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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    335 months ago

    I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:

    1. make the customers pay exorbitant prices
    2. require background checks and do the control themselves

    Any of those will of course disincentivize people from owning guns, which is a good thing, but it’s crazy that a state has to offload these controls to a private company because there is no political willingness to do it in the right way.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          35 months ago

          Is that a fixed range, or will the cost just go up for the folk that some corporation thinks shouldn’t carry a gun?

          The government should just do it’s fucking job and provide the insurance and background check. Its a bad move to relegate this to private parties. Atleast with the government the people can vote who is in power.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            So you guys don’t have universal healthcare but it makes sense for the taxpayers to subsidise insurance and background checks so everyone can carry a gun and be happy, and sobthe the poor are not left out from this inalienable right that is carrying a gun in public like in the western movies?

      • @Shiggles
        link
        -35 months ago

        It’s okay, Billy McFucksHisSister was kinda outgunned by “the gubmint’s” F-35s already I don’t think his walmart glock was anything the rich ever feared.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          65 months ago

          I’d to ask what should then we do in case of a dictatorship, for example? Just lay down and fear the F-35s?

          Yes, even if everyone has a wallmat glock we’d outgunned by a mile by let’s say the military, but also you can’t just bomb and kill the shit out of your labor and infrastructure — I mean, you can, also you can bomb and kill enough to get them to submit, but that is just not something you can just keep doing indefinetly. It is also very hard to maintain a economy going with a big insurrection going and there is were guns bring a point, they give you at least a figthing chance, way better than nothing.

          I’d also like to point out the ad hominem of calling the hypotetical gun owner a “McFucksHisSister” it brings nothing of value to the conversation.

          I also do not belive carrying a gun around is something needed -by almost anyone- but ownership is important.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            Also important to note is that the military is not some faceless automaton that does whatever they’re told. It’s very hard to justify killing the family and townspeople and neighbours of the people that you send to commit the killing. If we get to a state where it isn’t hard, we’re already lost as a people.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              35 months ago

              I’d like to agree with you, but given the experiences and horrors carried out by the military in my country (not the USA) I just can’t. I guess I agree with your last sentence, and I really hope you guys (whoever is reading) do better than us.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              25 months ago

              Don’t know about the US, but in most places the military wouldn’t send you tonserve or even less fight to, say, Shithole, Alabama if you are from there. Of course you wouldn’t shoot your uncle or brother. They figured this out centuries ago, before firearms.

    • @Willy
      link
      English
      45 months ago

      what is the right way? carrying was almost impossible in MD before the Supreme Court ruling.

    • @ryathal
      link
      35 months ago

      They are using the anti-abortion strategy of finding a fairly strong argument and trying to maximize the ability of blocking something based on it. This will likely also fail like most of those attempts did.