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.
This would go to the supreme court who would rule that restricting the right to bear arms to someone’s financial status is unconstitutional or some shit.
Well tbf “no guns for poor people” is pretty classist.
deleted by creator
It’s it more classist than no car if you can’t afford insurance, or no mortgage if you can’t afford home loan insurance (or whatever it’s called in the us) though? And where are our priorities between gun, car and roof over ones head? Are guns really THAT important to cry class injustice?
Yeah tbh I’m not a fan of those being mandatory either, though seeing as “driving cars on public roads” is a privilege that you need to be licensed for rather than a right, that one is understandable. Guns are an important priority though, you may be in a safe enough area but not all of us have that luxury or privilege.
And that’s why you want less guns going around, not more
Unfortunately there are over 600,000,000 guns in the country in 50% of civilians hands with no registry to know where they’re at and neither the legal owners nor illegal owners are willing to part with them, pandora’s box has been opened. This is among the chief reasons availability to those who haven’t proven themselves a danger is important, self defense.
Sure, keep getting more then
Thats literally the dominant thought on how to ensure world peace in the age of nukes too, have enough nukes that it keeps anyone who also has nukes at bay. If you have a better solution for the afformentioned pandoras box situation package it for nuclear arms and take it to NATO, they’d love to hear it.
No I don’t, but they are quite different problems.
World’s nations don’t have an entity governing them that can make and enforce laws. Citizens of a country do, it’s called a government. Most western governments (all except for the us) have demonstrated that guns can be controlled and it’s quite successful in making schools and mall shootings a non issue. We do have the occasional criminal carryingna gun, and so do corrupt cops but no one would consider arming themselves to 'protect my family '. It works.
Keep building more, I’m part of the “problem!”
So about the same situation as Australia used to be in before they banned guns after the massacre of the 90’s.
I mean, no, not at all. Iirc they had a registry, but for sure they had much less than 600,000,000 guns. Aus had 6.52 licensed firearm owners per 100 citizens in '97, we have 120 firearms per 100 citizens and a carry license in some states, but no ownership licensing or registry to know who/where at all. Also, fun fact, A 2003 study (Reuter and Mouzos, 2003) estimated that approximately 20 percent of Australia’s firearms were retrieved during the buyback, let’s do some math shall we? If we do the same, and ours is just as effective as theirs, 20% of 600,000,000 is 120,000,000 leaving 480,000,000 guns. Yaaay. Of course since they had a registry and less gun owners (6.2 aus vs 120 US), and they viewed firearms differently than the US where the owners refuse to give up their freedoms, their buyback was easier and we can expect it to be less effective.
My constitutional right to an AR 15 depends on my ability to pay $2,000 or whatever they cost. Not in my budget. The old bank account needs more freedoms it seems.
This is a joke, but seriously though - how is affordability an argument when guns also cost money?
Not every gun is $2,000. A Taurus is $<300
And your right to bear arms is irrespective of the cost of a gun. Inheritance, gifts, etc.
sure 2 grand is a lot of money, but dont go and tell me your car is affordable because you spent 10 grand on it.
Or that your house was worth the money, or whatever place you rent currently, or all those things that you probably pay for monthly.
It’s a one time cost, for a weapon, that if correctly maintained will last basically forever.
Reasonable vs unreasonable expense. You need to buy a gun, ammunition, and a training course? Not a problem. You need to buy a gun, ammo, and a $300k golden stamp, that’s not fine, because it is prohibitively expensive.
If this type of insurance is illegal or prohibitively expensive, then this will be struck down. If not, it might be permitted, or it might not. The supreme court is extremely conservative right now, so I suspect it would be struck down regardless.
$300k of liability insurance does not cost $300k. That’s literally the point of insurance.
That should be part of a citizenship test. If you fail, you should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Or vote.
I picked an arbitrary number, which happened to match the article. I am aware $300k insurance doesn’t cost $300k.
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.
You think 50 dollars a month isn’t a lot for poor people?
If you can afford a $300 Taurus, you can afford $600 a year to keep it insured!!!
/s
It isn’t if they want to own a tool that can accidentally and immediately end a life. The guy below you made a joke about a car and insurance, but that’s actually a great point. Just because you can find a $300 car doesn’t mean you’re absolved from getting insurance in case you crash or kill someone. And that’s a car, something that’s crucial to a lot of people’s survival. Even better argument for a gun.
Please put down the internet and bring that talk to some poors, I guarantee that you’ll get laughed at openly
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?
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.
Why are “the poors” buying expensive guns? If you’re buying a tool that can accidentally and instantly murder someone very easily, and you have no way to pay for that mistake, then gun ownership is too expensive for you.
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.
I appreciate the info because frankly I didn’t know they were that cheap. I still don’t think that absolves someone of being able to pay for an accidental injury/death caused by a tool that’s designed to do specifically that.
I could build you one for ~$350. It would function fine, just be made out of inferior parts (and make more work for me because QC), A2 furniture, all that jazz.
I don’t have Maryland® Gun Insurance™ but I do have car insurance, and a one time payment of $350 is cheaper than my car insurance by a hefty bit and I have a good driving record. Thing is, insurance payments are recurring rather than one time so it starts to build up.
So is your right to food though. No ones legally bound to give you food if you don’t make enough money. Thank goodness people do, but that’s not because of any type of law requiring them to do so. Theres nothing on the books that would make it illegal to allow people to starve. Furthermore, all rights are dependent on money because who’s going to stop violating the righrs of someone who cannot sue them?
Really?
How is affordability a concern for insulin, when it also costs money?
Obviously one is a medical necessity and the other is not. But the point carries.
Lawful users of firearms are disproportionately affected by this, compared to the murderer that’s getting their firearms illicitly.
It’s not solving a problem, it’s pushing the accessibility further away from the common man. Bit by bit.
As a non American. Why the fuck do you need access to an ar15 or whatever that was in the first place though. Normal people would think that pushing accessibility away from the common man is a fucking good thing! Are you also interested in getting your hands on chemical weapons while we are at it? do you see it as a problem when your government is trying to limit access to mustard gas or chlorine gas for the common man?
Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.
It’s a gun?
There’s nothing special about an AR-15. It’s 2023, detachable magazine and rail mounts are not some whacky new technology.
You’re incredibly uneducated about firearms, their features and effectiveness. It shows. Retards like you trying to pass legislation on something you know nothing about is how we got to where we are.
You’re afraid of a big black gun with optics and a laser. Not realizing a rifle from the early 1900’s compares reasonably well ballistically with a modern rifle. A fucking shotgun used for hunting is really just as deadly as an AR-15 in the grand scheme of things.
There’s more guns in America than people. The cats out the fucking bag. You’re never going to see reduction in ownership, it just isn’t happening.
We’re (common man) limited federally to semi automatic only. It’s been that way for ages. Only military and certain police agencies can get fully automatic firearms.
I need access because I don’t trust cops to protect me. I want to be self sufficient, I want to be able to protect myself.
You enjoy being not responsible for your own safety. I don’t.
It’s actually because of retards like you that YOU collectively are where YOU are. I’m not there with you, I live in a place where my kids don’t have to do drills at school for shootings. But sure you know better because you know something about firearms.
What I really enjoy is to live in a safe place. You are not romantically responsible for your own safety as you like to think, you are just a pathetic wannabe cowboy.
How can you realistically make the argument that someone who knows nothing about something can make a proper decision about it.
You’re fixated on AR-15’s, which is tech from the 1960’s. There’s so many comparable options it’s laughable.
What an interesting angle. I don’t know much about guns technical details, I know about banning firearms. The country I live in did it and was successful at it, you gin nuts keep hiding behind minutiae.
I’m not fixated on ar15. I mentioned it just because the guy above me did. All guns should be banned from the US, more clear now?
Also non-American here and I have indeed eyed an AR-15 once or twice. That’d be contingent on me getting a hunting license, though, and while I’d like to it’s probably something for retirement.
Why AR-15? Semi-auto, reliable, very accurate. “But it’s a weapon of war” a) no it isn’t, it just looks like one because it’s modern and b) your grandpa’s Mauser 98 is a weapon of war, it probably even was on the front!
But it’s big, black, and scary!!
>Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.
what does “under no pretext” mean?
Well it is. If you’re going to let everyone have guns, you shouldn’t restrict ownership based on who can afford insurance on it.
I don’t think any private citizen should be able to own guns anyway though.
I agree that individuals shouldn’t own guns.
I think the second amendment should always been about the right to have state organized militias. I think that is a fair thing to have to avoid tyranny. The convoluted mess of a legal argument that judges have stood up to justify everyone having guns is just insane to me. The ultra minority who have easy access to guns and shoot people up… every single week… is not worth the benefit of having 60% right side hearing loss by 40 like my gun loving friends in the midwest.
Have people in the Midwest never heard of hearing protection or something? I was raised in a rural area and did target and clay shooting a lot. I always wore hearing protection, and my ears work just fine now.
I most definitely agree with your ideas on state militias, especially in more populated areas. I think at least hunting rifles and shotguns should be available to people living in rural areas.
A good point in on your ears…but here’s my counterpoint: protecting yourself is stoopid.
You want gun nuts to wear earplugs at the range, can’t even get them to wear a damn cloth over their face in an ER waiting room.
Yea, I will definitely concede that gun culture is toxic and stupid and seems to attract more assholes than not.