Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.

Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.

"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.

  • vithigar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    a $300k golden stamp

    $300k of liability insurance does not cost $300k. That’s literally the point of insurance.

    • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That should be part of a citizenship test. If you fail, you should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Or vote.

    • scoobford@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I picked an arbitrary number, which happened to match the article. I am aware $300k insurance doesn’t cost $300k.

      • Pogbom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Your case is for reasonable vs unreasonable expenses though. When someone can afford thousands for a gun and many other recurring expenses, a $50-100/month policy is completely reasonable. At the very least, it doesn’t separate gun ownership into different wealth classes.

        • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          $600 /year fee

          “completely reasonable”

          Please put down the internet and bring that talk to some poors, I guarantee that you’ll get laughed at openly

          • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            They probably can review their budget and decide owning a gun is not that important, along with cancelling Netflix? Is that such a big deal?

            • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The point is that as presently interpreted, gun ownership is an individual right that like the rest of the bill of rights, subjects any restriction against that right to ‘strict scrutiny’. Just like free speech or voting. The government cannot charge a fee to vote or hold a college debate, this also is well settled case law.

              • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Can’t believe I’m arguing laws on lemmy, I’m neither a lawyer nor American nor i really know much on the subject, shooting in the dark… Is gun ownership of “bearing arms” that is an individual right tho?

                Can’t afford to insure an f-16 doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to own one or that the government is restricting me.

                If you can’t afford insurance on a gun you can always excercise your god given rights with a different weapon, leave the house with a knife, a stick or a fork and use them to defend your township

                • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yes, the courts have throughout history ruled 2A as an individual right.

                  An F-16 is absolutely unaffordable, but that’s not because the government added a tax. Flying lessons and pilots license are required for all flying, and flying is not an individual right.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think you are both massively overestimating how expensive gun ownership is, and underestimating how narrow many people’s finances are.

          Guns start under $200. $500 or $600 will get you most whatever you want used or from a budget brand.

          And there is a noteworthy segment of the population that could not afford $100 every month. Probably not enough for the supreme court to care, but enough to be a troubling precedent.