NY bill proposal for firearm insurance

[reeltime]

NYS proposed bill for mandatory firearm insurance

This bill would require any and all firearms owners in NY to secure and maintain $250,000 liability insurance for negligent use of a firearm before procuring and while possessing of such firearm.

"FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH INSURANCE SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SUCH OWNER'S REGISTRATION, LICENSE AND ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM"

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/A2260

 

[The_Field_Ager]

I won't be accused of potential criminal negligence by buying insurance. Not going to happen

[Marion]

I won't be accused of potential criminal negligence by buying insurance. Not going to happen

Do you mean by not purchasing the insurance required by this asinine bill?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Steve D]

What a joke....does not apply to the ones that are most likely to shoot someone:

 4. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY PEACE OFFICER
WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM.
 

[Rattler]

So, if someone is poor and cannot afford said insurance, they no longer have the right to defend themselves against armed attackers with a firearm?  Doesn't that make the right to armed self defense a luxury that becomes the realm of the elite and well to do?  Isn't that preferential treatment, class warfare, elitism, pay to play and infringing on a Constitutional right?

Isn't the author of this bill a Democrat?  Where is the support for working class and low income citizens here?  Isn't that what the Democrats always say is their main purpose for existence?

 

[bugsNbows]

WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!!

[Core]

Forced to pay money or else denied a right. Isn't the purpose of the constitution a list of things that the government absolutely cannot take from you? The 2nd says you have a right to arms; if a law then says you must pay money or else you don't have that right, it seems to me it is preempting the constitution.

[philoshop]

15 minutes ago, Core said:

Forced to pay money or else denied a right. Isn't the purpose of the constitution a list of things that the government absolutely cannot take from you? The 2nd says you have a right to arms; if a law then says you must pay money or else you don't have that right, it seems to me it is preempting the constitution.

This is exactly what many people don't get. The Constitution does not grant rights. It prohibits the government from taking away those rights that were deemed to be God-given and inalienable.

It's only a problem when someone believes that the government is the lord God and savior. 200+ million dead people in Germany, China, Russia... might disagree with those theories regarding the benevolence of government.

[pt0217]

Forcing someone to buy insurance would be unconstitutional. They need to call it a tax.

[Rattler]

Putting a tax on exercising a constitutional right is also unconstitutional.  Remember the poll tax on voting?

They got away with forcing people to buy health insurance under Obamacare by saying it was a tax, but that was probably because the Left may have had some dirt on Roberts and threatened to make it public unless he sided with the Leftist judges.  If that wasn't the case, Roberts suffered a massive brain fart when he ruled on that one.

Most of the gun laws in America are unconstitutional.  The only reason they are still on the books is because they don't go before the SCOTUS at all.  There are major forces in this country, on both sides of the political aisle, that do not want 2nd Amendment rights exercised the way the founders determined they should be.