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.

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    Motor vehicles arent a right, travel is. If motor vehicles were explicitly named then those would be illegal. Motor vehicles are not the sole form of travel.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      By that logic, are only guns considered arms? If the right is “keep and bear arms,” wouldn’t that imply the right to keep and bear any arms? Guns aren’t the only type of weapon, just as cars aren’t the only form of travel. If we can put restrictions on certain forms of travel, as long as alternative forms of travel exist…why would the same logic not apply to keeping and bearing arms?

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes the right implied is to keep an bear any arms. You know private citizens can and have bought tanks right? Why do you presume I would disagree with that?

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        According to German law crossbows, swords and polearms are arms, but unrestricted (well, you have to be 18 but that’s it) and of those only crossbows, as projectile arms, have storage requirements (locked box, ammo separate). Bows maybe surprisingly aren’t even arms and you can open-carry them without any issue – culturally speaking, only if you’re young enough or look like you’re on your way to a range. Certainly open-carried a bow at times when I was six or seven, thereabouts, granted the thing was so shoddy you couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with it.

        I’d say if the US can restrict you from bearing howitzers and F16s, it can restrict you from bearing guns, or enact requirements proportional to their power as arms and the risks involved.

        • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s exactly the point. Nobody arguing in good faith thinks that any US citizen should be able to own missiles or artillery or machine guns. All the reasonable folks agree that the government DOES have the power to limit our right to fire powerb it’s just a matter of where you draw that line. I’d prefer it to be drawn somewhere that meant less than 630 mass shootings a year… maybe somewhere closer to 1 or 2 a year as opposed to 1-2 a day, but I’m clearly a communist/socialist/deep state lizard person.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            If you were a communist you’d like guns, and revert to the strong ‘under no pretext’ instead of the weak ‘shall not be infringed’

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes the right implied is to keep an bear any arms. You know private citizens can and have bought tanks right? Why do you presume I would disagree with that?

        • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because it’s objectively false. You need a special license to own a machine gun… you can buy a tank, sure, but it will have been demilitarized or would require a destructive device permit from the government. You can’t own a working missle or biological weapon either without being granted special privledge from the government.