Mandatory Liability Insurance for Gun Owners in the United States

New York law would mandate gun liability insurance coverage. A bill introduced in the New York Senate would require gun owners to carry at least $1 mn in liability insurance for damages caused by negligent firearm use.

Failing to maintain this coverage would lead to immediate revocation of the gun owner’s registration, licenses, and any other rights to possess a firearm, according to Senate Bill 5974.

If a gun is lost or stolen, the policyholder remains legally responsible until the incident is reported to law enforcement.

The law, if enacted, would not apply to police officers or active-duty military personnel, as defined by state law. Efforts to obtain comments from Sen. Kevin Parker, a Democrat representing District 21 who sponsored the bill, were unsuccessful.

In response to the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence, the federal, state, and local governments have searched for creative solutions to the billion dollar per year problem of gun violence. Their hope is to address gun violence and escape the Second Amendment’s broadening protection of gun rights.

Key Highlights

• Every gun owner in New York would be required to carry liability insurance of at least $1 mn. This coverage would apply only to damages caused by negligent firearm use, not intentional acts.
• Gun owners who fail to maintain the required insurance would have their firearm registration, licenses, and other legal ownership privileges revoked immediately.
• The bill exempts active-duty military personnel and law enforcement officers, recognizing that their firearm use is already regulated under different legal frameworks and professional training requirements.
• San Jose, California, and New Jersey have both passed similar gun liability insurance mandates in 2022.
• Proponents argue that requiring insurance could reduce firearm-related violence by encouraging safer storage and handling practices. Insurance companies might incentivize responsible gun ownership through premium discounts for safety measures.
• The law is expected to face challenges from Second Amendment advocates, who may argue that the mandate places unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership.
• The introduction of this bill aligns with ongoing efforts by various states and local governments to impose financial responsibility on gun owners. While no federal law currently mandates firearm liability insurance, the issue continues to be debated in legislative and legal circles.

One solution pops up frequently—require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. Until recently, no mandate had been enacted. In 2022, San Jose, California, and New Jersey passed laws requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance.

Insurance Mandates and Gun Regulation

Will requiring insurance for gun owners reduce firearm-related violence and economic costs, or will it be struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on Second Amendment rights?

Over the past 15 years, Supreme Court rulings have forced state and local governments to explore new ways to address gun violence. Some have proposed liability insurance mandates, both at the state level and in Congress.

Until recently, no such measures had been enacted. In early 2022, San Jose, California, became the first city to pass a law requiring all gun owners to carry insurance covering gun-related injuries.

Later that year, New Jersey enacted legislation mandating that anyone carrying a handgun in public obtain liability coverage. Both laws received widespread media coverage.

Insurance is often used to regulate behavior, not just to distribute financial risk. Some experts argue that insurers may be more effective than governments in shaping behavior.

Supporters believe liability insurance mandates will influence gun owners’ actions and reduce violence.

Economists Jason Abaluck and Ian Ayres argue that mandatory gun insurance would create financial incentives worth hundreds of billions of dollars for insurers to find ways to reduce firearm-related violence.

San Jose’s former mayor stated that shifting financial responsibility from taxpayers and victims to gun owners was a primary goal of the city’s mandate. However, critics argue that requiring insurance will do little to reduce violence or lessen the financial burden on the government.

Gun regulation in the U.S. has remained highly contentious. Many states have looked for alternative solutions, including mandatory liability insurance.

The idea gained traction in 2022 when San Jose and New Jersey passed the first laws requiring such coverage. These mandates have drawn attention from legislators, city officials, and academics.

Legislative Efforts and Challenges

Mandatory insurance proposals for firearm owners have been introduced in several states. In 2009, an Illinois lawmaker proposed requiring anyone with a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card to carry at least $1 mn in liability coverage for damages caused by negligent or willful firearm use.

More recently, Illinois legislators sought to amend the state’s insurance code to prohibit excess insurers from covering legal expenses related to firearm-related criminal charges.

The proposal also included a $1 mn minimum coverage requirement for accidental gun-related injuries. Neither bill passed.

By early 2013, at least six states had introduced insurance requirements for gun owners. In every New York State Senate session since 2013, Sen. Kevin Parker has proposed requiring firearm owners to carry at least $1 mn in liability insurance.

The 2013–2014 version of the bill covered both negligent and intentional firearm use. Later versions maintained this requirement until 2019, when Parker’s proposal removed the willful act coverage. Since then, each proposal has limited the requirement to negligent firearm use.

With recent shifts in Second Amendment legal interpretations, two insurance mandates have now been enacted. Whether they withstand legal challenges or inspire further legislation remains uncertain.

After the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment protects the right—albeit not an unlimited one—to bear arms, an overwhelming majority of circuit courts settled on a two-step framework to adjudicate cases challenging firearm regulations.

This framework directed courts to determine:

• whether a regulation burdens a right protected by the Second Amendment and, if so
• whether the government’s interests justify the methods used to regulate—an inquiry known as means-end scrutiny.

However, some scholars questioned whether means-end scrutiny adhered to Heller’s articulation of the Second Amendment right.

Gun Liability Insurance Ordinances

The idea of mandating gun liability insurance has circulated among scholars, commentators, federal and state legislators, and advocacy groups since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. Despite these efforts, gun liability insurance mandates initially failed to gain widespread legislative support.

San Jose’s enacted mandate pushed other jurisdictions to consider similar measures—particularly given legislatures’ desire to enact regulations that would withstand Bruen scrutiny.

However, uncertainty remains regarding the proper way to implement gun liability insurance mandates, as exemplified by the San Jose and New Jersey laws.

The San Jose ordinance did not impose additional burdens on most gun owners. Gun owners could satisfy the mandate by holding a homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy that covers accidental firearm-related death, injury, or property damage—something already covered by most policies.

Under the original terms of the ordinance, those who fail to comply are subject to fines and impoundment of their weapons; however, San Jose has admitted that it does not have the authority under state or federal law to impound weapons.

New Jersey included its insurance mandate within a larger package of gun regulations designed to survive Bruen scrutiny—likely after seeing San Jose’s mandate upheld in federal court.

Instead of mirroring San Jose’s mandate, however, the New Jersey mandate differs in ways that make it (at least facially) more burdensome.

New Jersey’s mandate is not a stand-alone mandate, but rather a requirement to receive a gun permit. Further, the New Jersey statute requires a coverage limit of at least $300,000 and does not expressly recognize homeowner’s or renter’s insurance as sufficient.

Opponents of the mandate have also noted that the mandate is not limited to accidental discharge. Violating the mandate is a criminal offense punishable by prison, fines, and revocation of carry permit.

Gun violence is a persistent problem in the United States, one that requires bold, innovative solutions. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that the right to bear arms could be reasonably regulated.

Yet in Bruen, the Court created a test that unduly restricts governments’ ability to reasonably regulate guns by implementing novel solutions that can both support Second Amendment rights and address the scourge of gun violence across the country.

The Court reasoned that its historical analysis test allows governments to enact novel solutions, so long as they are supported by historical analogues. While perhaps facially accurate, the uncertainty in the Court’s test and the assumptions courts must make when adjudicating these cases, as seen through the insurance mandate decisions, nonetheless limit options for novel solutions.

FAQ