1. News & Issues
Robert Longley

NY State Ponders Gun Owner Insurance

By February 25, 2013

Follow me on:

A bill recently introduced in the New York State Assembly would require all gun owners in the state of New York to buy at least $1 million in liability insurance to cover potential damages caused by their guns.

Should Democratic Assemblyman Felix Ortiz's Assembly Bill A03908, become state law, all current New York gun owners would have 30 days to purchase the required liability insurance or face confiscation of the their guns. Future gun buyers would be required to produce proof of insurance at the time of the sale.

"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," states Ortiz's bill. "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."

The bill also states that in the event a gun is stolen or lost, the owner is legally responsible for all damages resulting from the use of that gun until the theft or loss is reported to police.

Supporters of the bill contend that like driving a car, gun ownership should require liability insurance. However, opponents point out that while driving a car is, in fact, a "privilege," gun ownership is a constitutionally ensured "right of the people," which "shall not be infringed."

Opponents also bristle at the bill's stipulation that gun owners would be held responsible for damages caused by "willful" use of their guns. "Willful" use of the gun, they contend, could be construed to include acts of self-defense, thus actually allowing felons to sue for damages.

Estimates of the costs of a $1 million gun owner liability insurance policy in the media have ranged from a few hundred dollars to as much as $2,000 per year.

In the real world, the National Rifle Association (NRA) currently offers its members personal liability plus self-defense insurance policies providing coverage of up to $250,000 for $254 per year. At that rate, a policy providing the $1 million worth coverage required by Assemblyman Ortiz's bill could cost slightly over $1,000 per year.

Also See:
Sen. Feinstein Introduces Assault Weapons Ban
The 'Terror Gap' In Brady Act Background Checks

Comments

February 25, 2013 at 3:44 am
(1) RedsLoveChild says:

Felix Ortiz should just go home to his own country and stop polluting our country he is not from here! Felix Ortiz go home if you don’t like our guns just go home and take your burrito faced family with you

February 25, 2013 at 4:35 am
(2) NYVoter says:

This Anti Gun Conspiracy has affected and divided the Citizens of our State. There is a LOT of ANGER over what he did to us , as well as how he did away with Due Process in Gov. Think of it this way …When have your ever seen almost HALF of the Counties in NY signing Resolutions against a new Law AND , the NY State Sherriff’s Association sending out a Letter against the Law as well ? It’s easy for the Media to demonize us , we’re the “evil Gun Owners” …how can the Media ignore the Counties and Law Enforcement. Maybe you should come to the Rally in Albany on Feb 28th and ask us firsthand what we think . Cuomo, Skelos and Silver betrayed New York …and lied to you all …sold us out for Headlines.
NY had Legally Armed Citizens –and Illegally Armed Criminals.
How do you think this Law changed the ratio ? …feel safer now ?
Unfortunately , it looks like things will only be getting worse. At least we won’t have any violence at the upcoming Albany rally (the 28th) …Bringing in paid Union Thugs was a bad idea and not very “progressive” ..I’m glad they backed off. h*tp: //w*w.nypost. com/p/news/local/pro_gun_law_forces_cancel_showdown_ayCJr7Xaa67v9W4KHvGJOO?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Local

February 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm
(3) RLEmery says:

Geez the antis are real stupid, see the insurers, you know the companies who sell insurance, will not insure a legal act, making this suggestion a non starter to begin with.

Of course the antis refuse to acknowledge that by law, Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 which affirmed the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, that any law requiring identification, makes the law null and void to a bad guy who would by identifying themself, self incriminate themself.

Antis really are that stupid!

February 26, 2013 at 1:25 pm
(4) Tom Harvey says:

It’s possible to have good insurance which provides for everyone hurt, has the insurers discourage unsafe practices including letting one’s gun be lost or stolen and still is not too much of a burden on legal gun owners. It starts with requiring manufacturers to have a no-fault insurer that only gets off the hook when another insurer takes over. Lost or stolen or diverted guns are still covered by the last insurer. That makes it unnecessary to register guns or enforce the insurance purchase below the manufacturer level.
The total medical plus lost wages cost of gun injuries in the US per year is about $4 Billion with a loss ratio similar to car insurance that would be covered by about $8 Billion in premiums. Divided by 270 million guns that gives a cost per gun per year of about $30.00 Of course, that’s an average and some would cost more and some less depending on risk and other factors.
That’s for a no-fault kind of insurance that covers anyone injured by a particular gun. The liability insurance that available now from the NRA and others covers very few cases because the shooter is usually not a legal insured owner and the legal owner who lost control of a gun is not currently held liable.

February 26, 2013 at 9:37 pm
(5) RLEmery says:

USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2011, see pg 14, chart #8 for that massive number of violent crimes committed in the US each year committed by gang members.

Major universities, criminologists, U.S. DOJ have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals per (Wolfgang et al ., 1972; Petersilia et al ., 1978; Williams, 1979; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982, and Martin and Sherman,1986).

2.7 mil prisoners

1.4 mil active gang members

2.5-3.5 mil active criminals

1 mil plus open felony warrants

CDC -Suicidal people speak for them-selves as suicide is a felony.

Police firearm discharge reports in Chicago and NYC 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

Sad how over 92% of all killings by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders & crazies w approximately 50% of the remainder due to domestic violence incidents.

February 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm
(6) RLEmery says:

Now that we have established WHOM is the most likley ones to abuse the firearms, explain with any logic how you are going to make career cirminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies & domestic violence abusers pay for their insurance Tom?

You know, those who commit over 92% of killings by illegal use of a firearm each year?

Come on einstein, we need to see how you are going to force the bad guys to pay for their insurance.

Oh wait, you going to prove the 217,600 firearms stolen in 2010 per USDOJ report none were locked up? Oh wait, in the 1980′s there were 500,000 guns stolen a year (54% reduction), but there has been a 45% increase in firearms in civilian hands since then, a reduction in property crimes from 16.8 mil to 16.2 mil a 4.2% reduction. How can that be, you claim gun owners are so careless, so are you mistaken, or lying?

Since you arent God, here is a suggestion for you penalizing the law abiding gun owners with your insurance scam that doesnt affect those responsible for the massive majority of the killings, you can put it where the sun dont shine and rotate!

February 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm
(7) RLEmery says:

So rather than listen to an anti gun extremist claims of penal;izing law abiding gun owners as a solution to reducing violence when it never has or will, lets review some actual solutions that address the bad guys.

Legalize illicit drugs and cripple the main revenue source of the gangs and cartels who by govt. acknowledgement get 65% of their revenue from marijuana sales alone.

Treat it like alcohol, tax it, smoking age 21, and destroy the cartels/gangs revenue like what happened to the MOB during prohibition.

Doing so will destroy a large influence on the Gangsta lifestyle, is it perfect, no, but it will be one of the largest impacts on overall violence available

Approx 30-40% of those in prison are there for such offences and replace those people with the 99% of bad guys who ARENT prosecuted by the BATF for being caught attempting to buy from a licensed source as it was proven in Project Exile in VA in 1998 that removing the career cirminals/gang members from the streets who commit most of the violent crime reduced VIOLENT CRIME.

You do realize that over $50 bil in taxes are budgeted for the DEA, hmmmm, wont need so much will we!

Then you need to fund more bounty hunter teams as per FBI NCIC there are 1.043 mil open felony warrants in the US today.

Since 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners are known to be severely mentally ill, care to bet that 50% of the 1.043 mil people wanted on those open felony warrants arent severely mentally ill also?

cont

February 26, 2013 at 10:00 pm
(8) RLemery says:

Then here is another solution, any bad guy gets caught harming someone during a violent crime, then they are required to work to pay the medical expenses and any ongoing expenses of the person they injured.

If they dont want to work, solitary lock up, no tv, bread & water, no visitors, NOTHING.

This will be a mandatory sentence.

If they dont work and they have family, the family becomes automatically liable for the expenses of those their family member injured. No civil court, AUTOMATIC!

Set up the same thing with suicides, think family members would be more attentive of their family members if they were on the hook for the costs of their actions?

Yeah they would.

That way the public isnt charged for the actions of the bad guys, the bad guys are and geez, want to see an IMMEADIATE IMPACT on parental control, that would do it!

No more zero tolerance in schools, the person attacked, YOU KNOW, THE VICTIM, WILL NOT BE PUNISHED FOR FIGHTING BACK as self defense is not illegal, never has been, never will be!

See the US already has 22,417 gun control laws, 85% of which dont apply to the bad guys, hence there is already LEGAL precedent that the law abiding people are financially penalized for the actions of others with permits, fee’s, licenses, background checks, etc,e tc tat the bad guys dont have to pay for by law. Hence penalizing those relatives and families of those responsible is indeed constitutional without due process as a penalty for a crime.

These are common sense CONSTITUTIONAL solutions that would have an immeadiate short time frame impact on violence and those committing said violence, unlike anti gun Toms pathetic proposals.

February 28, 2013 at 4:55 pm
(9) JEB says:

It’s not a “privilege”, it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! This law “Infringes” on the right to keep and bear arms thus is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and can be ignored if passed.

They should make booze drinkers carry $1 million worth of insurance to buy beer since drunks kill more people then gun owners!

March 4, 2013 at 8:55 am
(10) JIMMY LIGHTHORSE says:

Let’s see, the state of ny won’t let LAW ABIDING CITIZENS drill for OIL/GAS on land that these CITIZENS pay some of the highest property taxes to own the land.
.
And now this state wants us to buy insurance on our gun ownership?

WOW, Crown Prince Cuomo and his court jesters better wake up and stop the swelling of their heads.

These son of a guns work for US!!!!!!!!! Let’s fire them!!!! RECALL CUOMO AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT!!!!

March 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm
(11) Hosepipe says:

Another stupid ass bill for some stupid ass senator from Brooklyn him and gov queermo. I won’t get any sort of insurance for my weapons so come and take them i dare you to see what happens shoot first ask questions later I have the right to defend my self and family. The hell with ny state politicians. The breaking point is getting near

March 6, 2013 at 6:36 am
(12) Richard Gill says:

Poll taxes have long been considered illegal because they deny Americans their rights unless they are willing and able to pay for them in cash. What is the difference between that and paying insurance companies huge sums of money so you can own a gun which is another constitutionally guaranteed right?

March 10, 2013 at 11:18 am
(13) Irene says:

Even if this preposterous bill is passed into law, it will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court, which would not allow placing a financial burden on the exercise of A RIGHT protected under the United States Bill of Rights. I think the Assemblyman knows that too, if he’s not really that ignorant, but he is nonetheless doing it to appeal to his liberal base that “he is at least trying” and to tell them that “see, again, the evil pro-gun people derailed our efforts by crying the Second Amendment. They don’t care about public safety!” all the while wasting the taxpayers’ hard earned money and his and the legislature’s time, which are supposed to be used for something that works, for a fruitless gesture to advance his own political agenda! argh!!

March 17, 2013 at 9:19 am
(14) Joseph Sanguchi says:

Look, let’s have some sanity here. Which of the following is true?

1. Law-abiding gun owners are low risk, and rarely cause accidents or injure people with their guns by intent. Or…

2. that’s not true.

Pick one. If you believe that #1 is true, then the insurance would be very cheap for people who insurance companies see as “reasonable risks.”

It’s only if you believe #2 that this is threatening. Ask yourself whether that NRA “insurance” is a rip-off, or does it reflect real underwriting experience? That’s another way at getting at the truth here.

Realistically the middle-aged guy with no risk factors who wants to insure his ordinary hunting rifle would probably pay very little. The 21-year old guy with no job, a DUI or two, and who wants to insure a Glock and an AR-15 — would likely face a much more expensive quote.

What is unfair or unreasonable about that?

April 4, 2013 at 5:19 pm
(15) Ian says:

What is unreasonable about that? Wake up people. They want us to have to purchase insurance to exercise a constitutional right? You see nothing wrong with this?

The problem is, the anti gun morons think that we don’t need protection. The police will save us! Yeah right. Keep thinking that way. It takes an average of 15 mins for the police to get where I live. That’s a lot of time for the bad guys to do harm to me and my family. I will protect myself and my family. I am locked and loaded with all the tactical goodies like laser scopes and weaver mount flashlights etc. I grew up around guns. I am 36 years old and there has been no less than 6 firearms in my house since day 1. Oh, and guess what? They have never come out of the cabinet and tried to kill anyone on their own. Stop punishing the good guys and the guns. Start cracking down on the violent criminals.

Guns don’t kill by themselves. It takes a bad guy on the trigger. That’s the guy you want to go after.

FFS, this shit is never gonna end.

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
Top Related Searches
  • gun owner
  • gp
  • insurance
  • ©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.