A typical handgun in the typical gun store can be had from $300 to $900 (and of course, can go WAY higher). Until the Progressives started on their current ‘don’t waste the Sandy Hook crisis” jeremiad to disarm the populace (even as they admit their gun grabs would NOT have stopped any of the recent mass killings), the cost of an AR (you know, the kind of semiautomatic rifle with cosmetics that cause pansie Democrats to have to change their shorts often) would be in the $1 – $2,000 range. The incremental costs are mostly just the ammo and range time.
Well, not only have NY State Legislative Democrats (with a few Republicans on par with “useful idiots”) already stuck it to their gun owners already, but are about to pile on with more:
The latest bill, introduced in the New York State Assembly by Democrat Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, seeks to force all gun owners to purchase at least $1 million in liability insurance to cover any damages caused by firearms. It would be a mandatory requirement for anyone who owns a gun, as those who refuse to comply within 30 days would have their firearms confiscated.
“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.
If you can’t afford the ongoing cost (marginal or incremental cost), are you going to keep anything that you have? If you have a family and are middle class, is your spouse going to go along with a cost like this? A cost that, every year, that could be 3 to 4 times the original cost of the handgun? Or the price of the AR every year? For each and every firearm you own? So if you happen to have 5 firearms, that’s $10K / year. For a middle class owner, that’s a big nut to try to justify.
Remember, this is on top of making just about every firearm held by citizens illegal in New York State with the NY SAFE Act. Effectively by mandating this level of insurance for a “compliant firearm”, this law probably would end up being the “street sweeper” to scarf up (or scare off) most every owner left.
In order for Progressivism (aka political and cultural Marxism) to win, it has to incrementally remove our Constitutional Rights and subvert traditional values. This is certainly an attack on the Second Amendment that, when combined with the SAFE Act, will effectively disarm the entire civilian population of New York State.
Can we finally start calling such a Government a Tyrannical one? If you don’t like the Second Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution, for that matter), amend it. The fact is, Progressives know if they actually tried that, they would fail. So, like the turds they are, they have to back-door it (and still call it democracy). But they hate the Constitution and the overall principle that it is supposed to limit Government. BTW, did you catch this little “tell” of what progressives think of the Right to bear arms?
“in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm”. A mere privilege. A granting by Government to a subject. Which can be given and taken away on a political whim.
Tell me, where is the “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” – the outlook that our Rights are NOT to be taken as given out, like candy, by a Governmental Rousseau (that would be you, Micheal Kitch) but rather, Government is supposed to PROTECT those Rights.
(H/T: The Blaze)