). With Shall-Issue the insurance companies and plaintiff bar should really get behind this proposal.

    Naturally, this proposal ought to apply to police (active duty and retired) who carry in New York under LEOSA. Likewise, it should apply to armored car companies. Everybody who carries should be subject to the principles that justify this proposal. Brinks should not be allowed to “self-insure”. The greater the demand for policies the more insurance companies will underwrite them and the lower the premiums will be.

    Assuming the scenario plays-out as I imagine, then policies should become available to every (wo)man of means who feels it’s worth-while to pay the premium and can clear the background check. Left OUT, of course, are the POOR.

    (Also worthy-of-mention are the up-staters and urban dwellers who keep guns in the home under permit with no impediment from Won’t-Issue. These will be obliged to buy insurance policies. Perhaps the premiums for keeping a gun in the home will be cheap; but, a burden none the less. NY rights-advocates will be outraged; and justifiably so. NY FUDDs who won’t fight for the 2A will be outraged; and perhaps motivated to support the cause now that their oxen are gored.)

    After a few years of this liability insurance system in place, the voters in New York should come to realize that blood is NOT flowing in the streets because the (wo)man of means is carrying under a CWP. Thereupon, the poor might begin to wonder why they are being left-OUT because they are unwilling/unable to pay the insurance company a premium to exercise a Constitutional right. They may – rightly – begin to question whether this insurance premium isn’t rather like the forbidden poll tax. They might argue that the mandatory limit ought to be reduced to $100,000 or $10,000; or, even eliminated.

    The whole proposal, as a matter of principle, offends me. The scheme of May-Issue where only billionaires and Democrat Party contributors get CWPs likewise offends me. Can I decide which of these two offends me MORE? Can I figure out whether to support this proposal as a path toward a BETTER regime? Or, would this proposal best be RESISTED in order that the status quo prevail UNTIL New York voters begin to treasure the RKBA? If we are patient enough, Hell will freeze over.

    My expectation is that SCOTUS will take a case in the next couple of years and rule that May-Issue is UN-Constitutional. However, they will not rule that a state is forbidden to impose “reasonable” prerequisites for a permit. I anticipate that it will be a very long time before SCOTUS takes a case considering whether a “bad shoot” liability policy is a “reasonable” prerequisite. (I hasten to add that I am NOT arguing here that I think an insurance policy WOULD BE a reasonable prerequisite. What I think doesn’t matter. What matters is what SCOTUS is willing to indulge state legislatures as well as what the voters are willing to tolerate.)

    Is it clear that NYers are better-off with May-Issue under which they do not have to buy an insurance policy? Who benefits? Donald Trump? Is it clear that an ordinary millionaire would be worse-off if he COULD get a CWP but WOULD NOT pay an insurance premium?

  28. avatar CZJay says:

    And people think so called “national reciprocity” would work with states like California and New York?

    You don’t have a safe roster micro stamped handgun or gun insurance? Which hole would you like them to put their nightstick?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      So long as we have a choice I’d like them to put their stick in your hole.

  29. avatar GS650G says:

    Anytime you have a government mandate for a product the price is high. Look at car insurance, it’s mandated so the companies divide the spoils
    How they plan to get this past a SCOTUS review is anyone’s guess. Maybe they figured people will disarm due to the insurance cost and by the time it goes anywhere near a judge the political landscape will have changed.

    This is a precursor to laws in other states. Look at NY as an incubation tank for this stuff despite the stated mass shootings happening elsewhere. California and NJ won’t be far behind.

    What happens if insurance companies won’t write a policy that conforms? No gun ownership?

  30. avatar m. says:

    f cu-homo

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    Mussolini would be so proud.

  32. avatar Pelosi and company promised an assault on the 2A, and this is obviously an early shot at POTG. If you have any (guns and/or ammo) buried in the back yard it might be time to consider digging them up. says:

    This is about as close as I’ve ever seen to widespread outright confiscation legislation.

    Pelosi and company promised an assault on the 2A, and this is obviously an early shot at POTG.

    If you have any (guns and/or ammo) buried in the back yard it might be time to consider digging them up.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I don’t have any guns or ammo buried or hidden, and I won’t.

      If it’s time to start burying them, that means voting and the rule of constitutional law no longer work — which means it’s time to start shooting them at some carefully selected living targets.

  33. avatar JDH says:

    Governor Fredo

  34. avatar Cam says:

    These needs to be a way to sue politicians who pass obviously illegal and unconstitutional laws. They personally, and not the state, should have to pay the legal bills to overturn and defend them if they choose to.

  35. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Haven’t we heard things like this before? How governments will make gun ownership so difficult that you can’t breathe? I’m waiting for these people to figure out how efficient it would be to elevate every infraction of gun laws to a violent felony, with minimum one year mandatory sentence.

    Once laws exist that make every gun owner a violent felon, then probable cause that 1/3 of the citizenry (100,000,000 gun owners) are likely to have committed at least one felony, stop and search of every vehicle and person is a legitimate function of government’s compelling interest (a concept that goes back at least 170 years), to increase and protect the safety of the public.

    BTW, none of this will trigger an armed response by law abiding gun owners.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      WA state already tried the “everything is a disqualifying offense” tactic right after Sandy Hook. It covered pretty much every misdemeanor down to disorderly conduct, stopping just short of traffic tickets.

      It didn’t pass the legislature, but that doesn’t mean it won’t come back.

      The unconstitutional crap we’re stuck with now began just the same way — a progressive Democrat’s wet dream, introduced every year like clockwork and shot down in committee just as reliably. But then the progressive billionaire’s club got together with the social justice brigade and the idiocracy voted their rights and mine away.

      This country was established as a constitutional republic precisely to prevent this kind of crap from happening.

      “But muh democracy,” the progressive populists said, and a few decades later, here we are with 50% of my neighbors plus one having the power to declare me persona non grata in my own damn hometown (without knowing anything about me). And their ignorant opinion is enforced at the point of a gun by the state police.

      Every state that has an initiative loophole is going to see this coming around to bite them in the next few years.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      And you’re right, none of us are going to get our guns out and start restoring constitutional order anytime soon. Probably never.

      If I ever did, it’d be a lonely, pointless gesture. I don’t have the resources or ability — financial, physical, mental, or social — to gather others around a cause or indulge in any kind of active resistance. The state would take me down, or my own health would, and nothing would change…except that my family would be cast adrift without me to provide for them.

      If there ever is a viable system for rebellion, I’ll support it. But far too many POTG are like me (or just happy with the status quo) to make that likely.

  36. avatar MGD says:

    No insurance policy ANYWHERE is going to cover “willful” acts. Then I love the word “privilege” in the language. Just more harassment of gun owners.

  37. avatar UpInArms says:

    This bill was proposed by NY State Senator KEVIN PARKER — the same dildo-brain that’s proposing social media be incorporated into background checks.

    BTW– he’s black, so obviously he’s very concerned with the safety of inner-city minorities.

    Looks to me like somebody is trying to make a name for himself at the expense of civil rights.

    1. avatar MGD says:

      Read his interview with Tucker Carlson. Tucker made him look foolish.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      Don’t forget that politicians rarely write their own bills.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        Whether he wrote it or not, he put his name on it. He owns it.

    3. avatar Davy Jones says:

      The commie liberal socialist want to own all God Fearing Patriots. They are ALL working for satan, COME AND TAKE THEM & see what happens! Big jew brother is watching us & wants us all to be submissive Sheeple! We have them out gunned & GOD is on OUR SIDE !
      They are ignorant queers, whose mama tells them how to think & destroy AMERICA 🇺🇸🐺🏴‍☠️☠️🦅⚔️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

      1. avatar Davy Jones says:

        P.S. most of these idiots don’t even know what happened on DECEMBER 7th 1941– A Day Which Will Live In Infamy ( Japs bombed PEARL HARBOR)—— Thor’s who don’t know the mistakes of History, are Bound to repeat them!🇺🇸 MOLON LABE 🇺🇸⚔️

  38. avatar john says:

    When some politicians get dropped gun right swill be taken more seriously.

  39. avatar Scott says:

    Trump, being a resident of the state, should personally buy a gun without insurance and then sue.

    He should also have US Marshals at the signing ceremony to drag the governor away for the violation of rights under the color of law.

  40. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Wouldn’t this be consider a tax just like Obummercare? A very harsh tax.

  41. avatar Ron Wright says:

    The old adage, YOU JUST CAN’T FIX STUPID, sure fits in this case. How can DumboRats be that ignorant, it must be in the wine they drink.. Is there something in the DumboRat Rules that says you have to be stupid, ignorant and anti-gun to be one?? Anything to get their ugly mugs in front of the camera and getting ready for their “Presidential Run” in 2020!!

  42. avatar Alan says:

    I was born and brought up in N.Y.C. Lived there, as an adult, for a number of years, departed that vale of tears in 1967. You have one guess as to why, I suggest you do a little research before guessing.

  43. avatar KB says:

    Well then, Two can play that game. Start a citizen’s initiative to require anyone convicted of a felony secure a 5 million liability policy.

  44. avatar james says:

    Next we will need Uninsured Criminal with a gun coverage.

  45. avatar james says:

    How can the get away with this nonsense, midnight safe act passage w/o any comment from public, mandatory insurance coverage, etc.

    NY State has very low number of gun owners, that is how they do it.

  46. avatar George burns says:

    The second amendment doesn’t say the right to bear arms that have a million dollar insurance policy attached, it’s straight out unconstitutional, based on a monetary amount that the citizens cannot and need not have. Federal law trumps state law, it just needs to be tested. When I lived in Queens, I had a Carry permit for 25 years. It was unrestricted because I carried money all times of the day and night for my business, at the time it was $5000 in cash per day. I also made night deposits and payroll.
    I had a 3 million dollar Umbrella policy for a few hundred dollars extra tacked onto my Auto. Not for guns, just because. I told my insurance broker,I want to be covered in case I drive into Bloomingdales and wipe out the entire cosmetics section. That was in the 70’s, I imagine that things have gone up since then.
    I know that now everyone pays by CC and check, yet now I read it was 50 grand per day, not 5 grand anymore.
    Sooner or later the Supremes will need to get NY and CA. into the Republic. There is no excuse for this bullcrap anymore. I needed letters from 5 people whom I knew for 10 years or more, my Bank, My employer, showing how much I deposited on a daily basis, and my attorney, my secured location , For the gun” also wrote a letter along with 2 NYC detectives and a few others. It took a year to get the first of 3 interviews. Almost everyone drops out along the process, they count on it.
    Then when you do actually approve you, they give you a purchase order that has to be returned in 2 or 3 days, so they can write the serial model, and caliber of the gun, on the license. It’s really stupid considering you can ask any wise guy in NY and get a gun in an hour, “if you were up to no good”. But the entire game is stupid. Some attorney needs to take the State of NY through the courts to the Supreme Court and get this fixed once and for all.
    On top of that, if they have a residence in any Free state, they can get a permit in most, like FL even as a part time resident. But still can’t carry in their home state, just stupid.

  47. avatar Vincent Merendino says:

    Our society voted him back in office along with all all of his cronies. Don’t tell me he is not getting a piece of this action.

  48. avatar Tommy Who says:

    I don’t trust any and mostly the closet Hanger Coumo !! bought a house in SC and still own in Upstate NY. Cancelled carry and many long rifles. I called and spoke with the sheriff down here in SC about bringing them down here and he said ” make sure they are secured. Separate ammo from guns and when you get to your property you may do what ever you please with them. You can not Carry a handgun on your person unless you get a SC permit but, you can have one in your car loaded for protection but in vehicle { if someone carjack you while you are in your car } you can take their life in defense . his last line was we believe you have the right to protect yourself at all times. Yankee in the south. Fuck NY I selling and hitting the road

  49. avatar 2aguy says:

    It is a violation of the 14th Amendments “equal protection” clause…..

  50. avatar Timothy K. Toroian says:

    And will you dipshits pass a law that all insurance companies will be required to provide such insurance at reasonable prices? Because the chances of the average gun owner actually needing to use such insurance are probably less than 1 in 10,000,000.

  51. avatar Joel Glantz says:

    Maybe an amendment, similar to the ACA, that requires New York to subsidize the premiums should be added….. wonder how the legislature would respond….

  52. avatar Fred Butler says:

    This violates the very basis of our country. Our freedoms are being taken from us how much more will it take to get you to get off your asses and sta d up? Just a question. Jesus is king! Show yourself worthy!

  53. avatar Chiefton says:

    Does Cuomo realize that he is actually supporting the NRA program that provides this voluntarily? In effect, Cuomo is financially enhancing the NRA with this bill. You have got to love it as it is too funny.

  54. avatar RMS1911 says:

    This will be knocked down as unconstitutional.
    I hope they go for it.

  55. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    does he or any family member or associate have stock in any insurance companies????

  56. avatar Chucker says:

    The part that really struck me was the last line of the bill summary. …any owner failing to maintain said policy shall be subject to immediate revocation of their registration, license, and any privilege to own such arms. This verbiage isn’t exact but the use of the terms registration, license, and privilege really say it all.
    I would bet that any such policy would have to list any and all covered firearms. There’ll be a license to own that would be tied to proof of insurance. And lastly the notation that this is a prvilege granted you by your good and benevolent leadership as opposed to it being the RIGHT guaranteed by your country’s constitution. Sounds like a very thinly disguised means of a registration scheme.
    I suppose that it will also ultimately be your privilege to oppose this bill and speak out in protest. After properly registering and obtaining a license to do so, of course, and demonstrating that you have proper insurance coverage in the event anyone be harmed or offended by you or your groups actions.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I suppose that it will also ultimately be your privilege to oppose this bill and speak out in protest.”

      Not if you want to keep your firearms. Such talk would be considered hate speech; grounds for taking your firearms.

  57. avatar Lylle says:

    Cuomo must go. He’s the reason my small pistol club can’t get insurance, et al. The USCCA can’t renew my membership. Most New Yorkers can’t carry in NYC. That is a NY State law not a NYC law as I had supposed. Cuomo again.

  58. avatar Gene Rey says:

    This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. Nobody’s fault but the sheeple’s for letting it happen and continue!

  59. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    New York gun control has always been about stopping the less affluent from getting guns. The Sullivan Law was the first to go after poor white people.

  60. avatar Pete says:

    What about hunters will this affect them as well

  61. avatar khal spencer says:

    Seems to me this should meet the same fate as a poll tax.

  62. avatar Jeremy Suhr says:

    So he cant ban all guns, so instead he will make it so the majority cant afford to own any

  63. avatar Gene Rey says:

    Yellow vest time people…Cuomo & the rest of the Constitution hating democrats gotta go.

  64. avatar C Jants says:

    How does this get “SHOT” down?????

  65. avatar Linda WGer says:

    There are more people killed by cars than guns. Is the one million going to cover cars too? What about knives? This is ridiculous!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “There are more people killed by cars than guns. Is the one million going to cover cars too? What about knives? This is ridiculous!”

      Everyone “needs” a car; risk is acceptable. Knives might warrant further study, following the example in Britain; risk acceptable for now.

      And that’s how it goes.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        really “everyone needs a car” , you can walk your butt to work , and no where in the US Constitution say the” right to own a car will not be infringed ” this is clearly registration and confiscation , you will not insure any firearm with out filing the serial number of that fire arm to the insurance company and then it will be given to the state . they now will have a complete inventory of every legal personally owned firearm in the state and at any time they will now know just what they are looking for if they chose for any reason to collect.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email