Linsky Gun Bill clone...in NY

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
7,266
Likes
1,424
Location
Metrowest
Bill in NY Would Require All Gun Owners to Maintain $1 Million Liability Insurance Policy#

So basically you would have to buy insurance to exercise your 2nd Amendment right.

How much would these Libtards charge for somebody to exercise their 1st Amendment right?

I ****ing hate what's going on in this country!

Well, if you already have homeowner's insurance at the 100/300 level, a personal liability umbrella policy for $1 Million will run you about $400/year - assuming that there is no special extra due to firearms. Last year, when I talked to the underwriter, there were lots of questions about boats, ATV's, and other things that are likely to result in injury or death, but they didn't ask about firearms or chainsaws.

The real problem is that once you go down the rabbit hole, you don't know where it ends, and companies like Progressive(truth in advertising) are likely to hose you in pursuit of their agenda.

The good news is that Progressive will give you a discount if you allow them to put a GPS on all your guns and post their locations on an internet map.
 

gene

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
5,346
Likes
857
I wonder how many people driving vehicles are doing so today without insurance as required. That's right a whole lot and people that do pay insurance pay more to protect against them.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,913
Likes
816
Location
Boston
There is an odd quirk of insurance law that I suspect none of the shoot-first-aim-second politicians have considered (or are even aware of).

If the shooter in Connecticut had had a liability insurance policy before intentionally killing or wounding people, that policy would not -- indeed, legally could not -- pay anything to any of the victims of an intentional battery. This is known as the public policy limitation. So far as I am aware, it has not been altered by any state statute (nor should it be).

"Generally, intentional torts are uninsurable as a matter of public policy, meaning that tortfeasors guilty of such torts must pay damages out of their own pocket (if they have any money worth going after). Otherwise, professional criminals could obtain liability insurance to insure against the risk of being caught and prosecuted by the state, or sued in civil actions by their victims."

Intentional tort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
7,266
Likes
1,424
Location
Metrowest
There is an odd quirk of insurance law that I suspect none of the shoot-first-aim-second politicians have considered (or are even aware of).

If the shooter in Connecticut had had a liability insurance policy before intentionally killing or wounding people, that policy would not -- indeed, legally could not -- pay anything to any of the victims of an intentional battery. This is known as the public policy limitation. So far as I am aware, it has not been altered by any state statute (nor should it be).

On the contrary, I think that most of them, being attorneys and public policy people, are well aware of the limitations of liability insurance. They just don't care. Actually having insurance isn't the point. The ostensible logic behind mandatory gun insurance requires the assumption that I maintain liability for the use of my property even when it is stolen and then used in a crime.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
3,385
Likes
510
DOA. If a voter's ID ($25) is too significant a burden so is this. Political grandstanding.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,482
Likes
9,449
On the contrary, I think that most of them, being attorneys and public policy people, are well aware of the limitations of liability insurance. They just don't care. Actually having insurance isn't the point. The ostensible logic behind mandatory gun insurance requires the assumption that I maintain liability for the use of my property even when it is stolen and then used in a crime.

They absolutely don't care. The idea behind it, license fees, all the fees, is to raise the costs so a percentage of gun owners don't exist because it's too expensive. They know criminals will not pay insurance or get a license (if they could), etc. They know this and other things only affects legal owners but that is who they are targeting anyway.
 

KenK

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
704
Likes
61
So...... yet one more law that criminals will not obey, while the gun owner foots the bill for their actions!!!!!
And this too will be coming to the state you live in!!!!!!!
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,115
Likes
197
Location
central MA
Hey folks, I dont know if anyone went to the GOAL thing on sunday, but Jim Wallace spoke to the REAL reason of insurance. Here is the deal; any gun laws, can be fought in court. That leaves open the POSSIBILITY that it can be overturned-if it actually passes a vote. With a mandatory INSURANCE, the insurance company is NOT held to passing laws-they draft regulations, of course, with the help of legislators, that are requirements for carrying insurance. So, it works like this:
Joe Schmoe has firearms in his home. He keeps them locked up. But, he has certain "high capacity" firearms. Regulations state he can only own two. He buys a third. He now cannot be covered by insurance. His insurance is revoked. Ergo, his firearms are no longer legal, as the state requires insurance to own firearms.
Now, you cannot fight the law in court, because the law merely requires insurance. You CAN fight the insurance company-but, they will have better lawyers, will have years to fight you, and honestly dont care-you lose your guns. Period.
So, ultimately, THAT is the goal of insurance. It is NOT about safety. Its merely about getting bans passed, without making gun laws. Then, the legilsators dont look like bad guys (to their constituents), as they only ewanted to keep people safe, with insurance. That the gun owner didnt comply, is the gun owners problem, not thiers.
 

RockIt

Banned
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
192
Likes
50
Location
North Carolina
And all of this is exactly why guns should never be registered. One of the reasons I have no use for this state.

If there were no registration, the state would have no idea whether you needed insurance or not.

Universal background checks are the pathway to universal registration (or at least knowledge as to who owns guns).
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
151
Likes
5
You know the gov will put there thumb on insurance co. to make a rate high enough the average man cant afford it.
 
Top Bottom