N.Y. bill would force gun owners to buy at least $1M in insurance
Conservatives go ballistic.
A bill introduced in the New York State Assembly by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat, would require the state’s residents to acquire liability insurance as a condition for gun ownership.
“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,” the measure, dubbed S2353, reads.
Any person who has not purchased insurance in compliance with the law within 30 days of its passing would be in violation of the law.
Such an occurrence “shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.”
The bill also states that if a gun is stolen, the legal owner of that gun is responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police department.
Liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners is estimated to cost between $1,600 and $2,000 annually, the Examiner reports.
The bill has been referred to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee.
Mr. Ortiz represents a district in the New York borough of Brooklyn.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/09/2013|
Ooh, it's gonna be a GOP bitch fight...
The NRA vs. Insurance Companies
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/08/2013|
So dumb. How did these people get elected? Reminds of the anti-choice states who are making it nearly impossible for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to exist with special requirements that only apply to these clinics and nothing else.
This is not the way to approach the gun problem
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/08/2013|
It's fucking genius. If I need insurance for a freakin car, why shouldn't a gun require insurance.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/08/2013|
Because your right to own firearms is from the 2nd amendment. There is no part of the constitution which has a similar right for driving, though a right to travel is somewhat more limited as it also goes with interstate commerce.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/08/2013|
That's actually quite smart. Let these lobbies go at each others' throats. If only there would be a way for drug companies having to face the Christian Family value fanatics and the military lobby has to wrestle with Oil barons.
On second thought these people wouldn't make their own hands dirty and let their disposable underlings be collateral damage.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/08/2013|
Because only Conservatives exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/08/2013|
I support this bill. This is the way to go about it.
The Constitution also had legalized slavery and no voting rights for women.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/08/2013|
Some of you guys are as extreme in your views about gun control as the wingnuts are with social views. There is a middle ground.
You seem unable to see how Ortiz's bill is comparable to one a Tea Party wacko would propose about their pet issues.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/08/2013|
r8, you need to speak the same language as your opponent.
Bullies only know violence and intimidation. They don't back off just because you ask politely.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/08/2013|
It's either measures like these or a flat out ban in the future. Make your choice. This is the new gun version of DADT. It's not a flat out ban, but a compromise.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/08/2013|
We have a violent culture. No one wants to address that because it's so much easier to argue a blanket ban on guns. There is something very broken about our society when people think they can solve all their problems with the trigger of a gun.
Of course we have a problem with gun violence, but it is only a symptom of a larger problem and it's something no one is addressing.
This idiot Ortiz thinks he's accomplishing something when all he's really doing to riling up the gun nuts and yelling inside a crowded theater: fire!
We need sensible people in leadership roles who can think and act like adults.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/09/2013|
R4 if you actually know what you're talking about, you would also know that the 2nd amendment stipulates a WELL REGULATED militia. That's the part retards never like to pay attention to. Just like how they cherry pick their bible verses.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/09/2013|
This can turn around and bite us -- some other community wants to make it mandatory that people own guns, and if this happens and the town also makes it mandatory that people insure them, the insurance companies will be very happy.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/09/2013|
I can't believe how stupid this guy is. Guns are not going away. Get used to it, and forcing someone to buy insurance is not the answer. Do you think most criminals are going to have insurance? That's where most of the killings with guns occur.
A million dollars? How funny is that, how about start making folks with a car have that kind of liability insurance? Watch everyone freak out then.
Stupid politicians with too much time on their hands, create some jobs, stop crime. Stop wasting your time fighting the NRA.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/09/2013|
Perhaps a US Government owned/run insurance. It would create jobs, maybe even use proceeds for funding the mentally ill?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/09/2013|
Maybe the NRA should stop wasting lives because of sponsoring gun ownership to the unstable.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/09/2013|
[quote] Do you think most criminals are going to have insurance? That's where most of the killings with guns occur.
Actually, no. Most killings by guns are suicides. By far.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/09/2013|
I've been suggesting this for years. With rights come responsibilities. Isn't that what the right-wingers like to preach? This is a free-market solution as well so they should love it.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/09/2013|
Despite the second amendment felons and the mentally ill can't own guns. The second amendment says you can own a gun. It doesn't say anything that there can't be provisions attached (like background checks). It does not say every single person in America can own a gun with out restrictions of any type
There isn't anything in the constitution about income tax, but we have to pay it
|by Anonymous||reply 19||03/09/2013|
I guess this means the insurance lobby will be contributing to Felix's next campaign.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/09/2013|
I need R19 to walk around with me in life to help me win arguments.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||03/09/2013|
[quote]This idiot Ortiz thinks he's accomplishing something when all he's really doing to riling up the gun nuts and yelling inside a crowded theater: fire!
The gun nuts are so paranoid they'd shoot at squirrels when someone tells them that Obama has a secret squirrel army that is trained to steal guns for their master.
Gun nuts do not think rationally and see everything as a threat. You don't need someone yelling fire for them to start shooting. All it takes is somone (even one of their own) looking funny at someone else's gun.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/09/2013|
[quote]Reminds of the anti-choice states who are making it nearly impossible for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to exist with special requirements that only apply to these clinics and nothing else.
Yup. Cuts both ways, doesnt it?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/09/2013|
Republicans are not the only ones who own guns. I'm sure alot them don't. This just shows the ignorance of people. There are plenty of democrats who own guns. And there are plenty of A-Political (like me)people who do too.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/09/2013|
[quote]Despite the second amendment felons and the mentally ill can't own guns.
Mentally ill? Where?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||03/09/2013|
An umbrella policy (which is what they're suggesting) for $1M would cost around $500/year...
Cheap, if you ask me.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||03/09/2013|
[quote]I can't believe how stupid this guy is. Guns are not going away. Get used to it
Nope, and tons of Western countries successfully banned them. They were all pro-gun countries, then they changed. They were also historically more violent than the US ever was. America is always a decade behind them. They'll all have gay marriage before America gets its act together. America is pro-gun control. Get used to it, NRA cunt!
|by Anonymous||reply 28||03/09/2013|
[quote]And there are plenty of A-Political....
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/09/2013|
This is a total win win. Pits two hideous lobbys against each other: Insurance Vs Gun Mfgrs. Regulating the gun market now becomes the job of the insurance industry. Therefore your precious freedoms are not taken away because of the magic of of the free market. You got some DUIs on your record? Oops no one wants to insure you, or you pay more. History of violence or a felon? Obama is not taking away your guns, the insurance industry will. Freedoms!
|by Anonymous||reply 31||03/09/2013|
This doesn't limit anyone's ability to own a gun. It merely makes one financially liable for any damage its use causes to another. Same premise as auto insurance.
It's about time.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/09/2013|