Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners

˜

Committee To Hear Testimony On Gun Insurance

by Hugh McQuaid | Mar 18, 2013 11:28pm
(6) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Town News, Newtown, Legal, Public Safety

The Insurance and Real Estate Committee will hear testimony Tuesday afternoon on legislation requiring gun owners to maintain personal liability and defense insurance.

Under the bill, anyone who possesses or owns a gun would need to buy insurance coverage for “bodily injury or property damage caused by the use of a firearm” and insurance that covers the cost of civil or criminal defense fees, in case the gun owner uses the weapon in self defense.

The legislation would make failure to maintain the insurance coverage a Class A misdemeanor and would not apply to people who temporarily possess a weapon at a gun club.

The bill also requires the commissioner of the Insurance Department to adopt regulations to implement the bill and determine minimum coverage requirements.

Before 5 p.m. Monday, almost 40 people had entered electronic testimony opposing the legislation. Much of the testimony references other changes to the state’s firearm statutes that lawmakers and Gov. Dannel Malloy have proposed in the months since Dec. 14, when a gunman murdered 20 first graders and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown.

“I implore every legislator to cease any and all participation in the continuing discriminatory malicious legislative onslaught being perpetrated against lawful gun owners in this state,” wrote Lisbon resident Thomas Phelps.

The public hearing will begin at 1 p.m. in the Legislative Office Building.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(6) Comments

posted by: Lawrence | March 19, 2013  6:47am

The legislature and the CT media very badly need to secure a report from the State Police about how many privately owned, legally owned firearms in Connecticut were used to intentionally commit bodily injury to other people over the past decade or so. Is it even 1 percent of all firearm injuries—not including suicides?

It’s probably in that ballpark.

If so, then what is the use of requiring insurance when almost all crimes are being committed by people who a)did not legally acquire the firearm in the first place b) would likely not qualify to possess a firearm in CT in the first place c) used the illegal firearm in an illegal manner and d) would never, ever, ever secure this type of insurance anyway?

Find some facts. I predict this bill would have ZERO effect on the uncompensated care costs that CT gives hospitals for all the shootings with illegally possessed firearms.

posted by: Hebee | March 19, 2013  8:07am

It looks like our esteemed legislative geniuses have determined that only a rich person may own a firearm. It is also a really good thing that Connecticut has so much extra money in the General Fund. We will need a lot of EXTRA money to defend the deluge of lawsuits that are sure to follow this discriminatory and unconstitutional attack on taxpaying, law abiding citizens.

posted by: Noteworthy | March 19, 2013  8:17am

Mr. Phelps got it right. At what point does the silly season of safety theater, finally run out of steam? Can you imagine what an insurance policy like that would cost? Defense of a lawsuit could potentially cost hundreds of thousands. And how would this provision have stopped Newtown? This like nearly all if not all the proposed laws have nothing to do with that - it has to do with making life miserable and meting out punishment for all the related people, folks and industries whose relationship is only being associated in a general category of gun owners. It’s like punishing an entire school for the sins of one. Who would do that? How misplaced can you get?

posted by: CTResidentForLife | March 19, 2013  12:24pm

I didn’t realize Connecticut Democrat politicians were such radicals until I read this.

posted by: Salmo | March 19, 2013  5:10pm

This is nothing more than highway robbery and, once again, proof positive that Connecticut is fast becoming a place to be from!

posted by: anuddaCTresident | March 25, 2013  11:49am

Hmmmm….the Insurance Industry Lobby looking to capitalize and make a couple bucks off of this movement????

In can understand, though I don’t agree, with a requirement for liability insurance….but legal defense insurance?  Maybe we should make this a reuqirement for driving a car or buying a 6-pack, too, since these activities cause so much more death and legal wranglings.