The folks in New York State are at it again. Not satisfied with the comforting blanket of safety provided by the SAFE Act they seem intent on further punishing lawful gun owners by adding ever more onerous restrictions on the Constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms. The latest attempt is one we’ve seen before: mandatory firearms insurance.

On the surface the premise seems reasonable: we have car insurance, why not firearms insurance? Assemblyman Felix W. Ortiz (D – Kings) certainly thinks so. He’s introduced Assembly Bill 2260 which would require every gun owner to carry $250,000 of insurance to cover any possible negligent acts committed with firearms.

I covered why this is a terrible idea in my article about why mandatory firearms insurance is racist, but let’s recap.

The first thing firearms insurance would do is significantly increase the cost of owning a firearm. Getting a handgun in New York is already an onerous process. Adding firearms insurance on top will only serve to increase the total cost of exercising a Constitutionally protected right.

Taking automobile insurance as a baseline, the average cost is somewhere around $100 per month. Assemblyman Ortiz might not think twice about dropping a Benjamin a month on insurance, but lower income families and individuals might not be able to afford the added expense. They’d be priced out of being able to exercise a civil right.

As research studies have proven it is minority families who are most often on government assistance programs, indicating that minority families tend to have less disposable income than white families. Does Assemblyman Ortiz wants only white people to be able to own guns? Does he care care about ensuring that minority families have the same access to armed self defense as anyone else?

And we haven’t even addressed the usefulness of such an insurance program. Insurance only covers accidents, not intentional actions. It would seem that Assemblyman Ortiz understands this, since the bill requires insurance to cover negligent acts with a firearm. However the number of accidental deaths and injuries resulting from a firearm are quite low, and Ortiz’s mandate would do nothing to assist families who are victims of murders or other crimes involving firearms.

A cynic might conclude that Assemblyman Ortiz is just looking for ways to make it harder and more expensive for New Yorkers to own a firearm without providing any actual improvement to safety for the general public. The good news is that Ortiz introduced the exact same bill last year and it went nowhere, even with a liberal governor and legislature in the Empire State. Will he have more success this year? Watch this space.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

137 COMMENTS

  1. We should have voting insurance to compensate citizens for having to deal with idiots like Ortiz. If you vote someone like that into office you have to pay the rest of the state.

    • Or gun control insurance, where a dollar value is put on your rights so you can be compensated as they are taken away

      • To which the proper response is:
        Liberty and civil right cannot be given a dollar value – that is why we call them “priceless” .

    • Instant gun owner registry. Insurance products and insurance companies are subject to annual regulatory reviews by state insurance departments. Let me guess they are requiring owners schedule their firearms… Now they have a firearm database

      • There’s nothing legally to stop states or local governments from just mandating a firearm registry. California is well on its way to just that.
        I’m not sure about other places, but doesn’t the SAFE Act require registration of certain guns? And don’t some places have FOID systems that list guns owned?

    • I wouldn’t mind election insurance where you must pay for the court fees if the elected official you voted for passes a law that is later found unconstitutional.

  2. In the mind of the typical anti-gunner:
    Poor people are stupid and not to be trusted.
    Gun owners are stupid, crazy, and not to be trusted.
    Gun owning poor people are the worst of all.
    Pricing them out of their civil rights is a feature, not a bug.
    But will the so-called civil rights leaders call this bigot out for what he is?

    • I actually had anti gun acquaintance of mine (he is Australian so I give him a pass) tell me flat out that poor people not having guns is a good thing.

      • It goes unnoticed or unremarked, but devoted socialist politicians generally believe the poor are dangerous and unthinking. That is why, they reason, the poor haven’t managed to get by themselves the basic goods the socialist politicians seek to get us to buy for the poor. This is a famous fact for those who have read through the early/middle 20th century British leftist politicians, those whom George Orwell admired. If the poor, miserable, and ineffective can be denied guns and explosives, they reason, why on earth not do so? Well, they can see the best reason if they look in the mirror.

  3. “And we haven’t even addressed the usefulness of such an insurance program. Insurance only covers accidents, not intentional actions.”

    I’m not so sure on that, and here’s why:

    Driving a motor vehicle drunk is considered an intentional act and is a crime in all 50 states.

    If you drive drunk and crash, your insurance company will pay the victim of your DUI crime’s repair or loss of the vehicle from the crash and their medical expenses.

    How is this law’s intended outcome any different?

    I am aware the drunk’s vehicle loss is likely not covered by their insurance…

    • This is speculation, but I would think that a DUI collision is still considered to be an accident even if the intentional driving while drunk is a contributing factor, where a murder or assault with a gun would be intentional period, and not incidental to another crime.

      An interesting question would be, does liability insurance for cars cover a murder where the driver intentionally runs the victim over, whether drunk or not?

      • My insurance policies, and those I’ve ever read, all specify that intentional acts of bodily injury are specifically and categorically excluded.

        • “…all specify that intentional acts of bodily injury are specifically and categorically excluded.”

          Yes, but they *will* pay who you hit, and then likely sue *you* to re-reimburse what you cost them…

    • The error in your analysis is the assumption that “drunk driving is considered an intentional act….” while it is true that driving drunk is illegal, that does not make it an “intentional act.” Drunk driving as an offense requires proof only that the defendant had a BAC in excess of the legal limit and that he/she was driving. There is no need to show intent, either specific or general. So let’s talk about insurance.

      Driving a car is an intentional act. But that does not mean that getting into an accident is an intentional act not covered by insurance. Most of the time, we do not intend to get into a collision with another vehicle. (Mostly, not always. Road rage is probably an intentional act as well, but carriers will usually cover the accident anyway.) The same is true for DUI. While drinking is an intentional act,and driving is an intentional act, getting into an accident, no matter how foreseeable, is not an intentional act (unless of course the driver intended to hit whatever or whomever he hit). Now le’s look at guns. Firing a gun is usually (but not always) an intentional act, but in most cases, there is no intent to shoot another person in the case of accidental or negligent discharges, and hence the shooting would be a covered loss. Trying to kill someone would not be a covered loss, and the law, I assume, is the same in all 50 states that an intentional tort, i.e. a tort where the defendant acts with the intent to harm another, is expressly excluded from coverage as a matter of public policy.

      • “Trying to kill someone would not be a covered loss, and the law, I assume, is the same in all 50 states that an intentional tort, i.e. a tort where the defendant acts with the intent to harm another, is expressly excluded from coverage as a matter of public policy.”

        So, the ‘gun insurance’ company would refuse to pay the person the insured party shot?

        Or, would they pay the person who was shot and then attempt to recover their losses from the insured party? (The guy who paid the insurance premium.)

        • Mark – I realize this is conditional on an insurance company having such a policy available for sale.

          If it’s true no insurance company will offer such a policy, then the law requiring that insurance will be moot and unconstitutional…

  4. The better move, even now. is to move out of any state that has unconstitutional laws like NY has, and many already have, I personally know a bunch of them. If people would vacate those states in number and let it be known why, they would not do this sort of thing. You people in NY, Commiefornia, and other states still have one last card to play, and it’s the best one, move out of state and leave those idiots to themselves.

    • “If people would vacate those states in number and let it be known why, they would not do this sort of thing.”

      Incorrect. The goal of New York and California liberals is to get people like us to leave. They don’t want dissent. They don’t care if the population declines via attrition of conservatives/sane people. If anything, without people like us to oppose them, they’d be emboldened. Progressivism is a metastasizing malignancy, and anyone who thinks “well it won’t happen in my free state” is being incredibly delusional. It might not happen overnight, but the risk of it happening is ever present. Tucking tail and moving in a temporary solution, but the last thing the liberals need is unopposed reign in the states where they hold the power.

      • Exactly. Governor Cholmo said as much- gun people “have no place in the state of New York”.

        The truth is that although NYC has a huge amount of sway over Albany the rest of NYS is largely rural and fairly conservative. While the demographics of the state house mean the dems control it, the state senate is (narrowly) held by ‘republicans.’ Nothing would make Bloomburg et al happier than to change that.

      • Ok then why do so many of these transplants come to our perfectly fine red states, seem to think they know better, then vote the same democrat scum into power that ruined their state in first place? It’s exactly like the Muslims fleeing their abusive masters then eventually supporting sharia once their numbers increase.

      • When I see at least 1000 or more civil-rights protesters in California or New York State holding pro 2A signs, only then will I take gun owners in those states seriously. Email is easy. A physical protest is what gets the attention of law makers.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Tax_Revolt

        I was there when the Nashville tax protest was going on. Thousands were there. All blowing horns. The sound was deafening. A person even rigged a locomotive horn to blow at the capital. This psychological warfare worked. The legislators were very afraid. Tennessee has no income tax to this day. And they still have their guns.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gWnUwwJ-Zs
        Tennessee Tax revolt at Nashville in 2002.

        • After the SAFE Act was passed by the Democrats in NY, over 10,000 gun owners had a rally at the capitol building in Albany. Look it up, it happened. A year or two later, another rally was held, but the turnout was more modest at around 5000. Gun owners realized the second time around it wasn’t going to do a whole lot of good. Our voices were heard, but you know what? When the Democrats have a strangehold on the politics and the backing of a progressive city like NYC, it doesn’t matter how many people protest. So please, spare me the “I don’t take New York gun owners seriously” attitude, as if you’re somehow better because you live in a different geographic area.

        • To Binder & HP

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/02/robert-farago/question-day-will-california-ever-go-constitutional-carry/

          If you scroll down you will see my reference to the 7 million gun owners in California. How many millions of gun owners are in New York State?????
          Why weren’t 10,000 or 20,000 protesters at Albany before the safe act was passed not after????
          Let me put it another way. Why aren’t the New York gun owners getting in the face of these anti-gun Jewish democrats demanding to know why they want guns taken away from people just like Adolf Hitler did?????????????

          And as a black gun owner as far as I’m concerned the anti-gun white Jews are just like the Klu Klux Klan, which was an arm of the government in some parts of this country at one time. They also confiscated guns.

        • Chris T from KY, I can’t keep doing your homework for you, but look up online how the safe act was passed.

          Also, calling people who don’t support for the right to bear arms the same the KKK is just stupid and insulting. I’m fairly sure you could be green skinned and they still would think private gun ownership should be controlled.

        • Binder
          Since you mentioned the color green, I have to tell you the people who call themselves “green” are very anti-gun. Also here is your home work assignment for you.

          What sub group of white people told blacks in the south they would not give them any more money if blacks continued to use firearms even for self-defense in the civil-rights movement.?????

          And what sub group of white people gave guns and ammo to blacks in the south????

  6. Now, there is a bit of real common sense. Wish I had thought it up.

    If you are to put the rest of us at risk of accidental (negligeng, right?) shootings, at least have the decency to be able to put us right financially.

        • 2Asux isn’t one of the regular, garden variety trolls here in TTAG who spew crap and haul-ass.

          He doesn’t clip-n-paste his responses, he will honestly engage you in debate. He is *outstanding* practice for 2A debate skills.

          (His patience is likely to be stressed to the limit over the next 4 years, as gun rights become even more firmly entrenched in the very fabric of America as we pack SCOTUS with conservative-leaning justices and pass very friendly gun rights laws until the end of Trump’s term in office…).

          • Thankyou Geoff PR.

            One can learn much from the Chinese…think in terms of decades, not hours. Patience is “tried” when rushing to bend events instantly. The “arc of history” (and many thanks to whomever invented that term) has been, and will continue to be bent toward a more socially just global society.

            I know there is great opposition to sensible gun controls here, but those are not the audience I seek. It is the thoughtful, curious, exploring types I hope to interest in considering, or re-considering their preconceptions. Always interesting and informative to encounter you and others like you.

        • He is also an absolutely fervent gun-grabber whose sole goal is the elimination of personal firearms ownership.

          Make no mistake — he is the enemy. He would slit your throat and feel he was doing the world a favor.

          • “He is also an absolutely fervent gun-grabber whose sole goal is the elimination of personal firearms ownership.”

            Read for yourself, don’t rely on the illiterate for information. I have not once endorsed complete gun confiscation as a desirable outcome (other than the one time I noted that complete failure to take any steps to improve gun safety might only be remedied by complete loss of gun rights).

            My stance has been that guns should only be possessed by people with proven capability to be safe and responsible. Unfortunately, that forces me to be aligned with some of the more draconian elements of the progressive movement. If a perfect and riskless society were possible, complete removal of guns might be desirable. I am one who finds the situation in Chicago and other major cities to be deplorable, and improving safety must include cleaning-out the nest of vipers who hold large swaths of cities hostage to random killings. Those around me do not want to be troubled with that, but I see the need to address rampant gun crime and personal responsibility with guns simultaneously.

            As for being a gun-grabber, I simply recognize there are any number of people (and types) who prove daily they lack the maturity of thought or action to be trusted with unsupervised gun possession.

        • “…think in terms of decades, not hours.”

          Very true this will be a decades or longer struggle.

          “…will continue to be bent toward a more socially just global society.”

          Look around you, globalism is being *rejected* outright by western countries, particularly ‘European Union’ countries who are sick and tired of that ‘New World Order’.

          That attitude is what drove the ‘Brexit’ vote to bail on the EU, and it looks very probable France will ‘Frexit’, and Spain and Italy are making noises on doing the same.

          Sane countries don’t want outsiders telling them how to conduct their own affairs. (Like the very China you mentioned).

          That very attitude is what created the United States in the first place. ‘Taxation without representation’, as I’m sure you know.

          Couple that with US public attitudes on gun rights (free clue, polls show guns are increasingly being considered properly a base human right by the public), and you can see we are on a roll over here… 🙂

          • “Look around you, globalism is being *rejected* outright by western countries, particularly ‘European Union’ countries who are sick and tired of that ‘New World Order’.”

            Patience, rabbit, patience. On the long march, there will be dark skies and setbacks. Progress is never retrograde, by its nature it cannot be. Social justice around the globe is not dependent on an overarching, single union. As independent nations, the trajectory will continue toward a saner world.

        • Is this the same 2Asux we’ve seen before? His comments on this particular thread are largely coherent and at least slightly reasoned, a far cry from the frothing at the mouth hysteria and absurd claims about hundreds of mass shootings daily that we’ve seen from him in the past. And he’s been gone for a while. Makes me wonder if the original 2Asux left and somebody else (who is no less anti gun, but is actually willing to articulate something resembling a coherent argument) decided to use the same handle, knowing that most of us will at least recognize the name

        • 2Asux says: “If a perfect and riskless society were possible, complete removal of guns might be desirable. ”
          Why? If we did have that utopia, why would the removal of guns be desirable? Wouldn’t guns be used as recreational tools, as they are, for the vast majority of time, now? In a Utopia, by definition, there would be no crime, nor would there be injurious accidents, because such things would somehow be legislated away.
          Utopia, of course, will never happen.
          The idea that guns should only be possessed by “by people with proven capability to be safe and responsible” ignores the problem of who would make the decision that this or that person is safe and reliable. Who watches the watchers? Utopia is a fine dream, but an unattainable one. One to be aspired to, yes, but that does not mean the end justifies the means. Laws that have, as their end, a Utopian peace, must still be seen for what they are, not what they aspire for. Illegal laws do not make Utopia, that make a society that relies on massive governmental presence and power to attain what may look on the exterior as moving towards Utopia, but in reality is a tyrannical usurpation of personal liberty. In a true Utopia, the people would want to be kind, gentle, educated, non-confrontational, sharing to the point of everyone having all they need and then some. That, unfortunately, is an impossible dream, but one which we can work towards nonetheless. But trying to legislate those goals is a fool’s errand. You simply can not legislate peace, common sense, education, unselfishness, and any other “good.” You can only outlaw the opposite, and accept that any law can (and will) be broken, and accept the fact that any law, in order to be effective, has, as a punishment for breaking that law, the full power of the government, which is the exact opposite of any dream of Utopia.
          I’m not saying we should not aspire to a world free of any kind of crime, but we must take into account that simply making laws towards that goal have unintended consequences, one of which is increased governmental power, which is the opposite of any Utopian dream.

      • “Have you considered shooting yourself and collecting on your own insurance?”

        Do Americans truly never tire of the race to the intellectual and literary race to the bottom?

        • I enjoy reading about the intellectual race to the bottom. Especially, when you’re in the lead 2Asux.
          Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

    • 300 million legally owned guns and only about 500 accidental shooting deaths per year. That is about 0.0000016%. I would say that it is completely unreasonable to say that legal gun owners are putting you at risk. In fact, unless you are suicidal, you would have a less than one percent chance of being killed by a gun if you were garaunteed to be one of the 2.5 million Americans who will die this year. I strongly suspect that you aren’t particularly concerned about anything else that has a less than one percent chance of killing you.

      • ” I strongly suspect that you aren’t particularly concerned about anything else that has a less than one percent chance of killing you.”

        I find sepsis deaths in hospitals appalling. There is no excuse for deaths due to a totally preventable infection.

        The 500+ “accidental” deaths by gunshot should indemnified as to injury and subsequent death by the negligent person responsible. It is beyond understanding that people with deadly weapons that can kill at range believe they have no extraordinary financial responsibility to their victims. We have been here before, and the theme seems to be, “So, sue me. If I have enough assets to compensate the victim, great. If not, tough sht; price of living in a free society. In the US, if I am driving a car, the government has a legitimate right to force me to have accident insurance, but if I am exercising a fundamental right, there is no legitimate authority to require me to be financially responsible.” (the quotes merely paraphrase the attitudes; statements are not actual quotes).

        • That accident insurance on cars does not cover death or injury, unless you choose to pay for that coverage.

          Look at the numbers again, you basically are asking 100+million people to pay thousands of dollars per year to cover the one ten thousandth of one percent chance that they will accidentally kill someone? You also have to bear in mind that half of those accidental shooting deaths are self inflicted.

          This insurance as proposed doesn’t cover victims of intentional shootings, just those of accidental ones.

          Let’s require the same insurance for everyone with a pool, after all, 2000 Americans drown each year. Or for anyone who has stairs, falling kills 27,000 Americans each year. How about anyone who has any type of chemical cleaner or prescription medication? That kills 39,000 Americans per year.

          If you actually think that people should have insurance to cover the damages they may cause accidentally, then every single person in every first world country should be required to carry it.

          I have already pointed out to you that the number of accidental deaths compared to the number of guns is almost inconceivably small, far more so than any of the examples I have listed. You can feel however you like, but you can’t argue with the actual facts. You don’t like guns, so you feel that they can be singled out and treated as something “extra dangerous,” but all evidence shows that legal gun owners are amongst the least dangerous people in the United States. Feel free to respond with more unfounded emotional arguments, and I will continue to respond with facts.

          I n response to your reply to another one of my comments – no, I am not pointing to something else to try and pass the buck, so to speak, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding people carry insurance to cover a one ten thousandth of one percent chance of killing someone, while not requiring the same for everything that has an equal or greater chance of causing death. For example, if you have a pool, you are nearly four times more likely to have someone accidentally drown than I am to accidentally shoot someone to death. So, unless you genuinely believe that pool owners should carry $250,000 pool insurance, you are being hypocritical.

        • Do you believe that everyone who takes a prescription medication should be required to carry $250,000 in insurance? Do you believe that everyone who owns a pool should have pool insurance? Do you believe that everyone who has a house with stairs should pay stair insurance?

          If you answer “no” to any of these questions you are being hypocritical. Each one of these examples causes several times as many deaths per year as firearms ownership. You are making the argument that gun ownership is inherently more dangerous than other common activities, but the evidence does not support your claim. The rate of lethal gun accidents is at or below the rates of lethal accidents for any given category.

        • Actually, I don’t believe the government has any right to force me to buy anything under penalty of law. But the .gov is doing it anyway, and I can’t afford to risk the penalty, so here we are.

          There have been times in the past when paying the insurance premium meant that I had to let other bills go unpaid, and times when I flat-out couldn’t afford to drive my own car (but it was insured, by golly). The government-mandated vehicle insurance racket is bad enough. I’ll be damned if I just sit by and let government treat an enumerated constitutional civil right that way.

        • 2asux: “It is beyond understanding that people with deadly weapons that can kill at range believe they have no extraordinary financial responsibility to their victims.”

          It is beyond my understanding that you have never heard of civil court, where such financial responsibility is determined here in the US of A.
          And, yes, constitutionally guaranteed rights are supposed to be free and unfettered, but not without limits. Our freedom of speech, as an example, has well known limits. But, it seems some people consider some such rights to be less guaranteed than others. 2asux considers the right guaranteed by the 2A to be such a lesser right. His reasoning seems to be that since some people are irresponsible in the exercising of that right,the right must therefore be denied to certain demographics that include, but are not limited to, those individuals. He forgets that such irresponsibility is already defined by current laws, and appropriate punishments set, and further financial responsibility to the victim(s) is available through civil courts.
          He bemoans the fact that some people are beyond those civil courts he doesn’t seem to understand exist, while ignoring that if you are smart, you insure yourself against such people. If two such people happen to meet (both victim and perp are poor), we, as a society, have already put in place such safety nets as are deemed appropriate to handle this. (Indeed, many consider those safety nets to be overly generous, a discussion for another time.)
          IOW, 2asux seems to ignore the contradictions in his positions. Of course, we are all subject to this malady, but those who would seek to deprive others of their rights seem to be more able to do this than others not so inclined.

      • 2asux: “Do Americans truly never tire of the race to the intellectual and literary bottom?” FIFY.

        What some of us never tire of doing is pointing out errors in thought in a humorous and sometimes dark fashion.
        There is a story about a collector of fine cigars, who had a collection of many rare and extremely rare cigars, which, of course, he insured against loss.
        One day he decided to smoke one of the finer examples, and, when it was done, he regretted his action, and asked the insurance company to reimburse him for the loss of the cigar. The insurance company, of course, denied his claim, the case went to court, and since the cigar was covered by a policy that included loss by fire, and the cigar had indeed been burned up, the insurance was forced to pay up.
        A totally made up hypothetical situation, of course, meant to illustrate that, to some people (the gullible who hear the story and assume that what sounds, at first blush, to be totally logical must be true), a story presented as true must be true.
        This, your comment, quoted (and fixed) above, appears as proof that you are, indeed, one of the gullible, and not a very literate one at that.

    • 2Asux, do you support the idea that groups should have to pay for damage insurance prior to being permitted to assemble and protest?

      • You actually do have to pay for a permit to peacefully assemble in Washington, DC, and likely in other areas as well..

      • “2Asux, do you support the idea that groups should have to pay for damage insurance prior to being permitted to assemble and protest?”

        We have an inflection point, here. If people can assemble and protest without causing damage to persons and property, can guarantee no physical disturbance, why then, no. No insurance required. However, some agents provocateur do cause such. Because there can be no guarantees as to health and safety, yes. Insurance prior to gathering would seem reasonable. Else,you leave the innocent burdened with damage, and the rowdy emboldened to ever more bad behavior.

        • Requiring permits and bonds, by definition, does burden the innocent.

          The people who line up and ask permission to gather aren’t the ones breaking windows and burning stuff (agents provocateurs and opportunists don’t identify themselves in advance). Yet the orderly, law-abiding ones are being forced to beg permission and pay in advance because someone out there *might* behave badly.

          Where’s the fairness in that? Also, if you’re unable to gather in a timely manner because gatherings have to be scheduled in advance, or if you’re unable to pay whatever fee is demanded for use of public space, doesn’t that violate the First Amendment? (remember, no law…abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.)

      • Hannibal, keep in mind that what 2Asux thinks is utterly irrelevant. He is a foreign agitator attempting to interfere in our political system. He has absolutely no skin in the game. His ideas and thoughts are bred from being a lesser class individual, a “subject” in the King’s (or Queen’s) land. He is not an American. He is what we fought a revolutionary war to get the hell away from.

        • ” He is a foreign agitator attempting to interfere in our political system. ”
          As a Green Card holder, would I not have all the constitutional rights you love?

          As a Naturalized Citizen, would I not have all the constitutional rights you love, and have the right to vote?

          As a person on a work visa or student visa, would I not have all the constitutional rights you love?

          In any of the above conditions, would I not have a “right” to an opinion of the society around me, and a “right” to express that opinion?

        • 2asux: “In any of the above conditions, would I not have a “right” to an opinion of the society around me, and a “right” to express that opinion?”

          Why yes, yes you do.
          But, as has been pointed out many, many times, having a right to do something doesn’t mean it is smart to do so.

    • So you support making black people pay more to practice a constitutional right? Well, guess your true democrat party colors are showing now.

      • “So you support making black people pay more to practice a constitutional right?”

        How silly, but not unexpected.

        No, you plank. I support making ALL gun owners prove financially capable of tending to the victims and survivors of foolish and irresponsible gun “accidents”. Be trained, be competent, be insured against tragedy you may put upon others. If it costs ALL gun owners “more” then so be it.

        • 2asux: “If it costs ALL gun owners “more” then so be it.”
          And that, my friend, is a problem. It’s called a “poll tax,” and is very forbidden, but often practiced, nonetheless.
          Requiring any prior burden on a constitutionally protected right, is illegal. This is why there is such an uproar over simply proving who you are when you vote. You would think that such a requirement is only reasonable in order to prevent voter fraud, but it is labeled “racist” and worse.
          Your idea that gun owners (who are only exercising a constitutionally protected right) should be burdened with mandatory insurance, that would price many out of their right, is OK by you shows, unfortunately, a fundamental lack of understanding of such rights. You are far from alone in this, but having a lot of company doesn’t make you right. An economic infringement intended to limit use of a right, especially on all of those who desire to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected right is so illegal that I’m surprised you would suggest it.
          OTOH, hoplophobes have come up with so many ridiculous ideas, that maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

      • “Well, guess your true democrat party colors are showing now.”

        Close, but no. He’s not a democrat. He’s Piers Morgan. He’s a Brit. Not only a Brit, but a “stay” Brit, one who thinks the UK should stay tethered to the EU. Don’t expect to get anywhere with him by making any arguments for freedom.

        • “Not only a Brit, but a “stay” Brit, one who thinks the UK should stay tethered to the EU. ”

          Actually,….no. I think the EU was an abomination from the beginning and degraded from there.

        • 2Asux will be living under Sharia Law within a decade or two. The Oil Sheiks already tell Europe and Britain what to do under threat of cutting off the oil. The muslims there are out-breeding the natives 4 to 1.and start producing babies at puberty, so, the contest is all but over..

          • “2Asux will be living under Sharia Law within a decade or two.”

            Brexit would be a first-step toward disengaging from the disastrous EU rules that force members to put themselves in untenable situations. UK, after Brexit, would be in position to better control immigration and internal politics.

        • 2asux: “UK, after Brexit, would be in position to better control immigration and internal politics.”

          The question is, though, will they?

    • This “common sense” thing you call it is nothing more than an attempt to price people out of their constitutional right to defend themselves. Last time I checked owning a firearm is a right, driving is not. This pitiful excuse of a poll tax is nothing more than the State’s attempt to control its citizens more than they already do. You speak of this “insurance” to protect others such as yourself from “negligent discharges” from people like me, I personally have been handling firearms since I was 7-8 years old and thanks to my parents driving home the 4 safety rules, and later the Marine Corps reinforcing them, I have never had a N.D. Do you think for one second that a criminal would buy this “insurance”? just like they don’t buy firearms just they’re told they can’t… yeah didn’t think so. The key is training, training and more training, not pricing law-abiding citizens out of exercising their civil, constitutionally protected right.

      • “Do you think for one second that a criminal would buy this “insurance”?”

        I was not informed that the 500+ deaths from negligence each year were ascribed to criminals alone. If true, insurance would be pointless. However…the annual report of negligent homicides are separated from criminal acts. Thus, we are left with the conclusion that the 500+ negligent deaths were caused by irresponsible, lawful gun owners.

        I rather subscribe to the truism that there are two types of gun owners: those who have committed a negligent discharge, and those who will. Past performance is not a flawless predictor of future experience.

        • “However…the annual report of negligent homicides are separated from criminal acts. Thus, we are left with the conclusion that the 500+ negligent deaths were caused by irresponsible, lawful gun owners.” 500 out of over 325 million people in this country, so you would punish every firearm over 1 millionth of 1% of the population, by that logic every person in the country should have insurance for everything everyone does every day of their lives. Yes, the deaths are tragic and preventable but to tax everyone who owns a firearm for that is beyond deplorable. It’s called a right for a reason and as such I should not and will not succumb to anyone trying to tell me that I need to pay for exercising it. As for your second comment of a N.D., that is completely subjective and not applicable in anyway, shape, or form to any argument (other than expressing your opinion).

          • Because a thing has not happened has no effect on whether it can, or will in the future. Depending on the weakest link in the chain of safety (the individual) is imprudence at its worst. 500 negligent deaths are not acceptable collateral damage, except to those not affected. Negligent death is by its very nature unnecessary. What I am putting forward is that if you persist in having and carrying a gun, you should have sufficient liquid funds available to make significant restitution for your error. Gun owners want the rest of the nation to be satisfied with the possibility that a negligent gun owner has no assets atall to mitigate their suffering. Have your “rights”, just be capable of compensating someone for you negligence.

        • If I don’t have enough money for this insurance, then effectively the right to gun ownership is denied to me. That’s the crux. Because if I have to continually pay money to keep it, then it’s not a right at all — it’s just something I’m renting from the government.

        • 2asux: “I was not informed that the 500+ deaths from negligence each year were ascribed to criminals alone. If true, insurance would be pointless. However…the annual report of negligent homicides are separated from criminal acts. Thus, we are left with the conclusion that the 500+ negligent deaths were caused by irresponsible, lawful gun owners.”

          That conclusion assumes that criminals are never irresponsible.
          The reason accidental deaths are counted apart from intentional deaths is because they happen for different reasons, nut by different people.

          “I rather subscribe to the truism that there are two types of gun owners: those who have committed a negligent discharge, and those who will. Past performance is not a flawless predictor of future experience.”

          That’s not a truism, but rather a cop out. While it is true that part performance is not a flawless predictor of future anything, it is also true that past performance doesn’t guarantee identical future performance. IOW, just because you, personally, haven’t been convicted of rape (I’m assuming this to be true), it certainly doesn’t mean you won’t commit rape in the future, but you shouldn’t be locked up quite yet. Maybe we should wait to see, shouldn’t we? But, should we force you to carry insurance to financially reimburse any possible victim of yours? I think (correct me if I’m wrong here) that you would answer, “No.”

    • Homeowner and renters policies will cover the risk of injuries inflicted because of an unintentional shooting. And while you are thinking about it, look up the total number of accidental shootings annually in the US. The total deaths is under 1000. I couldn’t find a number right off, but assuming 1 death for every seven injuries, that is less than 7000 per year. Now compare that to auto accidents (for which most states require no more than 15/30 or 25/50 coverage limits, not 250/500). The death rate is 33,000+–and climbing. The number of accidents, according to the NHTSA, is approximately 6 MILLION with 2.6 MILLION injuries.

      • CDC post the negligent homicides annually. The number hovers between 500 and 600 per year. Five or six hundred preventable and unnecessary deaths per year. Calculate out the millions who will not ever be born as a result, and you can see the real cost to a society.

        • How do you get from approximately 500 deaths to millions not born?

          Falls are a much higher cause of accidental deaths than guns, with around 30,000 deaths per year. Maybe people should be required to show proof of insurance and take a test before they can buy a ladder.

          • “How do you get from approximately 500 deaths to millions not born?”

            It takes a little while, but give 2 children per death (or assign whatever number you like), then push that number. There is obvious imprecision because CDC does not breakout ages and sex. The assumption was that each of those unnecessary deaths would have two children, then each of those have two, then each of those….and so on. Use a birthing generation factor of 18 years, and you get to big numbers of unnecessary deaths (death by not being born) shortly. Point is, each branch cut off (negligent gun death) represents more than termination of 500-600 people.

            Yes, people always want to compare with non-germane causes of death, with the obvious demand that all risks to humans be fully eliminated before considering guns. My riposte is always that other sources of unintentional death are irrelevant on a forum dedicated to all things guns. Why? War kills many more people than any other proposition. Must we eliminate war before talking about deaths due to negligent gun handling?

            The “Well, other things are worse.” does not justify ignoring the risk at hand.

        • You seem to miss Mark Ns point. Car accidents kill about 70 times as many people per year in the US than gun accidents, and yet we aren’t required to carry a quarter million dollar insurance policy on cars. That’s 33,000 preventable deaths.

          • “You seem to miss Mark Ns point. Car accidents kill about 70 times as many people per year in the US than gun accidents, and yet we aren’t required to carry a quarter million dollar insurance policy on cars.”

            A very good point. Something to take up on another forum. Very low levels of mandatory auto insurance are indefensible.

            But again, claiming that some other risk is worse than another does nothing to justify not mitigating the damage risk of the activity under discussion. Such is merely a demand that every other risk source be eliminated before any discussion can begin regarding negligent gun owners. Rubbish.

        • that’s the dumbest thing ever posted.

          no where else does someone extrapolate hypothetical “unborn” resulting from a cause of death. you might as well blame food poisoning for “million” of extrapolated unborn, since food poisoning causes many times more fatalities annually than gun accidents.

          there IS however, a factual and quantifiable cause of millions of people who never be born: the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed annually.

        • @2Asux.) I couldn’t respond to your last comment in that particular thread, so I will continue it here. You say:
          “Because a thing has not happened has no effect on whether it can, or will in the future. Depending on the weakest link in the chain of safety (the individual) is imprudence at its worst. 500 negligent deaths are not acceptable collateral damage, except to those not affected. Negligent death is by its very nature unnecessary. What I am putting forward is that if you persist in having and carrying a gun, you should have sufficient liquid funds available to make significant restitution for your error. Gun owners want the rest of the nation to be satisfied with the possibility that a negligent gun owner has no assets atall to mitigate their suffering. Have your “rights”, just be capable of compensating someone for you negligence.”
          It once again boils down to you wanting to punish tens of millions of responsible firearm owners for the actions of a few (millionth of 1%). “Innocent until proven guilty”, you can not force upon me a condition that will impede my rights by saying at some undefined point in the future I will in some undefined way, break the law. It is not an error to carry a firearm to defend me and mine, but a conscious choice that I have a right to. By your argument, we should have millions of N.D.’s every year if at some point every firearm owner will have a N.D. You can not, by the very definition of the freedoms of the United States that we all enjoy, punish all for the actions of a few to appease your sense of social justice. If we were to ascribe that notion, as I stated (far) above, every person in the country would have to have insurance to cover any and all possible contingencies and accidents that happen everyday in this country (all accidents are preventable, therefore all deaths and/or injuries due to accidents are also preventable). That would also scream to “nanny state” mentality which most people I know would not bow down to.

    • I’m not a risk of shooting you “accidentally”. On purpose, but not accidentally.

      BTW, insurance doesn’t cover intentional acts.

      • “I’m not a risk of shooting you “accidentally”. On purpose, but not accidentally.”
        A statement of absolutes you cannot backup.

        “BTW, insurance doesn’t cover intentional acts.”
        Thank you. I was not informed that “intentional” was a synonym for “negligent”.

    • Using this reply to myself as a means to address several at once:
      @Aaron, DrewR, Red in CO, Ing, Big Bill, et. al.

      Nothing about obtaining insurance infringes on anyone’s “rights”. You have a right to a firearm, you do not have “a right” to injure others through negligence. Requiring liability insurance does not prevent anyone from purchasing or using a firearm. You are free to disregard any law you chose; but not free to complain of the consequence. Like any good behavior, reference to ne’er do wells in no way justifies disregard of standards, or laws. Should, however, you decide to not obtain liability insurance, is should be a misdemeanor, at the least; a punishment for intentional refusal to follow the law.

      Why liability insurance for guns, but not every other imaginable life risk? Guns pose a unique risk in that one can damage and kill without being in proximity of your victim. Stairways, pools, plastic bags, medicines, sidewalks, public transportation, whatever, are not objects that can be launched, with deadly result, across a room, a street, a school yard. Guns are different, guns are the subject of the forum. The array of other risks do not mitigate, in any way, the risk and danger posed by negligent gun owners…no matter how few.

      Turning to insurance for autos, which states do not require a minimum of liability and medical coverage? What are those minima? Are they likely more than what gun owners carry? Are there penalties for drivers who carry no insurance? Should there be?

      Considering risks in the home, is not insurance for the owner required? Does that insurance not include certain amounts for personal liability? Are not those amounts “scheduled” based on the risk? And cannot an owner buy liability insurance to cover incidents away from the home?

      Required insurance never stops anyone from refusing to pay. Thus, an insurance requirement is not an infringement. Should government require you to provide proof of liability insurance prior to buying a gun, that may be problematic. As it happens, legislation would be required to implement mandatory insurance, and voters can prevent government from enacting regulation that puts a prior condition on gun ownership.

      Criminals – yes, it is pure joy to read “the most law-abiding” of citizens declare that if a measure will not stop criminals, there should be no restriction on a particular activity. Essentially, a call for a society with no laws. If people ignore laws, then laws do nothing to protect or prosper society. If laws are not 100% effective in stopping illicit behavior, such laws should not be enacted. Absolutism for Absolutists. “Deutschland für die Deutschen”.

      @Red
      “Is this the same 2Asux we’ve seen before? ”
      Yes, ’tis I. Bernie’s Brigade did not wither away. We still have much to do, and sometimes it takes me away from this forum.

      • Let’s tackle this one paragraph at a time shall we:
        1) Yes it does infringe on our right, the State mandating me to buy insurance in order for me to own and use a firearm is no different than the State mandating me to buy a state sanctioned ID, both are poll taxes and therefore illegal. Your “truism” is also profiling to the utmost and also illegal. To the second half of that paragraph, yes, we could ignore the mandate but then we would no longer be law-abiding citizens but by default be criminals therefore in violation of our own ethos and hypocritical. Once again you are lumping the tens of millions of responsible, law abiding firearm owners in with the less than 1 millionth of one percent of those who are irresponsible (you own a house therefore someone will fall down your stairs, you own a pool therefore someone will drown in it, etc.) Argument invalid (and illegal) on the basis of lumping every in a particular category: Poll Tax and profiling.
        2) Risk is risk no matter the how, where, when, why or how. Every life risk is unique unto itself. Argument invalid on the basis that firearms are inherently more dangerous than any other life risk.
        3) All states mandate vehicle insurance and yes there penalties for driving with out it (good luck on the state enforcing it though). Difference is I have a right to own a firearm, but a privilege to drive an automobile. Argument invalid by comparing rights and privileges.
        4) Actually if you own the mortgage to your home, insurance is not required. Argument invalid self explanatory.
        5) By virtue of being law abiding citizens, we would have to buy this poll tax, see note 1 for for explanation. Argument invalid by forcing people to buy something or be a criminal.
        6) No, only a law that will only negatively effect law abiding while in no way curtailing criminals is our argument against firearm infringement (emphasize negatively). Argument invalid by negatively impacting law abiding citizens while not curtailing criminals.

        • “1) Yes it does infringe on our right -”
          No. You have the right to buy a firearm, to keep a firearm. You do not have a right to frivolously put me as whatever amount of risk you care not to be concerned with. Government mandates all sorts of things and costs. Even buying reading materials is subject to government tax on your 1st Amendment. But maybe not. Perhaps you have only a right to write and say whatever you like, but no “right” to read what others have written. In the event, there is tax on your 1st Amendment. Why no outraged tax protest, there?

          “Your “truism” is also profiling to the utmost and also illegal.”
          To begin, nothing I write here is “illegal”. I am free to “profile” anyone I like.
          Truisms have a basis in…?

          “To the second half of that paragraph, yes, we could ignore the mandate but then we would no longer be law-abiding citizens but by default be criminals therefore in violation of our own ethos and hypocritical.”
          You bring up an interesting point..if one violates civil statute, is one adjudicated “criminal”? Would going to court as a result of a traffic infraciton, and losing, result in a criminal conviction and record? I simply do not know.

          “Once again you are lumping the tens of millions of responsible, law abiding firearm owners in with the less than 1 millionth of one percent of those who are irresponsible”
          Yes, that is how liability insurance works, isn’t it?

          “(you own a house therefore someone will fall down your stairs, you own a pool therefore someone will drown in it, etc.)”
          As I said, a homeowner generally has liability insurance included in the rate. I cannot comment on whether the number of homeowners without mortgage is notable, or not. I have the sense to have tennant insurance on my flat. Just in case.

          “2) Risk is risk no matter the how, where, when, why or how. Every life risk is unique unto itself. Argument invalid on the basis that firearms are inherently more dangerous than any other life risk.”
          If you believe that, then you have no understanding of insurance or financial underwriting. Even the mortgage industry assigns rates based on risk analysis.

          “3) All states mandate vehicle insurance and yes there penalties for driving with out it (good luck on the state enforcing it though). Difference is, I have a right to own a firearm, but a privilege to drive an automobile. Argument invalid by comparing rights and privileges.”
          If government can place any restriction atall on you vaunted “rights”, then do you truly have rights, or merely, as in truth, government forbearance on your activity? Are there any restrictions, of any sort on your “right” to a firearm? What sort of “right” is it that government can control the exercise?

          5) By virtue of being law abiding citizens, we would have to buy this poll tax…”
          You lot have already succumed to the legitimacy of government placing a tax on your “right to healthcare”. What is different, other than we are talking about your sacred ox being gored?

          “6) No, only a law that will only negatively effect law abiding while in no way curtailing criminals is our argument against firearm infringement (emphasize negatively)”
          Which laws have you in mind that prevent all criminal conduct of a kind? All law restricts the law abiding, with no consideration for whether it actively prevents crime. The deterrent effect is real, but unfortunately unmeasurable. Most laws are only effective in punishing after infraction, as relates to criminals. Law requires you to not steal from others. That law is not invalid, nor void, simply because criminals ignore it.

      • “Stairways, pools, plastic bags, medicines, sidewalks, public transportation, whatever, are not objects that can be launched, with deadly result, across a room, a street, a school yard.”

        Motor vehicles are ‘launched across a street’ or a road or highway with deadly effect 30 *thousand* times a year.

        And careless behavior (people texting, phoning, messing with the radio, beating their children, etc.) are a fair percentage of those deaths.

        And simple, common-sense things can cut that carnage in half easily. Like a 25 mph national speed limit, except for emergency services, strictly enforced.

        Or are cars and trucks ‘carelessly launched’ on a roadway like bullets from a gun slaughtering people not worth it?

        Thank you for assisting in shooting down in flames your own argument. 🙂

      • If I understand correctly what you wrote, you undercut half of your own arguments, let me explain:
        1a) I don’t agree with the taxation of the 1st amendment either (tax on things like cable, internet, etc.) if that is what you mean. The spoken and written word itself is not taxed but the venue that it is consumed is (T.V., newspaper, internet, etc.) which I don’t agree with government taxation on. 1b) This is where you undercut yourself, yes, you can profile to your hearts content (after all, most of us are guilty of it from time to time. The difference being that I don’t allow my profiling to tell you how to live your life or what rights you can exercise), the government however can not. 1c) It would be a civil conviction that is on your record. 1d) Once again, you may feel the need to and the insurance company may do this however, the government has no business doing this. 1e) Home owners and/or renters insurance, a good idea but not required. There are people out there that simply can not afford it, or choose to forgo it for whatever their reason, as is their right.
        2) Once again, insurance and/or financial understanding has no basis on what the government is allowed to do with regards to my rights.
        3) That is a good point, but for my argument. The government already has too much say in how we live our lives.
        5) I did not vote for Obama, nor his vaunted, dismal form or mandated health care and vote whenever possible to remove this piece of filth from the law books. I see you didn’t counter point 4, not sure if it was an over sight but oh well moving on.
        6) There are plenty of laws that have no negative effect on normal every day law abiding citizens, you named one yourself with theft. Things like murder, theft, rape, drug use, the list is long, but the point is those laws have zero negative effect on law abiding citizens because we don’t do the crime not because it’s illegal but because we ascribe to be decent human beings.

        The end argument is that yes, you may profile, speak, write, think and feel however you want, that’s your right. My end argument is simple: The government has no right to tax me, to profile me, or mandate me to buy anything in order for me to exercise my constitutionally protected rights. That’s what makes America great, and the first 2 amendments are core of it all.

        • Tediously, what I see here is, “STFU. I got muh rats, and I got muh guns. Don’t nobody tell me what to do with them.”

          So many “law abiding” people who can end a life with one simple mistake, yet want to go “naked” (insurance term) when it comes to financial responsibility for their negligence.

          I suppose it just “is what it is”.

      • “Tediously, what I see here is, “STFU. I got muh rats, and I got muh guns. Don’t nobody tell me what to do with them.”

        So many “law abiding” people who can end a life with one simple mistake, yet want to go “naked” (insurance term) when it comes to financial responsibility for their negligence.

        I suppose it just “is what it is”.”

        And there’s the typical anti-firearm response. It is not tedious, but factual debate, to point out the flaws in your argument on a multitude of levels. And then the insults come out, like a five year old denied a cookie when your argument fails. The correct response, both factually and grammatically, is: Yes, I have rights weather you like it or not and not you, not the government, not any law can force me to spend my hard earned money in a fool hardy attempt to price me out of exercising said rights for a crime that I have not committed. Yes, do carry a firearm responsibly every day, to defend myself and my loved ones from the growing number of criminals and crazy people in the world. I am law abiding, and I will not be punished for anothers failure, nor your fear. And that as they say is that, may you meet many happy and responsible Second Amendment supporters in your travels. Good day sir.

        • Fact: Risk of creating devastating damage to others morally requires a capability of financially setting them right, not just going to gaol.
          Fact: bystanders are injured and killed every year through negligent discharges
          Fact: “Law abiding” gun owners, on the whole, do not have financial resources to recompense the victims of negligent discharge
          Fact: “Law abiding” gun owners care nothing for the risk they present to the public, because gun owners believe they will never commit a negligent discharge (it will be “some other dude” who will do it)
          Fact: “Law abiding” gun owners believe their “right” to have a gun puts them beyond the laws of society regarding use and carry (even though gun owners must comply or face charges)

          Oh, and there is this: “whether” vs. “weather”.

          By the by, does not claiming “insult”, when faced with the communication receiver’s reports of perceived message, not place you in that special category known as “snowflake”?

          • 2asux: “Fact: “Law abiding” gun owners, on the whole, do not have financial resources to recompense the victims of negligent discharge”

            Would you please show us where you are also campaigning for auto insurance reform, given the fact that stater minimums are woefully low, and do not come close to proper compensation for negligent driving resulting in severe bodily injury?
            It would only stand to reason that the auto forums would be replete with such by you, given your obvious feelings on insurance.

            • Yes, automobile liability and medical insurance requirements are woefully inadequate. However, this is a gun blog, not a general risk reduction forum. Referring to other risks is merely a dodge that implies all other risks must be eliminated before any discussion can begin regarding the reduction in negligent gun incidents.

              However, if gun owners would agree to even the lowest amount of liability insurance required for automobiles, it would be a major success for the populace.

      • Fact: No, it does not morally require me to be financially responsible, just morally responsible to be careful and choose targets carefully should the need arise (which I hope never happens).
        Fact: Bystanders are killed just going about their daily lives, see any other form of accident from above posts.
        Fact: Law abiding (I’ll get to your use a quotation marks later) firearm owners, on the whole, have no need for the financial responsibility you talk about.
        Fact: I think you’ll find, should you take the time a talk to large portion of us, that law abiding firearm owners and carriers care more for the world around them that most other demographic groups. To find a demographic that cares nothing for the risk they represent, talk to drunk drivers not firearm owners.
        Fact: Law abiding firearm owners that exercise their second amendment rights take on personal responsibility for our own safety and the safety of other.

        Whether vs. weather: My apologies
        Your use of quotation marks around law abiding is mistaken because we are not something else masquerading as law abiding firearm owners.
        The insult perceived by the use your quote does not make me a snowflake. Your attempt to be mocking, and condescending simply shows your ignorance and lack of understanding about me and the firearm community, as a whole. Just thought I’d point that out to you.

        My issue now becomes that you attempt to use 1)generalities to describe a whole demographic of people,2) statistics and numbers that do not hold the weight of the argument that you are trying to make, and 3)emotional rhetoric that belays your ignorance of the culture and demographic you are trying to denounce.

        • Sorry, old mate. Refusing to carry liability insurance against the risk of negligent discharge is…negligent.

          Quote marks around ‘law abiding’ reflects only that it is a favored claim gun owners make, and is a direct quote from gun owners. Nothing more. If you take umbrage at seeing your own words reflected back, that is a telling feature, is it not?

          Point is gun owners feel so smug about their “rights” that they oppose even the rational notion that they should be insured against tragedy that can only be ascribed to the possession and use of a firearm. Gun owners (according to what I read) believe that privileges are a lesser class of circumstance, and people should, for privileges, be held to an array of restrictions to exercise them. However, rights come without responsibility, and are not subject to government.

          Acting prudently is only a single facet of acting responsibly.

      • No, I don’t think it’s negligent at all, this “insurance” is nothing more than a badly disguised poll tax for the sole purpose of attempting to price the people of this country out of exercising our right. Do not pin the irresponsible acts of 500 people to responsible actions of over 100 million. That is what the criminal and civil courts are for, to prosecute that excessively small number of jack wagons out there who give the overwhelming majority of us a bad name.
        I use quotation marks around “insurance” because it is not, see explanation above as to what it is. I therefore thought you used it in the same context and that is why I took umbrage at it. I personally believe, and have the facts to back it up that the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of firearm carriers are truly law abiding citizens, who want nothing more than to go about their days in peace but will also fight to defend their own lives and the lives of others.
        No, it is not smugness but a simple fact, there is Bill of Rights, not a bill of privileges. To tax any right is illegal, the government can not pick and choose what rights to tax and which ones not to.

        • Prosecuting someone, and putting them in gaol does nothing to remedy the damage done to innocents. That is the result of gun owners refusing to take responsibility for the deadly power they wield. Suing gun owners with no reachable assets is also expensive and enriches the wrong person. However, pushed to the wall I admit that if a victim or survivor, I would hire the worst attack law firm and sue the offender until they could not breathe. Until they could not afford housing, food or clothing. Until they could not earn any money that would not be confiscated as restitution. Yes, I would financially destroy the offender and his family. A line of response that might not be needed if gun owners carried adequate insurance.

          Yes, your “rights” can be taxed; have been taxed at least since the National Firearms Act. Sales tax on guns, parts, equipment, ammunition. From whence comes the revolution over that?
          No, no, no. You cannot be selective. A tax is a tax. Sales taxes are poll taxes on the ownership of your vaunted uninfringable RTKBA

  8. I’m not sure how this is even close to constitutional. Haven’t we already been through a bill like this, but on a national level? And is this bill just for ownership or to carry? On a carry level, it wouldn’t matter because nobody is able to carry in NY anyway. On the ownership level, it’ll be thrown out on unconstitutionality grounds alone.

      • Democrats and Republicans both have their favorite parts of the Constitution they support and others they ignore or despise, so this blanket slur is incorrect.

        Really, politicians of both labels are more interested in the financial viability of policies than constitutionality — and by financial viability, I mean if it will enhance the flow of money to their coffers.

    • He doesn’t care if it’s Constitutional. He doesn’t even care if it’s upheld. All he cares about is being able to get those sweet, sweet campaign contributions from Bloomburg’s groups and be able to write a blurb on his re-election website that says he’s doing everything in the world (seriously, guyz) to reduce GUN VIOLENCE.

      You know… everything except locking up criminals.

    • This is nothing more than the leftist version of a poll tax. Most people want to make people verify their ID when voting, but no the “poor can’t afford the fee to get a state issued ID” but when the left whats to price us out of owning firearms, they classify it as “insurance”. SOP for the left.

  9. I think politicians should carry $250k insurance for their mouths. Every time they speak in favor of something a court later finds unconstitutional it should cost them $25k per word.

    Might make them be less long-winded, too.

    • “I think politicians should carry $250k insurance for their mouths.”
      Might make them be less long-winded, too.”

      Here is something we can all agree on.

      • What am I missing here? Insurance would prevent people from saying stupid things? Prevent auto accidents? Prevent ND’s?

  10. If it was cheap enough I’d consider it but it won’t be. Mandating it is probably unconstitutional, we’ll see if it passes. I wouldnt want anyone to have to carry it by law.

    • Anyone can already voluntarily get insurance that will not only cover damages but also legal expenses.

      I’d say it’s obviously unconstitutional on it’s face but then again the Supreme Court has decided that bribes are ‘protected speech’ and the government can charge you a ‘fee’ for being alive so I’m not sure they’re in line with my sensibilities.

  11. NY’s grand plan:
    1) Register all gun owners – Check!
    2) Mandate liability insurance for all gun owners – In progress
    3) Sue all gun owners in the state under Collective Liability tort rules. i.e. since the state can’t identify which gun owners are leaking the guns to the criminals (it must be somebody, right?), declare all gun owners collectively liable and make each owner pay an equal share into a common pool “for distribution to the victims of gun violence”.

    • Point 1 isn’t really a “check”. Well, handguns are registered here. Attempts by craven liberal politicians to get some long guns registered weren’t exactly successful.

  12. Vhyrus
    Find a new acquaintance. None of the 4000 plus people in my local shooting club in Australia are anti gun.

    I’ve been poor down to the level that I could declare bankruptcy but didn’t and back up again but I never considered selling any of the firearms I had then. But insurance like that would have stopped me if it was necessary.

    Just another anti trying a different way to control the masses.

    • I’ve been poor down to the level that I could declare bankruptcy

      “I’ve never been poor, only broke. Being poor is a frame of mind. Being broke is only a temporary situation.”

      — Mike Todd

  13. The comparison to anything auto insurance related is a fail.

    Operating a motor vehicle is not a Constitutional inalienable right that shall not be infringed.

    How’s that compliance rate with the SAFE Act doing?

    85-90% Middle Finger?

    New York is actually a great state ruined simply by the fact that New Yorkers have done it.

    • “a Constitutional inalienable right that shall not be infringed”

      Okay, I think we can now understand what’s going on.

      To the left, a law is only a law so long as people like it. If they don’t like it, they are free to flaunt it. Exhibit A: illegal immigration, to the point of establishing sanctuary cities. The left won’t even discuss “illegal” or “undocumented” immigrants anymore; they just use the term “immigrant.” To them, we need “comprehensive immigration reform” which means – legalize and give citizenship to all of them. Until then, they simply pay no attention whatsoever to immigration laws. None. They will protest and howl if you attempt to keep an Islamic terrorist out of the country. They will riot if you attempt to deport a criminal illegal alien. They are currently building “safe houses” to hide illegal immigrants, as if they were somehow this century’s versions of Jews in Germany.

      So it is with the 2nd Amendment. They dislike it so much, they simply do not acknowledge it. To the left, the 2nd Amendment is no more relevant than immigration laws. They will never accept it.

      My wild-eyed, baseless speculation prediction: if anything brings about the actual rupture of the country, an actual separation into two (or three) different regions, it will be a strong 2nd-Amendment affirmation coming from the Supreme Court, which strips the restrictive states of ALL of their gun laws. When the leftist states are told that they absolutely must allow their citizens the ability to freely exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without infringement, that will be what causes them to secede. Of course, being the left, they won’t start a war; they’ll just stop sending tax dollars to Washington.

      • if illegal aliens are really just “undocumented immigrants”, I’ve always wondered if that means bank robbers merely make “undocumented cash withdrawals”, or if carjackers merely make “undocumental car rentals.”

  15. New York City (8.5 million), Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island (3 million), greater Buffalo metro (1 million), Westchester County (1 million) Albany, Rochester, Schenectady etc. dominate the Empire State (19.75 million).

    Fortunately, there are plenty of New Yorkers who are not left wing idiots. Unfortunately, many of them are trees or live in them.

    • NYC will always rule the roost, unless by the grace of god we’re able to split upstate from downstate. Buffalo and Rochester are the two largest cities in upstate, and neither one cracks 260,000 in population. Even the complete metro area population of both cities is dwarfed by the population of the borough of Brooklyn.

  16. Ralph when a building contractor goes bust owing you over two years wages and parts trust me your broke. I paid all my staff out, suppliers and sold my house then started again with just my tools and a very old car at minimum wage job.

    • Yup, that’s what Mike Todd said. He went bust more than once, and he came back. You either have that mind set, or you don’t. He had it, and so did you.

  17. Another cocksucker liberal who doesn’t realize NYC is not the entire state of NY. He want to push this asinine bill from the Bronx meanwhile there are the rest of us who are embarrassed by this blemish of a city and get screwed over by all of the anti-2A laws they come up with. Hopefully the Upstate SAFE act repeal goes through and this idiot can have peace of mind that he’s safe in his liberal haven while the rest of us don’t suffer.

  19. New Yorkers are fleeing New York to more hospitable states, but just like muslims, some of them bring the ideology that destroyed their homeland with them and seek to ruin their new homes, too.

  20. This is an AWESOME idea. Now when I’m robbed by criminals and they get caught or things of that nature, I’ll be able to pull on their 250,000 insurance policy to help offset my expenses!

    :/

  21. Just like the vaccines that do not have the evidence backing their safety or efficacy, the powers that be will use the same non evidenced agitprop to attack gun rights. NY and CA are testing grounds for the rest of the country.

  22. The insurance requirement should be applied instead to folks without a gun: the greatest danger from your gun is getting caught without it.

  23. Just another clever authoritarian trying another end run against all US citizens 2nd amendment right…Banning, restricting, prohibiting, rockblocks, etc…Just another infringement by someone who shouldn’t be in public office! Banish to Antarctica!

  24. One question…How are you going to enforce this liability insurance on criminals, when they already ignore the law on guns? A simple answer is all that is needed….no BULLSHIT!

  25. I think we have run out of room in a lot of threads for 2Asux to respond to our counter arguments to his/her (IMO absurd) support of this version of a poll tax labeled as “insurance”. Here’s his/her chance to respond to a few more arguments we have placed against this absurd proposal.

    As I have asked: Do you think every person should have insurance to cover any and all possible accidents that are present in every day life? As DrewR expanded on: Pool owners. people who have stairs in their home, use any sort of chemical in their home, and other examples prove that accidents involving firearms pales in comparison to accidents involving almost any other form of accident.

    I foresee 2 possible answers: Yes, which means that you believe in going towards a “nanny state” were the government is here to protect you even from yourself in every situation and possible accident that can happen at any time to any person. Or No, which means that you are selective in how you want to apply the poll tax “insurance” in which case you are being hypocritical and your argument is therefore invalid.

    Do you think every person should have insurance to cover any and all possible accidents that are present in every day life?

  26. No problem because there probably isn’t an insurance company that would write such a policy making the legislation, which will not pass, moot.

  27. Irresponsible use of a firearm is considered a crime while irresponsible use of a motor vehicle is considered an “accident”. Pushing the model of firearm incidents toward the motor vehicle incident model (no fault) is about as stupid as stupid gets. Ortiz, you’re an idiot.

  28. Republicans should tack on a provision to add a fine for everyone who does not have firearms insurance (and by deduction, does not have a gun). People who don’t participate need to help pay for the protection they are receiving. It worked so well for Obamacare that we should expand this line of reasoning to gun control schemes.

  29. Then these legislators should carry Constitutional Liberty Malpractice Insurance. A one million dollar policy (paid with their own money- not at taxpayer expense) to reimburse any citizen whose constitutional rights are violated by illegal laws written or passed by elected officials.

  30. And you would be well with in your rights to do so should you encounter such an irresponsible firearm owner, though the chances are exceedingly slim (somewhere in the 1 in 600k chance range) but the rest of us should not be punished for that.
    That is why there are loud voices, and they have grown louder in recent years much to my joy, within the firearm community, to repeal the NFA and disband the ATF (more accurately fold the majority into the FBI and can the rest), will it happen probably not, but the fight continues none the less.
    Sales tax is just that, a tax applied to most every good (save for a select grocery items: milk, cheese, eggs, etc.). Anyone can get around the sales tax issue on anything by 2 ways:1) Wait for the few tax free weekends that occur through out the year, the largest example being back to school sales, where most firearms stores also do not charge tax on any good. Or 2) Like me, and most veterans share this benefit, shop at a military commissary and BX/PX where no sales tax is applied. Plus many items are just plain cheaper on post.

  31. Mass shootings are the headline grabber… not negligence / accidents. Let’s focus on why we are here: PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS.

    Step 1) Stop the “poll tax” talk. We aren’t given standard issue weaponry as civilians by the state in the way the constitution dictates a FREE and fair vote. There is a marketplace for arms and ammo. Its not a voucher program! Unless referring to sticks and stones, you and I have to pay over-the-counter money to exercise the 2A. The more $$$, the more firepower, all the way up to wielding the grandaddy of them all – The US military.

    Step 2) Leave the poor out of it. Being poor is a financial disadvantage. That’s self explanatory. Unless insurers are discriminating against people because of a protected class, being poor shouldn’t effect your ability to keep and bear arms more than it already does compared to your wealthier neighbor. Remember the 2A guarantees possession and use. The right doesn’t commit to any measure of balance in quantity, quality or caliber between the citizenry and the state. Just keeping it constitutional.

    Step 3) PICK YOUR POISON: I’d rather have private markets compete for my business and evaluate individual risk factors toward a personalized premium; than bureaucrats and legislators expanding government control or levying burdensome blanket taxes on arms and ammo in pursuit of victims funds. Think of a number? Clearly Joe Goodshoes is gonna have rate closer to renter’s insurance (~$14/mo) on his home defense shotgun plus box of shells he buys once a year than Charlie Killspree who picked up 10 assault rifles last week, body armor, drum clips and 20,000 rounds. Not to say Charlie K. should be detained, but he’ll have to call his agent and up his policy/premium. And if that agent wants to stay in business he might ask Mr. Killspree a few questions or take special notes until a regular pattern is established. We can be the home of the free without being the home of the oblivious. Amazon, Google, and Macintosh will probably even develop an app.

    Step 4) Call it like it is. A better term over gun insurance, is “Surety Bond”. I like going to movies and concerts, but lawmakers aren’t making public life any safer with their tireless attempts at 2A infringement. I’m calling on a, For the People, By the People approach. The majority of mass shootings have occurred through legal acquisition, that should be congress’s clue that legislative controls aren’t the answer. Its time to turn over gun safety to individuals and the private sector. We can’t afford to give up any more of our rights. But we must afford accountability to the fallen. Someone has to pay. And I believe there is enough skin in the game for profit-minded insurers, who in order to reap premiums and minimize payouts, will create systems which encourage competition while working within a federal framework. Private organizations apart from big government that keep an eye out for potential mass murdering gun owners … or at least can offer some tangible solace to the victims besides “thoughts and prayers”.

    • Oh, tosh. I have presented this very idea here, and it was met with the same RTKBA sloganeering, proclaiming that having a firearm is an absolute right, and nothing can be done to make people responsible for their actions. It is claimed that unlimited killing power in the hands of the mob is simply the price of freedom. A freedom, I might add, that is useless to the innocent dead, and just as useless to those severely injured due to irresponsible gun handling by “the most law abiding” segment of the populace…gun owners. Isn’t it odd how many negligent deaths are caused by this very segment? People are ashamed today because of 500 injured by gunfire in Las Vegas, but think nothing of the 500 dead every year due to negligent gun owners.

Comments are closed.