Below The Radar – HR 1004 Require Liability Insurance Coverage to Purchase Firearms

Second Amendment Activist Protest Activism Take Action
Second Amendment Activist Protest Activism Take Action

Washington DC – -( When we discussed financial de-platforming, we noted that for the firearms industry – in fact, even for those who want to buy firearms – access to financial services, including banking is a must. If access to those services are denied, say through a re-started Operation Choke Point, then the Second Amendment becomes a dead letter.

But now, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) wants to require people to show proof of insurance to be able to buy a firearm. She introduced HR 1004 with one co-sponsor, Representative Andre Carson (D-IN). While text of this bill is not available as of this writing, Representative Maloney has introduced this bill in the 116th and 115th Congresses as the Firearm Risk Protection Act.

The text of the legislation as introduced in the 115th Congress states that it is unlawful to buy a firearm without a “qualified liability insurance policy” and that it is also illegal to sell to someone without said “qualified liability insurance policy.” Now, the definition the text provides is vague, beyond saying that the policy should provide “liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

It is not an overstatement to say that Second Amendment supporters can figure out just what sorts of mischief can take place. Operation Choke Point is just the start. Given the constant social stigmatization surrounding not just the exercise of Second Amendment rights, but against those who use the First Amendment to advocate in defense of our Second Amendment rights, some insurance agents may not want the business at all. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurance companies won’t engage in a form of “redlining” against certain firearms.

Even if those things don’t happen, the insurance is going to be yet another monthly expense for those exercising our Second Amendment rights. Even then, there would be questions: Would a new gun require an adjustment in the policy? Would rates go up for those with larger collections? The list goes on and on.

This legislation is not intended to address any problems with the misuse of firearms – or even accidents. What it is intended to do is to make exercising Second Amendment rights such a hassle people will decide to give them up. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representatives and Senators and politely urge their opposition this legislation. Second Amendment supporters should also support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

Harold Hutchison

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave in Fairfax

Maloney is making a Catch-22. She knows that you can’t buy that kind of insurance. It’s against NY law. That’s why Carry Guard was dropped.


That’s what makes it so perfect. One cannot get the insurance required, thus buying a firearm becomes impossible. No need for a ban, only this catch 22. Meanwhile, anyone wealthy enough to post a bond of self-insurance dodges the statute easily. But only for the favored few. Those deemed ‘worthy’ of rights by the authorites. It’s the perfect wolf in sheep’s clothing.

John Dow

Carry Guard, and other similar plans, do not insure against liability – they provide for the defense of the gun owner in court. No company would, or most like eve could, sell the liability insurance required by this bill. If one has to use the gun in self defense, that’s an intentional act, which insurances won’t cover. In the end, yes, it’s another means to increase the cost and hassle of owning firearms. Like the smart gun requirements. There aren’t any viable ones, and any that do or might exist will be very high priced. What part of “shall not… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by John Dow
Dave in Fairfax

John Dow,

I understand that they are “court insurance”. I suspect that NY law would be read that any insurance for guns would be construed as liability insurance which is what James ruled the problem with Carry Guard was. It’s a question of insurance against later acts. In this case it would be what might be done with the guns.

NYS Patriot

The NRA’s “Carry Guard” was discontinued, as NY state controls if insurance companies can be licensed do business in NY, So this was why they could intimidate insurance companies not to provide this policy in NY. Heavy handed politics has been the democratic norm here for many decades. USCCA does not cover New York due to this, and few others are willing to risk it. So now the feds are going to require it? For 150 years NRA has watch NY tank. Anti-gunners now behind every tree…Hope that Texas allows them to thrive and beat them back for a change.


Firearms liability insurance is not the only field where NY regulations are overly burdensome. NY is the only state for which insurance companies set up standalone subsidiaries for any business in the state. While few companies totally exit such a large market, they are unwilling to expose the rest of their business to NY insanity. Previous study suggested that typical individual insurance rates were at least five times as high in NY as in any other state – simply due to NY regulations. Due to power imbalance and ability of companies to control contract language, insurance regulation is necessary to… Read more »


Right! No need to ban guns, just required insurance that does not exist.


There is no meaningful problem of people “negligently” using their firearms. Insurance never covers intentional misuse of firearms. This is definitely a bill to impose costs that put firearms out of reach of those who most need firearms for their own protection, those who live in poorer areas. Once again we see democrats working to harm minorities, as they are over-represented among those in poorer areas. Meanwhile, as democrats in Washington DC want to mandate insurance, democrats in the State of Washington have banned firearm insurance. I do not think this impossible contradiction is unintentional. Also, this flurry of post-election… Read more »