Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry | WBFF
foxbaltimore.com
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.

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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    2·
    11 months ago

    See, the funny thing is that I know that there have been a grand total of two bear attacks in Maryland’s entire history, both non-fatal, 46 fatal bear attacks total in the U.S. in the last 10 years. I also know that no one in Dallas has been killed by a rattlesnake.

    Reasoning that guns need to be legal in Baltimore because of two non-fatal bear attacks in the state’s entire history is ludicrous reasoning.

    If you think that guns should be legal, come up with a better argument than ‘defense from something that almost never happens.’

    I mean how about defense from people? Why did you have to go with something ludicrous like mountain lions? You really can’t come up with a non-ridiculous scenario where a gun might be needed in a city?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        2·
        11 months ago

        It’s up to me to determine that your reasoning for legal guns is silly and cowardly and there are dozens and dozens of better reasons for legal guns which are neither silly nor cowardly.

        Why you literally didn’t go with ‘home self-defense from intruders’ when that actually happens to people I don’t know. Instead you go with ‘I need an AR to protect myself from rattlesnakes’ which, granted, has given me a good laugh this morning, but it’s the worst reason I have ever heard anyone make for legal guns.

        Honestly, I’m starting to think you’re some sort of troll account for someone who is actually against legal guns.