Firearm Liability Insurance

Colorado is on the verge of enacting legislation that would require firearms owners to carry liability insurance for anyone injured on the property of the insured. And, the bill requires firearms owners to show proof of insurance if asked by law enforcement. Here’s a link to the bill:

D:\dist\text\1270_01.txt (

Does anyone know whether USCCA insurance would satisfy these requirements?


No. No, your USCCA member benefit is Self Defense insurance only. The only liability portion is the Civil Suit payout component if you get sued because of your self defense incident. This seems like a broader ask of Colorado in case anyone gets hurt because of you/your firearms. I’m sure there is a smartly dressed insurance company lobbyist behind it and a plan to make it so expensive that no one will be able to comply. This will end up in court for sure.


Not an answer, but this appears to be yet another attempt to infringe on your rights by means of financial and inconvenience measures.


It is. A completely coordinated effort to add extra burden to the right to bear arms so as to make it a privilege for the elites.


Looks like another form of gun control masquerading as something else, to me


And yet, we can’t even ask people to prove they’re who they say they are in order to vote, because that’s infringing on their right to vote. Seems a little like a double standard I’d say.

I’d also say that false voting is a lot more dangerous to society than an armed population, but my opinion doesn’t count.


Not to the Colorado General Assembly. In Colorado, there are 35 Senators and 65 Representatives. 23 of the Senators are Democrats, and 46 of the Representatives are Democrats. While as little as 10 years ago, the majority of registered voters were Republicans, the Republican party has dwindled to virtually “also ran” status, focused on purging the party of Rinos, Trump and social issues. The price of that dysfunction is a loss of fundamental rights.


This appears that it’s an additional coverage requirement to the homeowner/renter home insurance policy, BUT what about a home break-in by a burglar with intention to do bodily harm/injury/death to the homeowner and the ending result is inflicted upon the burglar, does the insurance cover this criminal? Is the homeowner covered/protected from any ramifications in the results of stopping the criminal? There’s alot more questions to be asked for the enforcement of this (infringement) firearm liability insurance. Criminals choose lifetime self employment in the criminal world. Why don’t Legislators push mandatory Bills for CRMINALS to carry mandatory liability insurance for the dangerous line of work they do to make sure their policy not only protects them, but also protects the victims, and any other damages. Throw that :poop: into Legislator’s faces since they think they know it all. Criminals carry (ILLEGALLY) firearms in THEIR LINE OF WORK! LET’S LEGISLATE THIS!!!


Punishment for owning a gun

What’s that quote again,

Liberty is when the government’s afraid of you
but tyranny exists when one’s afraid of the government.


@BeanCounter If Bills like these succeed, and homeowners with firearms have to add this coverage, then next, Legislators will be pushing a Bill for firearm liability insurance on auto insurance if one carries a firearm when they’re out and about in their vehicles. :thinking: All this is, is another added angle of gun control (infringement on 2A) to inflict on gunowners to make it more expensive for citizens to discourage them. Make extra expenses to have firearms, or just not own any. Oh YEAH!! :fu: :smirk:


We’re already paying extra for uninsured drivers.

Are we going to pay some more for uninsured unlicensed conceal-carrying criminals?


@BeanCounter THAT’S THEIR PLAN!!! If we keep fighting for our rights, THEY will keep infringing on our rights and will continue to throw whatever :poop: (BILLS) that will stick to the wall.


That’s the political reality of Colorado. Gun owners get to watch what gets enacted.

1 Like

The intent of the 2A, in my opinion, was to preserve the ability of the governed to resist a tyranical government. It wasn’t about self-defense from criminals or hunting. We’re on a political path to see whether the governed accept the restrictions on this individual right.


Nah, it was all about hunting. Who needs an AR-15 with 30 round mag?

/s :arrow_left: is for Dee-7 so that there’s no misunderstanding

1 Like

Just checked and my homeowner’s insurance here in Colorado would cover the unintentional discharge scenario. That said, California has a similar proposed law that requires the insurance firms to report who has the coverage required by the bill, so a backdoor way to find a weapon. That said, over 45% of Colorado homes have firearms, something I hope will be pointed out to the bill’s sponsors.

A little off this particular question but how do we get the USCCA involved in proposed Colorado legislation like they are in California???


I have no idea, but USCCA’s involvement would be helpful.


Workaround for a gun registry is all.


Yep. That’s smell is an end-around to a firearm registration list masquerading as a safety program. Of course it only applies to law-abiding gun owners and ALL their guns.

Alas, criminals are exclusively exempt by the nature of this sleazy bill.

There’s an election upcoming. Don’t forget who introduced this un-American tripe when voting.


I agree, but usually the trolls come out and attack me and other who suggest voting. You know, it’s hopeless and better to wait for a miracle to save us from the anti-gunners. Couch potatoe patriots.