In firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for licenses, providing for liability insurance and further providing for sale or transfer of firearms.
SB 209 would add a firearm liability insurance requirement to Pennsylvania law for people seeking a license to carry a firearm and, more broadly, for individuals possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, selling, or transferring firearms covered by the bill. The measure amends the licensing statute so that a carry license could be issued only if the applicant passes the existing background and eligibility checks and also provides proof of qualifying firearm liability insurance. The bill also creates a new section requiring insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 for injury or property damage arising from negligent or willful firearm use, with the policy not covering unlawful acts.
The bill further requires insured individuals to notify the Pennsylvania State Police and their county licensing authority about coverage and any cancellation or termination. It directs gun owners to carry an insurance identification certificate with the firearm and license, and authorizes law enforcement to confiscate a firearm if proof of insurance is not produced on demand. If insurance is not later shown within 10 days, the county licensing authority must revoke the carry license. The bill also imposes a $50 reissuance fee after revocation and sets escalating penalties for failing to maintain required insurance, including fines and misdemeanor charges for repeated violations. It also requires out-of-state concealed carry permit holders present in Pennsylvania to obtain the required insurance within 30 days.
SB 209 would also change firearm sales law by requiring licensed dealers, manufacturers, and importers to inspect proof of liability insurance before selling or transferring a firearm to a non-licensee. The bill would therefore add a new condition to both carrying and purchasing firearms, and it would create new administrative duties for insurers, law enforcement, county licensing authorities, and the Pennsylvania State Police. The act would take effect 180 days after enactment.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate or roll-call sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a gun-safety and accountability approach, but the absence of discussion or voting history means support and opposition cannot be measured from the record provided. The principal policy contention inherent in the bill is likely whether requiring firearm insurance is a permissible and effective public-safety measure or an undue burden on lawful gun ownership and carry rights.
SB 209 would amend Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding a new firearm liability insurance requirement, tightening the conditions for issuance and retention of a license to carry a firearm, and adding a new prerequisite for firearm sales and transfers by licensed dealers, manufacturers, and importers. It would also create new duties for the Pennsylvania State Police, county licensing authorities, insurers, law enforcement officers, and firearm owners, including proof-of-insurance reporting, confiscation procedures, license revocation, reissuance fees, and penalties for noncompliance.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or floor action. From the bill’s structure, the measure is clearly framed as a firearm regulation and public-safety proposal, which suggests likely support from gun-control advocates and likely opposition from gun-rights advocates, but that inference is not based on any supplied testimony or vote record.
The main point of contention is the bill’s requirement that firearm owners obtain and maintain at least $1,000,000 in liability insurance and carry proof of coverage with the firearm. Supporters would likely view this as a way to promote accountability and ensure compensation for injuries or property damage, while opponents would likely argue it creates a financial and administrative barrier to exercising firearm rights. Additional likely disputes include the confiscation-and-revocation process for failure to produce proof of insurance, the application to out-of-state concealed carry permit holders, and the requirement that proof of insurance be checked during firearm sales and transfers.