New York State Bill S2857A

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the insurance law, in relation to requiring owners of firearms to obtain liability insurance

PURPOSE : To amend the insurance law, to require firearm owners, prior to such ownership, to obtain and continuously. Maintain a policy of liability insurance to cover any damages resulting from the use of such firearm.
MORE

This entry was posted in Gun Control. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to New York State Bill S2857A

  1. gamegetterII says:

    Sitting in committee since last Jan.
    I’m sure the fresh crop of Commies elected in NY will be all over it soon

  2. C.R. says:

    So , will the criminals will have to have the liability insurance too ?

  3. WoodBurner says:

    As effective as the safe act, countless rifles turned in.

    98.8 ain’t inline.

  4. Butch says:

    What about cops? And other government shooters who kill wantonly?

  5. Differ says:

    What do you bet insurance premiums will be unaffordable for all but the top few%
    How will they enforce the law?

    • crazyeighter says:

      By bouncing gun ownership database against insurance customer list.

      (And the insurance will give your ass up in a heartbeat if they want to be the one doing business in the state. Still think gun registration is a a good idea?)

      • rayvet says:

        What is this gun ownership database that you are referring to? Never heard of such a thing.

        • Ruth says:

          NY requires you to register your pistols/handguns with them as part of your pistol license. So at least there they have a database. Long guns not so much, as they’re learning with the SAFE Act mess.

  6. SAM says:

    Do you have to get it for going to a Mosque or to work for the media?

  7. Chris Mallory says:

    A year or two ago, New York shut down the NRA for trying to sell Firearms Owners Insurance.

    • rayvet says:

      Yeah, if I remember correctly it was because they (NRA) didn’t have the proper “licensing” that NY requires insurance companies to have. Good old liberal NY, they gotta have their cut.

  8. Jonathan says:

    My thought also – I understood that the state said it was illegal to offer such insurance since it provided coverage for a potentially illegal act, which was illegal under state law.
    If so, they want to stick you with a catch 22 where it is required but illegal at the same time.

  9. wayne says:

    I think this is exactly what the framers meant when they added “shall not be infringed” to the 2nd!

    • FaCubeItches says:

      Bah, technicalities! “Shall not be infringed” has long been observed primarily in the breach, and everyone is pretty cool with it. Or at least not enough care to actually do anything about it.

  10. WestcoastDeplorable says:

    Yep, probably “unobtainable” insurance, the kind the gov mandates in order to end “objectionable” behavior (like owning a gun).

Leave a Reply to Chris Mallory Cancel reply