NY Bill Would Require $250K in Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

Send to Kindle
Felix Ortiz with Pedro Martinez.  (Photo: Ortiz)

Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) with Pedro Martinez. (Photo: Ortiz)

It seems like anti-gunners in New York never run out of ways to chill the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

Just last week, Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Brooklyn Democrat, touted his bill that would require all gun owners to purchase at least $250,000 in liability insurance, because, you know, we’re all ticking time bombs.

Crazy!

But not for Ortiz who wants to hold “reckless gun owners accountable” because apparently our thousands of existing laws aren’t enough to punish those who mistreat, hurt or kill others with firearms.

“Enough is enough,” said Ortiz. “How can we protect our children from gun atrocities without a common sense approach to provide victim compensation?”

“We need a better way to hold reckless gun owners accountable,” he continued.  “Laws cannot bring back loved ones, but requiring owners of firearms to have liability insurance brings us one step closer to acknowledging the risks and dangers of gun ownership.”

Ortiz first introduced this bill in 2013, but it has historically failed to gain traction in the legislature.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King called the bill “ridiculous,” in an interview with the New York Daily News.

“Insurance companies don’t insure against criminal acts,” added King, a former insurance broker. “These guys are talking about things they don’t know anything about.”

Yup. That last line bears repeating and is almost always applicable when it comes to gun-grabbers: “These guys are talking about things they don’t know anything about.” Amen. Couldn’t have said it any better.

{ 25 comments… add one }
  • Mark from Bristol, IN. October 31, 2015, 3:51 pm

    So how much insurance should nitwit politicians require muslim terrorists to purchase before taking pilot lessons?

  • IP DAILY October 30, 2015, 4:52 pm

    I wonder how the criminals will afford the insurance? Most likely by robbing the legal gun owners that were forced to give up their firearms because they couldn’t afford the insurance?

  • Jeremiah October 30, 2015, 4:34 pm

    First, let me state that I am absolutely against forcing anyone to buy “Firearms Injury Insurance.” This just smacks of similarities to Obamacare, and we all know that O-care is a total and unmitigated crock of BS. Supreme Court Justice Roberts ruled that the premiums for O-care are similar to fees or taxes, and therefore, were legal under the laws enacted by Congress (Reid & Pelosi). So keep that in mind as you read further… reading the following with the understanding that my tongue is somewhat planted firmly in my cheek.

    That said, Firearms Injury Insurance could be bought for as little as $10.00 a year per arms owner. The 5 million members of the NRA alone would produce $50 million in “insurance premiums.” Responsible gun owners would be the likely buyers of such “insurance” and with from 80 million to 100 million other gun owners in the US, those $10 “insurance” payments would fund a huge reservoir of “insurance” assets.

    The likelihood of legitimate gun owners committing gun crimes is low. Therefore little to no insurance payments would be paid out of those funds on behalf of accidental firearms injuries by responsible gun owners. In any event, responsible gun owners would be covered by the purchase of their Firearms Injury Insurance.

    Illegal gun owners, on the other hand, would not likely buy insurance, so therefore, when they committed an injurious gun related injury, no policy holder, no insurance, ergo no payout.

    Maybe the NRA could sell the “Insurance,” collecting the funds in a special bank account. After a few years of collecting these “insurance premiums,” there would be vast, perhaps even excessive, amounts of money, which might then be used for defense of the 2nd Amendment.

    • johnk October 30, 2015, 7:06 pm

      In typical Liberal fashion they want only the legal gun owners to pay ergo all the people who do NOT!! commit gun related crimes. Even someone with less then half a brain could see that would create a target rich environment for all the thugs, rapist and murderers that now populate our prisons and would be released by Barak the Great.

  • Joe De October 30, 2015, 2:41 pm

    Comrad Coumo, and his cronies in action again. It goes to show who they really represent. The Fat Cats in the money sector.
    N.Y. is starting to look like a dictatorship, instead of a member of the U.S.
    How long before the anti gunners turn the rest of the Country into a dictatorship?

  • Michael October 30, 2015, 2:07 pm

    I am continually amazed at the lack of push back by minority communities when our “leaders” continue to put every obstacle possible in the way of the people’s “right to keep and bear arms.” These financial requirements, whether for liability insurance, increased fees for ammunition and firearms themselves, or whatever other scheme our “govern”ment thinks up, will not impact me nor will it keep me from having the tools, training, supplies, and capability to defend myself and my family (a self defense situation that is more likely to be faced by the inner city family than those of us who have been able to escape the poverty and crime of urban environments). However, for someone on a limited income, the proposed liability insurance requirements may well “price” many out of the “right to keep and bear arms” – a violation of our Constitution. So where is the NAACP, LULAC, et al’s outrage for their members?

  • SlikGunner October 30, 2015, 2:02 pm

    The SOB lefty, Liberal Politicians think that by having Law Abiding NY citizen pay 250k in insurance just to own a five shooter,….they are going to halt All the CRIMINALS from possessing weapons and or Controlling the Rise in ILLEGAL gun Violence in the CITY and State!!!,……Why don’t they PUNISH the CRIMINALS and Reinstate “Stop & Frisk”?,….Stupid Dumb Politicians,…..

  • John K October 30, 2015, 11:49 am

    I could support this $ 250,000 insurance bill only if they would enact a 1 billion dollar liability bill for all state and local legeslators, and a 10 Billion dollar one for national legeslators ! I can hear those gungrabbers now ” We need this to punish those who use guns for any reason.” this would be unfair to people running for or being elected to office whether local or national office. Sorry but requiring gun owners to have $250,000 worth of liability insurance is astronomically more rediculus than requiring the 1 and 10 billion dollar policy requirments for political office. And for those who would chose to comment about my spelling errors, you don’t have to spell correctly to be a responsible gun owner, just use common sence . Gun control is for those who are too scared to own a gun and want to delegate to some one else the right to protect themselves and their family.

  • rouge1 October 30, 2015, 11:17 am

    We have to buy health insurance to be a lawful subject of the United States of America, you have to buy insurance for the privilege to drive. Next you will need insurance for the privelage of bearing arms. We are governed by insurance corperations.

  • AK October 30, 2015, 9:40 am

    Could we require active homosexuals to have insurance against their spreading of disease?

  • AK Johnny 1 October 30, 2015, 9:14 am

    More punitive New York anti-gun crap! Why ANYONE continues to reside there leaves me at a complete loss….. There is NO perceivable upside to remaining a resident there…..

    I am a southerner that spent 11 years just on the Jersey side of the GW, and THAT place was almost as bad, in MULTIPLE aspects pertaining to freedom and quality of life. The taxes extracted via BOTH states are the most oppressive in the nation! Homeowners in those 2 states pay more in property tax per year than non-homeowners spend on RENT every year! For homes that are mostly 100 years old…. And why are those taxes in the stratosphere? Mostly, public sector unions.
    And firearms? Forget it….. I’m not going to be told WHAT I can own and operate, and what I can’t…. By ANY govt entity. And i’ll be damned if i’ll accept being treated punitively for simply FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION! AND, get creamed on taxes for the priviledge to boot!
    The happiest day of my life was leaving the liberal yankee wife, her Godless liberal family, and that grossly over-crowded toilet called the tri-state area, in the rearview mirror. Back down to Georgia where a man can BREATHE FREE. In this county, you could use an AK-47 for a hood ornament, and the Sheriff’s boys could give LES than a sh*t….

  • Vic P October 30, 2015, 9:09 am

    No way. Gun ownership is a right. That shall not be infringed. Requiring the additional expense of an insurance policy will infringe, especially on less well off people; the ones who can’t afford armed security. By the same logic, shouldn’t we require everyone to get an insurance policy for the use of “free speech”? You never know when some irresponsible person will cause a stampede by falsely yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.

    • rouge1 October 30, 2015, 11:31 am

      We should require subjects of america to go through the same infringements to register to vote and to vote as we do for our right to bear arms. If you cant do a back ground check or if you do drugs like smoke marajuana or have to have a comptency problem and cant pay your oun bills you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If you have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

  • Doug October 30, 2015, 8:08 am

    Recent Quote “we don’t have a gun problem, we have a people problem” Lt D. Lindsley, NYS DEC. Ain’t it the truth, covers a wide area. Get it people !

  • Roger October 30, 2015, 7:40 am

    Do not let people who know nothing about guns, tell those of us who know about guns, about guns. It is not really about guns anyway, it is about them. They are unhappy people and want everyone else to be unhappy. One problem we have in our society, and it’s a big one, is lawyers. They think they are so intelligent and have solutions to everything by writing a new “bill” when something happens they think they can instantly solve, but also want to do something that draws attention to them and has their name on it. And the use of the term “common sense” to describe what they are attempting to do is just plain asinine. Common sense? Common sense to whom really? It sure is not common sense to those of us who know better.

  • Sepp W October 30, 2015, 7:09 am

    Good grief. Once again another attempt at something that will only impact responsible, law abiding gun owners. Criminals are not responsible gun owners, they don’t need or care about insurance, and like the article pointed out, insurance companies are not going to insure criminals committing misdemeanors and felonies, let alone law abiding citizens!. And just for the record, most legal defense plans for concealed carriers will not provide anything if the covered individual engages in a criminal act or later convicted of a criminal act. Responsible gun owners know that if they have to draw down on someone it had better be a legal and justified use of deadly force. Criminals don’t make that distinction; they shoot their target, and if any bystander gets shot, oh well.

    Enforce the laws on the books now. Figure out a way to keep people that shouldn’t have a firearm from obtaining them. Shifting a bit, according to a Crime Prevention Research Report, The Myths about Mass Public Shootings: Analysis, OCT 9, 2014, Revised, since 2009, 92 percent of mass shootings have occurred in “Gun-Free Zones.” Everyone who cares about their 2nd Amendment Right and likewise what has happened to the country in last eight years needs to read it.

    New York’s own Bloomberg and his Everytown group was caught falsifying facts just to make its public policy push for more stringent gun control laws. Everytown even released a map claiming to list all of the school shootings since the Sandy Hook tragedy, but 33 of them were found to be questionable. The liberals fixation on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all-pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism.

    The anti-gun agenda appeals to emotion is often documented in superficial form of academic discourse, yet the basic tenets of science and scholarship are lacking. They are so biased and contain so many errors of fact, logic, and procedure that they cannot be regarded as having a legitimate claim to be treated as scholarly or scientific, yet the Amercian people are buying it, hook , line, and sinker.

    • Roger October 30, 2015, 7:46 am

      Excellent comment! You are correct! Ant-gun people like to think they are intelligent, but they really are not. They like to spout off with what they are now calling “common sense” approaches, but they are not common sense at all. Essentially, lawyers, and all the other emotionally charged parrots who repeat statements they hear or read, just need to mind their own business, because they likely never even touched a gun in their lives. They know nothing about guns. They only look at the potentially bad side of them. Good and law abiding citizens who own guns do not commit the crimes we hear about. The focus should not be on guns, because guns are not the problem. people are the problem. We need to focus on why people are behaving the way they are now and do things to reverse the trend. It will take a while, but it is the only “common sense” solution.

  • Sneed Hurn October 30, 2015, 5:37 am

    Next thing you know they will be requiring insurance if you possess a knife, or a bat, or a rock. These politicians are a bunch of
    idiots.

  • Eric October 21, 2015, 8:15 am

    Democrat, Liberal, NYC resident are synonyms for jackass when it comes to firearms and laws. I am a western New York resident and am sick and tired of people from NYC proposing laws regarding gun control and fininical issues for and urban jungle when two thirds of the state is rural. It’s time for a ” district of NYC” which is on its own and then the state of New York. The two are completely different in ideology and lifestyle so we might as well make them geographically separate too!

    • Aaron October 21, 2015, 8:53 am

      I’d love to see most of New York rejoin the union.

    • cadu 1985 October 30, 2015, 5:41 am

      NYC Sucks & that’s why i’m leaving. Too many draconian laws that will not get enforced to begin with. Who are these people that do all the shootings? Inner city gangbangers & punks who don’t legally own the guns anyway. Politicians are all morons.

    • Ed October 30, 2015, 5:42 am

      Hey genius count how many republicunts vote for gun control……..moronic.

  • Mark N. October 21, 2015, 1:15 am

    Tom King is absolutely correct: Insurance companies do not insure against criminal acts. Period. In fact, the codes in most states that apply to insurance specify that insurance “insurance companies are prohibited from indemnifying for intentional conduct causing injury.” Similarly, insurance companies do not–and cannot legally–insure against punitive damages. So let’s look at the stats: just how many negligent injuries due to firearms occur each year? The number is well under 1000–and homeowner’s liability insurance will probably provide coverage. So what these idiots are demanding is that firearms owners be forced to buy insurance that will pay not a single nickel in “victim compensation” for any and all of the murders or other intentional homicides that occur.

    To say nothing about the fact that requiring insurance in order to own a handgun will price the poor–and mostly black–population in cities from owning firearms. The law would have an unequal impact on minorities, and is therefore racist.

    Finally, no such law will reduce “gun violence” (a term I do not adopt as anything close to reality) in the slightest bit. Gangs and felons will still obtain illegal, unregistered firearms, and will commit crimes and homicides with them–over 8000 a year (excluding the usual domestic violence ending in death)–for which not one penny of insurance money will be available, because even if insurance would pay, there won’t be any policy covering the perpetrator.

    Conclusion: The only effect of such a stupid law is to raise the cost of gun ownership for law abiding citizens.

  • Aaron October 20, 2015, 4:54 pm

    What about flash bangs thrown in baby cribs during no knock raids?

    What about dogs shot when an ambulance is called?

    The government owns millions of guns. How can they obtain insurance without breaking the bank?

    Oh wait…I bet this is just for individuals who registered their guns in secessionist states like New York.

    • Ed October 30, 2015, 5:41 am

      AMEN BROTHER.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend