I get that RTS, but if an insurance company is expected to pay out when something goes wrong privileges and rights both equal green.

I really don't think this anything to do with insurance companies and everything to do with an underhanded way to rid people of their guns.

I'm also not sure where insurance companies are coming into play now.

Are you addressing me or someone else?

 

mountain ref, he was advocating falsely reporting several felonies.

I really don't think this anything to do with insurance companies and everything to do with an underhanded way to rid people of their guns.

 

Agree on the legislation proposed.

Where is an insurance company liable now with regard to mishandling of firearms? If they are, wouldn't the easier choice be to add a disclaimer to the insurance policy that would exclude coverage for gun issues? If you wanted to be covered, it could easily be a rider you could purchase as an addition to your policy.

 

No different than life insurance policies are void if it's suicide.

 

I am not an expert here so I would like some peeps with experience in this field to weigh in however for example if you have a couple of pit bulls some insurance companies won't insure you are all, correct? And if so, the same could be the case with guns.

I don't own any, then.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking and it's fine unless something happens. I would think as part of a homeowner's policy it would not be too expensive. Insurance companies, unlike the general public, would not be swayed by hype but would run the numbers and let their actuaries do their thing.

I am not an expert here so I would like some peeps with experience in this field to weigh in however for example if you have a couple of pit bulls some insurance companies won't insure you are all, correct? And if so, the same could be the case with guns.

I get what you saying now. Yeah, I can see the government pressuring insurance companies into something like that. Both would be stupid state or nation wide. Look at pit bulls for example, not a dangerous dog unless trained to be so. That's why you don't usually see that as a state wide rule or law.

Not Pit Bulls but you get the idea...

 

mountain ref, he was advocating falsely reporting several felonies.

 

Only trying to keep what was always mine and protect my family from the other liars who are crooks and will use guns to rob, since we all know that the ones who will have guns are the criminals anyway.

i wont be lying anyway,i wil ltell my wife to go hide them one day when I am not home and I will call in a theft of my home, just so happens I didnt know my wife played a trick on me and took my guns.

Many probably also have insurance that covers this. Its called Liability Umbrella insurance. If the insurance companies believe there is a problem with firearms they can raise the rate on that particular insurance. But, as for now, they do not even ask about it. So clearly and obviously liability is not a concern to the industry who would have to deal with it.

 

But now we see the slippery slope (or ice slide) of Obamacare. Again, if the government can legally force you buy a product we have problems. How easy is it apply the Obamacare ruling to this type of insurance?

Are we becoming a communist country?

Only trying to keep what was always mine and protect my family from the other liars who are crooks and will use guns to rob, since we all know that the ones who will have guns are the criminals anyway.

i wont be lying anyway,i wil ltell my wife to go hide them one day when I am not home and I will call in a theft of my home, just so happens I didnt know my wife played a trick on me and took my guns.

 

I am just giving you a hard time.

“Any person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person,” the bill, S2353, states.

 

“Failure to maintain such insurance shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm,” the bill adds.

 

Further, even if a New Yorker’s gun is stolen, they are still responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police. The bill has been reportedly been passed along to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee, according to the Washington Times.

The Examiner estimates that simple liability insurance for $1 million would cost gun owners about $1,600-2,000 annually.

 

Lawmakers in California, Maryland and Massachusetts have introduced similar bills aimed at forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

 

Proposed Bill Would Force Gun Owners in NY to Buy At Least $1 MILLION in Liability Insurance or Forfeit ?Privilege? to Own a Firearm | TheBlaze.com

Of course the insurance agencies are on board with this, this is another money making scam that insurance companies thrive on. Just like auto Insurance.

I'd think the insurance companies would love this deal. Seriously, it would be the single largest cash boon for them, greater likely than any other coverage for them in a loss/risk ratio.