To the Editor:
(DeRuyter, NY – March 2013) Get ready for DMV II in government bureaucracy that will morph in comparison. There is a bill in the state Assembly that has been proposed to require gun liability insurance to the tune of $1,000,000 for anyone who owns a firearm.
Registered or not, I’m sure that will be required once passed so we can find out what’s in the bill? Right, Nancy Pelosi? Will the county supervisors and legislators pass a proactive resolution rejecting any such legislation that would infringe upon our Second Amendment?
Or will they wait until after its passage? I would contact your town supervisor or legislator urging them to do so. Telling your opinion to your state legislators would be a good idea, too.
When the New York SAFE Act gun law was passed in less than three days violating legislative procedures, we found out later that all our peace officers were committing four felonies everyday carrying four 10-bullet clips on their belts not being exempt from the seven-bullets-per-clip aspect of the law. To date, I think they still are committing this felony.
Not being able to repeal the Second Amendment outright, some seek to minimize gun ownership through financial hardship and regulation. This is what this bill seeks to do. Let’s review this aspect of the Constitution that our elected representatives promised to uphold when sworn into office:
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In 2008, over 18,000 bills were proposed. That’s 7,000 more than the U.S. Congress. Of the 18,000, only 9 percent passed. This is par each year. Many bills proposed are showmanship for the legislator knowing full well it won’t be passed but can go back to their districts saying ‘look what I did.’
Normally, I would not get so exercised about a proposed bill, but after the recklessness we saw with the SAFE Act, this bill has a chance.
The absurdity of this bill from a legal argument seems obvious. Let’s look at it from this insurance agent’s viewpoint and what it means to you, the insured, who owns a firearm.
First, there are many insurance companies in New York that don’t even offer $1,000,000 personal liability limits with the homeowner’s policy. Too bad for them, I guess. One would either have to change to another company that did or get an umbrella policy that would run $150 to $250 more annually for you, the insured.
If you don’t carry these limits and your insurance company does offer $1,000,000 liability limits, you will pay an extra $30 to $100 a year more to increase your liability limits to $1,000,000. Changing companies could cost you extra, and having to move the auto policy to get the multi-policy discount would just be another hassle and extra expense, possibly.
Currently, if you don’t have proof of insurance for your auto, your license would be suspended or revoked resulting in daily fines from the state Department of Motor Vehicles. This legislation would essentially do the same with your guns, but goes even further. They take away your gun(s) and your chances of retrieving them anytime soon would probably be nil, if at all.
If they did that with our autos, think of the uprising there.
Here’s another part of this brilliant piece of legislation:
“…specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm.”
All homeowner policies exclude coverage for any intentional act of bodily injury or property damage, thus making the latter part of this statement irrelevant. Not only did this legislator who proposed this bill not only forget to consult the Constitution, but also his local insurance agent.
Here’s another nugget of wisdom from the bill:
“…a person shall be deemed to be the owner of a firearm if such firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff which has jurisdiction in the county, town, city or village in which such owner resides.”
Does this mean you no longer own the firearm if somehow retrieved later on? I’m sure they amend this after it’s passed.
Let us say someone broke into your home one morning while you’re at work, stole your gun and you realized this when getting home at 6 p.m., immediately reporting it to the authorities. In the meantime, the culprit ended up killing his family and a few others during the day.
According to this piece of legislation, a hungry lawyer could make the case that you are vicariously legally liable, therefore financially, too, for those killings, still having ownership because they happened before you reported the theft. But now having a million-dollar gun liability policy if this bill is made into law, why should this encourage more lawsuits in our litigious society?
History shows us that governments naturally lean towards tyranny over time. They progressively strip the God-given rights and weapons from the populace to minimize resistance, thinking that a few intellectual elite in a faraway office know better than you how to live your life.
Cuomo, Bloomberg, some departments of health are simply repeating history. With government tyranny, be it soft in shutting down a 28th annual wild game church potluck dinner, banning soda drinks greater than 16 ounces, to the outright invasion of our homes to confiscate our firearms, many have paid the ultimate sacrifice, rebelled with force or, at minimum, demonstrated civil disobedience.
One should hope that I and many of like mind and kindred spirit would choose the latter.
Shawn Skeele, DeRuyter