No license to carry shall be issued pursuant to this section unless and until the applicant for the license or for the renewal of an existing license presents to the licensing authority a complete list of every handgun owned by the applicant along with a certificate of insurance verifying that the applicant has a valid insurance policy insuring against any harm or damage that might arise out of the use of each weapon on said list. The applicant shall swear under the penalties of perjury that said list is a complete list of all handguns owned by the applicant. The insurance policy shall be in an amount of at least $250,000 and shall list the specific weapons covered by the policy.
Generally insurance is necessary to ensure that in case of an unexpected incident "society" does not have to bear the costs associated with the incident. Life insurance takes care of an individual's loved ones when he or she dies, health insurance helps take care of costs when a person is ill, car insurance covers costs in case of an accident. Having this insurance ensures that the burden of cost is not borne by others and that's fine; but how would having firearm insurance to protect against "harm or damage" fit into this category?
Is there such an overwhelming number of cases in Massachusetts in which people are being harmed by handguns and the people are bearing the burden of cost, that the Legislature must step in and propose a law requiring handgun owners to carry special insurance?
Let's not mince words here. Let's just call this what it is. Bullshit. It's another desperate attempt by a politician with an obvious agenda, to subvert the people's right to carry firearms. Some of you might be asking why this is so important to someone who doesn't live in Massachusetts. Good question which I will answer with one simple word: Precedence.