Congresswoman receives death threats over gun bill
April 3rd, 2013
12:40 PM ET
2 years ago

Congresswoman receives death threats over gun bill

(CNN) - Death threats have been called into the office of a Democratic congresswoman after she proposed legislation requiring gun owners obtain liability insurance.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said in a statement the calls were received in her New York office Tuesday "by young interns, who were understandably shaken by this experience."

"Given all the acts of gun violence we have seen in the past two years, the shootings in Aurora and Newtown, the attack on my friend and colleague Gabby Gifford, I take the threat of more gun violence very seriously. But it is not something that I will allow to stop me from doing my work," Maloney continued, adding that members of law enforcement were investigating the calls.

The New York Democrat introduced a bill in March requiring Americans to obtain liability insurance before purchasing firearms. A fine of $10,000 would be charged if gun owners do not purchase the required coverage. Maloney's bill exempts military service members and law enforcement officers.

"I am proud of my work to help curb gun violence," Maloney wrote Wednesday. "I strongly support the comprehensive package of gun reforms proposed by the Obama Administration and I have authored two common sense pieces of legislation aimed at keeping our communities safer."

CNN's Alan Silverleib and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.


Filed under: Carolyn Maloney
soundoff (47 Responses)
  1. Guest

    John In Brooklyn – our prisons are full of your left wing peaceful, non-violent types.

    You liberals want insurance requirements? I suggest laws that require free speech insurance just in case your comments may offend someone, which they usually do! And then we could also have social media insurance, big soda insurance, the list goes on and on....lets just call it the stupid list or the democrat list....

    April 3, 2013 01:50 pm at 1:50 pm |
  2. Scott

    Malory Archer

    We need to reapeatedly remind people like Scott that all guns and close range weapons of mass destruction were originally purchased by "responsible" "good guys", yet so many of them ended up in the hands of the "bad guys" and mentally ill people. If the "good guys" were really "responsible", those guns wouldn't have ended up in the hands of "bad guys" and the mentally ill, so yeah, they should have to purchase liability insurance.
    _______________________________________________
    The resaon they end up in the hands of bad guys is because our goverment does not crack down on illegal gun runners, that is where the majority of guns come from, out of the Black Market, very few come from responsible gun owners. The ones that do are stolen or taken by force. You need to do your research Mallory. If the Goverment would enforce laws on the books we would not be having this discussion. For the record I do support universal back ground checks on all guns purchased, and no I am not a member of the NRA. I am just a law abiding citzen that own guns for hunting and protection.

    April 3, 2013 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  3. Peoples State of Illinois

    "There is no reason for a civilian to have a 100 round drum, a 32 round magazine or an assault rifle. Period!"
    --------------------–
    Yes there is,,,,I want them.

    April 3, 2013 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  4. ST

    Everything you value, you insure it. If guns are valuables, why not insure them?

    April 3, 2013 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  5. Malory Archer

    82ndABNVET

    Owning a car is not covered under the Bill of Rights. Owning a computer is also not covered.

    But, owning a gun is.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What is it about "a well-regulated militia" that is so hard to grasp? Requiring insurance for firearms is a very reasonable "regulation".

    April 3, 2013 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  6. Rudy NYC

    MADINTEXAS

    rs -– You need to be careful of your accusations. I agree the NRA is harsh and takes a sometimes unrespectable stance on gun control issues, but you need to look a little deeper. Go through all of the reasons we are looking at gun control – every high profile case is centered around politically liberal persons.
    --------------------
    Many, if not most, of the mass murders that have occurred have occurred in population centers with a deeply embedded gun culture. Newtown, CT is home to the national headquarters of a national gun group. Arizona has some of the most gun owner friendly laws in the land. Colorado has a long been a popular destination for hunters. Texas speaks for itself.

    Not every high profile case is "centered around politically liberal persons". How can you call them liberals when they've never voted a day in their lives?

    April 3, 2013 01:57 pm at 1:57 pm |
  7. Malory Archer

    Scott

    The resaon they end up in the hands of bad guys is because our goverment does not crack down on illegal gun runners, that is where the majority of guns come from, out of the Black Market, very few come from responsible gun owners.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    They were purchased LEGALLY then turned over to so-called "gun runners". Or stolen from people who aren't "responsible" enough to secure them properly. EOD.

    April 3, 2013 01:57 pm at 1:57 pm |
  8. rs

    MADINTEXAS

    rs -– You need to be careful of your accusations. I agree the NRA is harsh and takes a sometimes unrespectable stance on gun control issues, but you need to look a little deeper. Go through all of the reasons we are looking at gun control – every high profile case is centered around politically liberal persons. I would be willing to bet that these phone call threats, although not endorsed by the liberal powers in the government, are being conducted by some other derainged liberal thinking individual. The NRA is not going to publicly place threats – their threats are the livelihood of career politicians when they force them out of office.
    _________________________
    The NRA de facto supports arming of criminals, terrorists and crazy people. Period. By obstructing (through their GOP "approved" candidates) common sense actions – like requiring people buying guns to undergo background checks, or spreading unsubstantiated fear that "the government is going to take YOUR guns", the NRA is in effect spreading disinformation and fear, while promoting the silliest of ideas around guns, and gun ownership.
    These actions have real consequences. People die. 3,500 since the Newtown Masacre.These are undeniable facts- and this is what the NRA promotes, and expects Americans to live with.

    If your local street thug began killing people at that rate, or if there was a medicine with that side effect, or a consumer product killed that many people in so short a period of time, you would have a huge call for action, and a very swift result.

    As to who is making the threats, we'll see. But as long as the NRA's solutions to gun violence is more guns, and their hypothetical "good guy with a gun", they aren't helping, and in fact they make the problem worse.

    April 3, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  9. WouldYouLookAtThat

    Peoples State of Illinois

    "There is no reason for a civilian to have a 100 round drum, a 32 round magazine or an assault rifle. Period!"
    ------------------------------------------------

    Do not speak on behalf of me, an IL resident.

    April 3, 2013 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  10. Peoples State of Illinois

    Malory Archer

    82ndABNVET

    Owning a car is not covered under the Bill of Rights. Owning a computer is also not covered.

    But, owning a gun is.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What is it about "a well-regulated militia" that is so hard to grasp? Requiring insurance for firearms is a very reasonable "regulation".
    -----------------------------------
    Re-read the second amendment. Check where the comma is. A well regulated militia, and the right to bear arms, are two separate things.

    April 3, 2013 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  11. Peoples State of Illinois

    @WouldYouLookAtThat

    Peoples State of Illinois

    "There is no reason for a civilian to have a 100 round drum, a 32 round magazine or an assault rifle. Period!"
    ----------------

    Do not speak on behalf of me, an IL resident.
    ------------------------–
    Yes, yes, we must all listen only to the "Obama Ministry of Truth."

    April 3, 2013 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  12. just sayin

    We should also require Alcohol Insurance and Marijuana Insurance for users of these dangerous substances. They kill and maim tens of thousands every year while under the influence. Before purchase of them, yo ushould have to produce proff of insurance.

    April 3, 2013 02:15 pm at 2:15 pm |
  13. Ed1

    Death threats wow this must be a first.

    Again the problem people trying to make owning guns almost impossible with insurance, wanting to tax higher to buy, not even knowing what they are talking about, and still today calling for an assault weapons ban you can't buy an assault weapon now unless it's in the black market.

    Nobody should use death threats but everyone has the right to bear arms if the laws we have now would be enforced this would take guns out of the people that should not have them now.

    Obama and the Democrats should stop using statics that are over 40 years old too.

    April 3, 2013 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  14. Rudy NYC

    Scott

    The resaon they end up in the hands of bad guys is because our goverment does not crack down on illegal gun runners, that is where the majority of guns come from, out of the Black Market, very few come from responsible gun owners.
    ---------------–
    The main reason the federal governmetn does not crack down on "illegal gun runners" is because they are no federal laws against gun trafficking. The right wing has successfully fought such laws at the federal level, insisting that it is states rights issue.

    Federal agents in "False and Frivilous" were acting in association with local AZ prosecutors, and were subject to AZ laws. And, no AZ laws were broken. It is not unlawful in Arizona to purchase dozens of weapons and sell them to guy waiting outside in the parking lot. The sworn statement Arizona makes you sign attesting that the purchase is for your "personal use" has a loophole that allows you give the gun away as a gift. The law doesn't contain a time limit, either. You have the right to change your mind seconds after sign the statement.

    April 3, 2013 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  15. 82nd ABN VET

    @Malory Archer

    What is it about "a well-regulated militia" that is so hard to grasp? Requiring insurance for firearms is a very reasonable "regulation".

    *****************************************************************************************

    There are already 20,000 regulations regarding guns in America. Some people might think that is more than enough regulations, considering that most of those are not even enforced to this day.

    Again. Owning a car (registration & taxes & insurance) and owning a house (taxes & insurance) are not specifically protected in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution). The right to bear arms, however is.

    Unless you would also consider registering, taxing, and securing insurance for your home computer or your cell phone against anything offensive you may say or someone else may say on those devices.............

    There are a plethora of laws on the books "regulating" the 2nd Amendment. I cannot just go buy a fully automatic weapon and carry it around with me everywhere I go. There are MANY steps and regulations limiting access to such weapons.

    If you or anyone else is against guns, you can move to NY, CA, Chicago or any other state where they loath such inanimate objects. Then you wouldnt have to worry about them. Oh, wait......... the criminals have them. Thats right.

    Unlike the gun grabbers, I am not trying to force you to do something you do not believe is right. You would have all AR-15's and possibly all guns banned. I however would like you to have the choice of having one or not. If you dont want one, thats cool, you dont have to have one.

    How are you capable of telling me or any other person what they should or should not do, or own? I know for sure, that I am not in a position to tell you what you should and should not do with your life.

    I am not going to tell a wife, that is alone due to her husband traveling for work that she cannot own an AR-15 (they are semi-light, low recoiling, accurate, and can hold more than 10 rounds incase you miss) to defend herself and/or her kids. How can I make that decsision for her? I cant. Nor should you or any other gun grabber.

    But, until we start making people carry insurance on thier personal electronics, we should worry about other pressing issues in this country.

    April 3, 2013 02:26 pm at 2:26 pm |
  16. Pete

    If it were up to the NRA they'd line everyone up and hand them a gun,like it or not..They stepped in giving contributions to George Zimmermans legal defense fund because of this Stand Your Ground law inacted in Florida a deal made between Jeb Bush and the NRA for political contributions..So quit being so ignorent you republican posters here and yes as a registered gun owner and concealed permit holder of multiple weapons from Glocks to DPMS sniper rifles I too think a clip should be held to a limited size or make it a registered part as the weapon itself it serves..There's no reason that someone needs a 100 round drum or a 30 round clip because if you need that many rounds to put something down you need to practice more ,quit because its expensive or get a scope to help you see better,got it!!Most of you couldn't breakdown or fix a weapon in the field if your lives depended on it so quit being Rambos and let the responsible people in this discussion tell you uninformed ones where to go and believe me you definitly don't want to go there either!!And remember republicans its not only democrates that are for more strengent gun legislation,just read up who's for it you'd be surprised...

    April 3, 2013 02:27 pm at 2:27 pm |
  17. Rudy NYC

    People's State of Illinois wrote:

    Re-read the second amendment. Check where the comma is. A well regulated militia, and the right to bear arms, are two separate things.
    -------------–
    Try reading Pres. Washington's State of the Union address. which was delivered a several months before Bill of Rights Amendments were passed. He had called on the Congress to pass legislation to enable for the creation of a "well regulated militia" for the nation's defense.

    During those times, the term was understood to mean "well trained" and 'well behaved". The 2nd Amendment establishes the rights of citizens to participate in the nation's defense, instead of being prohibited and under the thumbs of bands of hired mercenaries. The 2nd is followed by the 3rd and 4th, which sets some limits on the behaviors and actions of the national militia.

    The right wing's interpretation that the 2nd Amendment is their guarantee of the right to rebel against the government is pure and complete nonsense.

    April 3, 2013 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  18. Randy, San Francisco

    Just one more reason to repeal the Second Amendment. Regulate and license the ownership and use of guns. Most civilized and modern democratic countries have strict gun control laws and low crime rates.

    April 3, 2013 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  19. Wilson

    @Randy, San Francisco

    Just one more reason to repeal the Second Amendment. Regulate and license the ownership and use of guns. Most civilized and modern democratic countries have strict gun control laws and low crime rates.
    -------------------------–
    Then next, the 1st will be repealed and you will no longer be able to disagree with the government's "Ministry of Truth."

    April 3, 2013 02:53 pm at 2:53 pm |
  20. RWB1956

    I just have to laugh at these people who keep saying the government wants to take my guns away. Why? And for what reason and why now? Most of you people who are against any laws about gun control don't sound like very responsible gun owners. You sound as if you have anger management problems. I'm sure the fellow who killed his son while cleaning his loaded gun was responsible too. But for the sane people, here's a laugh: 5 people shot at three different gun shows on "Gun Appreciation Day". Truly responsible gun owners!

    April 3, 2013 02:56 pm at 2:56 pm |
  21. CA Liberal

    Well you know I have to buy liability insurance for my car which isn't very much more dangerous than a gun. I would think that if you haven't shot anybody lately then your premiums should be pretty low.

    April 3, 2013 02:57 pm at 2:57 pm |
  22. Steve

    Reading through some of the posts above, I see the common arguments are continued. "We have a 2nd Amendment Right", "How are we to protect ourselves?" "The criminals have guns and won't abide by any new laws". Can we please stop this? This isn't logical or intellectual debate, it is simply someone who wants to own a gun and have no responsibility tied to it. If you go through each of the first 10 Amendments, you can find a caveat where it doesn't hold true. Freedom of speech does not save you from slander. Illegal searches aren't a concern if you are pulled over for a DUI. The Patriot Act did away with needing warrants. It's time gun advocates realize that with rights come responsibilities. Prior to owning a weapon, you should need to go through a background check. You should have to register your weapon. You should carry insurance on your weapon. And most of all, you should be responsible for your weapon and those that it potentially harms. Since when does someone's right to own a weapon trample every other person's right to live free without fear of another shooting them? And lastly, as for the one about the criminals – guess what? That's why laws are created. To determine what is legal and what is criminal.

    April 3, 2013 03:01 pm at 3:01 pm |
1 2