Go to ...

Oswego County Today

A Dot Publishing, Inc. Publication

RSS Feed

Barclay: $1 Million Insurance Policy A Shot at Responsible Gun Owners

Assemblyman Will Barclay issued a statement Thursday following news of proposed legislation mandating current firearm owners and potential owners to take out a $1 million liability insurance policy.

Coming on the heels of the controversial NY SAFE Act, Barclay commented that the proposed Assembly bill (A3908) is another slap in the face of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen.

“The legislation proposed in the Assembly today is a shot at all legal, responsible gun owners and sportsmen,” said Barclay. “Requiring this outrageous insurance policy is yet another way to try and limit sportsmen and deter people from owning any firearms. This legislation runs counter to the Second Amendment right of all our residents.”

“The fact of the matter is that the majority of gun owners are not involved in any crime. This bill again fails to address the real issue behind gun violence, which is the prevalence of illegal guns in this state,” he continued. “There is a long and storied tradition of sportsmen and gun ownership in our state that is being ignored in favor of political expediency. I strongly oppose this legislation and will continue to work to protect the rights of all responsible, legal gun owners.”

7 Responses “Barclay: $1 Million Insurance Policy A Shot at Responsible Gun Owners”

  1. RT Wallace
    February 15, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Will Barclay for Governor!!!

  2. February 15, 2013 at 8:21 am

    It’s possible to have good insurance which provides for everyone hurt, has the insurers discourage unsafe practices including letting one’s gun be lost or stolen and still is not too much of a burden on legal gun owners. It starts with requiring manufacturers to have a no-fault insurer that only gets off the hook when another insurer takes over. Lost or stolen or diverted guns are still covered by the last insurer. That makes it unnecessary to register guns or enforce the insurance purchase below the manufacturer level.
    The total medical plus lost wages cost of gun injuries in the US per year is about $4 Billion with a loss ratio similar to car insurance that would be covered by about $8 Billion in premiums. Divided by 270 million guns that gives a cost per gun per year of about $30.00 Of course, that’s an average and some would cost more and some less depending on risk and other factors.
    That’s for a no-fault kind of insurance that covers anyone injured by a particular gun. The liability insurance that available now from the NRA and others covers very few cases because the shooter is usually not a legal insured owner and the legal owner who lost control of a gun is not currently held liable.

  3. EJB
    February 15, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    2012 safest hunting season on record , 2 fatal shootings. (A3908) Needs 2 be shot down!

  4. chris
    February 15, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    #1…The current legislation, both passed and in the minds of albany’s biggest idiots are unconstitutional
    #2…A tax/fee/insurance policy requirement on a constitutional, god given right is in and of itself unconstitutional. That is the same as requiring “speech insurance” in case your words offend a whineass…
    #3…If i hear another politician insinuate that the Second Amendment is for hunters and sportsmen..I am going to kick a liberal

  5. February 16, 2013 at 10:54 am

    Bring Lawsuits against your legislators who are not Immune from their obligation to defend the Constitution. Put Liens on their property until they repeal their Illegal Laws.

  6. February 17, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    This should be viewed as un-consitutional and as a work-around against US Constitution intent of the Second Amendment. Making insurance a requirement is not discussed in the US Constitution. Since I am a member of New York State Naval Militia, and a member of the US NAVY RESERVE then the premium payment for the insurance should be payed by the US Government and State of New York if this Bill is ever passed. Persons involved in its introduction and support should be prosecuted for violation of intent of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

  7. Mike
    February 17, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    Even if the “insurance” was legal, which it is not, It inevitably must include registration. Then at some later time will include confiscation.
    Which constitutional right do the liberals wish to give up next? Perhaps the first? Forget expressing your views in public, how about the sixth? Remember, you can’t fight back!
    Maybe the fourteenth? That has some heavy bootprints on it already. Just because you do not own a gun, remember that it is inner city gangs, and the mentally ill who are committing these crimes.
    If you let your government take one right away, what will you do when they want more? Wake up and educate yourselves! The Second ammendment is not about hunting, it is about the citizens right to defend themselves. Even your politicians admit these laws will do nothing to stop the crimes. Maybe insurance will curb the criminal mind…..

About Contributor