Andrew Cuomo
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Anti-gun New York legislators are at it again with a bill called A581. If signed into law it would require liability insurance coverage before a carry permit is issued or renewed. This would essentially tax gun owners, pricing the right to bear arms out of the reach of many low income citizens. As if it wasn’t already difficult enough.

Democrats in New York and at the federal level just can’t seem to get rid of the Second Amendment so they are forever erecting barriers to gun ownership by law-abiding people.

The proposal of a firearms liability insurance requirement isn’t only a question of cost for the gun owner, it’s also a question of accessibility. When we shop for auto insurance, for instance, we have several options to choose from. How many policy options do you think there would be for gun owners, especially after Governor Andrew Cuomo has already ran other insurance products out of the state?

In a normal market you’d be able to shop around for the best price. But we’re talking about insurance for something that politicians and the anti-gun crowd have worked hard to demonize and eliminate. Aside from cost concerns, how interested do you think most insurance companies would be in working with a state that has some of the most anti-gun policies in the nation?

How expensive would it be to provide liability insurance to residents who live under “duty to retreat” laws? Do you think insurance companies would want to insure people who are burdened with “equal-force” laws?

New York’s one-party government has done everything it can to make gun-ownership difficult and expensive for the good guys as they can, while simultaneously letting the bad guys out of prison. You’d be forgiven for wondering if New York legislators are working to create the most dangerous state in the nation.

But here’s the kicker. If A581 passes, it will be extremely difficult to find an affordable insurance policy that covers all the concerns gun-owners may have because New York legislators has already made it as onerous as possible for insurance companies to even operate in the state.

If you’re a gun owner and want to insure yourself for the expenses involved in a self-defense shooting, good luck. The Governor and anti-gun legislators have already labeled such common sense coverage as “murder insurance.” The largest providers, US Law Shield and USCCA don’t offer coverage in New York.

New York insurance law forbids coverage for “intentionally committed wrongful and/or criminal acts.” But who would determine whether the acts of a gun owner are criminal? And wouldn’t self-defense insurance coverage be an important thing to have during the legal process while any criminal liability or intent is determined?

According to state regulators, the NRA’s now defunct Carry Guard program “improperly provided” coverage in any criminal proceeding against the policyholder including coverage for bail money, premiums on bonds, attorney consultation fees and retainers, expenses incurred for the investigation or defense of criminal charges, and costs incurred by the insured or the insured’s resident family members in a criminal proceeding arising out of a self-defense shooting.

So to summarize, Governor Cuomo and the New York Legislators want to mandate liability insurance for anyone licensed to carry a handgun, with the penalty of revoking permits without it. At the same time, they’ve made it nearly impossible to acquire firearms-related insurance in the state.

I wonder what their goal really is.

The Second Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.

Dan Wos is the author of the Good Gun Bad Guy series and host of The Loaded Mic

67 COMMENTS

    • Well, new york’s been doing it since slavery days, so at this point anyone behind those enemy lines is either stupid or doesn’t care, or both… Probably both.

    • Only to legal gun owners, of course. And the kicker is, you won’t be allowed to use any of it to defend yourself if you ever have to use your firearm in self-defense.

      The “insurance” this bill would create only exists to make life harder for law-abiding gun owners — and as a bonus, the premiums will pick your pocket to pay off any criminal that attacks you if you dare to defend yourself.

    • Only law abiding gun-owners. Criminals are already exempt from all gun laws. As should really be for all of us.

    • Just as requiring a convicted felon or other prohibited person to ‘register’ his illegally-possessed firearm would be a violation of the 5th Amendment prohibition on forced self-iincrimination (yes, there’s a SCOTUS decision to that effect–Haynes v. US), requiring such a person to obtain insurance, get a FOID card, a CCW permit, or any other legal document pertaining to whatever illegal firearm possession he intends would be a form of self-incrimination and, therefore, unConstitutional.
      Therefore, the only people in New York City, for example, who can freely exercise their 2nd Amendment rights are convicted felons, the insane, alcoholics, drug addicts, domestic abusers, and maybe those who have declared their intent to overthrow our system of government, along with a few other special folk.
      All others? Not so much.

    • Criminals cannot be charged with violating most gun control laws. Note the number of laws that only apply to permit holders.
      In NC, permit holders have a duty to disclose. Most police think this is so BS. Only Barney Fifes and LEOS that take “Law Enforcement” to the extreme and Soros DA’s like this.
      Criminals can not be charged because as others noted, it is a violation of their 2A rights.
      Because NC links permits to one’s DL and car registration, every cop in the nation know we have a permit the second they run a plate. MD troopers claim that being from out of state and having a permit is probable cause to tear apart cars.

  1. NY is a lost cause unless you can start slowly peeling away D voters from NYC.

    Off topic: Contact R senators to oppose HR 1. It must be filibustered.

  2. If the law becomes too burdensome, convoluted and Kafkaesque people won’t stop doing the thing you’re attempting to control. They’ll just stop following the law.

  3. Well, if NY passes this law, and there are no insurance companies willing to sell such insurance in NY, then every NY gun owner instantly becomes a criminal, right? Good. Then, the lawsuits will fly quickly. This will not be an infringement, but a full, egregious, and blatant abrogation of the 2A. A free-standing, total denial of a natural right enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. It will not stand.

    On another front, Dictator Cuomo may find himself explaining in front of a court why we shouldn’t believe the women. Prison would be a fine place from which he can write his memoirs.

    • “This will not be an infringement, but a full, egregious, and blatant abrogation of the 2A. A free-standing, total denial of a natural right enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. It will not stand.”

      Of course it won’t.

      And how many years will that take?

      That’s what they are counting on…

    • “Then every NY gun owner instantly becomes a criminal, right?”

      It’s happened here before with the SAFE act. I remember waking up one morning to find that my .22 bolt gun now had a dangerous and illegal high capacity ten round magazine.

      We are two countries now: The USA and the USSA, and I no longer believe the USSA can be fixed. I’m making plans for my future accordingly.

    • The state will become the insurance company. Annual premium will be set such that only the top 0.0001% can afford it.
      One of the federal bills that Jackasson Lee submitted requires federal liability insurance, purchased from the feds at a cost starting at $800 per year.

      I have a 7 figure umbrella liability policy that costs <$200/yr. Not sure how they get the $800 figure. But it is gov't. No competition.

      • “Annual premium will be set such that only the top 0.0001% can afford it.”

        That’s when we use the ObamaCare model against them.

        The poor get their plans ‘subsidized’ to a large extent… 🙂

  4. That’s illegal as hell, and a direct infringement on the 2nd Amendment. I don’t know why they think they can get away with that kind of shit. Ten seconds after they pass that bill, a dozen lawsuites will be filed against them, and the USSC will declare it illegal.

    • The Roberts court will find that it is absolutely constitutional. Haven’t you figured that out yet? Despite the “fact” that we now have a “conservative” majority, he will brow beat them into approving any and all laws such as this. They proved that many times. Heller et al notwithstanding

      • Interstate Commerce Clause. 14th Amendment. Sovereign immunity. Neca eos omnes, Deus suos agnoscet. Alien and Sedition Act. Right of government to tax under the 16th Amendment. Penumbra. Droits du Seigneur. Oderint dum metuant.
        Or something. They can ALWAYS find something.

    • Like the SAFE act, right? I remember when that travesty got slapped down by the supreme court in ten min- oh wait. Actually, a bunch of NY judges decided that most of it was just peachy, and we live with it to this day. NY is a broken place, and it’s malignancy is actively papered over by media that aren’t just compliant, but complicit: propagandists for the left.

      • Wasn’t it just the 7 round limit got bumped up to 10 and the ammo check was unenforcable and we can technically get ammo shipped to our door still?

        • Yes, the mag limit was overturned back to the current (still unconstitutional) 10 rds. I’m not sure about ammo shipping. I think most places won’t ship to NY, right? I could be wrong about that – to be honest I just assumed it was a no-go and never even tried!

          Other than that, SAFE still pretty much stands.

        • A few places will and reddit/4chan will occasionally post the updated list of who they are. Doesn’t matter as the prices are so bad that you are better off buying from Olesen’s gun group or their immediate competitors if you are within a hundred miles of the capital

  5. Sad thing is…this is his 3rd term…wtf NY, is it the CITY or are there uber lib/progs voting this idiot in in the nice parts of NY?

    • As with VA, the sheer number of communists voters downstate and in places like Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, outnumber all the other voters statewide. In VA the communists from the DC area in northern VA, down the eastern shore through the Tidewater region, Norfolk, VA Beach out number the rest of the voters every were else in the state.

      • Hey now. Theres a pretty solid number of conservative types here in the Tidewater area…. unforunately not quite enough. really blows my mind with the fact that the military is the biggest employer in the area… you would think voting blue would be counterproductive to keeping their employment

  6. “Everyone must determine for themselves what level of tyranny they are willing to tolerate.” – – Some old white guy
    Apparently American Patriots have not come any where close to their level of tyranny tolerance.,,,,,,,cause we tolerate Demtards infringing on the 2A and all of our other rights.
    So, let Cuckcoomo, Xiden, KamelHo, and Butto O’Dork pass all the anti-gun legislation they want. Hopefully, American Patriots are nearly at the brink of their tolerance.
    A football team continues to call the same plays as successful until a decisive defense is presented to render their progress ineffective and their QB gets really, really smashed ….put out of the game. Until then, the Demtards don’t really believe American Patriots are serious about the 2A and all other Freedoms, Rights, and Liberties. They relentlessly practice…..”Always take what the opposition gives you.” HR1 and the NY onerous laws may be just the gift American Patriots need to get our keyboard commandos off the couch. The Tree of Liberty is really, really parched. Are we going to let it wither and die???? When one finds oneself in a hole….quit digging!!! America, time to put the shovels down….and pick up other tools. America has been over run from within.

  7. WA state eyeing everything done in NY for use here. It’s depressing but we’re going fight it with time, letters and money.

    BTW – still, still hate the new format. Less content than before, but to make up for it you’ve made it harder to read and navigate. Doesn’t help the cause.

  8. Each anti gunners,NO matter who they may be, president, congressman’s vis-president, house leader, senator’s, billionaires what ever if that person or person’s is an anti -gunner,then it’s only right that they forfeit all rights, to have armed protection, NO bodyguards, NO ARMED SECURITY, NO police protection for THEIR Homes, Businesss, absolutely NO ARMED SECURITY of ANY Types, for any Reasons, (example )criminal breaks into their home ,starts raping and killing their children, mother, friends, they call 911, the police, their neighbor’s comes TOO THE RESCUE, BUT UNARMED and NO WAY OF protecting themselves are the victims, but if they had a firearm WHEN the rapist and murder kicked the door down to ENTER their HOME, they could have saved THEIR children’s life’s. And prevented any other harm to the public.

  9. But gunm insurance is a good thing, a lot of comments on here champion it. License Registration and Insurance please.

    • The kind of gunm insurance lauded here is illegal in NY because it is “murder insurance.” According to the governor. But by the same token, the kind of “liability” insurance they want to require people to have will rarely pay anything because these idiots do not know how insurance works. They seem to think that there will be coverage for all those young adults shot in the streets by gang members and other miscreants, which it won’t because insurance cannot indemnify against intentional wrongful acts. It can ONLY indemnify against accidental/negligent shootings, of which there are thankfully relatively few. The statistics are app. 500 per year killed and between 3500 and 5000 wounded each year nationally. Homeowner’s insurance will typically covers these unintentional losses, although it may not cover for shooting the intruder in the middle of the night.

  10. We all love to shout about how 2A is absolute. And that “absolute” extends into every nook and cranny of life. But there is a vast difference between “self-defense” insurance, and “liability” insurance.

    My insurance company includes a certain amount of liability insurance in the cost of homeowners insurance. That policy will protect against accident and theft. I added a personal liability policy of over a million dollars (about $125/yr). That policy also includes amounts over my auto and homeowner liability limits. This personal liability policy does not cover self-defense pre-paid legal service. For that, I chose LawShield. Two liability circumstances, two solutions.

    It is all too easy to conflate self-defense “insurance” (pre-paid legal service) and standard injury liability insurance.

    So, let’s separate the two issues: self-defense, and civil liability (as a differentiation, not a classification; civil/criminal).

    As a 2A absolutist, I find any restriction, of any kind, anywhere to satisfy the meaning of “infringed”. However, we live in a real world, contaminated by humans, and human conflicts. There will always be restrictions on human behavior, a fact acknowledged in the constitution that tell us human rights can be infringed upon application of “due process”. Thus, the argument devolves to opinions of what “due process” means.

    This conflict between “absolute” and “real world” sets my teeth on edge, but I cannot legitimately ignore the conflict. As an individual, I believe one thing, and will act differently. If a gun owner causes harm or damage to me, family, property, I will press charges, and sue to bankrupt the offender (and delight in it). I will not concede that an absolute right shields the actions of another.

    It should not require regulation to mandate that a person wielding a tool of destruction possess the financial wherewithall to cover the costs of injury to another human, whether the injury is intentional, or not. But, because we are dealing with humans and human activity, here we are.

    • Various US government entities possess such tools of destruction. What such liability insurance must they possess in your world? Who shall offer them the policy?

      • What such liability insurance must they possess in your world?

        Owning the court system is a form of insurance in this instance.

    • Whole heartedly agree with you. In the real world where DA’s want one in the win column, your livelihood means nothing to them. You could lose everything without insurance. I have a policy with USCCA but will be transferring to US Law Shield this year. I think possum must be independently wealthy.

    • “It should not require regulation to mandate that a person wielding a tool of destruction possess the financial wherewithall to cover the costs of injury to another human, whether the injury is intentional, or not.”

      That’s a good point, Samuel. It sounds a lot like how ObamaCare was pitched, actually.

      …and what was the solution when the poor couldn’t afford the ACA’a exorbitant premiums?

      Lots and LOTS of subsidies, footed by the taxpayers… 😉

  11. The only reason to pass a stupid law like this is to restrict and limit who has a gun. How would having insurance make a gun or gun owner any less dangerous? I’ll wait.

    • MB…..BINGO!!! We have a winner in the Guess The Dimtard Objective Quiz.
      Politicians with a law never stop a bad guy with a gun.
      They only control the good guys, which is their true agenda.

  12. “What such liability insurance must they possess in your world? Who shall offer them the policy?”

    Not a serious question, but….

    The US Government self-insures. However, I closely observed that same government abandon an employee sued for doing her job IAW government regulation (optics). That woman had to defend herself against charges of procedural error.

    As to which insurance company government employees should approach, depends on whether we are talking about self-defense, or standard personal liability. As pointed out, the two things are not the same. In consideration of personal liability for actions not associated with their official capacity, like homeowner liability, government agents can sample a plethora of companies offering such liability coverage (I obtained personal liability insurance while a federal employee).

    It is not “my world”, but the real world. I would gladly exist in a world where all gun owners were of personal integrity to protect themselves and possible receivers of adverse actions, via liability insurance. That world does not exist for me or anyone else.

    As a gun owner, I do not like the idea of being forced to buy pre-paid legal service. Nor do I like the idea that I must have significant personal liability insurance because the nation is frivolous lawsuit happy. However, I do foresee a day when every human activity is declared a healthcare matter, and government requires liability insurance of everyone.

    But my point is the type of “insurance” is important in the discussion because we eagerly conflate one thing with another, and end up becoming angry at the wrong things.

    On a side note, I am looking forward to how government defends mandated “murder insurance”

    • The real question I think here is what would constitute, and who would underwrite the policy for, personal liability in terms of firearms?

      The big issue here is that in the current world I doubt any company would actually write a policy that covered this kind of thing except in certain business situations. “Stray bullet insurance” would undoubtedly come with, at least in the current environment, a huge cost to the company on the “social” front when such insurance was denounced as a “racist tool of the patriarchy and white supremacy”.

      The social politics of such a thing, IMHO, mean it’s unlikely that anyone would offer such insurance for long. That means there’s no way to comply with the law unless the NY government sets up it’s own agency to sell such a thing and that’s going to turn into a clusterfuck faster than teenage panties hit the floor after five shots of peach schnapps.

      • Damn…

        It usually took 7-8 shots of Tequila (Sheila) before the ‘drop trou’ urge took over in the 80s… 🙂

        • I never drank, smoked, or snorted in ‘high’ school.

          But I damn sure caught up in the 80s…

          Anyways –

          “The real question I think here is what would constitute, and who would underwrite the policy for, personal liability in terms of firearms?”

          (Point at the obvious) :

          The ‘ObamaCare’ model, underwriting those too poor to afford the useless coverage that you (and I) very expensively found out during our un-planned stays in the hospital… 🙁

  13. Come on! It’s just a common sense measure. After all, if you mess up something while exercising any activity, you may end up to pay. And if you don’t have the money then those who suffered because of your action will not be compensated.
    And even if your actions are done exercising a constitutional right, this does not make them less harmful.
    I would suggest to introduce also a bill for a liability insurance for other enumerated rights, especially for the first amendment. You can say, write, post ,whatever you want, but if you overdo it, you may be sued for libel. But if you do not have the money in case the victim of your free speech is awarded compensation, they will end up even more victimised.
    So I’d suggest a compulsory liability insurance for exercising the first amendment: with different quotes according to the risk. Say, if you post on Twitter 100$, Reddit 150$, Qanon 300$. If you post a reply on thetruthaboutguns the minimum insurance premium being 1000$ and so on.
    Only if you post praise comments on the Beeb or CNN, you get a free pass.
    How does it sound?
    After all, it’s just common sense.

    • “After all, if you mess up something while exercising any activity, you may end up to pay.”

      How will that be applied in say, oh, the south side of Chicago on a street corner on a warm Saturday night, for example? 🙂

    • “Guns are politician insurance.”

      *snicker*… 😉

    • Cuomo may not have much of a political let alone business future left in NY depending on the final results of however many accusations turn out to be relevant as pound me too is more important than dead grandparents and developmentally disabled wards of the state. With that said Schumer and co has a shot at cornering the market.

      • As much as I despise that slime, his replacement could be *far* worse…

        • Replace “could” with “likely will be” but whoever it is may be crazy enough to spook the “moderates” into supporting someone right of Stalin for once.

  14. I don’t think people will be uninsurable. CCW holder aren’t prone to commit crimes or cause accidents. The chance of an insurance company having to pay out is minimal, so the premiums paid would be mostly profit. There are going to be at least one company that wants that money. That said, it still is wrong to force insurance to exercise a right, but there hasn’t been a national decision that CC is part of the aegis of the 2A, so Dems will abuse it.

  15. He’s under attack in his own state by fellow Party Members who want his head on a pike …. up … politically speaking that is.

    Looking forward to a resignation, criminal prosecution or impeachment. It won’t be for the SAF Act or other anti-gun garbage, but it will still be well deserved!

  16. “The real question I think here is what would constitute, and who would underwrite the policy for, personal liability in terms of firearms? ”

    Hhhmmmm. Thought I explained in my reply to the question. Govt is the insurer for legal actions of an agent. As a private individual, a government employee is in the same pool as a normal citizen: personal liability insurance from a commercial company; self-defense pre-paid legal service for self-defense.

    Knew I shouldn’t switched from Glenfiddich to VAT 69, in the middle of writing a reply to the original question.

  17. “After all, it’s just common sense.”

    Finally, a well thought-out defense of mandatory liability insurance. I hated being alone.

  18. Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network isn’t insurance like USCCA but it will help pay for legal defense and for bail and they do cover NY.

    Massad Ayoob and other top trainers are on the panel that reviews and advises on cases.

  19. It seems to me that once apon a time gun owners were offered insurance sold by the NRA and other companies to protect the legal gun owner durring prosecution. And New York sued to stop it because they weren’t legally allowed to sell insurance
    And now the want it back? Of course under the terms… which in no way help the legal gun owner!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here