NY million dollar gun insurance bill

[markh]

The liberal idiots in New York aren't done yet. They figure only the wealthy and criminals should own guns.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?def...rm=2013&Text=Y

One million dollars in insurance or you can't own a gun? That is the biggest load of bull **** yet. This is going to get ugly fast.

[queenie]

The liberal idiots in New York aren't done yet. They figure only the wealthy and criminals should own guns.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?def...rm=2013&Text=Y

One million dollars in insurance or you can't own a gun? That is the biggest load of bull **** yet. This is going to get ugly fast.

Now That's CRAZY!!!

and u know what now that I think about it....I just switched insurance companies and during the questionnaire for my umbrella policy and my homeowner's policy I was never asked if I had a gun in the house BUT they did ask if I had any vicious animals...I was waiting for the question about guns and shocked BUT glad that they didn't ask....I got a great rate but if they knew I had handguns and shotguns and rifles if I would have gotten such a great rate.

[soulflower]

Sounds like a sneaky way to ban guns.

If it passes, there's a pretty good chance the Supreme Court would overturn it.

[Grindelwald]

If this is the whole story, then that is very stupid. But I doubt it is, judging by previous right-wing outbursts. Still, they should probably just kill this.

[markh]

If this is the whole story, then that is very stupid. But I doubt it is, judging by previous right-wing outbursts. Still, they should probably just kill this.

Read the bill before you make more idiotic comments.

[Cameron]

Interesting. If you can be required to have a license, I see no problem with requiring insurance, too.

[markh]

Interesting. If you can be required to have a license, I see no problem with requiring insurance, too.

I can see if you need to be insured for a license to carry but to just own one is stupid. For all the people that will point to cars, they don't have to be insured unless used on public roads.

[Cameron]

I can see if you need to be insured for a license to carry but to just own one is stupid.

People can only be careless if they're carrying?

For all the people that will point to cars, they don't have to be insured unless used on public roads.

So if you're driving a passenger on your private property and he is injured?

[markh]

People can only be careless if they're carrying?


So if you're driving a passenger on your private property and he is injured?

Okay wow, just wow!
Answer #1 What can a gun do if no one is carrying it? I really want you to explain this one to me.
Answer #2 Have you ever heard of Homeowners insurance? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?
You have all these moronic questions. How about some answers?

[The Eternal White Belt]

How much does 1 millions dollars of insurance cost?

[Cameron]

Okay wow, just wow!
Answer #1 What can a gun do if no one is carrying it? I really want you to explain this one to me.

Knock! Knock!

Somebody else could get it or steal it.

This ain't rocket science.

Answer #2 Have you ever heard of Homeowners insurance? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?

Do you have a link which says that Homeowners Insurance covers uninsured vehicle accidents on private property?

You have all these moronic questions.

I'm not sure what that says about your inability to answer them.

How about some answers?

I gave ya the answer.

Ya just don't like it.

[Grindelwald]

Read the bill before you make more idiotic comments.

I did.

I stand by my comment.

Did you read it?

[Sprightly]

Sounds like a sneaky way to ban guns.

If it passes, there's a pretty good chance the Supreme Court would overturn it.

It is. Make it impossible for most people to own one.

[Cameron]

Answer #2 Have you ever heard of Homeowners insurance? Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?
You have all these moronic questions. How about some answers?

Hope this helps with your confusion, but keep that emoticon handy:

Things Your Homeowners Policy Doesn't Cover

Motor vehicles – Homeowners policies provide no coverage for liability arising from owning or using a motor or motorized vehicle. Not included in this definition are trailers, golf carts, garden tractor, or motorized wheelchair.

http://www.bankingmyway.com/real-est...y-doesnt-cover

[markh]

Hope this helps with your confusion, but keep that emoticon handy:

Sorry that I'm not a lifeless loser like you with nothing better to do than google everything but you got me on the homeowners.

Do people have to insure baseball bats.What if someone steals it and uses it to bash your head in.

[queenie]

How much does 1 millions dollars of insurance cost?

My Umbrella Policy is for one million dollars and it's less than $200 a year.

[Jeebus]

Interesting. If you can be required to have a license, I see no problem with requiring insurance, too.

Most competent legal scholars understand such a requirement would be unconstitutional.

While the courts are still sorting out Heller's implications, politicians should not assume that they have a free hand to restrict private gun ownership. Decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights show that there are hard-and-fast limits on gun control.

The general framework is straightforward and certainly well-known to those who have studied (let alone taught) constitutional law. The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done. Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important. At the same time, any regulation must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest.

Several states, for example, are considering gun-insurance mandates modeled after those for automobile insurance. There is no conceivable public-safety benefit: Insurance policies cover accidents, not intentional crimes, and criminals with illegal guns will just evade the requirement. The real purpose is to make guns less affordable for law-abiding citizens and thereby reduce private gun ownership. Identical constitutionally suspect logic explains proposals to tax the sale of bullets at excessive rates.

The courts, however, are no more likely to allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than to undermine the First. A state cannot circumvent the right to a free press by requiring that an unfriendly newspaper carry millions in libel insurance or pay a thousand-dollar tax on barrels of ink—the real motive, in either case, would be transparent and the regulation struck down. How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?

[Cameron]

Interesting. If you can be required to have a license, I see no problem with requiring insurance, too.

Most competent legal scholars understand such a requirement would be unconstitutional.

The general framework is straightforward and certainly well-known to those who have studied (let alone taught) constitutional law. The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done. Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important. At the same time, any regulation must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest.

Several states, for example, are considering gun-insurance mandates modeled after those for automobile insurance. There is no conceivable public-safety benefit: Insurance policies cover accidents, not intentional crimes, and criminals with illegal guns will just evade the requirement. The real purpose is to make guns less affordable for law-abiding citizens and thereby reduce private gun ownership. Identical constitutionally suspect logic explains proposals to tax the sale of bullets at excessive rates.

The courts, however, are no more likely to allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than to undermine the First. A state cannot circumvent the right to a free press by requiring that an unfriendly newspaper carry millions in libel insurance or pay a thousand-dollar tax on barrels of ink—the real motive, in either case, would be transparent and the regulation struck down. How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?

While the courts are still sorting out Heller's implications, politicians should not assume that they have a free hand to restrict private gun ownership. Decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights show that there are hard-and-fast limits on gun control.

My post was short yet you only read half of it. I bolded the half you missed.

You're only talking about the half that fits your preconceptions.

Shocker.

[The Eternal White Belt]

My Umbrella Policy is for one million dollars and it's less than $200 a year.

So, if we are talking about $200 in insurance to protect against damages resulting in firearm damages/injuries - that doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Then again, I'm not sure $200 would be the number in this case (or that the numbers won't sky rocket).

[Sprightly]

So, if we are talking about $200 in insurance to protect against damages resulting in firearm damages/injuries - that doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Then again, I'm not sure $200 would be the number in this case (or that the numbers won't sky rocket).

Isn't an umbrella policy on top of other insurance policies?