NY proposing bill to require liability insurance for gun ownership.

Yeah, I can see all the banger getting insurance. Only in liberal fantasy land.

 

If people cannot be forced to get an ID to vote because a $14 card (renewable for 4 years) us an undue burden on the right to do so, then clearly the same can be said for a requirement to have liability insurance to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Uh....No I don't think they will. Who cares !

 

IMO every State should do this.

 

I think this is a good idea.

Non-Fatal Gun Injuries: 73,505 in 2010
http://www.veganpeace.com/gun_control/gundeathsinjuriesusa.htm

Treating gunshot wounds are very expensive:
"THURSDAY, Oct. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Hospitalization costs for nonfatal gunshot wounds in the United States totaled $9 billion between 1998 and 2011, a new study reveals.

"That's $679 million a year just for inpatient care, the researchers said. Not included were doctor fees, lost productivity, expenses borne by families and society, or fees for gunshot victims who do not go to a hospital, according to the report published in a recent issue of Family Medicine and Community Health."
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-nonfatal-gun-wounds-costs-679-million-a-year

 

If we just made health-care free, passed a law saying doctors and hospitals can't charge for services, then those costs would plummet. And we wouldn't need insurance.

Where's the quantified benefit in this risk/benefit analysis? If we only include costs, then cars are pretty expensive to have around, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? The insurance companies won't pay out for murders and suicides.

 

Ok....you work on that. LOL

 

"A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

"American taxpayers pay roughly $12.8 million every day to cover the costs of gun-related deaths and injuries— and that is a conservative estimate, according to a new report released by Mother Jones on the cost of gun violence in America.

"The true cost, however, is not fully known, partly because of the vast sum that's been spent by the NRA and other gun rights activists to shut down research related to firearms, and partly because of the sheer number of expenses incurred when someone is shot.

"What is known is that taxpayers cover roughly 87% of these costs...."
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4

It's not fair that responsible people who choose not to own guns are burdened with higher taxes. Mandatory gun insurance can help ease that burden.

 

well since the chance of that happening is less than one in a million its a waste of time. Most Democrat party schemes are designed to punish poor people when it comes to gun ownership and this is no different,

we should require mandatory insurance for people who engage in sex-think of all the costs that come from STDs and unwanted children

- - - Updated - - -

that's because your posts demonstrate you have no clue about the constitution when it comes to gun issues

 

How? Insurance companies don't pay out for homicides and suicides, and some or all of the unintentional gun deaths are covered by homeowners? Just how much money do you think would be paid out if this law passed? BTW, New York had 6 unintentional gun deaths in 2012.

 

of course you do-you are on record supporting anything that harasses honest gun owners.

 

Ultimately for what purpose? What benefit would come about from such when insurance policies do not cover malicious acts?

- - - Updated - - -

The majority of these incidents are the fault of individuals who cannot legally possess a firearm, thus they cannot legally be compelled to acquire liability insurance. Those that are not acts of negligence are deliberate and acts of malice, which liability insurance does not and cannot be made to cover.

 

And hundreds of unintentional gun injuries in just one age group:

"Each year in New York State (NYS), 210 children ages 19 years and younger are treated at a hospital because of an unintentional firearm injury, 75 are injured severely enough to be hospitalized. Two children in this age group are killed each year in an unintentional firearm incident. A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone that the family knows than to kill someone in self-defense."
https://www.health.ny.gov/preventio...-19_years/firearm_injuries_birth-19_years.htm

 

Really? You're still quoting Kellerman? You just don't learn.

 

what's really sad, its pretty obvious now that public safety has nothing to do with his constant support of any idiotic idea that harasses gun owners. Rather he's upset that the NRA and pro gun voters don't support the candidates he wants in office. Its what motivates 99% of the anti gun posters who come to message boards and argue for more restrictions on our rights.

 

That's on your crowd. They're discrimination (suicide= MH issues) and victimization (murder victim) issues.

- - - Updated - - -

In court it will be easier to impose a penalty for noninsurance, which is easily provable, than intent, etc. Some real legal advantages here.

 

The majority of firearm-related incidents are the fault of those who cannot legally possess a firearm in the process, and thus cannot be legally compelled to purchase firearm liability insurance, or otherwise amount to an act of malice on the part of the perpetrator, which insurance policies cannot, do not, and will not cover.

the united states supreme court has held that prohibited individuals are exempt from firearm registration mandates, because to comply would violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination, by compelling them to admit to the commission of a crime. There is little reason to believe that a liability insurance mandate would not be treated by the courts in a similar manner, meaning it could only be applied to those who can legally own firearms, and are statistically the least likely to be involved in a firearm-related accident, according to federal statistics about how such incidents have been dropping for decades, and are currently at an all time low.

As to your claim of a court being able to impose a penalty for not possessing the correct insurance. Insurance companies have stated that their policies do not protect against deliberate acts and actions on the part of the policy holder. Instead they only shield against accidents. There are very few circumstances under which someone could actually, realistically, be penalized for not possessing the insurance being referred to on the part of yourself. Unless you are suggesting that everyone who is found to possess a firearm should be penalized for not possessing something that simply does not exist.

 

Will the city also have insurance for when defenseless victims can't afford to protect themselves?

 

Forcing to pay for a right is constitutional?

 

I though SCOTUS addressed that in Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Stratton.

 

Why do you want to make it impossible for the poor to exercise their right to keep and bear arms?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you do.
You start with "I hate guns" and work backwards from there.

 

According to the anti-gun side, none of these restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms qualify as an infringement.

-License of gun owners, with a fee
-Permit to own a gun - somehow different than licensing of gun owners - with a fee
-Registration of guns, with a fee
-Mandated training to own a gun - with a few
-Mandatory storage requirements to keep a gun - with a fee
-Mandatory mental health screening to own a gun - with a fee
-Mandatory liability insurance on the ownership of a gun - with a fee

When you ask them what, in their minds, DOES qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, they will tell you that any restriction is permissible so long as you eventually get to own a gun.

Proof they have only one goal -- to restrict the law abiding in every way possible.

 

another terrible idea but it wouldn't surprise me if NY passes it.... goofballs.

 

Fees are currently assessed for the right to bear arms in certain states and that has not been ruled unconstitutional

 

If you are talking about paying someone for their work as a 'fee' then all the money you make working is a fee.