A new bill in New York State, known as Senate Bill S5974, could force all gun owners to carry at least $1 million in liability insurance. Sponsored by Senator Kevin Parker, this proposal isn’t just aimed at new buyers – anyone who already owns a gun would also be required to comply. According to the bill, insurance must be purchased before someone can legally possess a firearm, and it must be maintained continuously. If you lose your coverage, you lose your legal right to own the gun. That’s not a suggestion – it’s automatic revocation.
The Bill’s Core: Liability for Negligence, Not Intent
The insurance requirement in the bill specifically covers damages from negligent acts involving firearms. In simple terms, if you accidentally fire your weapon and someone is hurt or property is damaged, the insurance is supposed to help cover those costs. However, if the firearm is used in self-defense, which is considered an intentional act, most general liability policies wouldn’t pay out. As William Kirk of Washington Gun Law explained, “Insurance is only going to cover you for negligent activity at best.” That means people using guns legally in defense won’t even benefit from this requirement.
The Problem of Non-Existent Policies
Here’s where things get tricky. Kirk points out that the kind of insurance this bill demands doesn’t actually exist in most markets. He said, “It’s not like insurance companies say, ‘Oh yeah, we have a separate rider policy for each firearm in case of a negligent discharge.’” In other words, lawmakers are mandating a product that insurers don’t really offer. That creates a trap – an impossible rule that gun owners must follow, or else lose their rights. And once someone’s policy is canceled? Their registration and license go with it.
A History of Failed Attempts
This isn’t Senator Parker’s first try. As Jeff Chudzinski of North Country Now reports, similar legislation has been introduced in every session since 2013. It’s always failed. But the persistence shows a pattern, and it’s clear that some lawmakers see insurance mandates as a workaround to chip away at gun rights without directly banning firearms. Chudzinski adds that “multiple attempts have failed in the past, including most recently during the 2023–24 legislative session.” If at first you don’t succeed, try again – and again.
Other States Are Watching Closely
According to Nicholas Rogers of Big Timber Lodge, this type of law is already spreading. San Jose, California and New Jersey both passed similar laws in 2022. Rogers warned that if S5974 becomes law in New York, it could be used as a model for future bills in states like Colorado. “There is no grandfather clause,” he said. “Even if you already own your firearms, you still have to get this insurance or lose your right to own them.” That should concern any current gun owner, not just people looking to buy.
A Domino Effect of Revocation
What’s especially alarming is the built-in chain reaction that William Kirk explained. If your insurance lapses, your registration and permits are automatically void. That gives the state the power to confiscate your guns, without any new due process. “They’ve created essentially a domino effect,” Kirk said. “Cancel the insurance, cancel the permit, then confiscate the firearms.” That’s a serious escalation, and it shows how financial requirements can be turned into legal weapons.
Supporters Say It’s About Victims’ Rights
To be fair, the bill’s backers argue that this is about protecting innocent people. The sponsor memo claims that the policy “will safeguard innocent victims of gun-related accidents” and ensure they can get medical treatment. Senator Parker points to mass shootings like Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater massacre as motivation. The bill notes the economic burden on victims’ families and communities. This is a serious issue – but the method chosen raises more questions than it answers.
Critics Say It’s a Trojan Horse
Critics like William Kirk and Nicholas Rogers argue that this bill is less about safety and more about making gun ownership financially impossible. Rogers called it a “gatekeeping device,” saying, “If you don’t have that insurance, you can’t own a gun. Not that you can’t buy one – you can’t even own one.” He pointed out that adding this to other laws like permit-to-purchase schemes could create thousands of dollars in costs and months of delay, all before a person can legally exercise a constitutional right.
Economic Discrimination Hidden in Plain Sight
One of the more overlooked aspects is how this could disproportionately hurt working-class Americans. Let’s be honest – how many people can afford to shell out $1 million in insurance coverage just to keep their home defense weapon? As Kirk noted, this tactic is “a solution looking for a problem.” It sets up a financial barrier that many can’t afford, especially in cities where gun ownership is already hard to navigate. This could become a form of economic discrimination that punishes the poor.
Insurance as a Tool for Behavior Control
The bill’s supporters also suggest that mandatory insurance might encourage safer behavior among gun owners. Some experts say insurance companies could play a role in shaping people’s actions. But again, it’s unclear how this would work when most insurance companies don’t even offer the coverage lawmakers are demanding. As the video from Big Timber Lodge points out, criminals aren’t getting insurance. Only law-abiding people will face this burden, and they’re already not the problem.
This Sets a Dangerous Precedent
Here’s what I think: requiring an insurance policy most people can’t get, at a price most people can’t afford, for a risk they may never face, just to keep a right that’s already guaranteed, is a slippery slope. This isn’t about preventing crime. This is about creating hurdles, making things harder until people give up and walk away from their Second Amendment rights. It’s not direct confiscation, but it’s something worse – it’s slow erosion.
The Real Endgame Might Be Disarmament
At the end of the day, what makes S5974 so dangerous isn’t just its wording – it’s its intent. As Kirk said, “This is a law that’s really just designed to throw up yet another barrier… to access what is supposed to be an inalienable right.” If it passes, expect other states to follow. If it fails, expect it to come back next year, just like it has every year since 2013. Either way, it’s clear the battle over civilian gun rights is moving into the realm of insurance, and that should concern every American who values their freedom.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.