A NY Democratic politician is behind a push that would force gun owners to buy liabilty insurance for their weapon or face a $10K fine. It's called the Firearm Risk Protection Act. (Another catchy phrase, don't you think?) Any chance of passing is pretty slim, it's been tried in other states and gone down to defeat.
Gun owners fight back, saying it's an extra cost, and it violates their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course, it's not the guns that's the problem, it's the gun violence. They say gun violence costs us taxpayers about $3.5 billion a year...you know, victim's families having to pay for funerals, lost wages, etc.
To me it makes no sense in the real world based on how insurance companies work. We've all been there right? It sounds like a tax to try to control behavior. On it's face, it sounds like it's pretty illegal, and I can't imagine any higher court wouldn't throw this out if it did pass.
If a gun owner's piece is stolen and used in a crime, why should the gun owner be punished? The criminal should be punished. If my car is stolen and the thief kills someone crossing the street, I wouldn't be liable. Why are guns different? The idea of punishing anyone beyond the person committing the crime seems way off base to me.
What do you think?