S-4868A amended
- Thread starter gunpoliticsny
- Start date
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
These dumbfucks ban liability insurance, and then make it mandatory to have it? No way this bullshit holds up.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
It's not the same type of insurance.
E the massive
.308 Win
That insurance was to benefit you, this insurance benefits the victim or survivors.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I doubt any insurance company is going to even touch something like this. Think about it. You think anyone is going to touch insuring people on the grounds they could commit some sort of shooting? The cost would be through the roof to them not because they're common, but because each individual event would create a legal frenzy of lawsuits to get as much cash as possible.
If the liability insurance is to "protect the victims" then this sounds like a round about way to engage in privacy intrusions they couldn't legally do. We'd be talking the insurance companies would give you tons of evaluations, make you jump through a lot of hoops to lower their risk, all to potentially deny you and your 2A rights. It would effectively give insurance companies the ability to deny your 2A rights.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Waiting for the tyranny chuggers to defend this if it becomes law.
Well, the supreme court has ruled...blah blah, blah blah blah.
Well, the supreme court has ruled...blah blah, blah blah blah.
E the massive
.308 Win
Insurance companies would be chomping at the bit. Insurance companies never ever lose money. Every legal gun owner paying on a policy that might pay out a few million a year. How many legal gun owners actually shoot people?
I'm good...
4. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY PEACE OFFI-
CER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2.10 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, POLICE
OFFICER, AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION THIRTY-FOUR OF SECTION 1.20 OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, OR ANY MEMBER OF THE MILITARY WHO IS ON "ACTIVE
DUTY" OR "IN ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES" AS DEFINED IN
SECTION ONE OF THE MILITARY LAW, WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM.
4. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY PEACE OFFI-
CER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2.10 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, POLICE
OFFICER, AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION THIRTY-FOUR OF SECTION 1.20 OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, OR ANY MEMBER OF THE MILITARY WHO IS ON "ACTIVE
DUTY" OR "IN ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES" AS DEFINED IN
SECTION ONE OF THE MILITARY LAW, WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Read
The
Bill
This is not carrier insurance to protect you from being sued by some psycho mope's family when you kill them in the parking lot of a Dollar General at 4:00 AM.
The
Bill
This is not carrier insurance to protect you from being sued by some psycho mope's family when you kill them in the parking lot of a Dollar General at 4:00 AM.
What the either do not understand, or they do not care is that this will in FACT go through the Court System. It will in FACT be found un-Constitutional. Any gun owner that picked up this insurance due to this law will be reimbursed by the State.
E the massive
.308 Win
That's why if passed this law will not stand.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Which court? The 2nd circus?
Aren't you special.
Yes, but in which century? Considering how frequently gun law challenges get picked up by ANY court, New Yorkers will have to suffer under this for decades!
Debatable. Assuming the S.C. actually bothers to pick it up, they'll probably only say something like "it doesn't infringe".
Has the State ever reimbursed for any other unConstitutional Laws that got shot down?
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
I have what they call a liability umbrella policy that covers anything...except illegal acts.